Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/968 of 16 May 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain heavy plate of non-alloy or other alloy steel 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

(178) Total Union consumption first declined by 9 % in 2019 when the GDP growth of the Union slowed down significantly, hitting sectors with strong cyclical characteristics, such as the steel industry. Then, the decline was exacerbated by the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, consumption decreased further in 2020. During the review investigation period, consumption finally recovered but was 10 % below the level of 2018.

(179) The Captive market includes both captive sales and captive use. Overall, the heavy plates destined to the captive market declined by 23 % during the period considered. Captive market accounted only for a marginal part of the heavy plate business, representing less than 10 % of total consumption throughout the period. The share of these sales in total consumption was even lower in 2019 and in 2020 in the context of the slowdown of the economy and the COVID-19 pandemic, it was around 6 % of consumption. This was mainly due to a lower demand by related companies active in the pipe sector.

(180) Union consumption in the free market followed a trend similar to that of total consumption. It steadily decreased by 18 % up to 2020 for the reasons mentioned in recital (178) and started to recover in the review investigation period. However, it did not reach the level of 2018. The investigation showed that certain sale segments, such as the automotive and wind turbines, were growing, in particular during the review investigation period. By contrast, some of the most important sales segments, such as the steel tube industry and shipbuilding, were severely affected by the economic slowdown and did not recover in the review investigation period. This led to a 9 % decrease of total Union consumption in the free market during the period considered.

(181) The Commission established the volume of imports from China on the basis of Eurostat import statistics. The market share of the imports was then established by comparing import volumes destined to the free market with the total Union consumption in that market as shown in Table 2 of recital (177) above.

(183) The import volume from China was as high as 1,4 million tonnes and the market share over 14 % in the original investigation.

(184) Chinese imports to the Union became negligible during the period considered. Their volume was already at a very low level in 2018 and dropped by 86 % over the period considered.

(185) The market share of Chinese imports remained negligible during the period considered, namely below 1 % of Union consumption.

(186) In the absence of cooperation from Chinese exporting producers, the Commission established the average import price from China on the basis of Eurostat import statistics.

(188) The average import prices from China fluctuated significantly in the period considered. As shown in Table 3 in recital (182) above, the import volume remained negligible during the period considered. Hence, the Commission considered that no meaningful or relevant conclusions could be drawn on such a limited volume of imports.

(189) In addition, throughout the period considered, it is noteworthy that whilst Union producers were selling their heavy plates based on medium term contracts, basically one / two-year contracts, with prices fixed for the contractual period, information available suggests that Chinese exporters were selling their heavy plates on spot basis, namely based on very short term contracts. This has allowed these exporters to adapt their prices relatively quickly to market conditions and rapidly follow the price trend. Nevertheless, as mentioned in recital (185), the market share of Chinese products systematically remained below the de minimis level during the period considered, hence, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn on the pricing for such limited quantities.

(190) The imports of heavy plates from third countries other than China were mainly from Ukraine, India, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea.

(192) Total imports of the product under review from third countries other than China decreased by 3 % over the period considered.

(193) Given that the volume of imports from other third countries overall decreased to a lesser extent than the Union consumption over the period considered as described in recital (178), the market share of imports from other third countries increased by 6 % (or 0,9 percentage point) over the period considered.

(194) In order to calculate imports of heavy plates made of non-alloy steel, the applicant used Eurostat data covering the full CN codes which correspond to these products, rather than only the respective TARIC codes. This is because, in the applicant’s view, all products imported under these CN codes should be product under review. As regards in particular tool steel, which is excluded from the product scope, the applicant argued that according to the definition in the Combined Nomenclature (70), tool steel can only be made of alloy steel, and therefore, there can be no tool steel products falling under CN codes corresponding to non-alloy steel. In any event, the applicant claimed that the complaint in the original investigation excluded only tool steel made of alloy steel. The applicant considered that the Commission should not have established 10-digit TARIC codes for the main non-alloy heavy plate CN codes 7208 51 20, 7208 51 91, 7208 51 98 and 7208 52 91 and that a calculation using these TARIC codes would significantly underestimate imports due to misclassification. In turn, such underestimation would lead to errors in the calculation of other injury factors, such as consumption and market share, and possibly to a distorted picture of the situation of the Union industry in the injury analysis.

(195) The Commission found that tool steel products can be made also of non-alloy steel (i.e. carbon steel) (71) and that at least some quantities of such products have been imported into the Union during the period considered. The existence of tool steel made of non-alloy steel does not contradict the definition of tool steel in the Combined Nomenclature, as that definition is provided only for the purposes of specific subheadings (CN codes), which correspond to alloy steel products. Moreover, the applicant has not provided any evidence of misclassification of imports of the product under review. In view of the above, the Commission confirmed that the basis, which is relevant to calculate import data, should be the respective TARIC codes, where such codes had been created. Finally, the Commission noted that even if there was evidence that a higher estimate resulting from the use of full CN codes would be more accurate, the conclusions on injury would not change.

(196) 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.

(197) As mentioned in recital (41), sampling was used for the assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry.

(198) For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the request for review and the verified submission from the applicant, namely the data related to all Union producers. The Commission established the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers, namely the data related to the sampled Union producers. Both sets of data were found to be representative for establishing the economic situation of the Union industry.

(199) The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, magnitude of the dumping margin, and recovery from past dumping.

(200) The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital.

(202) The investigation showed that the trends in Union industry production closely followed the trends in consumption in the free market. Overall, production declined by 8 % during the period considered. The situation was particularly difficult in 2020 when production was reduced by 15 % because of a low demand caused by the surge of the Covid-19 pandemic that year. Production recovered in the review investigation period, in line with the increases of consumption in the free market and captive use, but did not reach its 2018 level.

