Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1444 of 11 July 2023 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of steel bulb flats originating in the People’s Republic of China and Türkiye

(208) During the period considered, the only other third country from which significant volumes of steel bulb flats were imported into the Union was the United Kingdom. However, the steel bulb flats produced in the United Kingdom was only partly the product under investigation. British Steel, the only known steel bulb flats producer in the United Kingdom, produced only steel bulb flats of 200 mm width and upwards in 2019, 180 mm width and upwards from 2020, and currently also 160 mm and upwards. (64) As explained in recital 154, the statistical information for steel bulb flats available in Eurostat for the period considered includes all sizes of steel bulb flats, not only the product under investigation. Based on information provided in the complaint, the Commission estimated the part of the import volumes registered in Eurostat which were related to the product concerned in the different years.

(209) As set out in recitals 157 and 172, imports from the countries concerned as well as Union industry sales volumes went down significantly in 2020, before making a partial recovery in the following years. At the same time, imports from the United Kingdom went up by 40 % in 2020, dropped to only half of the 2019 volume in 2021 and increased again to a level of 16 % below its 2019 volumes. The cooperating user explained that the producer in the United Kingdom produces steel bulb flats (and exports) on an irregular basis and only when they do not allocate their production capacity to other products.

(210) The observed increases and decreases in volumes for imports from the United Kingdom did not correspond to a parallel decrease and increase in imports from the countries concerned or the Union industry sales. In addition, import prices from the United Kingdom were well above the price level of imports of steel bulb flats from the countries concerned, and close to the Union industry’s prices during the investigation period.

(211) In light of the above and in view of the large import volumes at low prices from the countries concerned as compared with those from other third countries, the Commission provisionally concluded that imports from other third countries did not attenuate the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the countries concerned.

(213) The exports of the Union industry continuously decreased since 2019 to negligible volumes in the investigation period. The Union industry pointed to the worldwide fall in consumption following the Covid-19 pandemic as a cause for this decrease, as well as the competition of especially Turkish low-priced exports which took place not only on the domestic market but also on third country markets.

(214) Exports were only a small part of the Union industry’s overall sales, accounting for [5-9] % of its production in 2019 and decreased to [3-1] % during the investigation period. Therefore, although the decline in export performance could have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry, as also alleged by the Government of Türkiye in their comments on initiation, the Commission provisionally concluded that, considering the high share of Union sales compared to export sales during the entire period considered, the decrease in export sales did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(215) In their comments on initiation, the Government of Türkiye, Özkan and Fincantieri all pointed to the Covid-19 pandemic and the parallel decrease in consumption as having contributed to or caused the injury suffered by the Union industry. As shown in Table 2, the Union consumption of steel bulb flats decreased by 32 % during the period considered, which was indeed mainly linked to the Covid-19 pandemic, as set out in recital 149. However, at the same time, the Union industry sales on the Union market dropped even further, by 38 %. In addition, an injurious situation caused by significant volume of imports at prices below the Union industry’s cost of production already existed in 2019, while the Covid-19 pandemic began to have an impact only as of 2020. Therefore, rather than a cause of the Union industry’s injurious situation, the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting decrease in Union consumption of steel bulb flats should be seen as an exacerbating factor in 2020.

(216) On that basis, the Commission provisionally concluded that the evolution of Union consumption did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(217) The Government of Türkiye claimed that the increase in energy prices since the end of 2021, and especially in 2022 due to the military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, affected the Complainant’s injurious situation and should not be attributed to imports from the countries concerned.

(218) However, as shown in Table 8, the Union industry was able to increase their sales prices from [1 000-1 150] euro to [1 200-1 400] euro between 2021 and the investigation period. This increase of around 24 % exceeded the increase in cost of production during the same period, indicating that the increase in cost or energy prices could be passed on to the customers. Nevertheless, the Union industry was still not able to increase its sales prices to fully cover its total cost of production, due to the price pressure exerted by the continued low priced imports from the countries concerned.

