HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1238/2013
of 2 December 2013
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or
consigned from the People's Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
(2)
The investigation was initiated following a complaint
lodged on 25 July 2012 by EU ProSun (‘the complainant’)
on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
the total Union production of crystalline silicon photo
Union,
voltaic (‘PV’) modules and key components. The
complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of
the said product and of material injury resulting there
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30
from, which was considered sufficient to justify the initia
November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from
tion of an investigation.
countries not members of the European Community (1) (‘the
basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) and 14(1)
thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
2. Registration
after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
(3)
As mentioned in recital (3) to the provisional Regulation,
following a request by the complainant supported by the
required evidence the Commission adopted on 1 March
2013 Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 (3) making imports
of crystalline silicon PV modules and key components (i.
A. PROCEDURE
e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the
People's Republic of China subject to registration as of 6
March 2013. The provisional Regulation ceased the regis
1. Provisional Measures
tration of imports for the purpose of the anti-dumping
investigation in accordance with Article 14(5) of the
basic Regulation since a provisional anti-dumping duty
(1)
The European Commission (‘the Commission’) by Regu
provided protection against dumped imports.
lation (EU) No 513/2013 (2) (‘the provisional Regulation’)
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key compo
(4)
Some interested parties claimed that the decision for
nents (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned
registration of imports was unfounded, as the conditions
from the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or the
were not met pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic
‘country concerned’).
Regulation. However, these claims were not substantiated
or based on factual evidence. At the time the decision
(1) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
was taken to register imports the Commission had
(2) Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a
provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photo
voltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating
(3) Commission Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 of 1 March 2013 making
in or consigned from the People's Republic of China and amending
imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key compo
Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or
nents (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the
consigned from the People's Republic of China subject to registration
People's Republic of China subject to registration (OJ L 61, 5.3.2013,
(OJ L 152, 5.6.2013, p. 5).
p. 2).

---

L 325/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
sufficient prima facie evidence justifying the need to
(9)
AFASE questioned the legal basis for the visit carried out
register imports, in particular a sharp increase both in
at the premises of Europressedienst, as it is not an inter
terms of absolute imports and in terms of market share.
ested party in this investigation and does therefore not
The claims in this regard had therefore to be rejected.
fall under Article 16 of the basic Regulation. Europresse
dienst, as mentioned in recitals (99) and (120) to the
provisional Regulation has provided information on
macroeconomic indicators. It is clarified that the
Commission carried out an on-the-spot verification at
the premises of Europressedienst for the sake of the prin
3. Acceptance of an Undertaking with regards to
ciple of good administration to verify the reliability and
provisional duties
correctness of data on which the Commission based its
findings.
(5)
By Commission Decision 2013/423/EU (1), the Commis
sion has accepted an undertaking offered by exporting
producers
together
with
the
China
Chamber
of
Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Elec
tronic Products (‘CCCME’).
(10)
The GOC reiterated the claim that its rights of defence in
relation to access to the files open for inspection by inter
ested parties were violated because (i) information was
missing from the non-confidential files without ‘good
cause’ being shown or providing sufficiently detailed
4. Subsequent Procedure
summaries, or exceptionally, the reasons for the failure to
provide the non-confidential summary, (ii) the non-confi
dential version of an entire questionnaire response of a
Union producer was missing and (iii) the delays to make
(6)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
non-confidential versions of the Union producers' ques
impose provisional anti-dumping measures (‘the provi
tionnaire responses available for interested parties
sional disclosure’), the Government of China (‘GOC’) and
were excessive.
several interested parties made written submissions
making known their views on the provisional findings.
The parties who so requested were granted the opportu
nity to be heard. The Association for Affordable Solar
Energy (‘AFASE’), representing importers, downstream
and upstream operators and one importer requested and
(11)
(i) Regarding the claim that information was missing
were afforded hearings in the presence of the Hearing
from the open file, the interested party did not specify to
Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade.
which information it was referring to. (ii) Its claim that
the non-confidential version of an entire questionnaire
response has not been made available was incorrect. (iii)
(7)
The Commission continued to seek and verify all infor
As to the delays in making available the non-confidential
mation it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.
replies of the questionnaires of the sampled Union
The oral and written comments submitted by the inter
producers, it had been explained to the party concerned
ested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the
that the questionnaires were only added to the non-confi
provisional findings were modified accordingly.
dential file after having been checked as to their comple
teness and reasonableness of the summaries. In order to
ensure the Union producers' right to anonymity, it was
also ascertained that the non-confidential versions of the
(8)
In addition, verification visits were carried out at the
questionnaires did indeed not reveal the identity of the
premises of the following companies:
Union producer concerned. In some cases, the non-confi
dential versions needed therefore to be corrected accord
ingly by the party submitting it before they could be
(i) Downstream operators
made available for other interested parties.
— Jayme de la Costa, Pedroso, Portugal
— Sunedison Spain Construction, Madrid, Spain
(12)
In any event, it is considered that this did in no way
(ii) Independent consultant
affect the interested parties' rights of defence. The
Commission has given all the interested parties the
opportunity to respond to the information included in
— Europressedienst, Bonn, Germany
the file open for inspection in time so that their
comments could be taken into consideration, when
(1) Commission Decision 2013/423/EU of 2 August 2013 accepting an
substantiated and warranted before any conclusions were
undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding
made in the investigation. The interested party had every
concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key
components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the
opportunity to comment on the questionnaires from
People's Republic of China (OJ L 209, 3.8.2013, p. 26).
sampled Union producers also following the provisional

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/3
and the final disclosure. Therefore, even if the disclosures
to be granted. The information that has been provided to
and the access to the file open for inspection by inter
the Commission in order to substantiate the risk of reta
ested parties are based on different legal provisions, it
liation cannot be disclosed to third parties, as such disclo
should be noted that there were ample opportunities for
sure would defeat the purpose of the request for confi
the interested parties to comment on all information
dentiality. Moreover, in a case, where, as reported by the
made available by any party to the investigation. There
GOC, a Union producer re-evaluated its position and
fore, this claim had to be rejected.
revealed its identity by filing an application for a Court
case against the provisional Regulation, there is no longer
ground to disclose information on the basis of which
(13)
All interested parties were informed of the essential facts
and considerations on the basis of which it was intended
anonymity was granted, as the identity has been revealed.
to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti
dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovol
taic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating
in or consigned from the People's Republic of China and
(18)
Further to the provisional disclosure, one interested party
the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way
reiterated that the information on which the selection of
of provisional duty (‘the final disclosure’). All parties were
the sample was based was not reliable, without, however,
granted a period within which they could make
providing any new evidence in this regard. This claim
comments on the final disclosure.
was therefore rejected.
(14)
The comments submitted by the interested parties were
considered and taken into account where appropriate.
(19)
Following the final disclosure, the CCCME reiterated the
arguments about the method used for the selection of
the provisional sample of the Union producers. It claims
5. Acceptance of an undertaking in view of
in particular that the Institutions have not taken into
definitive duties
account 120 producers. The Commission already
addressed this issue in recital (9) to the provisional Regu
(15)
Following final disclosure, the Commission received an
lation. Moreover, the Institutions have verified the activ
amended offer for an undertaking by exporting producers
ities of the companies provided on that list. It turned out
together with the CCCME, which covers also the parallel
that that list mostly includes installers, distributors,
anti-subsidy investigation. By Commission Implementing
related importers and exporting producer in China,
Decision
2013/707/EU (1)
of
4
December
2013
Taiwan, and India. It therefore was not apt to demon
confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in
strate that the Institutions had overlooked a significant
connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy
number of Union producers. Moreover, the CCCME has
proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon
not contested the total Union production by providing
photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells)
alternative figures, nor has it put forward any evidence
originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of
that the representativity of the sample could have been
China for the period of application of definitive
affected, as none of the alleged additional Union produ
measures, the Commission has confirmed the acceptance
cers would have been selected into the sample, had it
of that undertaking.
been known to the Commission.
6. Parties concerned by the proceeding
(20)
Following the exclusion of wafers from the definition of
the product concerned, and thus from the scope of this
(a) Sampling of Union producers
investigation as cited in recital (32) below, the final
sample consisted of eight Union producers. In the
(16)
Following the imposition of provisional measures, some
absence of any further comments with regard to the
interested parties reiterated the argument that excessive
sampling of Union producers, the findings in recitals (7)
use of confidentiality prevented them from commenting
to (10) to the provisional Regulation are herewith
on the selection of the sample of Union producers and
confirmed, as amended above.
thus from the proper exercise of their rights of defence.
The Commission already addressed this issue in recital (9)
to the provisional Regulation. As no new information
was provided in this respect, the conclusions in recital (9)
to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(17)
The GOC reiterated its claim that the use of confidenti
ality of the names of the complainants and sampled
(b) Sampling of unrelated importers
Union producers is not warranted. As already stated in
recital (9) to the provisional Regulation, the Union
producers requested that their names be kept confidential
due to the risk of retaliation. The Commission considered
(21)
Following the imposition of provisional measures, as
that these requests were sufficiently substantiated
mentioned in recital (12) to the provisional Regulation,
the Commission contacted additional importers that had
(1) See page 214 of this Official Journal.
already cooperated in the investigation at the initiation

---

L 325/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
stage by providing basic information on their activities
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
related to the product under investigation during the
investigation period, as specified in the Notice of Initia
tion. The purpose was to determine whether the size of
1. Introduction
the sample of unrelated importers could be increased. Six
companies, qualifying as unrelated importers trading the
(26)
As set out in recitals (20) to (49) to the provisional Regu
product concerned (i.e. purchasing and reselling it), came
lation, the product concerned as provisionally defined is
forward and were willing to cooperate further in the
crystalline silicon PV modules or panels and cells and
investigation. Out of these six, five replied within the
wafers of the type used in crystalline silicon PV modules
deadline. Out of the five replies received, only three were
or panels, originating in or consigned from the PRC. The
sufficiently complete and allowed for a meaningful assess
cells and wafers have a thickness not exceeding
ment. On this basis, the sample of the unrelated impor
400 micrometers. This product is currently falling within
ters was enlarged and consisted of four importers for
CN
codes
ex
3818 00 10,
ex
8501 31 00,
modules, representing around 2 % — 5 % of the total
ex 8501 32 00, ex 8501 33 00, ex 8501 34 00,
imports from the country concerned. Given the structure
ex 8501 61 20, ex 8501 61 80, ex 8501 62 00,
of the unrelated importers, which were mostly small and
ex 8501 63 00, ex 8501 64 00 and ex 8541 40 90
medium-sized companies, it was not possible to have a
(‘the product concerned’).
sample representing a larger share, given the limited
resources at the disposal of the Institutions.
(27)
The following product types are excluded from the defini
tion of the product concerned:
(22)
In the absence of any further comments with regard to
the sampling of unrelated importers, recitals (11) and
— solar chargers that consist of less than six cells, are
(12) to the provisional Regulation, as amended above
portable and supply electricity to devices or charge
are confirmed.
batteries;
— thin film PV products;
— crystalline silicon PV products that are permanently
integrated into electrical goods, where the function of
(c) Sampling of exporting producers
the electrical goods is other than power generation,
and where these electrical goods consume the electri
city generated by the integrated crystalline silicon PV
cell(s).
(23)
Following the provisional disclosure, a number of non
sampled companies submitted comments arguing that
their situation is different from the sampled companies.
They argued that, as a consequence, they should benefit
2. Claims regarding the product scope
from an individual duty rate pursuant to Article 17(3) of
the basic Regulation. However, due to the high number
of co-operating companies (often groups of companies),
2.1. Exclusion of wafers
it was not possible to individually investigate all compa
nies. Therefore, pursuant to Article 9(6), these companies
(28)
Following the provisional disclosure, interested parties
are subject to the weighted average duty of the sampled
claimed that wafers should be removed from the product
companies.
scope since wafers do not share the same basic physical,
chemical and technical characteristics as cells and
modules. In addition to the arguments brought forward
at the provisional stage, two additional arguments were
(24)
In the absence of any further comments with regard to
the sampling of exporting producers recitals (13) and
brought forward in this respect after the provisional
(14) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
disclosure.
(29)
Firstly, interested parties claimed that wafers can be used
for other purposes than for the production of cells,
notably the production of integrated circuits and other
micro devices. In this respect, it is noted that not all
7. Investigation period and period considered
wafers are included in the product scope of this investiga
tion, which is limited to ‘wafers of the type used in crystalline
silicon PV modules or panels’, and that those wafers have ‘a
thickness not exceeding 400 micrometres’. While wafers
(25)
As set out in recital (19) to the provisional Regulation,
certainly do exist in other applications, the investigation
the investigation of dumping and injury covered the
never covered wafers which are used in the production of
period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 (‘the investiga
other products such as integrated circuits. In addition, no
tion period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant
producers, importers or users involved in the market for
for the assessment of injury covered the period from
these other types of wafers came forward alleging that
2009 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period
their wafers would be subject to registration or provi
considered’).
sional anti-dumping duties. It is therefore confirmed that

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/5
these other types of wafers are not subject to the product
(36)
In this respect, it is noted that in the majority of anti
scope of this investigation. At the same time, this shows
dumping investigations, including the present investiga
that wafers do not necessarily have the same end use as
tion, a comparison between Normal Values and export
cells and modules.
prices is made on the basis of product types. This is done
since often a very broad range of product types share the
same basic physical, technical and/or chemical character
istics, which often leads to a situation where product
(30)
Secondly, interested parties claimed that unprocessed
types with substantially different costs and prices fall
wafers possess none of the essential electric properties
under the definition of the ‘product concerned’. The mere
which distinguish solar cells and modules from other
fact that it is not possible to establish a Normal Value for
products. In particular, wafers lack the ability to generate
a certain product type on the basis of the Normal Value
electricity from sunlight, which is the key function of
of another product type does not in itself mean that
crystalline photovoltaic cells and modules.
these product types cannot be considered a single
product. As described in recital (32) above, both cells and
modules do share the same basic physical and technical
characteristics, inter alia the functionality to generate elec
(31)
This claim can be accepted. Indeed after further verifica
tricity from sunlight.
tion and contrary to what is stated in recital (36) to the
provisional Regulation that ‘modules, cells and wafers have
the same end use, converting sunlight into electricity’, only
once the wafer is transformed into a cell, does it obtain
the functionality to generate electricity from sunlight.
(37)
It is further argued that if cells and modules were one
single product with minor differences, adjusting the
prices of cells to establish a price of modules should not
be difficult. In this respect it is noted that there is no
(32)
Due to the different basic physical and technical charac
requirement that there are only minor differences
teristics, defined during the investigation inter alia as the
between the different types of the product concerned. To
functionality to generate electricity from sunlight, it is
the contrary, it is sufficient that the different types of the
concluded on balance that wafers should be excluded
product concerned share the same basic physical, tech
from the definition of the product concerned, and thus
nical and/or chemical characteristics. In the present case,
from the scope of this investigation.
this is the case for modules and cells, inter alia the func
tionality to generate electricity from sunlight.
(38)
The same party further argued that cells are not just
another type of module, but an entirely different product.
2.2. Separate investigations for cells and modules
In effect, a cell is the key component of a module. As a
key component, a cell is clearly not ‘an entirely different
product’, as modules and cells share the same basic char
acteristics of generating electricity from sunlight, as indi
(33)
Interested parties reiterated that cells and modules are
cated in recital (32) above.
not a single product, and should therefore be assessed
separately, mainly repeating arguments already addressed
in recitals (27) to (39) to the provisional Regulation.
Unlike wafers, however, cells and modules do share the
same basic property, i.e. the ability to generate electricity
(39)
The same party argued in addition that when the samples
from sunlight. These arguments were therefore rejected.
for Union producers and Chinese exporters were selected,
the difference between cells and modules was taken into
account. Therefore, different duty rates for modules and
cells should have been established. In this respect, it is
(34)
Following final disclosure, one exporter argued that cells
confirmed that the difference between modules and cells
by themselves cannot produce electricity. Allegedly, they
was indeed taken into account when sampling Union
need to be integrated into modules to do so. However,
producers and Chinese exporters, as indicated in reci
each cell by itself has a capacity to generate electricity
tals (10) and (14) to the provisional Regulation. This,
from sunlight of typically around 4W. While this power
however, was only done to ensure that the sample is
may be insufficient for most applications which require
representative and does as such not mean that cells and
an assembly of multiple cells into modules, this does not
modules should not be considered a single product
mean that a cell by itself does not already have the capa
concerned, or that separate duty rates should be estab
city to generate electricity.
lished for cells and modules. Indeed, in order to ensure
that the sample was representative for all product types,
it was important to distinguish between cells and
modules when selecting the sample. Furthermore, as
(35)
Following final disclosure, one exporter argued that the
there was a certain degree of uncertainty with regards to
impossibility to establish a Normal Value for modules on
the question as to whether cells and modules were to be
the basis of the Normal Value for cells, as described in
regarded as one product or as two separate products, it
recital (100) below, demonstrates that modules and cells
was necessary to ensure representativity for both possible
should not be considered a single product.
outcomes.