(203) The production capacity dedicated to heavy plates was maintained and even slightly increased in the period 2018 to 2020. However, the investigation showed that the Union industry had to shut down some of its capacity or transferred it to other products in the review investigation period. Overall capacity was reduced by 5 % or by 727 thousand tonnes during the period considered.

(205) As mentioned under point 5.2 ‘Union consumption’, the consumption for heavy plates declined over the period considered. The effect of the downturn was particularly marked for the production intended for captive use and the captive sales, which dropped by 39 % in 2019 and by a further 4 percentage points in 2020. The recovery observed in the review investigation period was not sufficient to regain the production volume lost in the previous years.

(207) The development of the total sales volume of the Union industry by and large followed the trend in consumption during the period considered. It decreased by 8 % in 2019 and even further in 2020, the year when the Covid-19 pandemic occurred. Even if demand recovered in the review investigation period, it did not allow the industry to reach the sales level of 2018. Overall, almost one million tonnes of sales were lost in the period considered.

(208) The investigation showed that the captive sales were more severely affected than the sales in the free market. The decrease between 2018 and the end of 2020 was as high as 55 % (or around 425 000 tonnes). The recovery in captive sales during the review investigation period was relatively weak and these sales were still 37 % below the 2018 level.

(209) The sales in the free market were also hit by the general downturn in the market and trends in sales also followed the trends in consumption in that market. The apparent recovery in the review investigation period was weak and not sufficient to recover the sales volume lost in the previous years.

(210) As the trends in sales volume closely followed the trends in consumption in the free market, the Union Industry did not suffer a loss in market share in that market. This cannot hide the fact that the loss in sales volume in the free market (- 683 000 tonnes) was considerable during the period considered.

(211) As mentioned in recital (178), the period considered covered the year 2019, when an economic growth slowdown occurred, and 2020 which exacerbated the downturn due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Hence, the market and other volume indicators did not grow in that period even if there were encouraging signs of recovery in the market in the review investigation period.

(213) The Union industry kept its employment until the end of 2020 but had to lay-off 14 % of its workforce in the review investigation period due to the severity of the downturn in the market. This included the workforce lost by the closing down of one of the Union’s producers’ (ThyssenKrupp) heavy plate operations in 2021.

(214) The Productivity of the Union industry’s employees was very low in 2019 and 2020 because production decreased significantly (up to -15 %) and employment was maintained these years. The recovery in productivity in the review investigation period was due to a lower number of employees and the recovery in production (+7 %) compared to 2020.

(215) Given that the volume of imports from China was negligible during the review investigation period, the Commission did not carry out a dumping calculation for that period. However, it is recalled that such calculations were done in the context of the likelihood of recurrence of dumping in chapter 4 above.

(216) In the context of recovery from past dumping, it is noteworthy that the current investigation is the first review of the original measures, the level of which ranges from 65,1 % to 73,7 %. In view of the 14,4 % market share then held by the Chinese exporters, the negative impact past dumping had on the Union market and on the Union industry in the long term cannot be underestimated, in particular in a context of economic downturn.

(217) Given the unfavourable economic situation during the period considered, the Union industry did not recover sufficiently from the effects of past dumping.

(219) The Union industry could increase the sales price in the free market by 9 % over the period considered. However, the price increase was not sufficient to cover for the parallel cost increase in the period. As explained in recital (189) the Union industry sells on the basis of yearly or two-year contracts where prices are fixed during the contractual term. Besides, there is the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on the market that could not be foreseen.

(220) The investigation showed that prices could be adapted, to a certain extent, in line with the evolution of costs. The unit sales price in the free market was, nevertheless, 12 % below the unit cost of production during the review investigation period.

(222) During the period considered average labour costs slightly fluctuated and showed an overall increase by 4 %.

(224) Table 11 shows that the stocks of heavy plates dropped by almost 20 % from 2018 to 2019, remained stable in 2020, and increased back to 2018 levels in 2021, at around 12 % of total production. Stocks are not considered an important injury indicator for the industry since the like product is normally produced by the Union industry based on specific orders of the users.

(226) The Commission established the profitability of the sampled Union producers by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union, namely the sales in the free market, as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. As expected, profitability reached its lowest level, namely –11 %, in 2020 in the core of the pandemic. It recovered in the review investigation period but remained negative. This result could be achieved because prices were increased by up to 9 %, compared to 2018 and certain costs, such as total labour costs, could be reduced in that period.

(227) The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. Cash flow remained negative during the period considered and significantly deteriorated in particular in 2020. It slightly recovered in the review investigation period but remained largely negative.

(228) The economic downturn, the increases in most costs of production and the losses incurred by the Union industry during the period considered had severe consequences on the level of investments, which had to be consistently and drastically reduced as from 2020. The level of investments in the review investigation period was less than half the level of 2018.

(229) The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. As the other performance indicators, it remained negative during the period considered. It is not surprising to note that its lowest level (-20 %) was reached in 2020. The recovery of the market, the reduction of the loss but also a lower level of investments in the review investigation period led to a slightly improved result, albeit negative.

(230) The investigation showed that imports from China decreased and remained below the de minimis level during the period considered. Hence, no meaningful conclusions could be drawn based on the volume or the price of such limited imported quantities.

(231) The volume imported from other third countries also decreased in the period considered in a context of decreasing demand. The average import price of heavy plates imported from all other third countries was around 2,5 % below the average Union industry price level. Their market share remained by and large stable in that period.

(232) The period considered includes the year 2020 which was the trigger for the Covid-19 pandemic which led to a significant general downturn in economies worldwide. In this context, the investigation showed that in a shrinking market all injury indicators of the Union industry developed negatively and / or remained negative during the period considered. Production was reduced and sales on the free market declined by 9 %, the Union Industry had to cut 14 % of its employment. Sales prices could be increased but not sufficiently to cover for the increases in costs of production, hence profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments remained consistently negative in that period.