(219) As explained in recitals 163, 180 and 181 above, the Union industry was unable to adequately adjust its sales prices to achieve a profitable situation during the entire period considered. Since this pattern was observed during a long period of time, it could not be explained only by the increase of energy costs in the investigation period. This impossibility to adjust sales prices coincides in time with the increase in market share of the dumped imports from the countries concerned at significant levels of undercutting, suppressing the Union industry’s sales prices, which prevented the Union industry to return to a profitable situation.

(220) Therefore, the Commission provisionally concluded that the evolution of energy prices could not be a cause of the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(221) Özkan claimed that the injury to the Union industry was partly caused by the fact that it is general practice in the shipbuilding sector to purchase all various sizes and types of steel bulb flats for a given project from one and the same source, for easier traceability. As the Union industry only produced up to 204 mm width of steel bulb flats it did not have, according to Özkan, the competitive advantage that Özkan had since it produced all sizes of steel bulb flats.

(222) However, the Commission found no evidence of the alleged shipbuilders’ practice to buy all steel bulb flats from one source, nor did Özkan provide such evidence. On the contrary, the cooperating user and an unrelated importer both provided submissions in which they pointed to the necessity to have a diversified source of supply, instead of relying on one supplier only. The user also indicated that they generally purchased steel bulb flats on a stock basis, that all steel bulb flats of the same size could be used interchangeably independent of their source, and that purchases were not linked to a specific project.

(223) In addition, the Union industry has invested in product diversification over the last years by expanding their range of steel bulb flats sizes during the period considered. In this respect, Fincantieri pointed in its comments to a passage in the complaint where the complainant stated that ‘it is cheaper to produce up to 180mm nominal width size’. Fincantieri therefore questioned the complainant’s decision to invest in the production of larger sizes and claimed it contributed to the Union industry’s weak profits.

(224) However, contrary to the above, both the complaint and the verified data of the complainant showed that the production of larger sizes of steel bulb flats is more economical, as it requires less rolling and is more time efficient. In paragraph 1.3 of the complaint it also stated that ‘smaller is the size of the bulb flat, higher is the cost’. This would indicate that the diversification strategy of the Union industry in the past would have a positive contribution to its profitability situation rather than contribute to the injury suffered.

(225) The Commission therefore provisionally concluded that the alleged lack of diversification in steel bulb flats types by the Union industry was not such that it would attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(226) There was an overall deterioration of the Union industry’s financial situation between 2019 and the investigation period. This deterioration was especially marked in 2020, after which the situation improved to a certain extent until the investigation period. However, at the end of the period concerned the Union industry was still lossmaking and had still not been able to recover to the levels experienced before 2020. These negative circumstances coincided in time with an increased market share of imports of steel bulb flats from the countries concerned, which were made at dumped prices, that increased but less than those of the Union industry during the period considered, as mentioned in Section 5.1 above.

(227) The Commission distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports. The effect of imports from other third countries, the export performance of the Union industry, the Covid-19 pandemic affecting Union consumption, the increase in energy prices and an alleged lack of product diversification on the Union industry’s negative developments in terms of production volumes, sales prices and profitability was only limited.

(228) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded at this stage that the dumped imports from the countries concerned caused material injury to the Union industry and that the other factors, either individually or collectively, were not sufficient to attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury.

(229) To determine the level of the measures, the Commission examined whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove the injury caused by dumped imports to the Union industry.

(230) The injury would be removed if the Union Industry were able to obtain a target profit by selling at a target price in the sense of Articles 7(2c) and 7(2d) of the basic regulation.

(231) In accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, for establishing the target profit, the Commission took into account the following factors: the level of profitability before the increase of imports from the countries concerned, the level of profitability needed to cover full costs and investments, research and development (R & D) and innovation, and the level of profitability to be expected under normal conditions of competition. Such profit margin should not be lower than 6 %.