---

L 325/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(40)
In addition, it is argued that recital (100) below stating
useful for the present case, as cells are the key compo
that the processing costs for modules are significant is in
nent of modules; as regards the fourth criterion, tariff
contradiction with recital (32) to the provisional Regu
classification, it is noted that both cells and modules can
lation, which states that the value added is not concen
be declared under customs heading 8541 40 90, while
trated in a particular stage of the production process. In
the customs headings under heading 8501 are for electric
this respect, it is recalled that recital (100) also clarifies
generators in general and not in particular for
that the cost difference between cells and modules is
solar products.
34 %, which means that 66 % of the value of a modules
stems from the cell. It is therefore concluded that the
value added is not concentrated in a particular stage of
the production process.
(44)
Other interested parties argued that an objective applica
tion of the criteria developed by the Court of Justice in
previous cases (2) allegedly leads to the conclusion that
modules and cells are different products. In this respect,
it is noted that the court only indicated a number of
criteria which may be taken into account — there is no
(41)
Exporting producers claimed that the fact that the under
obligation to use all criteria in all cases, since not all of
taking imposes different minimum import prices and
them may be relevant. These criteria were assessed in
volumes for cells and modules allegedly confirms that
recitals (27) to (39) to the provisional Regulation, where
modules and cells are distinct products requiring two
it was found that a number of criteria are not relevant in
distinct investigations. The different minimum import
the present case. In the Brosmann case the assessment
prices, however, are merely an indication that cells and
whether different types of shoes belong to the ‘product
modules are different groups of product types which are
concerned’ was also made on the basis of only three
sold at different prices. Therefore, it is necessary to define
criteria which were found to be relevant. As the interested
different
prices
to
make
the
minimum
import
parties did not provide any reasoning why an objective
prices meaningful.
application of the criteria leads one to conclude that
modules and cells are distinct products, the argument
cannot be accepted.
(42)
Also, the fact that cells and modules are distinct groups
of product types is not as such relevant for the definition
(45)
In addition, it is recalled that cells and modules have the
of the product concerned. For the definition of the
same basic end uses, i.e. they are sold for integration into
product concerned, it is sufficient that the products share
PV solar systems. The modules performance is directly
the same basic characteristics and end uses, which is the
linked to the performance of the cells, as indicated in
case for modules and cells as described in recitals (32)
recital (28) to the provisional Regulation.
and (48) respectively.
(46)
One interested party argued that with the exclusion of
wafers from the product scope, and due to the significant
processing involved to make modules from cells, the
(43)
The GOC argued that the assessment whether cells and
argument that cells and modules have the same end uses
modules are a single product concerned does not address
also stands refuted. It is also argued that the assessment
a number of criteria defined by the Appelate Body in EC
that modules and cells have the same end uses is based
— Asbestos (1). However, these criteria are used for the
on the assumption that wafers, modules and cells have
definition of the ‘like product’, not the product
the same production process.
concerned. In other words, these criteria have to be used
to define the like product, for example the like product
produced by Union Industry, which is then compared
with the product concerned exported by the Chinese
exporting producers. These criteria are not pertinent
when defining the product concerned. In any event, the
(47)
Firstly, the conclusion that the assessment that modules
Institutions observe that the application of the criteria
and cells have the same end uses is based on the produc
used in EC — Asbestos to the definition of the product
tion process is wrong. While both statements are indeed
concerned in the present case would not lead to a
in the same recital (36) to the provisional Regulation, this
different outcome. The first and the second criteria (prop
does not mean that one conclusion is based on the other
erties, nature and quality respectively end-uses) are iden
assumption. The word ‘moreover’ separating the two
tical to the criteria physical, chemical and technical prop
statements makes it clear that the second statement is
erties and end-uses used in the preceeding recitals. The
not based on the first. In addition, the two statements are
third criterion (consumers taste and habits) is not really
made to address separate issues under the heading
‘End use and interchangeability’. The first statement
(1) Appelate Body Report, European Communities — Measures Affecting
Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5
(2) Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd and others vs Council; Case T
April 2001.
314/06 Whirlpool Europe vs Council.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/7
concerning the production process addresses interchange
(53)
Following disclosure, interested parties argued that irre
ability, while the second statement addresses end use. The
spective of the provisions in the Notice of Initiation
underlying assumption that the assessment that modules
referred to in recital (51) above, the investigation was
and cells have the same end uses is based on the assump
limited to goods originating in the PRC and did not
tion that wafers, modules and cells have the same
assess the impact of goods consigned from the PRC.
production process is therefore incorrect.
(48)
As to the actual end use of cells and modules, it is not
(54)
In this respect, it is noted that the following steps were
disputed by interested parties that modules and cells are
taken to ensure that all goods consigned from the PRC
sold for integration into PV solar systems. The conclusion
were assessed during the investigation, and not only
that modules and cells have the same end use is therefore
goods originating in the PRC:
confirmed.
— All companies which ship the product concerned
from the PRC were invited to come forward in the
investigation irrespective of the origin of the goods.
2.3. Mono and multi-crystalline cells
— In Annex A of the Notice of initiation, exporters
(49)
One interested party claimed that there was no produc
were asked to report information for all products
tion of mono crystalline cells in the Union, and that their
manufactured by the company. This information was
exports of mono crystalline cells were not competing
not limited to goods originating in the PRC.
with the Union industry. The investigation showed
however that there was indeed production of mono crys
talline cells in the Union. This argument was therefore
— On the basis of this information, which contained all
rejected. In any event, the General Court held in Bros
exports to the EU irrespective of the origin of the
mann that the absence of Community production of a particu
goods, a representative sample was selected.
lar product type is not decisive.
— The sampled producers received a questionnaire for
‘producers exporting to the European Union’, and the
PRC was referred to as ‘country concerned’, not
2.4. ‘Consigned from’ clause
country of origin. It was therefore clear that all goods
irrespective of the origin of the goods were investi
gated.
(50)
Interested parties argued that the extension of the scope
of the investigation to products ‘consigned from’ the PRC
was unjustified, as the investigation was initiated only
(55)
On this basis, it is concluded that the investigation
against products originating in the PRC.
covered all goods originating in or consigned from the
PRC, and that the findings of the investigation, including
dumping and injury, cover all goods originating in or
consigned from the PRC.
(51)
However, goods consigned from the PRC were already
covered at the initiation stage. In point 5 of the Notice of
Initiation (1) it is stated that ‘companies which ship the
product concerned from the People's Republic of China but
(56)
Following final disclosure, interested parties argued that
consider that part or even all of those exports do not have their
the complaint contained only prima facie evidence
customs origin in the People's Republic of China are invited to
concerning imports of solar panels originating in the
come forward in the investigation and to furnish all relevant
PRC, not goods consigned from the PRC. In this respect,
information’. It is therefore clear that all companies
it needs to be clarified that the complaint indeed covered
consigning goods from the PRC had the opportunity to
goods ‘from the PRC’, which can be seen from the cover
co-operate in this investigation. Furthermore, since the
page submitted by the applicant bearing the stamp.
product under investigation frequently incorporates
Before this page, there is another page on the file which
components and parts from different countries, it was
indeed uses the wording ‘originating in the People's
also announced in point 5 of the Notice of Initiation that
Republic of China’. But this case was not part of the
‘special provisions may be adopted’ to address this issue.
document submitted by the complainant, but added as a
cover page by the Commission Services, using the name
of the investigation rather than repeating the title of the
(52)
It is therefore considered that all economic operators
complaint. It is therefore considered that the complaint
affected were duly informed of the possibility that special
covered all goods from the PRC, whether originating in
provisions in respect of goods consigned from the PRC
the PRC or not.
may be adopted, if appropriate, and were invited to co
operate in the investigation. Thus the scope of the inves
tigation was not extended to products ‘consigned from
the PRC’, since these were covered from the outset.
(57)
Chinese
exporting
producers
further
argued
that
exporting producers in third countries cannot reasonably
(1) OJ C 269, 6.9.2012, p. 5.
be expected to have known that their products could also

---

L 325/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
be targeted by the investigation. In this respect it is noted
2.5. Solar chargers
that the measures do not apply to goods which are in
transit in the sense of Article V GATT. Therefore,
exporting producers which have no operations in the
(61)
Following the provisional disclosure, interested parties
PRC are not affected by the measures. Furthermore, no
claimed that the definition of ‘solar chargers that consist
exporting producers in third countries came forward
of less than six cells’ is too narrow, and should be
raising the issue that the products they export are subject
extended to products with a similar function which are
to the anti-dumping duty.
not covered by this definition such as products with a
similar size using a larger number of smaller cells.
(62)
In addition, interested parties claimed that the definition
of ‘silicon PV products that are permanently integrated
(58)
The same exporting producers argued that exporting
into electrical goods’ is too narrow, as only the complete
producers in third countries were not asked to come
electrical good is excluded, while solar components for
forward, and not given the opportunity to show that
integration into the electrical goods are not necessarily
their products are not dumped. The Institutions consider
excluded.
that those exporting producers without any operations in
the PRC are not affected by the measures, as their goods,
if consigned from the PRC, will have been in transit. All
(63)
Indeed, an analysis of the above arguments showed that
it is more appropriate to add to the exclusion of such
other exporting producers were informed by the Notice
products a criterion on the basis of a technical standard.
of Initiation that their operations are part of the investi
In particular, it was established that the definitions of the
gation.
following standard more appropriately define the
products which should be excluded from the scope of
the measures: international Standard IEC 61730-1, Appli
cation Classes, Class C: Limited Voltage, limited power
applications (p. 13) (1).
(59)
The GOC argued that while Article 1(3) of the basic
Regulation allows deviating from the principle that the
exporting country is the country of origin, this Article
(64)
Following definitive disclosure, comments were received
concerning the exclusion based on the international
cannot be used in the present case. In support of this
standard mentioned above. It was argued that rather than
claim they argue that no complete analysis whether the
exporting country may be an intermediary country was
referring to the standard, it would be more appropriate
made. The Institutions disagree with this interpretation of
to define the exclusion on the basis of the output voltage
and the power output as ‘modules or panels with a output
Article 1 (3) of the basic Regulation. No party contests
voltage not exceeding 50 V DC and a power output not
that there is significant production in the PRC. Whether
exceeding 50 W solely for direct use as battery chargers in
or not the PRC is the country of origin of the finished
systems with the same voltage and power characteristics’. This
goods depends on several factors. The analysis of
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest carried out
claim could be accepted, and the exclusion is finally
by the Institutions refers to that production, irrespective
determined according to this definition.
of the question whether the finished exported good has
its customs origin in the PRC. As there were strong indi
cations that not all products which were at least partially
produced in the PRC would be considered to have their
2.6. Roof-integrated solar modules
customs origin in the PRC, the Institutions decided that it
was necessary to cover also products for which the PRC
is only an intermediary country.
(65)
Another interested party claimed that roof-integrated
solar modules should be excluded from the product
scope of the investigation, since they combine the func
tionality of a solar module with that of a roof tile or
slate. Therefore, they would not be directly interchange
able with a standard solar module.
(60)
The GOC further argued that since no Chinese exporter
has been granted MET, there is no comparable price for
solar panels in the PRC, and as a consequence the PRC
(66)
The investigation, however, showed that both standard
cannot be used as an intermediate country. However, in
modules and the roof-integrated solar modules have to
this respect it is noted that the three conditions of
comply with the same electrical standards. In addition
Article 1(3) of the basic Regulation are given as examples
while the roof-integrated solar module cannot be simply
only, and not all conditions may be relevant in all cases.
replaced with a standard module, it can be replaced by a
In the present case, since no Chinese exporter has been
standard module plus roof tiles or slate. These products
granted MET, the comparable price had to be established
therefore have the same basic technical property of gener
in the analogue country — and this comparable price is
ating electricity from sunlight. The added functionality
the same irrespective of whether the PRC is considered
(which is otherwise provided by roofing material) was
the country of origin or the intermediate country. There
not considered substantial and does not warrant an
fore, the issue whether there is a comparable price ‘in
exclusion of roof-integrated solar modules from the
that country’ is irrelevant, as in the present case the
product scope.
comparable price is not established ‘in that country’, but
in the analogue country.
(1) Reference number CEI/IEC 61730-1:2004.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/9
(67)
Following definitive disclosure, the same interested party
way means that in other cases the price difference cannot
argued that the absence of dual-interchangeability
be a useful indicator to establish whether a product
between roof-integrated solar modules and standard solar
should be excluded from the definition of
the
modules is an indication that roof-integrated solar
product concerned.
modules should be excluded from the scope of the
measures, referring to the footware (1) case in general and
special technology athletics footwear ‘STAF’ in particular.
(71)
Lastly, the interested party argued that its supplier of
However, the reasons for the exclusion of STAF were
roof-integrated solar modules should be granted access to
numerous, and the absence of dual interchangeability by
the minimum price undertaking. However, it appears that
itself was not considered a sufficient ground by the
the Chinese exporter concerned did not co-operate in the
General Court in the Brosmann (2) case, which confirmed
investigation, and as a non-cooperating party is not
that very different product such as city trotters and
eligible to participate in the undertaking. These request
hiking
boots
can
indeed
be
considered
product
can therefore not be accepted.
concerned in a single anti-dumping investigation despite
their differences.
3. Conclusion
(68)
In addition, the interested party argued that the absence
of production in the Union and the fact that the inter
ested party holds intellectual property rights is allegedly a
(72)
In view of the above, the product scope is definitively
confirmation that roof-integrated solar modules are inno
defined as crystalline silicon PV modules or panels and
vative and different from any other product. However,
cells of the type used in crystalline silicon PV modules or
referring again to the footwear case mentioned by the
panels, originating in or consigned from the PRC unless
interested party, the General Court held in Brosmann that
they are in transit in the sense of Article V GATT. The
‘the absence of Community production of that type of footwear
cells have a thickness not exceeding 400 micrometres.
and the existence of a patent are not conclusive.’ (3). As a
This product is currently falling within CN codes
result, patented technology footwear was considered
ex 8501 31 00, ex 8501 32 00, ex 8501 33 00,
product concerned in that case.
ex 8501 34 00, ex 8501 61 20, ex 8501 61 80,
ex 8501 62 00, ex 8501 63 00, ex 8501 64 00 and
ex 8541 40 90.
(69)
The interested party also argued that roof-integrated solar
(73)
The following product types are excluded from the defini
modules should be excluded from the definition of the
tion of the product concerned:
product concerned, since they are sold at substantially
higher prices than standard modules. Also, in the footwear
case STAF above a certain price were excluded from the
— solar chargers that consist of less than six cells, are
definition of the product concerned. In this respect, it is
portable and supply electricity to devices or charge
noted that a roof-integrated solar module does combine
batteries,
the functionality of a solar module and roof tile or slate,
as indicated in recital (66) above. A direct comparison of
prices is therefore not meaningful, as the added function
— thin film photovoltaic products,
ality naturally leads to higher prices.
— crystalline silicon photovoltaic products that are
permanently integrated into electrical goods, where
the function of the electrical goods is other than
power generation, and where these electrical goods
(70)
In response to this argument, the interested party argued
consume the electricity generated by the integrated
that on the basis of this argumentation, it would be
crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell(s),
impossible to ever invoke price differences as an addi
tional indicator warranting the exclusion from the
— modules or panels with a output voltage not
product scope. However, this interpretation is too far
exceeding 50 V DC and a power output not
reaching. What is said in the previous recital is merely
exceeding 50 W solely for direct use as battery char
that in this particular case where the roof-integrated
gers in systems with the same voltage and power
modules combine the functionality of the product
characteristics.
concerned plus another product (in this case roof tile or
slate), the price is naturally not meaningful. This in no
(74)
Following the exclusion of wafers, the analysis has been
(1) Footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China
revised by excluding the data and analysis related to
and Vietnam, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 553/2006 of 23 March
wafers, unless otherwise indicated. Given that wafers
2006 (prov.); Council Regulation (EC) No. 1472/2006 of 5 October
represented only a small percentage of imports of the
2006 (def.).
product concerned in the Union (around 2 % in value)
(2) Case T-401/06, Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd. vs Council of the European
Union, para 133.
during the IP, the exclusion of wafers is considered to
(3) Case T-401/06, Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd. vs Council of the European
have a negligible impact if any on the findings. All
Union, para 135.
comments by interested parties have been addressed but

---

L 325/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
any reference to wafers even if raised has been excluded.
(81)
In this respect it is noted that the accounting standards
As a consequence all references and related data
do not define which companies are required to prepare
concerning wafers reported in the recitals to the provi
financial statements — accounting standards define how
sional Regulation are no longer applicable, even when
these statements have to be prepared. In the case of The
relevant recitals are confirmed by this Regulation.
PRC, it is the ‘Accounting Standard for Business Enter
prises: Basic Standard’ which defines in its Article 4 that
‘an enterprise shall prepare financial reports’. This is a
(75)
Consequently, the provisional conclusions, modified as
set out under recitals (26) to (74) above, were definitively
mandatory obligation, and there is no exemption for
confirmed. For the purposes of this proceeding and in
companies which ceased operation.
accordance with consistent practice, it was therefore
considered that all types of the product concerned should
be regarded as forming one single product.
(82)
Furthermore, even though these companies ceased opera
tion, they still owned assets (including land, buildings,
machinery and stocks) and liabilities and did exist as legal
entities at least until early 2013. It is therefore considered
C. DUMPING
that these companies were obliged to publish accounting
records for the year 2011, and the lack of these
1. The PRC
accounting records constitutes a violation of criterion 2.
1.1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)
(83)
Following final disclosure, exporters also claimed that the
(76)
Following the provisional disclosure, interested parties
benefits received from preferential tax regime(s) and
claimed that the MET determination was made out of
grants do not represent a significant proportion of their
time, i.e. after the three-month period laid down in
turnover, which is allegedly confirmed by the parallel
Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and that the inves
anti-subsidy investigation.
tigation therefore should be terminated without delay.
(77)
In this respect, these parties argued that the amendment
(84)
In this respect, it is recalled that this argument was
of the basic Regulation (1) purportedly extending the
already addressed in recital (65) to the provisional Regu
deadline to make the MET determination to eight months
lation. It was stressed that in particular due to the nature
only entered into force after the expiry of previously
of this advantage, the absolute benefit received during the
applicable three months deadline. The amendment would
IP is irrelevant for assessing whether the distortion is
apply only to future investigations and to pending inves
‘significant’. This claim is therefore rejected.
tigations where the deadline for making the MET
determination had not yet lapsed at that time.
(85)
In the absence of other comments regarding the Market
(78)
However, Article 2 of the amendment of the basic Regu
Economy Treatment, all determinations in recitals (50) to
lation clearly states that ‘this Regulation shall apply to all
(69) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
new
and
to
all
pending
investigations
as
from 15 December 2012’. This Article, or indeed the
whole Regulation, does not contain any reference to the
restriction ‘where the deadline for making the MET
determination had not yet lapsed’ claimed by the inter
ested
parties.
Therefore,
this
argument
cannot
1.2. Individual examination
be accepted.
(79)
Following final disclosure, several interested parties re
iterated their argument that the MET determination was
(86)
As indicated in recital (70) to the provisional Regulation,
made out of time, without challenging the fact that the
18 cooperating exporting producers or groups of
amendment of the basic Regulation referred to in
exporting producers not selected in the sample submitted
recital (78) above applies to ‘all pending investigations’,
claims for individual examination pursuant to Article 17
which includes the present investigation. It is therefore
(3) of the basic Regulation. In the present case, the
finally concluded that the MET determination was not
sample already consisted of seven groups of companies,
made out of time.
which typically consist of a number of exporting produ
cers, related traders and related importers in the Union
and third countries. An individual examination of 18
(80)
Following final disclosure, one exporter claimed that MET
additional (groups of) exporting producers, in addition to
should not have been denied because three companies
the seven groups of exporting producers included in the
which ceased operations during 2011 did not have one
sample, would be unduly burdensome and would prevent
clear set of basic accounting records. In particular, it was
completion of the investigation in good time.
questioned pursuant to which accounting standard a
company which ceased operations should nevertheless
prepare such accounting records.
(87)
In the absence of other comments regarding individual
examination, all determinations in recitals (70) to (71) to
(1) Regulation (EU) 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 12 December 2012, OJ L 344, 14.12.2012, p. 1.
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/11
1.3. Analogue Country
(92)
However, this allegation is not supported by the develop
ment of imports of solar cells and modules reported by
the Indian trade statistics (3):
Values in
April 2010 —
April 2011 —
April 2012 —
(88)
Interested parties noted that India is not a suitable
million USD
March 2011
March 2012
March 2013
analogue country due to local content provisions for
projects of the ‘Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission’
PRC
77,33
577,24
371,72
(‘JNNSM’). One party alleged that a 75 % local content is
required, while another party alleged that Indian produ
cers can charge higher prices for 100 % domestically
Index
100
746
481
produced modules. They further alleged that such
requirements significantly increase prices of
local
products. In support of this claim, an Indian press article
Total
252,63
1 348,48
827,07
was submitted (1). However, this article was published
almost one year after the end of the IP, and no proof for
Index
100
534
327
its impact during the IP has been provided.
(93)
The table above shows that imports of solar cells and
modules dramatically increased by more than 600 % for
the PRC and more than 400 % overall between 2010/11
(89)
However, the same press article reported that the Indian
and 2011/12. Subsequently, the import values somewhat
solar industry faces ‘stiff competition from western and
decreased, but so did prices for solar cells and modules.
Chinese manufacturers’. This is supported by the steady
Indeed, the drop in import values between 2011/12
increase of imports into India, as stated in recital (92)
and 2012/13 is in line with the price decrease reported
below. While the local content requirements may indeed
by specialized consultancies such as pvXchange for the
have a certain impact on the Indian domestic market, a
same period, leading to the conclusion that the import
clear conclusion can nevertheless be drawn that the
volumes remained rather stable between 2011/12 and
Indian market is a competitive one, where numerous
2012/13. It is therefore concluded that the Indian market
Indian and foreign companies effectively compete with
was not de facto protected during the IP from imports
each other.
from a variety of sources, including the PRC.
(94)
Following final disclosure, the Government of China
argued that the USA have requested consultations with
India under the WTO dispute settlement procedures
(90)
In addition, according to information published by the
concerning the local content requirements of the JNNSM
JRC (2), the majority of the JNNSM projects will come on
on 6 February 2013. The effect of these local content
line from 2015 onwards. Indeed, the target for grid
rules, in combination with the anti-dumping investigation
connected PV systems under the JNNSM for 2012 was
mentioned in (91) above, allegedly led to a decrease of
only 50 MW compared to a total grid-connected capacity
38 % in value terms in April 2012 — March 2013
in India exceeding 1 GW already in June 2012. This
compared to the previous year, in contrast to the increase
shows that during the IP the importance of the JNNSM
in previous years.
on total solar installations in India was below 5 % and
therefore the impact of the JNNSM and its local content
requirements, if they already existed during the IP, a fact
(95)
In this respect, it is noted that the decrease in value terms
that has not been established by the interested parties,
is due to a decrease in prices rather than import volumes.
was at best very limited. The majority of the installations
Following definitive disclosure, an interested party
during the IP were in the state of Gujarat (about 65 %),
provided information on the development of imports of
driven by state support policies.
solar cells and modules on the Indian market in terms of
volume between 2010 and March 2013. This data shows
a steady increase if imports of solar modules and cells
into the Indian market in terms of volume. It is therefore
concluded that the Indian market was not de facto
protected due to a looming anti-dumping investigation,
(91)
Interested parties claimed that the Indian market was de
and the claimed, but not proven, in any event at the very
facto protected during the IP from imports from a variety
best minor effects of the local content requirements
of sources, including the PRC, because the initiation of an
under the JNNSM mentioned in recital (90) above did
anti-dumping investigation was looming since the begin
not prevent a steady increase in imports in terms of
ning of 2012. Indeed, India initiated an anti-dumping
volume.
investigation against imports of solar cells and modules
from the PRC, Malaysia, Taiwan and the USA on
(3) Indian Import statistics, Commodity Code 8541 40 11 Solar Cells/
23 November 2012, i.e. only almost five months after
Photovoltaic cells whether or not assembled in module/panel. The
the end of the IP.
values are given for the Indian business year, i.e. April-March. Informa
tion on volumes is given in pieces, but cells and modules are reported
together. Since the value of a module is typically around 100 times
(1) Firstpost, 12 June 2013.
larger than the value of a cell, the information on volumes is not
(2) JRC Scientific and Policy Report, PV Status Report 2012, p. 14.
considered reliable.