(233) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry is in a very vulnerable state and suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation during the review investigation period. At the same time, the Commission concluded that given the negligible volume of imports of the product concerned from China, the material injury suffered by the Union industry during the review investigation period could not have been caused by imports from China.

(234) Primex claimed that the drop in demand was the cause of the Union industry’s fragile state and that there was no evidence of a causal link between imports from China and the state of the Union producers. Hence, Chinese exporters could not be considered responsible for any injury suffered by the Union industry on the Union market.

(235) The drop in consumption likely played a role in the economic situation of the Union industry during the period considered. It is however recalled that other criteria, in particular the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury caused by dumped imports from China, is to be taken into account in an expiry review investigation initiated under article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. In this regard, the Commission further examined the likelihood of recurrence of injury originally caused by imports from China. Comments following final disclosure

(236) In its comments following final disclosure, the applicant agreed with the Commission’s conclusions, stating that the imposition of the anti-dumping measures has led to a general improvement in the economic situation of the Union industry as compared to the original investigation period, but noted that the Union industry remains in an economically fragile and injurious situation.

(237) In its comments, CISA considered that the fact acknowledged by the Commission that the alleged continued injury suffered by the Union industry was not caused by Chinese imports is crucial in this case.

(238) However, CISA also questioned the Commission’s determination of injury, claiming that it did not meet the standard of objective examination and positive evidence set out in Article 3.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement. To corroborate this claim, CISA elaborated on the choice of period considered, the interpretation of the major macroeconomic indicators of the Union industry, and the import pricing trends.

(239) As regards the period considered, CISA referred to the interpretation of the standard of “objective examination” by the WTO Appellate Body, which stated in its report (72) that "investigating authorities are not entitled to conduct their investigation in such a way that it becomes more likely that, as a result of the fact-finding or evaluation process, they will determine that the domestic industry is injured". Moreover, CISA referred to Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation which provides that the investigation period serves, inter alia, “the purpose of a representative finding”. CISA considered that, due to the effects of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021 on the economy in general, and on the steel industry in particular, the period considered by the Commission (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021) was not representative, and that the Commission should have included in the period considered at least two more years prior to it, as well the post-IP period.

(240) As regards the interpretation of the major macroeconomic indicators of the Union industry, CISA reiterated the views expressed in its comments on initiation. In particular, CISA focused on the decline of heavy plate consumption in the Union and argued that the indicators of the Union industry should be analysed in relation to this decline. CISA argued that this approach would conclude that the Union industry is in a sound state. Moreover, CISA stressed that the any negative development of such indicators could not be attributed to Chinese imports.

(241) As regards the import pricing trends, CISA observed that prices of imports from China were higher than the sales prices and the costs of production of the Union industry during the review investigation period, and also that imports prices from China between 2019 and 2021 were higher than import prices from other third countries, which were consistently below the sales prices and the costs of production of the Union industry. In CISA’s view, this provided prima facie evidence of price undercutting and underselling by current exporters and provided further evidence that maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures against China is not warranted, contrary to the Commission’s conclusions.

(242) As stated in in recital (233) the material injury suffered by the Union industry during the review investigation period could not be attributed to dumped imports from China. Therefore, and contrary to CISA’s comments, the cause of injury is not a crucial issue in the present case. Furthermore, the analysis of the likelihood of recurrence of injury has demonstrated 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 originally caused by dumped imports from China would be likely to recur. This is explained in detail in recitals (249) to (263) below. Therefore, CISA’s claims with regard to the finding of material injury are ineffective.

(243) In any case and for the sake of completeness, for the reasons explained in the following recitals the Commission also disagreed with CISA’s claims that the determination of injury did not meet the standard of objective examination and positive evidence. It also disagreed that any of the arguments provided by CISA lend any support to this claim.

(244) As regards the selection of the period considered, as CISA concedes in its submission, the Commission enjoys considerable discretion. In this case, it followed its normal practice, which is to select a period which includes the investigation period (selected in accordance with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation) and three full years prior to it. Therefore, any insinuation that the period considered was selected in such a way that it becomes more likely to find injury is entirely unfounded and must be rejected. Concerning the representativeness, a period of four full years would be normally considered as sufficiently representative. It is normal for market conditions to vary over such period, and to include intervals of economic downturn, whether being part of a business cycle, or caused by unexpected developments, such as the COVID-19 outbreak. Moreover, the Commission stressed that market conditions, including the decline in consumption, have been duly taken into account in its assessment, which concluded that injury could not be attributed to imports from China.

(245) As regards the interpretation of the major macroeconomic indicators, the Commission noted that there is nothing in the basic Regulation to suggest that the economic situation of the Union industry should be assessed only relative to consumption and other market conditions. Instead, the basic Regulation requires that contraction in demand and changes in the patterns of consumption be taken into account for the assessment of causality. As explained above, this requirement has been fully met by the Commission’s analysis.

(246) As regards the import pricing trends, the Commission noted that the comparison of volumes and prices of imports from China to volumes and prices of imports from third countries is not relevant for the determination of injury per se, but could be relevant only for the assessment of the existence of a causal link.

(247) In view of the above, the Commission confirmed its conclusion on injury, noting that in any event, the analysis of existence of material injury during the review investigation period is separate from the positive determination of the likelihood of recurrence of injury if measures are allowed to lapse. The latter is based on a prospective analysis of various factors as explained in recitals (250) to (260).