(232) The cooperating Union producer was loss-making during the entire period considered. The complainant proposed a target profit of 7,4 %, based on the profit achieved on its other product lines in 2019. However, the Commission considered that the other product lines concerned automotive hinges and special profiles, which are higher priced, more complex and customer specialized products. The profit margin was therefore provisionally established at 6 % in accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation.

(233) On this basis, the non-injurious price is [1 300] – [1 600] euro per tonne of steel bulb flats, resulting from applying the above-mentioned profit margin of 6 % to the cost of production during the investigation period of the cooperating Union producer.

(234) The Commission then determined the injury margin level on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the cooperating exporting producers in the countries concerned, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the weighted average non-injurious price of the like product sold by the cooperating Union producer on the Union market during the investigation period. Any difference resulting from this comparison was expressed as a percentage of the weighted average import CIF value.

(237) Having decided to apply Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether it could clearly conclude that it was not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this case, despite the determination of injurious dumping, in accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation. 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.

(238) There are two companies producing steel bulb flats in the Union. They employ [130-160] workers directly, and are located in Spain and Italy. In 2019 there was still one additional Union producer, located in Romania. Consequently, the total direct employment in steel bulb flats in 2019 was almost twice the number of employees during the investigation period.

(239) The investigation established that the Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from the countries concerned during the investigation period. The imposition of measures would allow the Union industry to maintain its market share, increase production and capacity utilisation, increase prices to cover the costs of production and achieve a level of profitability which would be expected under normal conditions of competitions. That would lead the Union industry to return to a sustainable situation and allow it to make future investments.

(240) The non-imposition of measures would likely lead to a further loss of market share and deterioration of profitability, which was already negative throughout the period considered. This would possibly cause additional closures of production facilities and dismissals thus endangering the viability of the Union industry. This is especially pertinent in light of the fact that there are currently only two Union producers left, which are both small- and medium sized enterprises.

(241) The Commission therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of steel bulb flats originating in the countries concerned would be in the interest of the Union industry.

(242) During the investigation only one unrelated importer, Baglietto, came forward and provided a questionnaire reply. Unfortunately, despite several revisions of the questionnaire reply, the amount of information that remained incomplete, including the narrative part of the reply, was such that the reply was too deficient to be accepted in the investigation. The importer agreed that it would instead provide a submission on injury and Union interest. In its submission, Baglietto opposed the anti-dumping measures, as it claimed that such measures would limit availabilities of steel bulb flats in the Union and could thus effectively create a duopoly or monopoly situation on the Union market.

(243) Two users also came forward and provided questionnaire replies. The reply by one user was too deficient to be accepted in the investigation, while the reply of the user Fincantieri was accepted and verified on spot. Fincantieri is the largest shipbuilding company in the Union and therefore one of the most important users of the product under investigation.

(244) Fincantieri claimed, first, that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would virtually close the market to imports of steel bulb flats and risk causing a shortage of supply, especially for the steel bulb flats sizes of 160 – 200 mm width, which was produced by only one Union producer. Second, the user argued that the imposition of measures would exacerbate the lack of availability on the Union market. According to Fincantieri, the Union industry does not have sufficient capacity to satisfy the need of the entire shipbuilding sector. Additionally, supplies by the Union industry were faced with delays and logistical issues during the investigation period, which had forced Fincantieri to resort to imports from the countries concerned. Third, Fincantieri stated that apart from the countries concerned there are no other reliable alternative providers of steel bulb flats.

(245) In addition to the importer and user, the Government of Türkiye also argued that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would lead to a monopolistic situation on the Union market. At the same the Government of Türkiye pointed to the existing safeguard measures on imports of steel products, including steel bulb flats, which in their opinion already sufficiently protect the Union industry.