---

L 325/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(96)
In addition, it is pointed out that the period of April
is created. As indicated in recital (137) to the provisional
2012 — March 2013 showing the alleged effects of the
Regulation, during the IP the average price difference
JNNSM on imports into India is predominantly after the
between cells and modules was EUR 555,92 or 54 %,
IP. Any possible impact of this alleged decrease on the IP
while
the
average
cost
difference
amounted
to
can therefore only be minor.
EUR 377,99 or 34 %. This would mean that a significant
share of a possible Taiwanese Normal Value for modules
would have to be based on adjustments for processing
costs, which cannot be considered more reasonable than
a country where the Normal Value can be based on
(97)
One interested party alleged that Tata Power Solar (‘Tata’)
domestic sales prices for most of the product concerned.
only recently entered the market, and is therefore not a
It is therefore considered that India has been selected as
suitable analogue country producer. In this respect, it is
analogue country in a reasonable manner, taking account
noted that the company, previously ‘Tata BP Solar’, is
of the available reliable information.
producing solar modules since 1989 and can therefore
not be considered having entered the market only
recently. Indeed, according to information provided by
another interested party, Tata entered the market signifi
cantly earlier than the five largest sampled Chinese expor
(101) Another interested party argued that no reasons were
ters.
given why the USA was not considered an appropriate
analogue country. In this respect reference is made to
recital (74) to the provisional Regulation, where it is
clearly stated ‘that the USA would not be a suitable analogue
country, mainly due to the fact that the US market was
(98)
One interested party claimed that Taiwan would be a
protected from Chinese imports during part of the IP by anti
more suitable analogue country than India, since the size
dumping and anti-subsidy measures.’ Since no comments on
of the Taiwanese companies is more comparable to the
the protection of the US market as such were received,
size of the Chinese exporters, and there is also co-opera
the position in this respect remains unchanged.
tion from Taiwanese producers. Also, other interested
parties questioned whether India would be a reasonable
analogue country given the comparably small size of Tata
without proposing a more suitable alternative.
(102) Interested parties argued that the result of the dumping
calculation is distorted due to differences in economies of
scale between the Chinese producers and the Indian
producer. It was therefore checked whether a correlation
(99)
Indeed, Taiwanese companies co-operated. One company
between a company's production volume and its
fully co-operated, while another company only co-oper
dumping margin indeed exists.
ated partially. The sole fully co-operating Taiwanese
company is however smaller than Tata, in particular in
terms of sales and production of modules which account
for around 90 % of the sales of the product concerned,
(103) Of the seven company groups included in the sample,
where Tata sells substantially more than the Taiwanese
there are two medium sized company groups (Jinzhou
company who only has insignificant sales in this respect,
Yangguang and Delsolar) and five large company groups
as mentioned in recital (76) to the provisional Regulation.
(JingAo, LDK, Suntech, Trina and Yingli). Of the medium
Following definitive disclosure, one exporter asked
sized companies, Jinzhou Yangguang has the lowest
whether the partially co-operating Taiwanese company
margin, while Delsolar has the highest margin. The five
was contacted to furnish the missing information. In this
larger companies are in-between. This clearly demon
respect it is referred to recital (76) to the provisional
strates the absence of any correlation between economies
Regulation, which clarifies that Taiwan could not be used
of scale and dumping margins. Therefore, it is considered
as analogue country since the co-operating Taiwanese
that the dumping calculation is not distorted due to
companies almost exclusively produced cells, while the
differences in economies of scale between the Chinese
Chinese exports are mainly in the form of modules. This
producers and the Indian producer.
also applies to the partly co-operating Taiwanese
producer. Since this producer was already considered
unsuitable for this reason, it was not considered appro
priate to request additional information from this
company.
(104) Following definitive disclosure, interested parties claimed
that the absence of any correlation between economies of
scale and dumping margins does not show that there is
no impact of economies of scale and the comparability of
prices. In a situation where the dumping margin is based
(100) The same interested party claimed that the almost
on an identical Normal Value for all exporters as in the
complete lack of sales of modules does not disqualify
present case, the dumping margin is mainly driven by the
Taiwan as analogue country per se, since the processing
export prices. The absence of any correlation between
costs from making cells into modules can be established
economies of scale and dumping margin therefore
without much difficulty. This is, however, not supported
equally demonstrates the absence of any correlation
by the facts of the investigation. Producing a module
between economies of scale and sales prices. It is there
from cells requires multiple steps of production, during
fore concluded that differences in economies of scale do
which a significant part of the value added of the module
not affect the comparability of prices in the present case.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/13
(105) One interested party claimed that the analogue country
(109) The Government of China argued that Tata's sales of
producer had extremely high domestic sales prices, which
modules allegedly only represent only 0,3 % of the
allegedly are significantly higher than the sales prices of
Chinese exports to the EU and cannot be considered
the Union industry, since the dumping margin signifi
representative, referring to the Detlef Nlle (1) judgment
cantly exceeds the undercutting margin. This claim was
of the Court. In that case, the Court considered that
made by comparing Indian Normal Values with the sales
when the total production in a country is only 1,25 % of
prices of the Union industry. This comparison is,
the export volume to the EU, this amounts to an indica
however, flawed since the Indian Normal Value is based
tion that the market considered is not very representative.
on the profitable sales only. Especially in a situation
In the present case, the Government of China did not
where the Union industry is loss-making, it is not
compare the total production in India with the total
surprising that profitable prices in India exceed the
Chinese exports, but only the production of one Indian
average Union industry price. Therefore, the fact that the
company with the total exports of all Chinese exporters.
Indian Normal Value exceeds average Union industry
This comparison is however flawed, since in a competi
prices does not demonstrate that the choice of India as
tive market with multiple players the quantities relating
analogue country is unreasonable.
to only one producer are not indicative of the representa
tivity of the market as a whole. In addition, it is not the
comparison which was made in the Detlef Nlle case
either, where the total production of the country was
compared with total exports. According to information
provided by the China Chamber of Commerce for Import
(106) One interested party argued that Tata's prices are
and Export of Machinery (‘CCCME’), production in India
distorted, since it is related to Tata Power, a utility
was forecasted to exceed 2 GW before the end of 2012,
company. This allegedly allows Tata to charge higher
i.e. shortly after the end of the IP. Such a production
prices in the areas served by Tata Power. However, no
would be equal to 14 % of Chinese exports to the EU,
supporting evidence was provided, and no quantification
well above the 5 % indicative threshold mentioned in the
of this alleged effect was provided either. This claim
Detlef Nlle judgment.
could therefore not be accepted.
(107) Following definitive disclosure, one exporter argued that
Tata is an uncompetitive company with high production
(110) Following disclosure, one interested party referred to the
costs and sales prices, which was allegedly the reason
fact that Tata lacks upstream integration and has to
why BP Solar withdrew from the joint venture in
source wafers from third parties. Allegedly, this lack of
December 2011. In support of this, a press article is
upstream vertical integration leads to an increase of costs
quoted, stating that ‘BP's exit from the solar industry after
compared to vertically integrated Chinese producers. This
some four decades shows how competitive and crowded the solar
claim was however not substantiated. In particular, the
market has become.’ However, this article did not single out
total cost of Tata would only be higher if their purchase
Tata as an uncompetitive company, it addressed the situa
price for wafers would exceed the cost of production of a
tion on the market for solar panels in general, speaking
wafer, which is uncertain since many companies in the
about ‘cutthroat competition that marks an industry’, and that
solar business have been loss-making during the IP.
‘many companies worldwide have closed factories, laid off
Furthermore, even large vertically integrated Chinese
hundreds of workers and filed for bankruptcies’. This press
producers often purchased significant quantities of wafers
article can therefore not demonstrate that Tata is an
from independent suppliers, which supports the conclu
uncompetitive company with high production costs and
sion that the lack of vertical integration into wafers does
sales prices.
not necessarily lead to higher costs for modules and cells.
(108) Following disclosure, one exporter argued that Tata was
not included as part of the Indian domestic industry in
the
on-going
Indian
anti-dumping
investigation
mentioned in recital (91) above, due to its significant
(111) One interested party argued that the analogue country is
imports of cells. While it is confirmed that Tata is indeed
uncompetitive. This claim is supported by the fact that
not part of the Indian domestic industry in the on-going
the production of solar cells in India is at a 5-year low in
Indian anti-dumping investigation, this does not automa
2013. The report quoted by that interested party
tically mean than Tata is not a suitable analogue country
however showed during the IP the Indian cell production
producer. The Normal Value was based exclusively on
was still at a high level close to the peak reported. The
cells and modules produced by Tata in India, and not on
significant decrease in production occurred after the IP,
imported goods. The fact that imported components
and therefore had no impact on the results of the investi
were used in the production of some of the products
gation.
does not mean that the resulting Normal Value is not
representative for India, even more so since it is predomi
(1) Case C-16/90, Detlef Nlle vs Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen, ECR I
nantly based on sales prices and not on costs.
5163.

---

L 325/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(112) Another argument brought forward to support the claim
1.5. Export price
that the analogue country is uncompetitive is the anti
dumping investigation mentioned in recital (91) above.
The Institutions observe that that investigation is still on
going, and that therefore, no conclusions can be drawn
(119) Following the provisional disclosure, some of the
from it. In general, anti-dumping investigations are not
sampled
exporters
commented
on
minor
issues
an indication for a lack of competitiveness, but an indica
concerning the export price used to establish the
tion that the domestic industry considers that it is subject
dumping margin. Where warranted, the comments were
to unfair trade practices from competitors located in
taken into account and led to a slight revision of the
third countries.
dumping margin of the companies concerned.
(120) In the absence of any other comments regarding export
(113) On balance, the Commission considers that the choice of
price, all determinations in recitals (87) to (89) to the
India as an analogue country is not unreasonable.
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(114) In the absence of other comments regarding the
Analogue Country, all determinations in recitals (72) to
(77) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
1.6. Comparison
(121) Following the provisional disclosure, some of the
sampled
exporters
commented
on
minor
issues
concerning the allowances used to compare export
1.4. Normal Value
prices. Where warranted, the comments were taken into
account and led to a slight revision of the dumping
margin of the companies concerned.
(115) Following the provisional disclosure, one interested party
commented that the Indian companies mainly sold off
(122) Following the provisional disclosure, a clerical error
grid modules, which have higher prices and costs than
resulting in an incorrect adjustment to Normal Value for
the grid-connected modules sold by the Chinese expor
domestic freight was discovered. This error was corrected
ters. It was further claimed that off-grid modules typically
and led to a slight decrease in dumping margins.
have a lower power output than grid-connected modules.
(123) Following disclosure, one interested party claimed that an
(116) In this respect, it is noted that different Normal Values
adjustment for level of trade may be warranted, since the
were established for ‘standard-sized’ modules with more
party does not sell directly to installers, but to resellers
than 36 cells which are typically grid connected and
and distributors. The party requested detailed information
smaller modules with 36 cells or less which are typically
on the sales channels of the analogue country producer,
used off-grid. It is therefore considered that an appro
which could not be provided to protect confidential
priate Normal Value is established for all product types,
information. As an alternative, the customer base of the
including off-grid modules and grid-connected modules.
analogue country producer was categorized into different
categories according to sales volume, which showed that
a level of trade adjustment was not warranted.
(117) Another interested party stated that Tata is also active as
a project developer, and the sales of this company are
(124) In response to this analysis, the interested party admitted
therefore not comparable with sales of modules only by
that a difference in sales quantities would result in price
Chinese exporting producers. In this respect it is noted
differences, but maintained their argument that they
that the comparison between domestic Indian prices and
would allegedly charge higher prices to installers than
Chinese export prices were exclusively made for sales of
distributors/resellers even if the installer would buy a
modules, and sales of complete projects or integrated
similar quantity than the distributor/reseller. However,
solutions were not used to establish Normal Value as
this claim was not substantiated and could therefore not
they were not considered to be comparable.
be taken into account.
(118) In the absence of other comments regarding Normal
(125) In the absence of any other comment regarding export
Value, all determinations in recitals (78) to (86) to the
price, all determinations in recitals (90) to (92) to the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/15
1.7. Dumping margins
(126) One sampled exporting producer requested a full disclosure of its dumping calculations, claiming that
it could otherwise not comment on the accuracy thereof. As this company was not granted MET, its
normal value was based on data from India as analogue country. Given that only one producer in the
analogue country fully co-operated in the investigation, information from the analogue country
cannot be disclosed on a product type level in order to protect confidential information. Therefore,
the claim needs to be rejected.
(127) For the sampled companies, the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product estab
lished for the analogue country was compared with the weighted average export price of the corre
sponding type of the product concerned, as provided for in Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regu
lation.
(128) The weighted average dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producers not included in the
sample was calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.
Accordingly, that margin was established on the basis of the margins established for the sampled
exporting producers.
(129) On that basis, the definitive dumping margin for the cooperating companies not included in the
sample was established at 88,1 %.
(130) With regard to all other exporting producers in the PRC, the dumping margins were established on
the basis of the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. To that end the
level of cooperation was first established by comparing the volume of exports to the Union reported
by the cooperating exporting producers with the volume of Chinese exports, as established in
recital (167).
(131) As the cooperation accounted for more than 80 % of total Chinese exports to the Union, the level of
cooperation can be considered high. Since there was no reason to believe that any exporting producer
deliberately abstained from cooperating, the residual dumping margin was set at the level of the
sampled company with the highest dumping margin. This was considered appropriate since there
were no indications that the non- cooperating companies were dumping at a lower level, and in
order to ensure the effectiveness of any measure.
(132) On this basis the definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier
price, duty unpaid, are as follows:
Company
Dumping Margin
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. Ltd
90,3 %
Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. Ltd
Changzhou Youze Technology Co. Ltd
Trina Solar Energy (Shanghai) Co. Ltd
Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd
Delsolar (Wujiang) Ltd,
111,5 %
Jiangxi LDK Solar Hi-Tech Co. Ltd
91,9 %
LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Hefei) Co. Ltd
LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Nanchang) Co. Ltd
LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Suzhou) Co. Ltd
JingAo Solar Co. Ltd
97,5 %
Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd
JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. Ltd
Hefei JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd
Shanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co. Ltd