(248) The Commission concluded in recital (233) that the Union industry suffered material injury during the review investigation period. As stated in recital (216), the negative impact of past significant dumping cannot be underestimated and the Commission considered that the injury to the Union industry observed during the review investigation period could not have been caused by imports from the PRC due to their very limited volume in that period. As mentioned in recitals (185) and (230) the market share of Chinese imports remained below de minimis level, namely below 1 % of consumption, during the period considered. Therefore, the Commission assessed, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury originally caused by the dumped imports from the PRC if the anti-dumping measures were allowed to lapse.

(249) In this regard, the Commission examined the production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC, and the attractiveness of the Union market, including the relationship between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union. Furthermore, it examined the likely price levels of imports from the PRC in the absence of anti-dumping measures, as well as their impact on the Union industry.

(250) It is recalled that Chinese exporters were increasingly present in the Union market and had a market share as high as 14,4 % in the original investigation period. This shows that these exporters have a particular interest in the Union market. As set out in recital (170), based on the spare capacity in the PRC, the attractiveness of the Union market for Chinese exporting producers and the existence of anti-dumping measures in other countries, which limit the possibilities for exports to these markets, there is a strong likelihood that the expiry of the anti-dumping measures would result in a significant increase of heavy plate exports from the PRC to the Union.

(251) As regards the price levels at which these imports would enter the Union, the applicant provided estimates using pricing data from S&P Global Platts, an independent market analyst of the steel sector. These data included prices of exports (FOB) from the PRC (Shanghai), prices charged by the Union industry (EXW) in Northern and Southern Europe, as well as prices of imports (CIF) at a South European port. The prices of exports from the PRC refer to the basic structural grade Q355, while the rest of the prices refer to the comparable grade S235 JR. The data showed that in the post-RIP period, the export prices from the PRC were generally significantly lower than the prices charged by the Union industry in Northern and Southern Europe, as well as to the prices of imports at a South European port. In particular for the last three months for which data were available, i.e. August, September and October 2022, the applicant calculated the prices of exports from the PRC (adjusted for transport costs from Shanghai to Antwerp) at a level of 39 % lower than the prices charged by the Union industry in Northern Europe, 29 % lower than the prices charged by the Union industry in Southern Europe and 20 % lower than import prices in Southern Europe. As a result, the applicant estimated that a large volume of Chinese exports into the Union market would likely cause EU market prices to decline by at least 20 % to 29 % if the sales volumes were to be maintained.

(252) In view of the above, the Commission concluded that a substantial increase of imports from the PRC would put significant additional pressure on Union prices which are already at loss making levels. Given the vulnerable state of the Union industry, this combination would result in further substantial losses of sales, market share, and profitability, deteriorating its situation further, and ultimately putting into question its viability.

(253) CISA made a number of claims in the context of the likelihood of recurrence of injury. They first claimed that heavy plates already benefit from the protection granted by EU safeguard measures and that these measures alone made it highly unlikely that a recurrence of injury occurs. They invited the Commission to take account of this double protection in its assessment of the current review.

(254) In this context, two basic principles should be recalled. Firstly, even if both safeguard and anti-dumping measures are meant to address injury, the former is not set to replace the latter. Secondly, there is no double protection for the Union industry in this case. As mentioned by CISA, the safeguard measures were set at 25 % whereas the anti-dumping duties on heavy plates were higher and set at a level between 65,1 % and 73,7 %. As clearly mentioned in annex 2.6 of the safeguard Regulation, only a fraction of the anti-dumping duty would be due after the safeguard measures are paid on heavy plates. These measures are therefore not cumulative and there is no double protection.

(255) Secondly, the annex 2.6 of the safeguard Regulation shows that the safeguard measures are not set to ensure that heavy plates would be imported from China at the relevant non-injurious level set in the original anti-dumping investigation. An additional duty of at least 40,1 % would be due to reach that requirement. Moreover, as mentioned in recitals (79) and (80), the Commission noted that the global quota provided by the current safeguard measures is substantial and therefore it would not able to restrict meaningfully imports from the PRC to enter the Union market at injurious prices if the anti-dumping duties were allowed to lapse.

(256) Based on the above considerations, the claims that the Union industry enjoys double protection and that the safeguard measures would prevent injury to recur are rejected.

(257) CISA and Primex further claimed that the Chinese Ministry of finance announced that certain steel products, including heavy plates, are no longer eligible for VAT export refunds as from August 2021, and that as a result of this measure, injury would be unlikely to recur if measures were allowed to lapse.

(258) As mentioned in recital (166), CISA and Primex did not make any claims on the likely impact of the cancellation of the VAT export refund on the export price to the Union, if measures were allowed to lapse. The Commission considered that, in view of the need to use their spare capacity, the cancellation of the VAT export refund would not preclude Chinese producers from flooding the Union market with dumped exports. Therefore, the argument that as a result of this cancellation injury would be unlikely to recur, was not substantiated.

(259) 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 originally caused by dumped imports from China would be likely to recur. Comments following final disclosure

(260) In its comments following disclosure, the applicant agreed with the Commission’s conclusion, stating 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 originally caused by dumped imports from China would be likely to recur.

(261) By contrast, it its comments, CISA reiterated that imports of heavy plates from China were already negligible and that the cancellation of the VAT export refund would discourage them further. According to CISA, the only conclusion that can be reasonably reached would be that any alleged injury or recurrence of injury to the Union industry cannot be caused by imports from China.

(262) The Commission considered that in the context of the likelihood of recurrence of injury assessment, the relevant question was not the effect of the cancellation of VAT export refund while the measures are in force, but its effect on the Union market for heavy plates and on the Union industry in case the measures were allowed to lapse. The Commission noted that CISA did not quantify the effects of such cancellation on the possible volume and export price at which Chinese products may reach the Union market. Moreover, it did not provide any arguments against the conclusion that the cancellation of the VAT export refund would not preclude Chinese producers from flooding the Union market with dumped exports in case the measures are allowed to lapse. Therefore, the Commission maintained the conclusion reached in recital (259) above on the likelihood of recurrence of injury.