(246) In essence, the main arguments put forward by the user, importer and the Government of Türkiye all related to the fact that parties fear the risk of shortage of supply and facing a monopolistic situation on the Union market if anti-dumping measures are imposed. However, the aim and intended effect of imposing anti-dumping measures is never to close the Union market for imports from third countries. The goal is to remove the trade distorting effects of injurious dumping and thus restore competition and a level playing field for Union producers. The fact that the Union industry did not operate at full capacity throughout the period considered suggested that Union producers could sell more steel bulb flats on the Union market.

(247) In addition, there was no indication that importers or users will not be able to absorb the price increase that would result from the imposition of anti-dumping measures. The information provided by Baglietto did not allow determining the possibility for the absorption of the proposed anti-dumping duty by importers.

(248) However, the verified data and statements of the cooperating user clearly showed that an increased cost of steel bulb flats would not be to the detriment of users. Steel bulb flats from the countries concerned represented less than 10 % of the user’s total purchases of steel bulb flats in the investigation period. In addition, the cost of steel bulb flats accounted for a negligible part of Fincantieri’s overall cost of production (less than 0,5 %) for all products that incorporate steel bulb flats. Therefore, any impact of the increased cost of steel bulb flats on Fincantieri’s sizeable profit margin is expected to be very limited.

(249) Moreover, regarding a potential lack of sources of supply, if anti-dumping measures were not imposed, this would be to the detriment of the Union industry’s financial situation and may lead the two remaining Union producers to re-assess their investment strategies and focus on their other, currently more profitable production lines, effectively terminating Union production of steel bulb flats.

(250) Under such circumstances, Union importers and users of steel bulb flats would become fully dependent on imports from third countries which concerned, according to all parties, in effect only China and Türkiye. In order not to become dependent on imports only from a very limited number of third country suppliers, a diversified source of supply remains necessary, including sources of supply within the Union. Imposing anti-dumping duties, which would restore competition and a level playing field for Union producers, would ensure the diversification and the possibility of supply source choice which all parties asked for.

(251) In light of the above, the claims with regard to a potential lack of supply sources and a possible duopoly/monopoly situation were provisionally rejected.

(252) As mentioned in recital 245, the Government of Türkiye made the additional argument that the Union industry is already protected via the safeguard measures currently in place against steel products, including steel bulb flats. (65) However, safeguard measures are temporary and have a different rationale and objective than that of anti-dumping measures. Therefore, this claim related to the safeguard measures was provisionally rejected.

(253) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of steel bulb flats originating in China and Türkiye at this stage of the investigation.

(254) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on dumping, injury, causation, level of measures and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.

(255) Provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports of steel bulb flats originating in the People’s Republic of China and Türkiye, in accordance with the lesser duty rule in Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation. The Commission compared the injury margins and the dumping margins (recitals 229 – 236 above). The amount of the duties was set at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins.

(257) To ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duties, the anti-dumping duty for all other companies should apply not only to the non-cooperating exporting producers in this investigation, but to the producers which did not have exports to the Union during the investigation period.

(258) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, the Commission informed interested parties about the planned imposition of provisional duties. This information was also made available to the general public via DG TRADE’s website. Interested parties were given three working days to provide comments on the accuracy of the calculations specifically disclosed to them.

(259) The Türkish exporting producer Özkan Demir commented that domestic sales quantities had been erroneously rounded off, leading to a higher margin of dumping. After analysis, the Commission accepted this claim and corrected the error by using non-rounded off figures. It resulted in a change of the provisional anti-dumping margin from 14,3 % to 13,6 %.

(260) The Chinese exporting producer Changshu Longteng also provided comments, but these were not related to the accuracy of the calculations. These comments will therefore be dealt with at the definitive stage of the investigation.

(261) In the interests of sound administration, the Commission will invite the interested parties to submit written comments and/or to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings within a fixed deadline.

(262) The findings concerning the imposition of provisional duties are provisional and may be amended at the definitive stage of the investigation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

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.

Article 1 shall apply for a period of six months.

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

Done at Brussels, 11 July 2023.