---

L 325/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
Company
Dumping Margin
Jinzhou Yangguang Energy Co. Ltd
53,8 %
Jinzhou Huachang Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
Jinzhou Jinmao Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
Jinzhou Rixin Silicon Materials Co. Ltd
Jinzhou Youhua Silicon Materials Co. Ltd
Wuxi Suntech Power Co. Ltd
73,2 %
Suntech Power Co. Ltd
Wuxi Sunshine Power Co. Ltd
Luoyang Suntech Power Co. Ltd
Zhenjiang Ren De New Energy Science Technology Co. Ltd
Zhenjiang Rietech New Energy Science Technology Co. Ltd
Yingli Energy (China) Co. Ltd
93,3 %
Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Yingli Energy (Beijing) Co. Ltd
Other cooperating companies (Annex I, Annex II)
88,1 %
All other companies
111,5 %
D. INJURY
1. Definition of the Union industry and Union production
(133) The like product was manufactured by around 215 producers in the Union. The Institutions have
verified claims by interested parties that there was a higher number; this verification has revealed that
the alleged additional producers were in reality mostly exporting producers, importers related to
those, distributors and installers.
(134) Following the provisional disclosure, several parties contested the fact that data provided by Europres
sedienst, an independent consultancy firm (‘the consultant’), were used to determine, inter alia, Union
production, Union production capacity as well as other macroeconomic injury indicators concerning
the Union industry and import data. These parties questioned the independence of the consultant
alleging that it was linked to the complainant. They also requested clarifications on what basis the
consultant was selected by the Commission and questioned its expertise in collecting economic data
related to the PV sector. In this regard, it was claimed that the Commission should have based its
findings on data from other available sources, in particular known research institutes. Lastly, a refer
ence to Best Practices for the submission of economic evidence and data collection in cases
concerning the application of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU) and in merger cases was made by AFASE to contest the reliability of the data submitted
by the consultant.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/17
(135) As regards the alleged links between the consultant and
The on-the-spot verification was considered appropriate
the complainant, the relevant interested parties did not
in application of the principle of good administration,
submit any evidence showing the existence of such links.
even if those data were not provided by an interested
Likewise, the investigation did not bring into light any
party but by a consultant. As a result, the Commission
evidence of a relationship going beyond purely commer
was further reassured of the reliability of the data
cial character. Following final disclosure one interested
provided by the consultant.
party claimed that there were indications that the prima
facie evidence provided by the complainant Union
industry in the complaint were based on data provided
by the same consultant. Even though it is acknowledged
that findings for some indicators were indeed similar to
the evidence provided in the complaint that does not
necessarily mean that they were established on the basis
of one source only. In this regard, the complaint provides
(138) One party claimed that the methodology of cross
the various sources used.
checking used by the Commission was not explained in
sufficient detail and requested that the other sources used
for the cross checking should be disclosed. This party
argued further that the methodology used was in any
event invalid insofar that only trends of various sources
were compared and not absolute values.
(136) As explained in recital (99) to the provisional Regulation,
the Commission considered it appropriate to make use of
this consultancy in the current investigation, due to the
unavailability from other public sources of the necessary
macro-economic data covering the total Union market as
well as import data. Prior to selecting Europressedienst
the Commission assessed the methodology used by the
consultant for the collection of the relevant data as well
(139) As far as the other sources used to cross check the data
as the consultant's ability to provide the necessary data
provided by the consultant are concerned, they were the
separately for all product types and for the entire period
reports published by the 'JRC and EPIA on the same
considered.
topics. As for the comparison of data with other sources
it is noted that they showed not only similar trends but
also similar magnitudes. Therefore, it was concluded that
the methodology used was appropriate and the claims in
this regard were rejected.
(137) Furthermore, during the investigation, data provided by
the consultant were counter checked when possible with
other available sources and were confirmed. In this
respect, it is noted that several research companies specia
lised in collecting PV statistics exist on the market and
the figures reported are almost never identical. This is
due to the fact that precise figures are difficult to derive
(140) As to expertise of the consultant, it is noted that its main
for any research institute and therefore the reported PV
activity is collecting data linked to the PV sector and
market indicators will always be based on estimates, inde
developing an up-to-date database of companies active in
pendently of the provider of such figure. In this context,
the PV market. These data are published in specialised
the cross-checking exercise carried out by the Commis
photovoltaic magazines and also used by individual
sion consisted of comparing the trends of the data
companies for which it carries out specialised research.
received from the consultant with the trends of the same
The database developed by Europressedienst is regularly
data published by other research companies, the
up-dated and re-published. In addition, the consultant has
Commission's Joint Research Center (‘JRC’) and the Euro
several years of experience in this sector. More precisely,
pean Photovoltaic Industry Association (‘EPIA’) on the
the methodology of the consultant is to collect, cross
same topics, when available. No significant differences
check and agglomerate information using various sources
were noticed as a result of the cross-checking exercise as
available in the market. To this end, it collects the data
the trends of the indicators for which the cross-checking
via standard questionnaires sent to the companies listed
was done were similar. Provisional findings were there
in the database or via phone, especially from the Union
fore not solely based on data provided by the consultant
producers, or during the specialised fairs, notably from
but also on the Commission's own analysis and assess
producers in third countries. When the information
ment of these data. In addition, as mentioned above in
cannot be obtained through the channels just mentioned,
recital (9), after the imposition of provisional measures a
Europressedienst checks the financial reports of compa
verification visit took place at the premises of the consul
nies in the photovoltaic sector or co-operates on a freely
tant. The Commission carried out the on-the-spot check
basis with other research institutes with a view to
at the consultant's premises to verify the reliability of the
obtaining or cross-checking the data. It was verified and
methodology and data supplied. The on-the-spot check
indeed confirmed that these sources were used by the
was carried out as a follow-up of the cross-checking of
consultant in its daily activity. In the light of the above, it
the data by the Commission and to obtain further assur
was considered appropriate to make use of Europresse
ance as regards the reliability and quality of the data and
dienst's services in the present investigation and the
related methodology.
parties' claims in this respect were therefore rejected.

---

L 325/18
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(141) With regard to the Best Practices for the submission of
capacity to provide all the needed data in due time was
economic evidence issued by the competent service of
of great importance since the Commission was bound to
the Commission (‘the Best Practices’), the following
statutory deadlines for the publication of the provisional
remarks should be made. First of all, it is a document
findings in the on-going investigation.
that cannot engage the Commission, as it has not been
adopted by the College, but published by the competent
service with the purpose of providing recommendations
to parties as to how to present economic evidence.
Secondly, the Best Practices concern the submission of
economic analysis and data used in some competition
(146) As regards the quality of the data supplied and whether it
investigations, pursuant to Article 101 and 102 TFEU
can be considered as positive evidence in accordance
and in merger cases. The applicable rules, standards of
with Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, as mentioned
proof and investigating powers of the Commission in
above in recital (137), the consultant's methodology for
those competition cases cannot be compared to trade
collecting the data was examined and it was assessed that
defence investigations, to which an entirely different set
it was of satisfactory quality. In addition, as also
of rules applies.
mentioned above in the same recital, the data supplied by
the consultant were cross-checked when possible with
other sources and found to be reasonably accurate.
Finally, it is noted that the consultant has one database
which is up-dated on a regular basis, independently of
(142) After the provisional disclosure, several parties contested
the clients' needs and requests. The same database is used
the methodology used by the consultant claiming that it
to aggregate and deliver PV statistics to various clients,
would not reach recognised scientific standards. However,
and therefore the allegation that data were not objective
as mentioned above in recital (137), the methodology
had to be rejected.
was assessed and the resulting data were cross-checked
and verified and as a result were considered in line with
other published data and therefore reasonably reliable.
Specific points raised by the interested parties, mainly
AFASE were clarified and made available in the open file
of the investigation for inspection by interested parties.
(147) After final disclosure, one interested party claimed that
the Commission had not disclosed the sources, the meth
odology used and the companies with which the consul
tant co-operated to compile the macroeconomic data
supplied. Another interested party reiterated that the
(143) The CCCME argued that the methodology of data aggre
methodology applied by the consultant suggests inaccu
gation was not clarified. This claim was rejected as the
rate results. Several interested parties requested further
relevant information was made available to all interested
information concerning the methodology used by the
parties in the investigation file open for inspection by
consultant such as the average response rates to the ques
interested parties.
tionnaires/interviews, the percentage of data collected
through each channel, how these were verified, the
approximations/assumptions used to generate the data,
the number of companies for which approximations
(144) After final disclosure, several parties reiterated their
were made, and at least a range of the number of
concerns on the selection of the consultant by the
employees of the consultant.
Commission and on the quality of the data supplied. In
this respect it was claimed that the consultant's data can
be ordered and purchased on an ad hoc basis to meet the
specifically identified requests of potential clients and
may therefore not be objective. In addition, CCCME
contested that the data collected by the consultant can be
(148) In respect of these claims, it is noted that subsequently to
considered as positive evidence within the meaning of
the imposition of the provisional measures, the Commis
Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation since the data was to
sion provided interested parties with the methodology
a large extent based on assumptions and estimations.
and with the sources used by the consultant in aggre
Furthermore, it was claimed that the data supplied were
gating the data and addressed specific questions of the
not sufficiently supported by evidence in the file and that
interested parties in this regard following the provisional
they were not of an affirmative, objective and verifi
disclosure. The additional requests for information of the
able character.
interested parties concerned following final disclosure are
considered to be covered by the information made avail
able after the imposition of provisional duties to the
extent that the confidentiality limitations allowed it. In
addition, it is underlined that the Commission verified
(145) In respect of these claims, reference is made to the reci
on-the-spot the way the data had been collected and
tals (136) to (137) above where additional information
aggregated by the consultant and the relevant underlying
was provided regarding the selection of the consultant. In
assumptions for aggregating the data. The results of the
addition, it is noted that the Commission hired the
verification were satisfactory and the Commission was
consultant on the basis of the best available information
reassured of the reasonableness of the underlying
at that moment in time and in full compliance with the
assumptions and of the quality of the data supplied by
Commission Financial Regulation applicable to the proce
the consultant. Furthermore, the parties did not contest
dure. Furthermore, it is recalled that the consultant's
the data as such.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/19
(149) After final disclosure, another party requested clarifica
(154) As mentioned in recital (105) to the provisional Regu
tions with regard to the number of Union producers
lation consumption, sales volume, production, produc
considered by the consultant in its data collection and
tion capacity, capacity utilisation, growth, investments,
the overlap between these and the around 215 Union
stocks, employment, productivity, cash flow, return on
producers known to the Commission. In this respect, it is
investment, ability to raise capital and magnitude of the
clarified that the Union producers considered by the
dumping margin should be examined referring to the
consultant are largely the same than the ones known to
total activity of the Union industry, i.e. including captive
represent the Union industry in this investigation
use, as the production destined for the captive market
mentioned in recital (133) above.
was equally affected by the competition of imports from
the country concerned.
(150) After final disclosure, one party claimed that the
Commission has conducted the injury analysis in an
inconsistent manner since it was done separately for
(155) Thus, the investigation has shown that vertically inte
modules and cells while the injury and dumping margin
grated Union producers were forced to import dumped
calculations had been established as a weighted average
products (cells) and to cease production of these products
for modules and cells together. In this respect, it is noted
at cost above the import price, as a consequence of the
that while indicators were shown separately for each
price pressure exerted by the dumped imports. Further
product type, the conclusions reached for each indicator
more, the investigation also revealed that the free market
refer to the product under investigation as a whole. It is
and the captive market displayed similar trends in prices,
also recalled that modules and cells are one single
which also showed that they were equally affected by the
product and therefore the dumping margins and the
imports concerned.
injury elimination level were established on this basis.
Therefore, the claim was rejected.
(156) After final disclosure, several parties reiterated that the
Commission failed to provide an adequate and reasoned
(151) Finally, another party claimed that the calculation of the
analysis of the captive market or why a separate analysis
values of macroeconomic indicators during the IP was
had not been carried out. One party claimed that no
wrongly based on a simple average of the years 2011
information was provided about the significance of the
and 2012 as such methodology would not be objective
Union production destined for captive use. In addition, it
and would not lead to results reflecting the reality during
was claimed that recital (106) to the provisional Regu
the IP. It is clarified that a simple average of the data was
lation concluding that prices in the captive market did
only used in case where there were similar trends in the
not always reflect market prices, contradicted the conclu
periods concerned. In case trends were different, the
sions set out in recital (155) above that the free market
methodology was adapted accordingly by taking into
and captive market displayed similar trends in prices.
consideration market reality. The party concerned did not
develop to what extend the results of the methodology
used would not reflect market reality. These claims were
therefore rejected.
(157) It is firstly noted that recital (105) to the provisional
Regulation sets out the reasons as to why it was consid
ered appropriate to examine injury indicators (except for
(152) On the basis of the above, and in absence of any other
profitability) referring to the total activity of the Union
comments in this respect, the findings in recitals (98) to
industry including captive use. In this regard it is recalled,
(101) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
as set out in the same recital, that the investigation
revealed that the production destined for captive use was
equally affected by the competition of the imports from
the PRC, which as such was not contested by the inter
ested parties concerned. Therefore, the claim that no
explanations were given as to why no separate analysis
took place had to be rejected. Likewise, as it follows from
this conclusion, it had also to be rejected that such sepa
rate analysis of the captive market should have taken
2. Determination of the relevant Union market
place.
(153) Several parties argued that the injury should have been
assessed separately for the captive market and for the free
(158) Secondly, while on the basis of the above the significance
market. One party argued that data relating to cells
of the Union production destined for captive use was not
destined for captive use should have been excluded from
considered an essential element, it is noted that the
the injury assessment on the grounds that they were not
Union production of cells destined for captive use repre
affected by the dumped imports.
sented about half of the total production in the IP.

---

L 325/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
Finally, it is clarified that the fact that prices in the
(164) On this basis, and in the absence of any other comments
captive market do not reflect the prices in the free
with respect to the Union consumption, recitals (107) to
market is not necessarily contradicting the fact that both
(109) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
prices followed the same trends, as they may still be at
different levels or price movements may be at a higher or
lower degree and thus depicting a different picture. On
the basis of the above, the claims concerning the captive
market were rejected.
4. Imports from the country concerned
(159) The parties concerned did not provide any information
4.1. Volume and market share of the imports from the
which could have devaluated the findings concerning the
country concerned
determination of the Union market. On these grounds,
the claims in this respect were rejected and the findings
as set out in recitals (102) to (106) to the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.
(165) One interested party argued that data concerning import
volumes of the product under investigation vary signifi
cantly, depending the source used. This party argued that
reliable data can only be established on the basis of the
information gathered from specialised institutions or
research centres. In view of the explanations and conclu
3. Union consumption
sions reached in the recitals (134) to (152) above,
concerning the reliability of the data provided by the
consultant used in the investigation, this argument was
rejected.
(160) One interested party argued that data concerning the
Union consumption of the product under investigation
vary significantly, depending on the source used. This
(166) After final disclosure, one interested party contested the
party argued that reliable data can only be established on
methodology to determine the total import value from
the basis of the information gathered from specialised
the PRC claiming that it had been based on transactions
institutions or research centres. In view of the explana
made at CIF level duty unpaid and it is therefore doubtful
tions and conclusions reached in the recitals (134) to
whether these transactions had been destined for Union
(152) above, concerning the reliability of the data
consumption. In respect of this claim, it is clarified that
provided by the consultant used in the investigation, this
the total import value from PRC as provided by the
argument was rejected.
consultant had not been used in the provisional and defi
nitive findings and that only import volumes and import
prices were determined during the investigation as shown
(161) The same party argued that Union consumption should
in recitals (110) to (113) to the provisional Regulation.
not be established by merely adding up available module
As the methodology to determine import prices was not
production capacities in the Union and that the module
contested as such by the interested party concerned refer
consumption of the Union industry's own projects
ence is made to the relevant findings in recital (113) to
should be deducted therefrom. This argument was
(117) to the provisional Regulation and recitals (168) to
rejected, as consumption of modules was established on
(176) below. Therefore, the above claim was rejected.
the basis of newly installed capacities in the Union. This
is a common practice for determining the module
consumption. For cells the consumption was determined
(167) On this basis, and in the absence of any other comments
on the basis of the Union production of modules.
with respect to imports of the product concerned from
the PRC, recitals (110) to (112) to the provisional Regu
lation are confirmed.
(162) Another
party argued that that the methodology
described by the consultant admits the difficulty to estab
lish reliable consumption figures. It was further argued
that import data as well as export sales from the Union
industry were either based on unverifiable estimations or
4.2. Prices of imports and price undercutting
incomplete data and that the cross checking of the
Commission was not sufficient to allow the conclusion
that those data were indeed reliable and accurate.
(168) One cooperating unrelated importer claimed that import
prices should have been established on the basis of its
imports of the product concerned in the Union.
(163) As already mentioned above in recitals (136) and (137)
However, the data provided by this importer during the
above the quality of the data and the methodologies used
investigation only represented a fraction of the total
to collect them were verified by the Commission during
imports in the Union and no meaningful conclusions
an on-spot visit on the basis of which it was considered
could be drawn as to the average import price of all
that the methodologies used were appropriate and the
imports from the PRC during the whole period under
results accurate and reasonably reliable. This claim was
consideration covering several years. Therefore, this claim
therefore rejected.
was rejected.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/21
(169) Another party claimed that the methodology to deter
(175) One sampled exporting producer contested the source
mine the prices was not explained, in particular as to
for the adjustment for mono cells to multi cells, without
how the data of various sources had been merged and
however substantiating the argument. Indeed no new
reconciled. In addition it was argued that importation
information or evidence was provided and this claim was
costs should have been based on the verified information
therefore rejected.
collected during the investigation rather than on esti
mates.
(176) In the absence of any other comments with respect to
the prices of imports from PRC and on the price under
cutting calculations, recitals (113) to (117) to the provi
(170) It is considered that the methodology made available to
sional Regulation are confirmed as amended above.
interested parties is sufficiently complete to understand as
to how figures were established. As far as ‘importation’
cost is concerned, it is clarified that an adjustment was
made to on-the-spot-prices to arrive to CIF prices. The
estimation made was confirmed with the data collected
during the investigation.
5. Economic situation of the Union industry
(171) Following the provisional disclosure, several interested
parties requested more details on the price undercutting
calculations than those already provided in recital (116)
5.1. General
to the provisional Regulation. Insofar as the sensitive
nature of this information and the fact that the Union
producers had been granted anonymity would allow it,
additional information was provided in bilateral disclo
sures.
(177) Some parties questioned the overall reliability of the
macroeconomic injury indicators used by the Commis
sion for the purpose of this investigation. They argued
that the trends established for a number of these indica
tors diverged from the trends for the same indicators
established for the sampled Union producers. Particular
(172) In line with the decision to exclude wafers from the
reference was made to Union production, productivity,
product scope (see recitals (28) to (32) above), these
sales, average labour costs and employment.
products were also excluded from the calculation of the
price undercutting. Moreover, there were some correc
tions on the CIF prices provided by the interested parties.
As the sample of unrelated importers was revised for the
reasons explained in recital (21) the average post-impor
(178) As mentioned in recital (121) to the provisional Regu
tation costs of the new sample of importers was used,
lation the macroeconomic indicators were established in
when data was available and complete.
relation to all producers in the Union. In case the same
data are compiled in relation to individual Union produ
cers or a group of Union producers (i.e. the sampled
Union producers), the trends are not necessarily identical,
as e.g. the weight of each company considered is not
taken into consideration in such comparison. Therefore,
(173) The revised price comparison was made on a type-per
the results of the exercise of comparing the macroeco
type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly
nomic indicators for all Union producers and those for
adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates
sampled Union producers are not necessarily meaningful
and discounts. The result of the comparison, when
and do not allow for the conclusion that the one or the
expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union produ
other set of data is unreliable. In any event, when
cers' turnover during the IP showed weighted average
comparing the trends of the macroeconomic indicators
undercutting margins within the ranges of 19,8 % —
of the Union industry with the consolidated same indica
32,1 % for modules, 4 % — 28,5 % for cells and 8 % —
tors of the sampled Union producers, differences in
29 % in overall terms for the product concerned.
trends can be noted for several indicators, such as the
production, production capacity, sales volumes, employ
ment and productivity of the Union industry between
2011 and the IP. For all these indicators, the sampled
Union producers performed better than the overall Union
industry. The reason behind is that in the IP many Union
(174) It should be noted that for one sampled exporting
producers, not included in the sample, stopped their
producer, a negative price undercutting for cells was
production or became insolvent, thus having a negative
established. However, the exported quantities were not
impact on the macroeconomic indicator calculated at the
significant and can thus not be considered representative.
Union level. These claims were therefore rejected.