(263) 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 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/traders, and users.

(264) All interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation.

(265) The Union industry is located in several Member States, such as Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Czech Republic, Poland, Austria and, as mentioned in recital (212), directly employed over 16 000 people in relation to heavy plates during the review investigation period.

(266) The investigation established that over the period considered, despite the existing measures against the PRC, the Union industry remained loss-making and lost production and sales volume in the Union market. As explained above, should measures be allowed to lapse, there is a high likelihood that Chinese imports would resume in high volumes at dumped prices. This would likely lead to a deterioration of the already vulnerable situation of the Union industry that may put into question the viability of the production of heavy plates, with consequent loss of employment and alternative sources of supply in the Union.

(267) The interest of the Union industry is that the market is governed by effective and fair trade conditions. Should measures be maintained, it is expected that with the market recovery post pandemic, the Union industry would be able to increase its prices, production and sales volume, employment and gradually return to profit.

(268) The Commission therefore concluded that maintaining the measures in force against the PRC would be clearly in the interest of the Union industry.

(269) No unrelated importers or traders submitted a reply to the relevant Commission questionnaire.

(270) Primex, an importer of heavy plates, opposed to the prolongation of the measures, made a submission on initiation, but made no comments regarding the interest of unrelated importers and traders.

(271) In the original investigation, it was concluded that the imposition of measures would not have significant negative effects on the interest of the Union importers. This was due to the fact that heavy plates accounted for 20 % or less of the cooperating importers’ business, and due to the fact that most importers trade goods from numerous sources, including the Union industry.

(272) In view of the above, the Commission concluded that if the measures were to be maintained, the impact on unrelated importers and traders is unlikely to be significant.

(273) Three users cooperated in the investigation and replied, at least partially, to the Commission’s questionnaire. Europipe GmbH (‘Europipe’) stated that it would be in favour of maintaining the measures. However, this user is owned by two Union producers and its position cannot be considered representative of the users’ interest.

(274) The other two users, Vestas Wind Systems A/S (‘Vestas’) and Astilleros Gondán S.A. (‘Gondán’), stated that they would be against maintaining the measures.

(275) Vestas, which is active in the construction of wind turbines, stated that the product under review constituted a significant share of the cost of its final products. Although it stated that it had sourced heavy plates exclusively from the Union industry during the review investigation period, it claimed that maintaining the measures would have a negative impact on its activities. However, this user declined to provide information that would be relevant for the verification of this claim.

(276) To assess the possible impact the prolongation of the measures may have on this user, and more generally on the wind installation business, the Commission also consulted a report of WinEurope (73) showing that the wind installation industry consistently grew (+22 %) in the period 2018 to 2020 despite the difficult economic situation mentioned in recital (178) and continued to grow in the review investigation period (+17 %). The forecast up to 2026 suggests that this business will continue to grow significantly.

(277) Gondán, which is active in shipbuilding, stated that it had also bought exclusively from the Union industry during the review investigation period. The cost of the product under review has been less than 5 % of the full cost of the respective final products.

(278) Together, the heavy plate consumption of the opposing users represented significantly less than 10 % of the total Union free market consumption in the review investigation period.

(279) In view of the above, there is no evidence showing that the possible impact of the continuation of the measures would be significant or disproportionate on these users’ activities.

(280) Vestas, CISA and Primex argued that the continuation of anti-dumping measures would not be in the Union interest, in particular taking into consideration the impact of Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine since 24 February 2022, on the supply of heavy plates, and by the subsequent sanctions imposed on Russia and Belarus. According to these parties, these developments have resulted in the cessation of imports of heavy plates originating from Russia and Belarus, and in a significant restriction of imports from Ukraine, both of which are expected to persist. According to Vestas and Primex, the production capacity of Union producers would also be restricted, due to alleged shortages in the supply of steel slabs, or of other inputs such as iron ore pellets, coking coal, scrap and alloying metals. In view of the decrease of imports from the aforementioned countries, CISA and Primex argued that imports originating from China would be able to substitute the missing supply.

(281) The Commission acknowledged that as of February 2022, the war in Ukraine has resulted in a significant decrease of imports from Russia and Ukraine, and that there was no indication of this situation changing in the near future. However, the Commission observed that the imports from Ukraine and Russia have been largely substituted by imports from India, Indonesia and the Republic of Korea. Moreover, as shown in recital (201), the Union industry maintains a spare capacity of around 4 million tonnes and can accommodate significant increases in demand, while the alleged restrictions in raw materials have not been substantiated. Lastly, the Commission recalled that the purpose of the measures is not to foreclose the market to Chinese imports, and that Chinese exports have always been allowed to sell their heavy plates at a non-injurious price. Therefore, the claims on supply shortages could not be accepted.

(282) In conclusion, the Commission considered that the impact on users of the continuation of the measures would not be significant, in particular taking into account the need to preserve the production of heavy plate in the Union.

(283) Vestas argued that due to capacity limitations of the Union industry, the demand of the Union wind sector for heavy plates, and in particular large sized steel plates, could not be met if the measures are maintained. According to Vestas, this would also impact the further penetration of wind into the energy mix, and as a result, the ability of the Union to achieve its targets for renewable energy and for CO2 reduction.

(284) The Commissions noted that Vestas did not substantiate the alleged capacity limitations for the particular type of heavy plates. In addition, as noted in recital (281), the Union industry maintains a spare capacity which can accommodate significant increases in demand, and its production is complemented by imports from third countries. In view of the above, there is no evidence that the maintenance of the measures would limit substantially the development of the wind sector.