For the Commission The President Ursula VON DER LEYEN

(1) OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2) Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of bulb flat originating in the People’s Republic of China and Türkiye (OJ C 431, 14.11.2022, p. 11).

(3) https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/investigations/case-view?caseId=2640

(4) 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).

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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 investigation and the suppliers of their inputs.

(8) 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.

(9) 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.

(10) 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.

(11) 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.

(12) 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

(13) Hebei Jitai Special Steel Group Co., Ltd. (n.d.). Baidu, available at: https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E6%B2%B3%E5%8C%97%E5%90%89%E6%B3%B0%E7%89%B9%E9%92%A2%E9%9B%86%E5%9B%A2%E6%9C%89%E9%99%90%E5%85%AC%E5%8F%B8/4599958 (accessed on 3 April 2023).

(14) Study the century-old party history and move forward with your head held high – Tangshan Baigong Industrial Development Co., Ltd. visited Li Dazhao Memorial Hall. (2021, 17 June). Tsuniversal, available at: https://www.tsuniversal.com/news/74.html (accessed on 3 April 2023).

(15) Suqian Nangang Jinxin Rolling Co., Ltd. (n.d.). QCC, available at: https://www.qcc.com/firm/e466e01d6e0994f2d8c8736a6d7e4da7.html (accessed on 3 April 2023).

(16) The party committee of Jingye Group commended the advanced party branches and exemplary party members in 2022. (2023, 3 March). Jingye Group, available at: http://www.hbjyjt.com/content/?2085.html (accessed on 3 April 2023).

(17) See for example Art. 33 of the CCP Constitution, Article 19 of the Chinese Company Law or the Guidelines on stepping up the United Front work in the private sector for the new era issued by the General Office of the CCP’s Central Committee in 2020,

(18) available at: http://www.chinaisa.org.cn/gxportal/xfgl/portal/content.html?articleId=5b2ddec5eba936fba45d7bd801b09f6ff30d867762906011672eaeda213c54ac&columnId=0227750914a0f2a722c5b71b220e0aa19ceb0ee2cd7a7e325a35f6591cdbf66a (accessed on 3 April 2023).

(19) See: https://www.miit.gov.cn/jgsj/ycls/gzdt/art/2020/art_8fc2875eb24744f591bfd946c126561f.html (accessed on 3 April 2023).

https://www.miit.gov.cn/jgsj/ycls/gzdt/art/2020/art_8fc2875eb24744f591bfd946c126561f.html (accessed on 3 April 2023).

https://www.miit.gov.cn/jgsj/ycls/gzdt/art/2020/art_8fc2875eb24744f591bfd946c126561f.html (accessed on 3 April 2023).

https://www.miit.gov.cn/jgsj/ycls/gzdt/art/2020/art_8fc2875eb24744f591bfd946c126561f.html (accessed on 3 April 2023).

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

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

(22) See Shandong Province 14th FYP on developing shipbuilding and marine engineering equipment, available at:http://gxt.shandong.gov.cn/art/2022/3/29/art_103885_10301690.html (Accessed 04 April 2023) and 14th Five-Year Plan for the Development of Ship and Marine Engineering Equipment Industry in Jiangsu Province, available at: https://gxt.jiangsu.gov.cn/art/2022/3/22/art_6197_10385582.html (Accessed 04 April 2023).

(23) 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 3 April 2023).

(24) Tangshan Municipal People’s Government issued the ‘1+3’ Action Plan for Tangshan Steel Industry. (2022, 6 June). China Iron and Steel Association, available at: http://www.chinaisa.org.cn/gxportal/xfgl/portal/content.html?articleId=e2bb5519aa49b566863081d57aea9dfdd59e1a4f482bb7acd243e3ae7657c70b&columnId=3683d857cc4577e4cb75f76522b7b82cda039ef70be46ee37f9385ed3198f68a (accessed on 3 April 2023).

(25) 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 3 April 2023)

(26) Liming, C. (2018, December 2). Interview with Ji Bingyuan, Chairman, General Manager and Party Secretary of Longteng Special Steel.

