Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China

• Celex Number: 02011R0917-20150521
• Coming into Force: 21 May 2015
• Published date: 21 May 2015
• ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2011/917/2015-05-21
• Date: 21 May 2015
• Court: Datos provisionales

2011R0917 — EN — 21.05.2015 — 003.001

---

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents

►B COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 238 15.9.2011, p. 1)

Amended by:

		Official Journal
		No	page	date
►M1	COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 567/2012 of 26 June 2012	L 169	11	29.6.2012
►M2	COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/409 of 11 March 2015	L 67	23	12.3.2015
►M3	COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/782 of 19 May 2015	L 124	9	20.5.2015

---

▼B

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 917/2011

of 12 September 2011

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 ) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:PROCEDURE Provisional measures

(1) The Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 258/2011 ( 2 ) (‘the provisional Regulation’), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’).

(2) A corrigendum ( 3 ) was published on 31 May 2011 in order to correct certain typographical errors, in particular the names of certain Chinese exporting producers that were misspelled in Annex I to the provisional Regulation.

(3) Following the verification of certain claims received after the publication of the corrigendum which were found to be warranted, it was noticed that certain other names were misspelled. The correct names for all companies subject to the weighted average duty are listed in Annex I to this Regulation.

(4) It is recalled that the proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by the European ceramic tiles manufacturer’s Association (CET) (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 30 % of the total Union production of ceramic tiles. As set out in recital 24 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). With respect to the trends relevant for the injury assessment, the Commission analysed data covering the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’).

Subsequent procedure

(5) Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional measures (‘provisional disclosure’), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard and hearings with the Hearing officer were held upon request of two interested parties.

(6) The Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.

(7) All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

(8) The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.

Parties concerned by the proceeding Sampling of Chinese exporting producers

(9) When selecting the sample of exporting producers, an applicant ‘group’ of companies was included due to the fact that the combined export volume of the two producers included in the alleged group made them together the third largest exporter by volume to the Union market. These companies claimed a relationship based on Article 143(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code ( 4 ) which provides that parties shall be deemed to be related if ‘they are legally recognised partners in business’. The investigation subsequently revealed that these companies were not related in this sense and, as mentioned in recital 35 of the provisional Regulation, these two producers were treated as separate entities.

(10) Several exporting producers made submissions claiming that these companies should have been excluded from the sample for submitting false or misleading information. These producers further claimed that, consequently, the weighted average dumping margin should have been calculated without taking into account the two sampled companies.

(11) In this regard, it is noted that the information provided by these parties prior to the selection of the sample was considered sufficient to consider them as related and given their combined export sales volume to the Union market they were included in the sample. Following the on-spot verification visits at the premises of these two companies, the issue of their relationship was examined in detail. The information provided by the companies in support of their claim to be related was verified but found to be insufficient for them to be regarded as related, contrary to the companies’ own view on this matter. As a result, it was concluded that these companies could not be considered to be related in the sense of Article 143(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. As the companies cooperated in the investigation, including by providing information with regard to their alleged relationship, it is considered that there are no grounds to exclude them from the sample. In these circumstances, this claim is rejected.

(12) Moreover, even assuming that selecting other companies into the sample during the investigation would have led to a considerably larger volume of exports towards the Union market during the IP being covered, it would have been difficult, within the time available, to investigate any newly selected companies. Therefore, in spite of the fact that these companies have turned out not to be related, the sample continues to comply with the criteria foreseen in the basic Regulation. Finally it is pointed out that there was no evidence that the companies deliberately alleged being related in order to be included in the sample.

(13) In the absence of any other comments, recitals 5 and 6 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

Sampling of Union producers

(14) Following the imposition of the provisional measures, one party claimed that none of the Union producers supporting the complaint had provided sample responses and should therefore be regarded as not cooperating with the proceeding. This argument was maintained following final disclosure.

(15) With respect to the claim that the lack of sample responses would indicate that the Union producers supporting the complaint did not cooperate, it is recalled that CET was the legal representative of all complaining companies. As required, CET also provided on behalf of the complainants the complementary information concerning the data for the IP. As detailed in the Notice of initiation, information in view of selecting a sample was only required for companies that had not already supplied all necessary information. It follows that the complaining producers were fully cooperating since they provided all the necessary information at the complaint stage and the necessary updates as regards the IP data were provided on their behalf by their legal representative during the investigation.

(16) One interested party claimed that the division of the Union industry into different segments and the geographical coverage of the sample meant that it was not statistically valid. In this respect it is recalled that the Union ceramic tiles industry is highly fragmented with over 500 producers. It was also found that the industry was represented in all three industry segments, i.e. large, medium and small companies. In order to ensure that the results of large companies did not dominate the injury analysis but that the situation of the small companies, collectively accounting for the biggest share of the Union production, was properly reflected, it was considered that all segments (i.e. small, medium-sized and large companies) should be represented in the sample. Within each of the segments, the largest companies were chosen, provided that geographical representativeness could be assured.

(17) One interested party also claimed that the Commission had failed to show that the sample remained representative after the withdrawal of the Polish producer and that it was in any event insufficiently representative in terms of sales volume in the Union market.

(18) It is correct that one Polish producer decided to cease cooperation and therefore had to be excluded from the sample. However, it is not necessary for a sample to reflect the exact geographical spread and weight of the producing Member States in

...