(285) Furthermore, the investigation has shown that the Union industry has ambitious plans for investments in ‘greening’ steel production, including a transition from traditional blast furnaces to electric arc furnaces. Such investments are expected to have a significant contribution to the Union targets for the reduction of carbon emissions. However, they would materialise only if the Union industry can achieve adequate profitability, a prerequisite for which is the maintenance of the measures.

(286) In conclusion, the Commission considered that on balance, the continuation of the measures would not have a negative effect on the Union’s environmental targets.

(287) 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 heavy plates originating in the PRC. Comments following final disclosure

(288) In its comments following final disclosure, the applicant agreed with the Commission’s conclusions, stating that continuing the measures would benefit the entire Union market ensuring a secure and stable domestic supply of heavy plate and permitting the ongoing transition to green steel production and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

(289) By contrast, CISA claimed that Union interest considerations require the expiry of the measures in question due to the following reasons: (1) the potential deficit of imports following de-facto exit of Russia and Ukraine from the EU market and the maintenance of steel safeguard measures, (2) the proposed EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and (3) the economic recession risks linked to high inflation rates in the EU.

(290) As regards the potential deficit of imports, CISA reiterated its view that the cessation of imports from Russia and Ukraine would create a shortage of supply. To support its claim, it submitted a relevant article (74) published by a market analyst.

(291) The Commission noted that the information provided by CISA confirms the conclusion that that the imports from Ukraine and Russia have been largely substituted by imports from other countries, including India and Indonesia. Taking also into account the fact that no reliable information has been provided by CISA regarding the evolution of Union demand or regarding the production of heavy plates by Union producers, it was considered that the claims regarding the existence of a deficit were not substantiated and could not be taken into account.

(292) As regards the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), CISA claimed that, if it is adopted and applied in accordance with the relevant provisional agreement between the European Parliament and the Council (75), it will impose significant additional costs, and therefore, it will discourage imports of heavy plates, including in particular imports from China, India, Russia, and Türkiye.

(293) As CISA itself acknowledged, the CBAM did not have any effect during the review investigation period because it was still a legislative proposal. In any event, the Commission recalled that the aim of the proposed mechanism is to prevent carbon leakage, encourage cleaner industrial production in non-EU countries, and ensure a fair price on the carbon emitted during the production of a limited number of energy-intensive goods that are entering the EU. Therefore, the objectives pursued by CBAM are fully in line with the interest of the Union to pursue its environmental goals. Moreover, the Commission recalled that any possible impact of CBAM on imports of heavy plates from China, India, Russia and Türkiye would depend on the level of decarbonisation in the production process of these countries, which is still too early to assess at this stage. The Commission will proceed in this respect to a review of the CBAM impact at the end of the transitional period of implementation (December 2025) to adjust its application where necessary before the full entry into force of the definitive system in January 2026. In view of the above, this claim was rejected.

(294) As regards inflation, CISA claimed that in light of the unprecedented levels experienced in the Union in 2022, the increase in prices of the product concerned would put at risk the viability of infrastructure projects and endanger the GDP growth in the EU member states.

(295) The Commission recalled that the aim of the measures was to ensure fair market conditions in the Union, and noted that an economic environment in which the cost of inputs increases significantly, but producers are not allowed to adjust their prices accordingly due to dumped imports, would not be conducive to economic growth and would threaten the viability of the industry.

(296) In conclusion, the Commission maintained its position that there are no compelling reasons of the Union interest against the maintenance of the existing measures on imports of heavy plates originating in the PRC.

(297) CISA claimed that the conditions for suspension of the current anti-dumping measures in accordance with Article 14(4) of the Basic Regulation, have been met. CISA claimed that both conditions set out in the aforementioned Article 14(4) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled. CISA alleged that market conditions have temporarily changed to such an extent that injury would be unlikely to continue or occur as a result of the suspension. In that view, CISA referred to the growth expectations of the Union’s downstream industry and the increasing scarcity in the Union market, the expected economic recovery in the post-COVID period, the price increases of the product concerned, the expected decrease of volume of imports from Russia and Ukraine and the Implementing Decision to suspend the definitive antidumping duties imposed on aluminum flat-rolled products from the PRC.

(298) The Commission rejected CISA’s claim, as it was unsubstantiated. CISA did not submit any information in order to substantiate whether the conditions of Article 14(4) of the basic Regulation are being met and that the current antidumping measures should be suspended.

(299) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, likelihood of recurrence of injury and Union interest, the anti-dumping measures on heavy plate from the People’s Republic of China should be maintained.

(300) To minimize the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The companies with individual anti-dumping duties must present a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this regulation. Imports not accompanied by that invoice should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(301) While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rates of anti-dumping duty to imports, it is not the only element to be taken into account by the customs authorities. Indeed, even if presented with an invoice meeting all the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this regulation, the customs authorities of Member States must carry out their usual checks and may, like in all other cases, require additional documents (shipping documents, etc.) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration and ensure that the subsequent application of the lower rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

(302) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

(303) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are exclusively applicable to imports of the product under review originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product under review 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.

(304) 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 (76). 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.

(305) An exporter or producer that did not export the product concerned to the Union during the period that was used to set the level of the duty currently applicable to its exports may request the Commission to be made subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies not included in the sample. The Commission should grant such request, provided that three conditions are met. The new exporting producer would have to demonstrate that: (i) it did not export the product concerned to the Union during the period that was used to set the level of the duty applicable to its exports; (ii) it is not related to a company that did so and thus is subject to the anti-dumping duties; and (iii) has exported the product concerned thereafter or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to do so in substantial quantities.