(27) Longteng Special Steel and Huaneng Jiangsu reached a strategic cooperation. (2021, 22 June). Sina Finance App. https://finance.sina.com.cn/money/future/indu/2021-06-22/doc-ikqcfnca2450921.shtml (accessed on 3 April 2023).

(28) Export-Import Bank of China Jiangsu Branch signed ‘Deepening Cooperation Agreement’ with Changshu Municipal People’s Government. (2021, 26 March). JSCHINA, available at: https://jsnews.jschina.com.cn/xhh/news/202103/t20210326_2753645.shtml (accessed on 3 April 2023)

(29) The Party Committee of the Transport Bureau and Longteng Special Steel held a signing ceremony for party building. (2020, 5 August). Changshu Government, available at: http://www.changshu.gov.cn/zgcs/c100297/202008/03d86105d1b24c0093db89f968f834f7.shtml (accessed on 3 April 2023).

(30) Huang Yixin. (n.d.). Aiqicha Baidu, available at: https://aiqicha.baidu.com/person?personId=4736c00788016f6251d98eb690072596 (accessed on 3 April 2023).

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

(32) See the 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 3 April 2023).

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

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

(35) 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 on 3 April 2023).

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

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

(38) OJ L 450, 16.12.2021, p. 59.

(39) 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).

(40) https://www.gtis.com/gta

(41) https://xml.metalbulletin.com/mb-index.html

(42) https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/In$dex?p=Labour-Cost-Statistics-2020-37495

(43) https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Electricity-and-Natural-Gas-Prices-Period-I:-January-June,-202245567

(44) https://www.izsu.gov.tr/YuklenenDosyalar/AtikSuTarifeleri

(45) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 of 3 March 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of steel road wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 65, 4.3.2020, p. 9).

(46) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 of 6 October 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ L 325, 7.10.2020, p. 26).

(47) OJ L 450, 16.12.2021, p. 59.

(48) 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).

(49) 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).

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

(51) https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Labour-Cost-Statistics-2020-37495

(52) https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Consumer-Price-Index-January-2023-49655.

(53) https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Electricity-and-Natural-Gas-Prices-Period-I:-January-June,-2022-45567.

(54) https://www.izsu.gov.tr/YuklenenDosyalar/AtikSuTarifeleri/Tarifeler_01092022.jpg.

(55) From 1 euro = 10.6809 Turkish Lira in first month of the IP (October 2021), to 1 euro = 18,1465 Turkish Lira in last month of the IP (i.e. +70 % overall). Sources: The European Central Bank, DG Budget, Pacific Exchange Rate Service.

(56) Domestic sales were made in foreign currency.

(57) Annexes F.7.9 and H.9.1 of the complaint.

(58) This trend was also confirmed in Table 5 of the complainant’s response to the questionnaire for Union producers, in the version for inspection by interested parties (Tron document t22.006788).

(59) This trend was also confirmed in Table 7 of the complainant’s response to the questionnaire for Union producers, in the version for inspection by interested parties (Tron document t22.006788).

(60) This trend was also confirmed in Table 12 of the complainant’s response to the questionnaire for Union producers, in the version for inspection by interested parties (Tron document t22.006788).

(61) Orbis database, provided by Bureau Van Dijk (https://orbis.bvdinfo.com).

(62) This trend was also confirmed in Table 29 of the complainant’s response to the questionnaire for Union producers, in the version for inspection by interested parties (Tron document t22.006788).

(63) This trend was also confirmed in summary table of the complainant’s response to the questionnaire for Union producers, in the version for inspection by interested parties (Tron document t22.006788).

(64) See complaint Annex F.7.8, available in the open file, and the British Steel bulb flats brochure, available here: https://britishsteel.co.uk/what-we-do/special-profiles/bulb-flats/ (last accessed on 14 April 2023).

(*1)  The complainant did not have any exports during the investigation period.

(65) 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).