---

L 325/22
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(179) One interested party claimed that the conclusion as set
stopped production during the IP, while they had not
out in recital (153) to the provisional Regulation that the
sold their production plants and machinery and thus
analysis of the situation of the Union industry showed a
were able to resume production very quickly. Likewise, as
clear downward trend of all main injury indicators was
mentioned above in recital (182), the figures in
based on data provided by the consultant. In this respect,
recital (124) to the provisional Regulation included data
it is clarified that, on the one hand, the macroeconomic
from non-listed companies.
indicators, as listed in Tables 4-a to 6-c to the provisional
Regulation, were based on data obtained from the
consultant and cross-checked when possible with other
available sources. On the other hand, the microeconomic
(184) Finally, as mentioned above in recital (137) above, the
indicators, as listed in the Tables 7-a to 11-c to the provi
data provided by the independent consultant were veri
sional Regulation, were based on data collected from the
fied and found to be reasonably accurate. On the basis of
sampled Union producers and verified on-the-spot by the
the above, the data provided by AFASE based on other
Commission. It should also be noted that determinant
available sources were not found to be necessarily in
factors for the injurious situation of the Union industry
contradiction with the provisional findings.
such as the profitability levels of the Union industry, the
average sales price in the Union as well as price undercut
ting calculations were based on data collected from the
sampled Union producers and exporting producers as
verified on-the-spot. The above claim was therefore
(185) In any event, accepting the figures provided by AFASE
rejected.
would not have an impact on the overall finding that the
Union industry suffered material injury as the negative
trend of these indicators, i.e. Union production and
Union
production
capacity
would
be
even
(180) In the absence of any other comments regarding the
more pronounced.
general methodology of the assessment of the economic
situation of the Union industry, recitals (118) to (123) to
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(186) One cooperating unrelated importer argued that produc
tion volume, production capacity and capacity utilisation
should have been established on the basis of the data of
the sampled Union producers only. However as these are
macroeconomic indicators they should be established at
5.2. Macroeconomic indicators
the level of all Union producers in order to establish a
meaningful and complete picture of the situation of the
Union industry. This claim was therefore rejected.
5.2.1. Production,
production
capacity
and
capacity utilisation
(187) After final disclosure, one party requested the Commis
(181) AFASE claimed that the production volume established
sion to clarify how the annual Union production had
for modules in recital (124) to the provisional Regulation
been calculated by the consultant. Another party
and the production capacity of the Union industry estab
requested the Commission to give further explanations
lished for modules and cells in the same recital were
concerning the reconciliation of the different data avail
overestimated and provided data from other sources (i.e.
able related to the total Union production capacity.
EPIA, IMS and BNEF) showing lower volumes.
Another party suggested that the total Union production
and production capacity should have been obtained from
the Union producers selected in the sample as this would
have given a more reliable result. In this regard, it was
(182) The production volume established in recital (124) to the
alleged that publicly available data were imprecise due to
provisional Regulation is based on information covering
the confidential character of these data and that any
both publicly listed companies and non-listed companies.
research centre or consultant had to base its analysis on a
The development of the Union production as established
number of estimations and assumptions.
in recital (124) to the provisional Regulation is in line
with the development of Union consumption established
in recital (108) to the provisional Regulation. To the
contrary the data provided by AFASE on production
volumes showed different trends with the Union
(188) It is clarified that the annual Union production was calcu
consumption as established in recital (108) to the provi
lated on the basis of the figures reported by the Union
sional Regulation and with the statistics of Union
producers to the consultant. When the annual production
consumption published by the EPIA.
of a certain Union producer could not be obtained for a
specific year, this was estimated by applying the capacity
utilisation rate from the previous year to the new produc
tion capacity of that year. The Institutions have also
(183) As far as production capacity is concerned, the investiga
compared the figure obtained by the consultant with the
tion revealed that the findings as set out in recital (124)
figures reported in the replies of the Union industry to
to the provisional Regulation included the production
the standing questionnaires prior to initiation. Both
capacities of companies that filed for insolvency or
figures are similar.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/23
(189) As regards the request to provide further explanations
(195) The decrease in market share by 6 percentage points over
concerning the reconciliation of the different data avail
the period considered has to be seen against the back
able for Union production capacity, it is noted that this
ground of an increase of the Union consumption for
information had already been provided in the open file
modules by over 200 % over the same period. The Union
open for inspection to the interested parties. Therefore,
industry could not benefit from the increased consump
this request was rejected.
tion; to the contrary, even under the scenario of an
increased consumption it could not increase its sales
volume accordingly and suffered losses in market share.
This argument had therefore to be rejected.
(190) Finally, the Union production and production capacity
are macroeconomic indicators and therefore have to be
established at the level of the entire Union industry
rather than on the level of the sampled Union producers.
(196) One party argued that the methodology used to collect
sales data (mainly interviews and visits of production
sites) did not allow for reliable results due to the confi
(191) After final disclosure, one party argued that the metho
dential character of these data and as a consequence the
dology used to collect production data (mainly interviews
reluctance of companies to disclose them. Such metho
and visits of production sites) did not allow for reliable
dology cannot therefore be considered as adequate. Like
results due to the confidential character of these data and
wise, they cannot be considered as positive evidence
as a consequence the reluctance of companies to disclose
within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regu
them. Such methodology cannot therefore be considered
lation. As mentioned above in recital (137) above the
as adequate. This was allegedly confirmed by the fact that
data collected by the consultant were cross checked with
although a much higher number of Union producers was
other sources wherever possible and it was found that
used by the consultant than the one taken into account
the estimations were sufficiently reliable. It is therefore
by the Commission during the examination of standing
confirmed that the information on sales data provided by
at initiation stage, the total production volume estab
the consultant was considered as positive evidence within
lished by the consultant is lower than the total produc
the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation.
tion volume established by the Commission for the
purpose of the examination of the standing. This party
further claimed that consequently the information related
to this injury indicator cannot be considered as positive
evidence within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic
(197) In the absence of other comments on the Union indus
Regulation.
try's sales volume and its market shares, recitals (129) to
(131) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(192) It is first clarified that the number of producers taken
into consideration by the consultant on the one hand
and the Commission on the other hand was largely the
same and that the argument that results were inconsistent
had therefore to be rejected. It is further recalled that the
data collected by the consultant were cross checked with
other sources wherever possible and it was found that
5.2.3. Employment and productivity
the estimations were sufficiently reliable. It is therefore
confirmed that the information on production data
provided by the consultant was considered as positive
evidence within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic
(198) Following final disclosure, one party claimed that the
Regulation.
methodology to establish total employment in the Union
during the period considered was incorrect. This party
alleged that wherever the employment rate of a specific
Union producer was not available, the average employ
(193) In the absence of any other comments regarding produc
tion, production capacity and capacity utilisation, reci
ment of those Union producers for which this informa
tals (124) to (128) to the provisional Regulation are
tion was available was taken into consideration instead.
confirmed.
This had to be rejected as the methodology to establish
total employment was different, i.e. in case employment
data for a certain Union producer was not available, this
figure was estimated on the basis of data of that same
company from the previous year(s). As mentioned above
in recital (137) this methodology was verified and found
reasonable. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
5.2.2. Sales volumes and market share
(194) One interested party claimed that the market share of the
(199) In the absence of any comments concerning the level of
Union industry for modules was already only 19 % in
Union industry's employment and productivity, reci
2009 and that a decrease by 6 percentage points during
tals (132) to (134) to the provisional Regulation are
the period considered cannot be considered as injury.
confirmed.

---

L 325/24
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
5.2.4. Magnitude of the dumping margin and
5.3.2. Labour costs
recover y from past dumping
(204) The same interested party claimed that in contrast to
what is stated in recital (140) to the provisional Regu
lation, there has not been any inflation during the period
(200) In the absence of any comments in this respect, reci
tals (135) to (136) to the provisional Regulation are
considered and that therefore the overall increase of
confirmed.
labour costs could not have been caused by this factor.
(205) In contrast to what was claimed by the party concerned,
the investigation revealed that there has been inflation
during the period considered and that the increase in
labour cost, limited to modules, can be explained by
inflation and increase in productivity.
5.3. Microeconomic indicators
(206) One interested party claimed that the injurious situation
of the Union industry was caused by the increase in
labour costs and the parallel decrease in productivity.
5.3.1. Pr ices and factors affecting pr ices
However, first it should be noted that labour cost
remained stable in case of cells, while productivity
increased both for cells and modules. Therefore, the
increase of the latter can be explained by increased
productivity. Moreover the investigation has shown that
(201) One interested party contested the findings that the
labour costs do not represent a significant part of the
decrease of the average sales prices had a devastating
cost of production, as already cited in recital (203) to the
effect on the profitability of the Union industry. It
provisional Regulation. Therefore, this argument had to
claimed that the average cost of the Union industry
be rejected.
decreased equally and that therefore a decrease in price is
natural. However, as described in recital (138) to the
provisional Regulation, the investigation established that
the Union industry sales price decreased even more than
(207) On this basis, the findings in recitals (139) and (140) to
its average cost of production and therefore such decrease
the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
in costs was not reflected in the Union industry' profit
ability. It is therefore confirmed that the decrease in sales
price of the Union industry had a devastating effect on
the profitability of the Union industry and the claims in
this regard were rejected.
5.3.3. Inventor ies
(208) One interested party claimed that, the increase in stock
(202) Another party contested the conclusion in recital (138)
levels over the period considered, when expressed as a
to the provisional Regulation that prices were at unsus
percentage of the total production, would be insignificant
tainable levels in the IP, claiming that this would be for
and cannot therefore be seen as evidence for injury. This
market forces to decide. The same party also objected to
party argued further that the presentation of the stock
the conclusion in the same recital that the Union industry
values in recital (141) to the provisional Regulation is
was not able to benefit from cost decreases due to the
misleading as stocks were expressed in kW rather than
price pressure of the dumped imports. In this regard, the
MW unlike the Union industry's production volume.
Institutions observe the following: ‘unsustainable level’
refers to the fact that the Union industry was selling at
loss, and therefore could not survive in the long term.
(209) In this respect, it is noted that recital (143) to the provi
The question whether the price level is sustainable is
sional Regulation shall be amended and should read ‘…
therefore only a question of the relationship between
the increase in stocks for the like product over the period
production costs and prices. By ‘not being able to benefit
considered is not a relevant factor in establishing if the
from cost decreases’, it is referred to the fact that costs
Union industry suffered material injury’. The existence of
fell less quickly than prices. Both those statements are
a clerical error becomes clear from the preceding
backed up with evidence in recital (138) to the provi
sentence which concludes that the Union producers tend
sional Regulation. Therefore, this argument had to be
to hold limited stocks as their production is based on
rejected.
orders.
(210) Finally, whether stocks are expressed in kW or in MW as
(203) In absence of any further comments concerning the
such was considered irrelevant in the determination
Union industry's average sales prices recitals (137) and
whether or not the Union industry suffered mate
(138) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
rial injury.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/25
(211) After final disclosure, several parties claimed that stocks
5.4. Conclusions
should have been determined for the whole Union
industry and that the figures of only ten Union producers
were not representative. It is clarified that the stocks were
considered as a microeconomic indicator and should
therefore be established on the basis of the information
(216) In the light of the foregoing the conclusions set out in
collected on a per company basis, in this case from the
recitals (153) to (158) to the provisional Regulation, i.e.
sample of Union producers considered as representative
that the Union industry suffered material injury within
for the whole Union industry. The above claim was there
the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, are
fore rejected.
confirmed.
(212) In absence of any other comments concerning inven
tories, recitals (141) to (143) to the provisional Regu
lation are confirmed.
E. CAUSATION
5.3.4. Prof itability, cash f low, investments and
retur n
on
investments,
ability
to
1. Introduction
raise capital
(213) Following a comment by an interested party it is clarified
that the statement that cash flows followed a ‘progres
(217) After the provisional disclosure, several interested parties
sively negative trend’ between 2009 and the IP in
claimed that the causation analysis conducted did not
recital (148) to the provisional Regulation was wrong as
separate, distinguish and quantify the injurious effects of
cash flows for modules, while decreasing between 2009
the dumped imports from the effects of other known
and 2010, were in fact increasing in 2011 and decreasing
factors which at the same time are injuring the Union
again in the IP.
industry. Moreover, it was claimed that the Commission
failed to undertake a collective analysis of these other
known factors.
(214) The same party alleged that investment figures as shown
in recital (149) to the provisional Regulation were too
low when compared to the production capacity of the
Union industry as shown in recital (124) to the provi
(218) In reply to this claim it should be noted that the
sional Regulation. In support of this claim the party
Commission, as per established practice, first examined
submitted to be aware of the investment made by one
whether there is a causal link between the dumped
Union producer in capacity increases which was at a
imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry
much higher cost. The party concerned concluded that
and secondly examined whether any of the other known
therefore the established production capacity of the
factors had broken the causal link established between
Union industry must have been overestimated. It is noted
the material injury suffered by the Union industry and
that this claim was not supported by any evidence, in
the dumped imports. In this analysis, the effects of the
particular as regards the investment made by the Union
other known factors on the situation of the Union
producer in question. In contrast, the investment figures
industry were assessed, distinguished and separated from
in the provisional Regulation were based on actual and
the injurious effects of the dumped imports to ensure
verified information from the sampled Union producers.
that injuries caused by these factors were not attributed
It should be noted that this claim was also based on the
to the dumped imports. It was found that none of them
comparison between the total investments of the
had a significant impact, if any, on the situation of the
sampled Union producers and the total production capa
industry that could reverse the fact that the material
city of the whole Union industry, which cannot be
injury assessed must be attributed to the dumped
considered an appropriate basis for comparison as not
imports. On these grounds the argument was dismissed.
the total investments of the whole Union industry were
taken into consideration. Therefore, this argument had to
be rejected.
(219) Following the final disclosure, several interested parties
reiterated the above arguments. In this regard it was
(215) In absence of any other comments concerning profit
claimed that the Commission should establish explicitly,
ability, cash flow, investments and return on investments,
through a reasoned and adequate explanation, that the
ability to raise capital recitals (144) to (152) to the provi
injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports
sional Regulation are confirmed.
is not attributed to these imports.

---

L 325/26
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(220) In this investigation, it was concluded, after examining all
(223) The investigation has shown that sales and import prices
the facts, that the dumped imports taken in isolation
are similar across the Union. It can therefore be consid
have caused material injury to the Union industry. In this
ered that there is indeed one market for the product
respect, quantifying the effects of other known factors
under investigation. The investigation did also not reveal
was not possible and therefore a qualitative assessment
that producers in each Member State or region concen
was carried out as set out in recitals (164) to (222) to the
trated their activities in this specific market or that the
provisional Regulation. In conclusion, it was confirmed
dumped imports concentrated in one Member State or
that the material injury of the Union industry was caused
region. Moreover, none of the interested parties argued
by the dumped imports. Indeed the effects of other
that dumping and injury should be analysed on a per
factors on the Union's industry's negative development
Member States basis which would however be a pre
were considered to be limited. It should be noted that,
condition for conducting a separate causation analysis
under Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, no
per Member State. The investigation did not reveal any
obligation is imposed as to the form of the attribution
evidence that this would have been an appropriate
and non attribution analyses which should be carried
approach, in particular given that there were similar
out. On the contrary, under Article 3(6) and (7) of the
prices across the Union of the product under considera
basic Regulation, those analyses must be carried out in
tion at Union level. Moreover, it is noted that the sun
such a way as to enable the injurious effects of the
exposure can be different in different regions of the same
dumped imports to be separated and distinguished from
Member States, e.g. Southern France has more sun expo
the injurious effects caused by other factors. The investi
sure than Northern France, or different regions within
gation did not reveal any evidence that all other known
one Member State can have different support schemes (e.
factors which may have contributed to the injury
g. Belgium) and that therefore the impact of these factors
suffered, together or in isolation, broke the causal link
on the demand may vary from one region to another
between the dumped imports and the material injury
within the same Member State. However, the differences
suffered by the Union industry. Given the above analysis,
in the regulatory framework of each Member State and/or
it was confirmed that other known factors were not such
region and the differences in conditions such as sun
as to reverse the finding that the material injury suffered
exposure do not warrant a separate causation analysis,
by the Union industry must be attributed to the dumped
and thus separate injury and dumping analysis. Therefore,
imports.
On
these
grounds
these
arguments
these arguments had to be rejected.
were dismissed.
(224) Another interested party argued that while other factors
are relevant, the national support schemes remain the
main factor in determining the demand. The same party
(221) After the provisional disclosure some interested parties
also contested that grid parity was already reached in
objected to the finding in recital (160) to the provisional
some locations arguing that prices of modules increased
Regulation. They reiterated that market conditions of the
since the IP while electricity prices decreased. It further
product under investigation differ per Member State and
argued that, in any event, at least in certain Member
that therefore the causation analysis should be made at
States, the regulatory, economic and technical conditions
the level of each Member State separately. In addition,
do not allow for the connection to the grid and for those
these parties argued that the national support schemes,
Member States it was therefore irrelevant whether or not
the sun exposure and the electricity prices (including
grid parity was reached. This party however did not
regulatory charges) differ per Member State and that
provide any supporting evidence for the above allega
furthermore there are different market segments in each
tions. In any event the above arguments confirm that the
market (the residential- installations of less than 40 kW,
situation with regard to national support schemes as well
commercial and industrial- installations between 40 kW
as grid parity may be different to a certain extent
and 1MW and the utility market segment- installations
between Member States. However, none of the informa
between 1 MW and 10 MW). In view of this they
tion submitted was of such a nature as to show that an
claimed that the causation analysis should be conducted
analysis separately per Member State would be warranted.
separately for each Member State on the one hand and
for the large-scale and the residential segments on the
other hand.
(225) Following the final disclosure, the same interested party
reiterated the claim and provided some information alleg
edly showing the different market conditions per Member
State and per segment. However, the information
(222) After the final disclosure some interested parties reiter
submitted could not be considered as conclusive as it
ated their claim that the causation analysis should be
consisted of a power point presentation without any
conducted on a per Member State basis, without however
supporting evidence, and therefore, did not show that an
providing further arguments or new evidence in this
analysis separately per Member State would be warranted.
respect.
The claim of this party was therefore rejected.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/27
(226) On this basis, it was concluded that an analysis of the
parallel, the Union industry lost market share over the
causation per Member State and/or region and per
period considered and as described in recitals (153) and
segment would not correspond to market reality. In
(154) to the provisional Regulation all main injury indi
absence of any other comment in this regard the findings
cators showed a negative trend. Therefore it is confirmed
made in recitals (159) and (160) to the provisional Regu
that there is a clear coincidence in time between the
lation are confirmed.
increase in dumped imports and the loss of market share
of the Union industry.
(227) The GOC claimed that the Commission has conducted
the causation analysis in an inconsistent manner as the
injury analysis was done separately for modules and cells,
while the causation analysis did not separate between
product types. In this respect, it is noted that while the
injury indicators were indeed shown separately for each
(230) As shown in recitals (161) and (162) to the provisional
product type, the conclusions reached for each indicator
Regulation, this correlation in time was established for all
refer to the product under investigation as a whole. It is
product types separately. In addition, the analysis of the
also recalled that modules and cells are one single
impact of the imports on the Union industry's profit
product and therefore the causation analysis was
margin separately for each year of the period considered
conducted on this basis. Therefore, the claim was
does not lead to meaningful results as the existence of
rejected.
dumping and material injury as well as a causal link
between them does not need to be established for each
year separately. The correlation between the dumped
imports and the material injury is sufficiently demon
strated when analysing the developments over the whole
period considered.
2. Effect of dumped imports
(231) It is also noted that the profitability of the Union
(228) One interested party contested that there was a sufficient
industry is one of the factors mentioned in Article 3(5)
correlation between the dumped imports of the product
of the basic Regulation which should be investigated
concerned from the PRC and the material injury suffered
when examining the impact of the dumped imports on
by the Union industry. It was argued that this would be
the Union industry's situation. The fact alone that the
supported, on the one hand, by the fact that from 2009
Union industry was profitable during a specific year does
to 2010 the Union industry's profit margin for cells
not necessarily mean that it did not suffer any material
significantly increased (from loss making to 12 % profit)
injury. Moreover, the loss of the market share of the
while Chinese imports were 36 % lower priced than
Union industry does not need to correspond exactly to
Union industry's prices and doubled their market share
the increase of the market share of the dumped imports
during the same period. On the other hand, between
in order to establish a causal link between the injury and
2010 and 2011 Chinese imports only gained 6 percen
the dumped imports. Finally, other factors (e.g. imports
tage points of market share, even though consumption
of other third countries or development of the consump
increased much more during the same period, while the
tion) which could have had an impact on the injurious
Union industry realised nonetheless a loss of 36 %. This
situation of the Union industry were examined and
party argued further that as regards the IP, imports of
addressed separately in recitals (164) to (224) to the
cells from other third countries were at the same price
provisional Regulation.
level as Chinese imports but gained more market share
corresponding to the loss of market share of the Union
industry.
(229) The investigation showed that there was a constant
increase of Chinese market share for all product types
(232) The coincidence in time of increasing dumped imports in
over the period considered (17 percentage points for
significant quantities, which undercut prices of the Union
modules, 17 percentage points for cells). Dumped
industry and the increasingly precarious situation of the
imports from the PRC increased by more than 300 % for
Union industry is a clear indicator of causation in the
modules and by 482 % for cells. At the same time there
present case, as established in recitals (161) to (163) to
was a considerable and constant decrease of the Chinese
the provisional Regulation. The claims with regard to the
import prices (64 % for modules and, 42 % for cells
lack of any correlation between the dumped imports and
during the period considered) and in the IP they were
the material injury suffered by the Union industry were
significantly undercutting the Union industry's prices. In
therefore rejected.