(306) All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

(307) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council (77) 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.

(308) By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 (78), the Commission imposed a safeguard measure with respect to certain steel products for a period of three years. By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1029 (79), the safeguard measure was prolonged until 30 June 2024. The product under review is one of the product categories covered by the safeguard measure. Consequently, once the tariff quotas established under the safeguard measure are exceeded, both the above-quota tariff duty and the anti-dumping duty would become payable on the same imports. As such cumulation of anti-dumping measures with safeguard measures may lead to an effect on trade greater than desirable, the Commission decided to prevent the concurrent application of the anti-dumping duty with the above quota tariff duty for the product under review for the duration of the imposition of the safeguard duty.

(309) This means that where the above-quota tariff duty referred to in Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 becomes applicable to the product under review, the above-quota tariff duty referred to in Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 shall be collected in addition to the difference between that duty and the higher anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to this Regulation. The part of the amount of anti-dumping duties not collected shall be suspended.

(310) 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 People’s Republic of China during the period between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 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 originating in the People’s Republic of China 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

Article 3

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, 16 May 2023.

For the Commission The President Ursula VON DER LEYEN

(1) OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p. 11.

(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/336 of 27 February 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain heavy plate of non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 50, 28.2.2017, p. 18).

(4) 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, 3.9.2019, p. 1).

(5) Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures (OJ C 209, 2.6.2021, p. 24).

(6) Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain heavy plate of non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ C 89, 25.2.2022, p. 3).

(7) See judgments of 11 July 2017, Viraj Profiles Ltd, T-67/14, ECLI:EU:T:2017:481, paras. 98-99.

(8) See judgment of 15 December 2016, Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd, T-199/04 RENV ECLI:EU:T:2016:740, para. 92.

(9) Id. para. 94.

(10) Source : Request (t22.001107) page 7 and https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2021033-brazil-renews-antidumping-duties-on-plate-imports

(11) 10-digit commodity codes.

(12) See Article LXIV, Section 2 of the 14th FYP

(13) See Section VIII of the 14th FYP on Developing the Raw Materials Industry

(14) https://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/case_details.cfm?id=2583

(15) http://www.gtis.com/gta/secure/default.cfm

(16) https://www.crugroup.com CRU International Limited, Steel Plate Market Outlook (Nov.2021)

(17) https://www.metalsconsultinginternational.com Source: James F. King (Metals Consulting International Limited).

(18) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1777 of 6 October 2016 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain heavy plate of non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China, OJ L 272, 7.10.2016, p.5

(19) IMF, World Economic Outlook, 19 (Oct. 2022) https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WEO/2022/October/English/text.ashx (accessed on 5 December 2022).

(20) OECD, Steel Market Developments, Q2 2022, 70 (2022) https://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/steel-market-developments-Q2-2022.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2022).

(21) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/58 of 14 January 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain-oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the People’s Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 10, 17.1.2022, p. 17).

(22) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/434 of 15 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/159 imposing a definitive safeguard measure against imports of certain steel products (OJ L 88, 16.3.2022, p. 181).

(23) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/978 of 23 June 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 imposing a definitive safeguard measure on imports of certain steel products (OJ L 167, 24.6.2022, p. 58).

(24) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2068 of 26 October 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 149); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 of 16 February 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 36, 17.2.2022, p. 1); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/95 of 24 January 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel, originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel consigned from Taiwan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in these countries or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 16, 25.1.2022, p. 36); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239 of 15 December 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain utility scale steel wind towers originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 450, 16.12.2021, p. 59); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/635 of 16 April 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain welded pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloyed steel originating in Belarus, the People’s Republic of China and Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 132, 19.4.2021, p. 145).

(25) See Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2068 recital 80; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 recital 208, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/95 recital 59, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239 recitals 67-74, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/635 recitals 149-150.

(26) See Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2068 recital 64; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 recital 192, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/95 recital 46, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239 recitals 67-74, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/635 recitals 115-118

(27) See Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2068 recital 66; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 recitals 193-4, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/95 recital 47, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239 recitals 67-74, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/635 recitals 119-122. 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 the product under review and the suppliers of their inputs.

(28) See Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2068 recital 68; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 recitals 195-201, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/95 recitals 48-52, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239 recitals 67-74, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/635 recitals 123-129.

(29) See Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2068 recital 74; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 recital 202, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/95 recital 53, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239 recitals 67-74, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/635 recitals 130-133.

(30) See Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2068 recital 75; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 recital 203, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/95 recital 54, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239 recitals 67-74, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/635 recitals 134-135.

(31) See Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2068 recital 76; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 recital 204, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/95 recital 55, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239 recitals 67-74, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/635 recitals 136-145.

(32) Commission staff working document SWD(2017) 483 final/2, 20. 12. 2017, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2017)483&lang=en

(33) U.S. Department of Commerce, ‘China’s Status as a non-market economy’, A-570053, 26 October 2017, p. 196; Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 85 Fed. Reg. 11339 (Feb. 27, 2020); Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination, 81 Fed. Reg. 35308 (June 2, 2016).

(34) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/687 of 2 May 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain organic coated steel products 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 116, 3.5.2019, p. 5); Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/635; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/508 of 7 April 2020 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ L 110, 8.4.2020, p. 3); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/969 of 8 June 2017 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/649 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 146, 9.6.2017, p. 17) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/58.

(35) See:https://www.miit.gov.cn/jgsj/ycls/gzdt/art/2020/art_8fc2875eb24744f591bfd946c126561f.html (accessed on 21 November 2022).

(36) See Section IV, Subsection 3 of the 14th FYP on Developing the Raw Materials Industry

(37) See Section II, Subsection 1 of the 14th FYP on Developing Scrap Steel Industry

(38) See the Hebei Province’s Three Year Action Plan on Cluster Development in the Steel Industry Chain, Chapter I, Section 3; available at: https://huanbao.bjx.com.cn/news/20200717/1089773.shtml (accessed on 5 December 2022).

(39) See the Henan Implementation Plan for the Transformation and Upgrade of the Steel Industry during the 14th FYP, Chapter II, Section 3; available at: https://huanbao.bjx.com.cn/news/20211210/1192881.shtml (accessed on 5 December 2022).

(40) Jiangsu Province’s Work Plan Steel Sector Transformation and Upgrade and Layout Optimisation 2019-2025; available at: http://www.jiangsu.gov.cn/art/2019/5/5/art_46144_8322422.html (accessed on 5 December 2022).

(41) Shandong Province’s 14 FYP on the Steel Industry Development; Summary available at: http://www.cbmf.org/cbmf/xgxy/gt79/7120947/index.html (accessed on 5 December 2022).

(42) Shanxi Province’s 2020 Steel Industry Transformation and Upgrade Action Plan; available at: http://gxt.shanxi.gov.cn/zfxxgk/zfxxgkml/cl/202110/t20211018_2708031.shtml (accessed on 5 December 2022).

(43) Liaoning Dalian Municipality’s 14 FYP on Developing Manufacturing Industry: “ By 2025, the industrial output value of new materials will reach 15 million yuan, and the level of equipment and key materials guarantee ability is obviously improved.”; available at: https://www.dl.gov.cn/art/2021/12/20/art_854_1995411.html (accessed on 5 December 2022).

(44) Zhejiang Province’s Action Plan to Foster a High Quality Development of the Steel Industry: “ Foster enterprise mergers and reorganisation, accelerate the concentration process, reduce the number of steel smelting enterprises to approximately 10 enterprises ”; available at: https://www.dl.gov.cn/art/2021/12/20/art_854_1995411.html (accessed on 5 December 2022).

(45) See the group’s web, available at: http://www.ansteel.cn/about/jituangaoguan/ (accessed on 21 November 2022).

(46) See the company’s web, available at: https://www.baosteel.com/about/manager (accessed on 21 November 2022).

(47) See at http://www.ansteel.cn/news/xinwenzixun/2021-07-23/0a6a300e05b3e89e7da1fccf2b1c8e77.html (accessed on 21 November 2022).

(48) See at http://www.ansteel.cn/news/xinwenzixun/2021-04-06/19759181c95ff4e85e2b378a1369fb17.html (accessed on 21 November 2022).

(49) See at the group’s web, available at: http://www.baowugroup.com/party_building/overview (accessed on 21 November 2022).

(50) Report, Part III, Chapter 14, p. 346 ff.

(51) See People's Republic of China 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and Long-Range Objectives for 2035, Part III, Article VIII, available at: https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/china-14th-five-year-plan/ (accessed on 7 September 2022).

(52) See in particular Sections I and II of the 14th FYP on Developing the Raw Materials Industry.

(53) See the 14th FYP on Developing the Raw Materials Industry, p. 22.

(54) See the Hebei Tangshan Municipality Iron and Steel 1+3 Action Plan 2022, Chapter 4, Section 2; available at: http://www.chinaisa.org.cn/gxportal/xfgl/portal/content.html?articleId=e2bb5519aa49b566863081d57aea9dfdd59e1a4f482bb7acd243e3ae7657c70b&columnId=3683d857cc4577e4cb75f76522b7b82cda039ef70be46ee37f9385ed3198f68a (accessed at 23 November 2022)

(55) See Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/635, recitals 134-135 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/508, recitals 143-144.

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

(57) 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.

(58) https://sideraconsult.com/gerdau-initiates-production-of-heavy-plates/

(59) These countries are listed in Annex 1 of 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).

(*1)  The value of the benchmarks for raw materials are slightly different than the value of these benchmarks in the Note due to a clerical error (in the Note the value of these benchmarks was wrongly calculated based on the import volume for only the first quarter of 2021 instead of the entire 2021).

(60) Regulation (EU) 2015/755. Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation considers that domestic prices in those countries cannot be used for the purpose of determining normal value.

(61) https://www.ilo.org/ilostat

(62) https://www.cemig.com.br/

(63) http://www.gasmig.com.br

(64) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/802 of 20 May 2022 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty of electrolytic chromium coated steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Brazil (OJ L 143, 23.5.2022, p. 11).

(65) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/58.

(66) https://www.in.gov.br/web/dou/-/portaria-n-4.434-de-1-de-outubro-de-2019-219471875

(67) See http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-04/28/content_5603588.htm and http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-07/29/content_5628266.htm , both in Chinese language only.

(68) http://i-tip.wto.org/goods/Forms/MemberView.aspx?mode=modify&action=search

(69) https://www.trade-remedies.service.gov.uk/public/case/TD0014/submission/882d267b-8cbc-48bd-bceb-059a615a0779/

(70) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1998 of 20 September 2022 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 282, 31.10.2022, p. 1).

(71) See for instance various grades of non-alloy tool steel described in Annex C of standard EN ISO 4957

(72) Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti Dumping Measures on Certain Hot Rolled Steel Products from Japan, DS 184, para. 193.

(73) https://windeurope.org/intelligence-platform/product/wind-energy-in-europe-2021-statistics-and-the-outlook-for-2022-2026/

(74) European steel plate market: Effects from Russia’s war in Ukraine one year on - Fastmarkets (https://www.fastmarkets.com/insights/european-steel-plate-market-one-year-russias-war-in-ukraine) – last accessed on 21 March 2023.

(75) https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7719

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

(77) 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).

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

(79) 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 (OJ L 225I , 25.6.2021, p. 1).