---

L 325/28
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(233) Following the final disclosure, the same interested party
(238) In the absence of any other comments with regard to
continued to contest the causation analysis as the profit
imports from other third countries, the findings in
ability of the Union industry was not analysed specifically
recital (164) to (167) to the provisional Regulation are
in relation to certain years (in particular 2010), but for
confirmed.
the whole period considered.
(234) In this regard, it should be noted that no valid conclu
3.2. Development of the Union consumption
sions can be drawn concerning causality by isolating one
specific year of the period considered while ignoring the
development of the Union industry during the entire
period considered and its correlations with the develop
(239) One interested party claimed that the Commission failed
ment of the dumped imports. Such analysis can only lead
to analyse the impact of the development in consump
to a partial picture and no sound conclusions can be
tion. In this regard, it was argued that the imports from
drawn therefrom. Thus, the profitability rates that drove
the PRC did not capture the entire increase in consump
also other financial indicators that the Union industry
tion and that, while in the case of modules the Union
achieved during 2010, was high because of the particu
industry lost market share between 2009 and 2010, it
larly strong jump in Union consumption, driven by very
still increased its profitability during the same period.
generous support schemes, that allowed Union industry
Furthermore, it was argued that in 2009 when imports
to have their strongest sales improvement that same year,
of cells from PRC had only 8 % market share, the Union
but only of a temporary nature and in any event not
industry still suffered 8 % loss.
sustainable for this type of industry. Therefore, this argu
ment had to be rejected.
(240) As mentioned in recital (168) to the provisional Regu
lation, despite the decrease in Union consumption in the
IP, the dumped imports from the PRC either maintained
their market share (modules) or increased it (cells) to the
(235) In the absence of further comments concerning the effect
detriment of the Union industry over the period consid
of dumped imports, the findings in recitals (159) to
ered. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the decrease
(163) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
in consumption was such as to break the causal link
between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by
the Union industry. Moreover, the investigation showed
that as the capacity of the Union industry was in any
event much lower than the levels of consumption, the
shrinking consumption in the IP could not have had an
impact on the injurious situation of the Union industry.
Therefore, this claim was rejected.
3. Effect of other factors
(241) Another interested party contested that the demand in
the Union will continue to exist even in the absence of
3.1. Imports from other third countries
the national support schemes. This party argued that
there is a correlation between demand and support
schemes and that in the absence of such schemes projects
in the PV sector would not be profitable anymore and
therefore the demand for solar panels will disappear as
(236) Several interested parties made comments following the
well.
provisional disclosure with regard to the findings
concerning imports from other third countries and reiter
ated them following the final disclosure. However, these
(242) As mentioned in recital (169) to the provisional Regu
parties did not bring into light new information and
lation, during the investigation some indications were
supporting evidence which could have altered the rele
collected that even in the absence of support schemes
vant provisional findings.
demand still existed and will continue to exist in the
Union. The party did not provide any evidence which
could have devaluated these findings. In the absence of
any new information in this regard, the findings set out
in recital (169) to the provisional Regulation are
(237) Those parties underlined in particular the volume of
confirmed and the claim made in this regard was
imports of cells from Taiwan. However, the absolute
rejected.
volume of imports of the product concerned from
Taiwan (1132 MW) represents only a very small share
(less than 5 %) of the overall Union consumption (21559
MW) and compared to imports from the PRC (15005
(243) Following final disclosure, the GOC argued that the fact
MW). Therefore, imports from Taiwan have, if at all, only
that the Union industry's capacity did in any event not
marginally contributed to injury of the Union industry,
meet the Union demand is irrelevant since the sales
and not broken the causal link.
volume of modules of the Union industry decreased in

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/29
line with the decrease in consumption and reiterated that
decrease in the FIT rates during the IP. Second, the
the decrease in consumption between 2011 and the IP
evidence collected shows that, for some countries such as
caused the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
Italy, even in the context of very generous FIT rates, the
While indeed between 2011 and the IP the Union
Union industry had to decrease significantly their prices.
consumption decrease and the sales volume of modules
Finally, during the IP, the Union producers had to sell at
decreased with a similar trend, this has to be seen in rela
prices below their cost of production, which was mainly
tion to the development of the Chinese dumped prices,
a consequence of the fact that the Chinese exporting
significantly undercutting the Union industry prices, thus
producers had 80 % of the Union market and therefore
forcing the Union industry selling at losses. In this regard
the power to influence the price-setting mechanism.
it is recalled, as mentioned in recital (111) to the provi
sional Regulation, that the dumped imports from the
PRC either maintained their market share (modules) or
increased it (cells) when the consumption was decreasing.
At the same time Chinese import prices decreased signifi
cantly and substantially undercut the Union industry's
sales prices. Therefore, this claim was rejected.
(247) The investigation further established that up to 2011 the
higher FIT rates together with the decrease in the prices
of modules in the Union rendered the investments in
solar energy extremely attractive as investors were
earning very high rates on return. Therefore, this resulted
(244) In the absence of any other comments with regard to the
in a high number of investments and consequently high
development of Union consumption, the findings in reci
demand of solar panels. As a consequence of the
tals (168) and (169) to the provisional Regulation
increased demand, the total amount of FITs paid
are confirmed.
increased significantly and most Member States revised
the existing FIT schemes downwards to avoid inter alia an
increase of electricity costs. This shows that FIT cutbacks
may also have been the result of the decreasing prices
and not vice versa.
3.3. Feed-in-tariffs (‘FITs’) as the main example of support
schemes
(248) After final disclosure one party claimed that there was a
contradiction between the recital (246) above, that an
assessment of the demand for the Union as a whole is
difficult, and the recital (223) above stating that a causa
(245) Following the provisional disclosure several parties reiter
tion analysis per Member State would not lead to mean
ated that the injury suffered by the Union industry was
ingful results. In this respect, it is clarified that in the
caused by the development of the feed-in-tariffs (‘FITs’).
assessment made in recital (246) above, reference is made
They claimed that the FIT developments exercised a
to the difficulty to draw a general picture of the FIT
strong downward pressure on prices and therefore on the
developments for the entire Union and not to the Union
profitability of the Union industry. One interested party
demand as claimed by the interested party. As a conse
claimed that only the impact of the development of FITs
quence, it follows that no contradiction exists between
on the demand was examined, while the impact on
the two recitals and therefore the claim was rejected.
prices should also have been analysed. In the same
context, several interested parties argued that most of the
Member States implemented major cutbacks already in
2010 thus putting a downward pressure on the module
prices.
(249) After final disclosure, one party claimed that even in the
context of high FIT rates, the module price may decrease
(246) In respect of this claim it should be noted that the
significantly due to technological development, econo
Member States implemented FIT cutbacks at different
mies of scale, cost reductions and growing global produc
moments in time and at different speeds and that
tion capacity. In respect of this claim, it is noted that the
drawing a general picture for the entire Union is rather
evidence collected shows that the Italian producers had to
difficult. Irrespective of the moment when the FIT rates
reduce their prices below the cost of production even
reached very low levels, the significant decrease in the
when FIT rates were high. While the factors mentioned
Union prices and profitability during the period consid
above may indeed have had an impact on the average
ered cannot be solely or mainly explained by the reduc
costs they cannot explain why Union producers had to
tion of FITs. First, on the basis of the information
reduce their prices below their cost of production. There
collected for Germany and Italy that represented together
fore, it is concluded that it was mainly the dumped
around 75 % of the Union market in 2011, the drop in
imports from the PRC that pushed the prices to unsus
the average sales price was more pronounced than the
tainable levels and this claim was rejected.

---

L 325/30
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(250) After final disclosure, one party claimed that the conclu
(255) Therefore, the argument that the reductions in FITs broke
sion drawn in recital (247) above, that FIT cutbacks may
the causal link between the dumped imports and the
have also been the result of the decreasing prices and not
material injury suffered by the Union industry was
vice versa, is not supported by any evidence.
rejected.
(256) Following the provisional disclosure one party reiterated
that FIT developments rendered the solar investment
(251) It is noted that the conclusions drawn in recital (247)
opportunities unattractive for investors and thus lowered
above were based on the information available during the
the demand for the product. Another party claimed that
investigation and the scenario described was indeed
the findings set out in recital (173) to the provisional
considered as reasonable given the circumstances in this
Regulation that investments are still being made in Spain
specific market. Therefore, this argument was rejected.
despite the suspension of the FIT schemes was incorrect.
(257) The impact of FITs on demand was addressed in
recital (173) to the provisional Regulation. As no new
(252) After final disclosure, one party reiterated that it
disagreed with the conclusion that the downward price
arguments were brought forward in this respect, the
pressure on Union producers was mainly exerted by the
above claim that demand decreased due to the FIT devel
dumped imports and claimed that, to the contrary, it was
opments was rejected. Regarding the investments in
the FIT cutbacks that forced the Union producers to
Spain, it is clarified that the findings in recital (177) to
reduce their prices. The same party reiterated that when
the provisional Regulation are based on information
FITs were reduced, the PV system prices decreased in line
obtained during the investigation and verified during an
with the decrease in FITs so that costs for project develo
on-spot investigation. As the party concerned did not
pers do not increase, which ultimately caused the price
provide any new information or evidence in this respect,
pressure on the Union producers.
this claim had to be rejected.
(258) Following the provisional disclosure several parties
claimed that in the context of the low FIT rates, invest
(253) Since no conclusive evidence was brought in support of
ments in PV projects were economically viable only
these claims, the Commission maintained its analysis and
when supplied with the lower priced solar panels
conclusions as stated in recitals (246) to (247) above.
imported from the PRC. Therefore, it was argued that the
FIT cutbacks caused the material injury to the Union
industry. Another party argued that the level of the FIT
rate influences the price setting mechanism for modules.
(254) The same party claimed that markets are driven by the
development of FITs and provided information showing
(259) It should be noted that the cost of a module at which a
the number of PV installations for the years 2012
project would still be economically viable varies by
and 2013 in the UK. The information provided by this
Member State or by region in function of numerous
party was a publication of the UK government based on
factors such as FITs, other regulatory incentives, solar
the weekly registrations in the UK Central FiT Register
exposure, conventional electricity prices, etc.
(CFR). It is noted that this information related mostly to
a period outside the IP and referred only to one
Member State, while the current investigation focused on
the situation of the Union market as a whole. In any
event, it is not contested that FIT levels influence
demand, as the profitability of investments in locations
(260) In addition, the investigation showed that current installa
with less solar radiation depends on the FIT level.
tions depend less and less on the FITs as PV grid parity is
However, in order to show that the level at which FIT
likely to have been reached for certain types of installa
were set during the IP has caused the injury, interested
tions in several regions in Europe, such as a large portion
parties would have had to show that a price increase of
of Italy, Spain, Portugal, southern France and Greece.
the Union producers to the non-injurious level would
have meant that the Union producers would not have
been able to sell the product concerned because invest
ments into PV systems would not have been viable at
those price levels. No such evidence has been provided.
(261) On the above grounds, the claims made in this regard
This argument was therefore rejected.
were rejected.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/31
(262) One interested party claimed that the Commission did
PRC into the Union are assessed. While indeed there was
not investigate whether the Union industry failed to
a global downward trend in the prices of modules and
anticipate that government support schemes would be
cells, the dumped import prices from the PRC have
abruptly withdrawn or decreased. No arguments were
exacerbated the downward trend to loss making levels.
brought in support of this claim. However, it should be
On the basis of the above, this claim was rejected.
noted that, based on the evidence collected, there is no
information indicating that the Union industry responded
to the market signals (i.e. development in consumption)
and other available information (i.e. reduction in support
schemes) in an unreasonable way. Therefore, this claim
was rejected.
3.4. Other financial support granted to the Union industry
(266) In the absence of any comments concerning other finan
cial support schemes granted to the Union industry, the
findings in recitals (184) and (185) to the provisional
(263) One interested party argued that the FIT cutbacks caused
Regulation are confirmed.
the Union industry's sales decline because investments
had been viable only at the affordable Chinese prices. The
evidence collected in fact shows only a slight decrease in
the sales of the Union industry during the IP, in contrast
to what it would be expected had the PV projects been
feasible only with Chinese modules. On the contrary, the
sales of modules of the Union industry increased until
3.5. Overcapacity
2011 and then slightly decreased in the IP, following the
same trend as of the consumption. Therefore, this claim
was rejected.
(267) One interested party reiterated the claim that the overca
pacity in the global as well as in the Union market
caused the material injury rather than the imports from
the PRC. In this regard it was argued that the Union
industry over-expanded its capacities as evidenced by the
low capacity utilisation rate and that therefore any injury
was self-inflicted. The alleged impact of the overcapacity
(264) Another interested party argued that the findings as set
in the Union and world-wide was already addressed in
out in recitals (174) and (175) to the provisional Regu
recitals (185) to (190) to the provisional Regulation and
lation that the FIT changes did not break the causal link
therefore in the absence of any new element the claim
has no factual or legal basis and is inconsistent with
had to be rejected.
Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation because the Commis
sion failed to assess the level of injury caused by the FIT
reductions and because it considered that the significant
drop in the Union industry's price had been a conse
(268) Another interested party claimed that the overcapacity
quence only of the dumped Chinese imports. The same
led to price rationalization. In this regard, it should be
party argued that the decrease in the price of modules,
noted, on the one hand, that the overcapacity led in fact
cells and wafers was a global phenomenon and not due
to a ‘race to the bottom’ and the suppression of the
to the pressure of the Chinese imports.
prices of Union industry, which on average exceeded the
reduction of the costs of production. On the other hand,
as outlined in recital (186) to the provisional Regulation,
the capacity increases by the Union industry followed the
market developments and were considered reasonable.
Moreover, the increase in production capacity of cells was
at a lower level than modules. The party concerned did
(265) In respect of the claim that the Commission failed to
not submit any new information or evidence in this
assess the level of injury caused by the FIT cutbacks, refer
respect and the claims in this regard had therefore to be
ence is made to recitals (174), (175) and (182) to the
rejected.
provisional Regulation and recitals (245) to (263) above,
where the Commission concluded that neither the
decrease in demand nor the impact of FITs on Union
prices were as such as to break the causal link between
(269) Another interested party claimed that the injury suffered
the injury suffered by the Union industry and the
by the Union industry is due to the Union industry's
dumped imports from the PRC, irrespective of whether
focus only on specialized investments and its failure to
and to which extent they were possibly caused by the FIT
make the necessary investments in capacity additions and
cutbacks. Therefore, the claim that the Commission's
cost reductions. Likewise, this claim could not be
findings have no factual basis was rejected. As regards the
confirmed by the findings of the investigation which
claim that the decrease in the price of modules and cells
showed that the Union industry increased its production
was a global phenomenon, reference is made to the reci
capacity and efficiency during the period considered (reci
tals (164) to (167) to the provisional Regulation where
tals (124) and (187) to the provisional Regulation. This
import volumes and prices from other countries than the
claim was therefore rejected.

---

L 325/32
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(270) Moreover, an interested party claimed that the Union
3.6. Impact of raw material prices
industry increased its production capacity in spite of
already low capacity utilisation rates, thus resulting in
self-inflicted injury. This claim was based on the compar
ison between the trend of investments of the sampled
Union producers and the trend of the capacity utilisation
of the whole Union industry, which is not an appropriate
basis for comparison. Furthermore, the investigation
(275) Some interested parties reiterated that the Union industry
showed that the Union industry had not expanded its
or at least part of it could not benefit from the decrease
production capacities on a scale which exceeded the
in prices of polysilicon, during the IP, because of long
development of Union consumption, therefore this argu
term contracts for raw material. With reference to the
ment was rejected.
findings in recital (193) to the provisional Regulation
stating that the Union industry was able to renegotiate its
long term contracts with its suppliers (including wafers
producers) and therefore could benefit from lower prices,
these parties claimed that the renegotiations or termina
tion of long term contracts of polysilicon and/or wafers
(271) Moreover, the evidence collected indicates that through
resulted in penalties. To support this argument, these
investments in new machinery, the Union industry could
parties provided press articles reporting that some Union
reduce its cost of production and become more cost
producers were facing litigation or that they terminated
competitive. Therefore, this argument had to be rejected.
their contracts. Some parties provided information alleg
edly confirming that the long term contracts could not
be re-negotiated.
(272) One interested party alleged that the conclusions in
recital (189) to the provisional Regulation contradicted
the findings made in recitals (124) and (186) to the
provisional Regulation without however giving any
(276) Polysilicon is the main raw material for the wafers produ
further explanations specifying the nature or extend of
cers. The investigation revealed that polysilicon prices
the alleged contradictions. This claim had therefore to
increased in 2008 when they reached their peak at
be rejected.
around 500$/kg, but decreased again in 2009 reaching
about 50-55 $/kg at the end of 2009 with only a slight
upwards trend in 2010 and early 2011. Prices dropped
significantly during the IP resulting in the 30$/kg (JRC
Scientific and Policy Reports, PV Status Report 2012). It
should be noted that the impact of polysilicon prices on
(273) Following the final disclosure, some interested parties
the Union industry could only be rather marginal as any
contested that the capacity additions of the Union
effect on the cost of production of cells and modules was
industry were reasonable and followed market develop
diluted through the value chain. Moreover, the above
ments and in particular the development of the Union
mentioned press articles referred to post-IP develop
consumption. However, as far as modules are concerned
ments, which did not affect the situation of the Union
the production capacity increased by 106 %, while the
producers concerned during the IP, and cannot therefore
Union consumption increased by 221 % over the period
be taken into account. This matter was further investi
considered, i.e. more than double. Likewise, as far as cells
gated after the imposition of provisional measures and,
are concerned, the production capacity increased by
as a result, it can be confirmed that the Union industry
39 %, while the Union consumption increased by 87 %
was indeed able to renegotiate not only the prices of the
during the period considered. This shows that the
long-term contracts but also any contractual penalties
increase in capacity was substantially below the increase
relating to these long-term contracts.
in consumption and can therefore not be considered as
unreasonable given that there never was overcapacity in
the Union. Moreover, the analysis whether the capacity
additions were reasonable should not be based on a year
to year analysis, but should take into consideration the
trend during the whole period considered. Thus, capacity
additions will typically only become fully operational
(277) One of the above interested parties argued further that it
after a certain period of time after the investment made
is sufficient that only some Union producers have been
and the isolated analysis of one year may lead to a
affected by the long term contracts and that the situation
distorted picture. This argument was therefore rejected.
of the overall Union industry is irrelevant. It claimed that
higher costs do not necessarily have to affect all operators
in the same way. This argument ignores the finding that
overall, for the Union industry, the average polysilicon
prices were in many cases not found to be higher than
the market prices or than the spot prices and that there
(274) In absence of any other comments regarding the Union's
fore the issue whether higher costs affect all or only few
industry overcapacity, the findings in recitals (185) to
operators was not considered pertinent. This argument
(190) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
was therefore rejected.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/33
(278) Another interested party requested that the Commission
the Union industry. The price decrease therefore goes
separate, distinguish and quantify the effects of each
beyond the reduction in production costs that can be
factor having an impact on the situation of the Union
explained by the decrease in the raw material prices. If
industry; in particular the effect of the significant drop in
the price decrease was merely the effect of the decrease
polysilicon prices should be considered separately. In this
of the raw material prices, the Union industry would not
regard, it was argued that it was the decrease in the poly
have been forced to decrease their sales prices below their
silicon prices rather than the price pressure from the
cost of production. Therefore, this claim has to be
Chinese imports that caused the decrease in sales prices.
rejected.
As far as the Union industry is concerned it should be
noted that the average selling prices decreased much
further than the decrease of the average cost of produc
tion, on which the decline of raw material prices could
(281) Another interested party reiterated that the litigation of
have an impact. This argument was therefore rejected.
one Union producer after the IP may has affected the
situation of at least this Union producer already during
the IP. This party did not explain however how and to
what extend such event that occurred after the IP could
indeed have had an effect on this producer's situation
during the IP. Likewise, the investigation did not reveal
any evidence showing such effects. Therefore this claim
(279) Following the final disclosure, some interested parties
reiterated that the impact of the decrease of polysilicon
had to be rejected.
prices on the Union industry's cost was not limited or
diluted through the value chain as concluded in the inves
tigation. However, as already mentioned in recital (276)
above, polysilicon is the main raw material for wafers
(282) Moreover, the same interested party questioned the above
producers, thus any impact on the production cost of
mentioned findings, as allegedly no evidence was shown.
cells or modules was found to be diluted in the value
However, the findings of the investigation were based on
chain. The interested parties did not provide any evidence
facts and positive evidence, non-confidential versions of
which could have devaluated this finding. Moreover, the
which were available to all interested parties.
investigation showed that the decrease of polysilicon
prices over the period considered was reflected in the
average cost of production of cells and modules of the
sampled Union industry which decreased to a similar
(283) In absence of any other comments with regard to the
degree than the polysilicon prices. One interested party
impact of the raw material prices, the findings in reci
questioned the impact of alleged penalties that the Union
tals (191) to (194) to the provisional Regulation are
industry had to pay due to the re-negotiation of the
confirmed.
supplier contracts. In this regard, it cannot be excluded
that a limited number of producers may have had to pay
penalties for the cancellation of wafers supply contracts
during the period considered.
3.7. Self-inflicted
injury:
impact
of
automation,
size,
economies of scale, consolidation, innovation, cost
efficiency, imports of the Union industry
However, the Commission did not find any evidence that
these penalties could have had an effect on the situation
of the Union industry as a whole or would be representa
(284) Following the provisional disclosure, certain interested
tive. Such evidence was also not provided by the inter
parties reiterated the claim that the injury suffered by the
ested party in question. While it can therefore not be
Union industry was due to the Union industry's lack of
completely excluded that penalties could have had a
sufficient economies of scale. It was reiterated that small
certain negative impact on a limited number of Union
scale producers had a disadvantage compared to larger
producers, the overall impact on the Union industry is at
vertically integrated producers and therefore any injury
best marginal and hence could not break the causal link
suffered by small scale producers cannot be attributed to
between the dumped imports and the material injury
the dumped imports. Another interested party argued
suffered by the whole Union industry. Therefore, these
that the automation of the production process is costly
arguments had to be rejected.
and that therefore economies of scale are even more
important to reduce the cost of production.
(285) The investigation showed that the Union industry, even
(280) Another interested party claimed that the decrease of
the larger and vertically integrated ones, due to the
sales prices of the product under investigation in the
dumped imports, could not fully benefit from high capa
Union is partly due to the reduction in the price of poly
city utilization rates to achieve economies of scale. In any
silicon. However, in this regard, it should be noted that
event, the investigation did not reveal any correlation
the investigation showed that the imports from the PRC
between size, vertical integration and better profitability
were dumped and substantially undercutting the prices of
rates, as the high price pressure from dumped imports

---

L 325/34
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
has altered this correlation. The investigation has showed
above, without however providing any evidence. As far as
that the benefit of economies of scale no longer existed
labour and overhead costs, including depreciation costs
in a market where the utilization rates were low, which
are concerned, they represented on average less than
was also true for the Chinese producers. Therefore, these
10 % of the total cost of a module in the IP and are not
arguments were rejected.
considered to have played any significant role. As far as
electricity costs are concerned, they represented on
average less than 1 % of the total cost of a module in the
IP and are not considered to have played any significant
role. Moreover, the claim that the Chinese were using the
newest equipment was not substantiated.
(286) Furthermore, one interested party claimed that investors
and banks would not finance projects if the module
manufacturer is too small, as larger producers provide
better guarantees and are more ‘bankable’. In other terms,
investors and banks are reluctant to finance PV related
projects using modules produced in the Union. However,
the investigation showed that any possible preference of
(290) Moreover, one interested party reiterated that some
investors and banks to finance Chinese producers which
Union producers sourced cells and/or modules from the
have larger production capacities is the result of the
country concerned, and re-sold those products on the
distortion that dumped imports have created on the
Union market as their own. It requested that injury
Union market. As mentioned above in recital (285), the
resulting from these transactions is not attributed to the
size of the production lines does not play a role if utilisa
dumped imports. However, the investigation revealed that
tion rates remain low. Therefore, this argument was
imports from the Union industry of the product
dismissed.
concerned were complementary in nature as well as
limited in terms of volume when compared to the total
Union production and therefore their effect, if any, would
only be marginal and could not be considered as
breaking the causal link between the dumped imports
and the injury suffered by the Union industry.
(287) One interested party reiterated that the Union industry
had an unfavourable cost structure compared to its
Chinese competitors, as the latter enjoyed lower labour,
electricity and depreciation cost, and in addition had the
newest equipment. However, the party concerned was
unable to provide new information or supporting
evidence that could reverse the findings of this investiga
tion in this regard. In particular, the claim that the
(291) One unrelated importer argued that the fact that the
Chinese producers were using the newest equipment was
number of employees increased over the period consid
addressed in recital (203) to the provisional Regulation,
ered was not sufficiently addressed in the provisional
stating that the exporting producers in the PRC did not
Regulation. In respect of this claim, it is noted that
enjoy any comparative advantage, in particular because
employment increased between 2009 and 2011 for
machinery and equipment was imported from the Euro
modules and then decreased during the IP. For cells, the
pean Union. The above claims were therefore rejected.
employment increased until 2010 and then decreased in
2011 and further decreased in the IP. It is noted that for
modules, employment followed the trend of the Union
production. For cells, as the Chinese imports increased
their market share during the entire period the Union
industry could not benefit from the growing consump
tion as expected. Therefore, the employment decrease in
(288) Another party claimed that the Chinese enjoyed a
comparative advantage with regard to polysilicon prices
2011 and in the IP corresponds to companies that either
and to economies of scales which resulted in lower cost
had become insolvent or stopped their cell production.
of the machinery. This party did not provide any new
information or supporting evidence in this regard that
could reverse the findings as set out in recitals (195) and
(196) as well as (203) to the provisional Regulation. The
claim of this party had therefore to be rejected.
(292) Following the final disclosure one interested party reiter
ated that the injury suffered by the Union industry was
due to the small scale and the lack of economies of scale.
As already explained in the recital (285) above and in
(289) It is recalled that as set out in recital (203) to the provi
recitals (195) and (196) to the provisional Regulation,
sional Regulation and mentioned also in recital (287)
even in the global market, the size and therefore the
above the exporting producers in the PRC do not enjoy
benefit of economies of scale cannot longer exist where
any comparative advantage with regard to raw materials
the utilization rates were generally low, and where enor
and the machinery used as both were mostly imported
mous overcapacities existed world-wide. Therefore this
from the Union. One interested party contested the
claim had to be rejected.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/35
(293) Moreover, the same party reiterated that the injury
(299) However, as set out in recital (296) above thin film
suffered by the Union industry was due to the inability of
products have much lower conversion efficiencies and a
the Union industry to realize any cost advantage. This
lower wattage output than crystalline silicon modules
party claimed that this was in particular due the fact that
and therefore competition between these product, if any,
most of the Union producers were vertically integrated.
could not contribute to the injury of the Union industry,
However, this party did not provide any further informa
as crystalline silicon modules are the dominant tech
tion to what extend the fact that producers are vertically
nology in the Union solar market. The JRC PV Status
integrated could have had a negative impact on their cost
Report 2012 states that as a consequence of the drop in
structure. Therefore this claim had to be rejected.
polysilicon prices, thin film has in the last years lost
market share to crystalline silicon modules.
(294) In absence of any other comments in this regard reci
tals (195) to (206) to the provisional Regulation are
(300) In absence of any other comments in this regard, the
confirmed.
findings of recitals (207) to (210) to the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.
3.8. Competition from thin film PV products and other PV
technologies
3.9. Financial crisis and its effects on access to finance
(295) Following the provisional disclosure, one interested party
reiterated the claim that the injury suffered by the Union
(301) Following the provisional disclosure it was claimed that
industry was caused by the competition from thin film
the injurious effects of the financial crisis and of its
PV products and other PV technologies, as these technol
effects on access to finance should be separated and
ogies were competing with the product under investiga
distinguished and not attributed to the dumped imports.
tion especially for ground-mounted and commercial/
industrial rooftop systems, which constitute a substantial
part of the total Union PV market.
(302) In this regard reference is made to recital (212) to the
provisional Regulation where the effects of the financial
(296) The investigation showed that although thin film PV
crisis and the economic recession on the situation of the
products are less expensive than the product under inves
Union
industry
were
specifically
addressed.
This
tigation, they only capture a limited market share of the
recital sets out in detail the reasoning behind the finding
total Union solar market as they have much lower
that the financial crisis, although having had an impact
conversion efficiencies and a lower wattage output than
on the situation of the Union industry, did not break the
crystalline silicon modules. According to the information
causal link between the dumped imports and the material
available, the market share of thin film products was not
injury suffered by the Union industry. This specific
significant comparing to the total Union solar market
reasoning has not been contested by the interested
during the IP. Therefore, the findings in recital (208) to
parties nor did they provide any new information or
the provisional Regulation, that although there may be
evidence which could have devaluated the findings set
some competition between the thin film products and
out in this recital. The claims made in this regard were
the product under consideration, this competition is
therefore rejected.
considered to be marginal, are confirmed. On these
grounds, the arguments brought forward in this regard
had to be rejected.
(303) Moreover it was claimed that the injury suffered by the
Union industry was due to the Union's industry failure to
seek appropriate financing and that the Commission
(297) Following the final disclosure, one interested party reiter
should investigate whether the Union industry requested
ated that the competition from thin film products likely
financing while they were profitable. The investigation in
caused the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
fact showed that in 2010, when Union industry was still
In this regard, the party submitted that in Germany the
profitable, the level of investment increased for modules
market share of thin film products in the total solar
and for cells respectively by 315 % and 10 % as
market was substantial during most of the IP and only
compared to 2009. As the PV industry is capital inten
declined towards the beginning of 2012.
sive, it is expected that the Union industry is continu
ously seeking appropriate financing in order to improve
its cost efficiency and compete with the unfair dumped
imports. Therefore, it is concluded that the lack of access
(298) The investigation showed indeed that the average prices
to finance was a result of the distorted situation caused
of thin film products were at lower levels than the
by dumped imports and not its cause. The above claim
average price levels of the product under investigation.
was therefore rejected.

---

L 325/36
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(304) Following the final disclosure, one interested party reiter
3.12. The European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
ated that the injurious effects of the financial crisis
should be separated and distinguished and not be attrib
uted to the dumped imports. This party referred to
publicly available information indicating that at least one
(309) In absence of any comments brought forward to recon
sider the findings set out in recitals (218) and (219) to
Union producer perceived the financial crisis as the main
the provisional Regulation, they are confirmed.
cause for its injurious situation. The current investigation
based its findings on specific company data which go
significantly beyond publicly available statements of
specific companies. Therefore, the publicly available state
ment to which reference was made cannot devaluate the
findings made in recital (212) to the provisional Regu
lation, where it was concluded that while the financial
3.13. Management decisions
crisis had a certain impact on the situation of the Union
industry, it could not break the causal link between the
dumped imports and the material injury suffered by the
(310) Some interested parties reiterated the claim raised in the
Union industry. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.
recital (220) to the provisional Regulation that the mate
rial injury suffered by at least one of the Union producers
was caused by wrong management decisions. These
parties provided further information in the form of a
(305) Another interested party claimed that the different access
press article. However, the information provided could
to financing between the Union industry as compared to
not be verified and could not reverse the findings of this
the Chinese exporting producers should be taken into
investigation that the management decisions of the
consideration. This party claimed that this was one of the
company concerned were normal and prudent or had no
main factors which caused the material injury to the
impact on the entire Union industry. Therefore, the above
Union industry and not the dumped imports. However,
claims were rejected.
the preferential access to financing of a number of
Chinese exporting producers has been found to distort
the market and may well be one of the main reasons
(311) In the absence of any other arguments in this respect, the
allowing Chinese exporting producers to export the
findings as set out in recitals (220) and (221) to the
product concerned at dumped prices. This factor can
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
therefore not break the causal link between the dumped
imports and the material injury suffered by the Union
industry. This claim was therefore rejected.
3.14. Other government policies
(306) In absence of any other comments regarding the effects
of the financial crisis, the findings of recitals (211) and
(212) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(312) In absence of any comments to reconsider the findings
set out in recital (222) to the provisional Regulation, they
are confirmed.
3.10. Export performance of the Union industry
3.15. Other arguments
(307) In absence of any comments brought forward to recon
(313) One interested party claimed that the injury suffered by
sider the findings set out in recitals (213) and (215) to
the Union industry was due to the forerunner disadvan
the provisional Regulation, they are confirmed.
tage and the lack of political support from the European
Commission in previous years. This party also claimed
that apart from the national support schemes, also popu
lation, GDP, electricity consumption, financing opportu
nities and connectability to the grid are important factors
in each market. However, the above party was not able to
substantiate its claims which were therefore rejected.
3.11. The discovery of shale gas deposits in the Union
(314) Following the final disclosure, the same interested party
reiterated that the injury suffered by the Union industry
(308) In absence of any comments brought forward to recon
was due to the forerunner disadvantage. However, the
sider the findings set out in recitals (215) to (217) to the
claim was neither analysed nor substantiated; therefore it
provisional Regulation, they are confirmed.
had to be rejected.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/37
4. Cumulative assessment of those other factors that
(i.e. imports of third countries, FITs, impact of raw mate
have been found to contribute to injury
rial prices, financial crisis) collectively fail to explain the
injury suffered by the Union industry in particular in
terms of low prices and financial losses due to the pene
tration of low priced imports in significant quantities of
(315) The investigation has shown that the following other
the product concerned from the PRC. Based on the
factors may have contributed to injury: Imports of the
above, the provisional findings as set out in recitals (223)
product concerned from Taiwan; Reduction in the level
to (224) to the provisional Regulation that the dumped
of FIT; Long-term polysilicon contracts of limited
imports from the PRC caused material injury to the
number of Union producers; the financial and economic
Union industry within the meaning of Article 3 (6) of
crisis.
the basic Regulation is confirmed.
(316) As has been shown above in sections 3.1 respectively
3.6, the possible contribution of imports from Taiwan
and of long-term polysilicon contracts of a limited
number of Union producers are, at best, marginal,
because any impact was further diluted through the
value chain.
F. UNION INTEREST
(317) With regards to the economic and financial crisis, the
investigation has shown that the main reason for difficul
1. Preliminary remarks
ties of the Union industry in accessing the capital needed
for investments were the dumped imports, which
prevented the Union industry from selling its products at
profitable prices when the Union market showed strong
growth rates (2009-2011).
(321) Following the provisional disclosure, one interested party
claimed that the assessment of the Union interest was
not based on a representative number of operators.
(318) With regards to FIT, third parties have not been able to
demonstrate that FIT levels during the IP would have
been so low that they would have prevented Union
producers from selling the product concerned at non
(322) The Commission has contacted the different operators in
injurious prices. The Institutions take the view that reduc
the following manner.
tions in FIT levels may explain reduced demand, as
investments in certain locations were no longer viable.
They cannot, however, break the causal link, even taken
together with the other factors that have been found to
contribute to injury, because they were still at a level at
(323) Unrelated importers: as mentioned in recital (12) to the
which, absent the dumped imports, the Union producers
provisional Regulation, the Commission contacted all the
could have sold their products at non-injurious prices.
250 unrelated importers made known by the complai
nant and selected a provisional sample in accordance
with Article 17 of the basic Regulation to cover the
largest representative volume of imports which can
(319) Therefore, even if the cumulative effect of the four other
reasonably be investigated within the time available.
factors possibly contributing to injury is assessed, the
However, as set out in recital (12) and (232) to the provi
causal link between dumping and injury is not broken.
sional Regulation, only one of the companies provision
ally selected was indeed, after verification, confirmed to
be an unrelated importer. After publication of the provi
sional Regulation, fifteen further unrelated importers,
which had initially submitted a sampling form at the
initiation stage but were not sampled, were invited to
cooperate further with the investigation. Six of them
agreed and received a questionnaire, and five submitted a
5. Conclusion on causation
reply out of which three were considered to be suffi
ciently complete. The definitive sample of unrelated
importers therefore comprises four unrelated importers,
representing a range of 2 % to 5 % of the imports of the
(320) All the effects of the injury factors other than the
product concerned. With regards to that low percentage,
dumped imports have been individually and collectively
it has to be kept in mind that the majority of imports of
analysed. Therefore, it is concluded that the collective
the product concerned into the Union does not take
assessment of all the factors that may have had an impact
place via unrelated importers, as explained in recital (12)
on the injurious situation of the Union industry
to the provisional Regulation.

---

L 325/38
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(324) Operators other than unrelated importers (upstream and
(330) To sum up, for the analysis of Union interest, the
downstream operators): as mentioned in recital (226) to
following information has been relied on:
the provisional Regulation, the Commission also sent
specific questionnaires to about 150 operators including
those unrelated importers that had come forward after
the initiation of the investigation, which had therefore
the opportunity to provide the relevant data to the
— the questionnaire replies received from eight sampled
Commission. Moreover, not only the replies to the ques
Union producers and four sampled unrelated impor
tionnaires but also verifiable and duly substantiated
ters as well as the replies to the specific questionnaire
comments and submissions provided by interested
received from eight upstream and thirteen down
parties within the deadlines were taken into consideration
stream operators (seven project developers/installers;
in the investigation, irrespective of whether or not these
six service providers also active in the PV sector) out
parties had replied to the questionnaire. In particular,
of 150 operators that had come forward after the
AFASE has transmitted to the Commission comments on
initiation and received the specific questionnaires;
behalf of its members — PV operators that were also
analysed.
— the data verified during the on-site verifications at the
premises of eight Union producers, one unrelated
importer, two upstream operators, four downstream
(325) In the light of the above, sufficient elements were gath
operators (project developers/installers) and one asso
ered allowing a meaningful assessment of the Union
ciation (see recital (17) to the provisional Regulation
interest. On these grounds, the argument was rejected.
and recital (8) above)
— the data on Union interest submitted by other inter
(326) One interested party requested the Commission to clarify
ested parties, including associations, as well as
how the Commission handled the importers question
publicly available data on the evolution of the PV
naires which it considered to have been submitted by
market in Europe, in particular: EPIA's Global Market
downstream operators.
Outlook for Photovoltaics 2013-2017
(327) In reply to this request, it is clarified that the 36 replies
indicated in recital (241) to the provisional Regulation
concerned replies to the Annex B of the Notice of initia
tion, the purpose of which was to sample unrelated
2. Interest of the Union industry
importers if appropriate.
(331) Some interested parties contested that the Union industry
(328) Concerning the replies to the questionnaires of the two
would be able to benefit from any measures arguing that
operators indicated in recital (12) to the provisional
(i) the measures will lower the demand for PV products
Regulation one was taken into account in the relevant
in the Union and therefore the Union industry will not
analysis of the downstream operators. The second
be able to increase their sales, (ii) the Union industry has
operator submitted additional information which revealed
small production facilities and is therefore not able to
that, contrary to what was stated in recital (12) to the
meet the demand of certain types of installations such as
provisional Regulation, it was indeed an importer of
commercial rooftop and large ground-mounted installa
modules but not an importer of cells. Nevertheless, the
tions, (iii) the Union producers are not ‘bankable’ (iv) the
information provided in its reply to the questionnaire
imposition of duties on cells will de facto increase the cost
was not sufficient to include it in the analysis of unre
of production of the Union producers of modules and
lated importers due to the fact that the replies provided
make them less attractive for consumers, (v) in case of
were incomplete.
significant drop of Chinese imports, the producers from
other third countries will most likely take advantage of
the fewer imports from the PRC.
(329) After the imposition of provisional measures, further
verification visits were carried out at the premises of to
two project developers (see above recital (8)). In addition,
(332) Concerning the claim that measures will lower the
the six replies to the specific questionnaires (see
demand for PV products in the Union and therefore the
recital (324)) by service providers also active in the PV
Union industry will not be able to increase their sales, it
sector (logistics, transport, public relations, etc.), which
is noted that the parties were unable to provide any veri
were deemed initially to be insufficiently complete (see
fiable evidence of the existence of a direct link between
recital (241) to the provisional Regulation) were analysed
the imposition of measures and the decrease in demand
and taken into account for the purpose of this investiga
for PV products which proved to be influenced over the
tion (see recitals (369) to (371) below).
years by several factors.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/39
(333) In reply to the claim that the Union industry has small
(337) In reply to the final disclosure some parties argued that it
production facilities and is therefore not able to meet the
is unrealistic to expect the emergence of a sustainable
demand of certain types of installations such as commer
Union industry manufacturing modules and cells because
cial rooftop and large ground-mounted installations, it
there is no rational investor that would invest in the
should be noted that the investigation has showed that
Union producers that allegedly suffer from an unfavour
the Union industry has the capacity to supply both the
able cost structure and can therefore not produce at
commercial and industrial installations (between 40 kW
competitive prices. The investigation did not confirm that
and 1MW) and the utility market segment installations (1
the Union industry is suffering from an unfavourable
MW and 10 MW). Moreover, the investigation did not
costs structure, as explained in recitals (202) and (203) to
reveal any evidence that products supplied by different
the provisional Regulation. Therefore, absent dumped
manufacturers could not be used in the same project.
imports and utilising the production capacities to a larger
This claim was therefore rejected.
extent should bring economies of scale and allow for the
emergence of a sustainable Union industry. In view of the
above the argument was rejected.
(334) The argument that the Union industry would not benefit
from the measures because Union producers are not
‘bankable’ and that investments funds would not accept
to finance projects using EU-made modules was not
(338) One party argued that the demand in the Union is driven
substantiated. In any event, it is expected that the imposi
by the development of FITs and the expected return on
tion of measures will restore fair market conditions
investment by the investors is linked to this development.
which should reassure investors, including from the
In particular, it claimed that, if prices increase in the
banking sector, as to the ability of Union producers to
Union, as a consequence of the duties, and FITs do not
develop viable projects. On these grounds, this argument
follow this increase accordingly, demand will decrease
was rejected.
and the Union industry will not benefit from the duties
imposed.
(335) With reference to the claim that the imposition of duties
on cells will de facto increase the cost of production of
(339) In reply to the above claim, it is noted that despite the
the Union producers of modules and make them less
correlation between the level of FITs and the demand for
attractive for consumers, while it is not excluded that a
PV installations, the evidence collected during the investi
certain increase in prices could occur further to the
gation indicates that future demand will be less and less
imposition of duties, it should also be considered that
dependent on FITs and other support schemes as PV grid
public available sources indicate that the price trend of
parity is likely to have been reached by certain types of
modules and cells is downward. Thus, even if the cost of
installations in several places in the Union (see
cells might increase as a result of measures, the overall
recital (260) above). Furthermore, the expected return on
decreasing trend of prices should result in decreasing
investment should be based on fair market prices. Finally
costs of modules. The producers in question may also
as mentioned in recital (335) above, while it is not
decide to source their cells in the Union, and no longer
excluded that a certain increase in prices may occur
from the PRC. Finally, it is expected that the imposition
further to the imposition of measures, it should be noted
of measures will increase the capacity utilization of cells
that public available sources indicate that the overall
producers in the Union thus increasing their economy of
price trend is downward. The argument was therefore
scale and as a consequence reduce costs. This claim was
rejected.
therefore rejected.
(336) The argument that in case of a significant drop of
(340) Interested parties have pointed out that because demand
Chinese imports further to the imposition of measures,
for solar panels is driven by support schemes, in particu
the other third countries will most likely take advantage
lar FIT, and by the level of electricity prices for the final
of this rather than the Union industry was not confirmed
consumer (which determine grid parity), price elasticity
by the investigation. The investigation did not reveal any
of demand can be very high. Whereas it is correct that
clear indications that the other third countries would
an important increase in prices may lead to an important
direct their exports massively to the Union market, in
reduction of demand because of the particular nature of
particular taking into account the likely expansion of
the market pointed out by those interested parties, the
other third country markets, notably in Asia, as fore
argument has to be rejected because it is very unlikely
casted by publicly available sources. Finally, there is no
that price increases caused by the measures will be
indication that even if imports from other third countries
important, for the following reasons. First of all, all avail
would increase as a result of a drop of Chinese imports,
able sources confirm that the important decrease in
the Union industry will not be able to compete with
prices for the product concerned throughout the IP and
imports from these countries.
since the IP until today will continue.

---

L 325/40
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
Secondly, the economic effect of the undertaking that has
(344) No evidence was however provided to support the above
been accepted by the Commission is that Chinese
claim and therefore it was dismissed. It is clarified that in
exporting producers will supply the product concerned at
view of the exclusion of wafers from the product scope,
a minimum import price of less than 60 c/W, which is
the employment in the Union industry amounted to
far below the price that has been observed during the IP,
around 21 000 employees during the IP. Interested
at a volume that corresponds roughly to their current
parties did not provide any proof that the number of
market share. At this price level, demand is very unlikely
employees in the Union industry has changed signifi
to drop in a significant manner, as that price level
cantly post-IP.
ensures sufficient demand both under the current level of
support provided by support schemes and under the
current levels of grid parity. Furthermore, the price of
electricity for final consumers is expected to increase,
whereas the price of the product concerned is expected
(345) In conclusion, the investigation proved that the Union
to decrease. Through an indexation formula, the under
industry suffered material injury from the dumped
taking ensures that further price decreases of the product
imports from the PRC, being unable to recoup the invest
concerned are taken into account for the minimum
ment through profitable sales. It is expected that the
imposition of measures will restore fair trade conditions
import price. Therefore, those arguments have to be
on the Union market, allowing the Union industry to
rejected.
compete on equal footing. The likely decrease in imports
from the PRC should enable the Union industry to
increase their sales in the Union and thus better utilise
the available production capacities in the short term. This
in turn may bring economies of scale. While it is possible
that the prices of the like product will raise in a short
(341) Several interested parties reiterated the allegation that the
period of time due to the measures, the overall
interest of the Union industry is not significant since the
descending price trend is likely to be maintained also
value added created by the upstream and downstream
thanks, on the one hand, to the further decrease of cost
industries is far more significant than the value added
of production of the product under investigation, and, on
created by the Union industry in the PV value chain. The
the other hand, the competitive pressure from the third
argument that the various segments in the PV sector have
countries' producers, which would also compete in the
a different added value is not disputed. As mentioned in
Union market.
recital (228) to the provisional Regulation, the investiga
tion established that the Union industry has suffered
material injury caused by unfair trade practices. Indeed
some Union producers have already been forced to close
down and in the absence of measures, a further deteriora
(346) In the absence of any further comments, recitals (227)
tion appears certain. As all segments in the PV sector are
and (231) to the provisional Regulation, with the excep
closely interrelated, the disappearance of the Union
tion of the employment figure referred to in recital (344)
production would be detrimental to the whole PV sector
above, are confirmed.
making it fully dependent on outsourced supply. There
fore, also for reasons of security of supply, the argument
was therefore rejected.
3. Interest of unrelated importers
(342) In reply to the final disclosure, one interested party reiter
ated the claim that the higher value-added created by the
upstream and downstream industry, as compared to the
Union industry of the product concerned, is relevant to
whether anti-dumping duties should be imposed. In this
(347) Following the provisional disclosure, the unrelated
importer which provided a questionnaire reply prior to
respect, it is confirmed that in assessing the Union
the imposition of provisional measures and had been
interest the Institutions did balance the positive and nega
tive consequences the duties may have on the various
considered to constitute the provisional sample claimed
economic operators. Whereas the impact on the
that the conclusions with regard to the impact of the
upstream and downstream industry is limited, the
measures on unrelated importers was only based on its
measures will afford the Union industry the possibility to
own questionnaire reply which could therefore not be
considered as representative.
recover from injurious dumping.
(348) The provisional Regulation based its findings with regard
to unrelated importers on one company given that as
(343) One party contested the number of jobs that would be
explained in recital (232) to the provisional Regulation
secured by the imposition of measures. It claimed that
the major activity of only one out of the three provision
the Union industry employs about 6 000 people, and
ally sampled importers consisted in trading of the
not 25 000 as reported in recital (229) to the provisional
product concerned. As stated above in recital (21) subse
Regulation.
quent to the imposition of provisional measures, the

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/41
sample was enlarged, more unrelated importers were
evidence was provided to the verification team at the
contacted and out of the five additional questionnaire
time of the on-the-spot visit on the long testing require
replies received only three were sufficiently complete and
ment that an importer must do before taking the decision
allowed for meaningful assessment. At definitive stage,
to supply from a particular exporter.
the sample for unrelated imports was therefore expanded
to include four importers. Overall, during the IP, the
activity of the four sampled cooperating unrelated impor
ters related to the product concerned varied between
60 % and 100 % of their total business. In addition, the
four cooperating unrelated importers sourced from the
PRC between 16 % to 100 % of their total imports of
modules, only one sourcing exclusively from the country
(352) It is acknowledged that the setting of a new relationship
concerned. The profitability of the four sampled coop
between an importer and a supplier may entail additional
erating unrelated importers related to the product
costs and time investment (e.g. in testing the product). At
concerned was on average 2,3 % in the IP.
the same time, changing suppliers seems to be a normal
risk calculated in an importers' professional activity and
is related to the fact that the PV market is maturing and
thus undergoes constant changes (e.g. bankruptcies,
consolidations) requiring switching to new suppliers.
Moreover, it can be assumed that new types of modules
that reach the market on a constant basis (containing e.g.
new efficiency characteristics) also require testing. In this
(349) One interested party argued that the impact of the duties
respect, testing of a new product (even from the same
on the unrelated importers was underestimated as there
supplier) appears to be a standard rather than an unusual
are no immediate alternative sources of supply that could
activity. The argument is therefore rejected.
replace the Chinese imports of the product concerned if
the duties were imposed and that changing a source of
supply is difficult in view of the fact that the major
production is based in the PRC and this would entail
additional significant costs.
(353) In reply to the final disclosure two parties reiterated the
claim that the interest of the unrelated importers was not
properly considered. One party claimed that the lack of
the non-confidential version of the replies to the ques
tionnaires by the additional cooperating importers did
not allow a proper assessment by the parties. It ques
(350) In this respect, it is recalled that the imposition of
tioned the Commission's assessment regarding the possi
measures should not result in the disappearance of the
bility that other third country imports in the Union
imports of the product concerned from the PRC. The
would increase thus allowing the importers to switch
investigation indicated that the possible decrease of
their supplies, on the basis of the allegation that other
imports from the PRC will impact in particular those
third markets are booming. To this end, the party
importers that source the product concerned exclusively
claimed that such assumption is in contradiction with the
from the PRC, which is the case only for one out of the
conclusions in recital (336), which argued that imports
four cooperating unrelated importers. Concerning the
from other third countries would not be massive.
impact of measures on the unrelated importers' financial
Another party questioned whether the Commission
situation, it was not excluded that it can be negative, but
respected the principle of non-discrimination as the
it has been concluded that this will largely depend on
Union producers were given more prominence in the
their capacity to switch sources of supply or to pass at
Commission's assessment than the other operators.
least part of the possible price increase on to their custo
mers. For operators importing the product also from
other sources than the PRC or importing also other
products than the product concerned the negative impact
will be further limited. The Commission therefore
considers that although there is likely to be a negative
impact on the importers of the product concerned, this
impact will, on average, remain limited.
(354) First, it is confirmed that the non-confidential version of
the replies to the questionnaires received after publication
of the provisional Regulation by the additional coop
erating importers was included in the file for consultation
by interested parties. Secondly, there is no contradiction
between the assumption that the imports from other
third countries can increase in response to lower imports
from the PRC and that such increase should not be
(351) One unrelated importer argued that it needs significant
massive in view of the growing demand for PV installa
working time and financial investment before accepting
tions world-wide. At the same time, as the Union
the products of a new supplier. In this respect a claim
industry is expected to retake a certain part of the market
was made in reply to the final disclosure that relevant
share that was previously held by products from the PRC,

---

L 325/42
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
a certain loss in business for unrelated importers cannot
for Photovoltaics 2013-2017, forecast that the possible
be excluded. However, it is observed that the overall size
contraction in demand in the Union should be only in
of the PV market is expected to continue to grow in the
the short-term (in 2013 and 2014) since consumption in
long term, as grid parity is reached in more and more
the Union will increase further in the following years.
locations. Finally, it is clarified that, as in all trade defence
Furthermore, as concluded in recital (239) to the provi
investigations, while the situation of the Union industry
sional Regulation, addressing unfair trade practises is
was assessed in order to establish if it suffered material
likely to allow building a sustainable growth in the PV
injury due to the dumped imports, in the context of the
market in the Union in the mid and long-term, from
Union interest analysis the interest of the Union industry
which all operators in the Union should benefit. Finally,
was assessed on an equal basis to the other economic
as regards the argument on the possible retaliation of the
operators, including the unrelated importers. It is also
PRC in reply to the measures in this case, it is recalled
clarified that the investigation whether or not the Union
that the PRC as any other WTO member, may have a
industry suffered material injury is governed in particular
recourse to trade defence investigations only in justified
by Article 3(5) to the basic Regulation which set the
circumstances and any such investigation has to comply
minimum standards of such investigation. The Union
with strict WTO rules. The Commission monitors any
interest is only analysed once a positive determination of
such investigation to ensure that the WTO rules are
injurious dumping was made in accordance with the
respected. The argument was therefore rejected.
standards set out in Article 21 to the basic Regulation.
As a result it was considered that the likely negative
impact of the measures on certain importers, in particu
lar those sourcing exclusively from the PRC, did not
outweigh the benefits of the measures for the Union
industry and the mid- and long term benefits to the
Union PV market resulting from fair competition
(358) Some parties contested the conclusion in recital (239) to
the provisional Regulation that the decreased exports of
the Union PV upstream operators to the PRC might be
compensated by exports to other markets arguing that
(355) In the absence of any further comments, on the basis of
the duties will decrease the world-wide demand for the
the information covering the four sampled importers,
product.
recitals (233) and (234) to the provisional Regulation
were confirmed.
(359) In this respect, it is firstly noted that Chinese imports are
not expected to cease completely as a result of the duties.
In addition, the information collected in the course of the
investigation did not establish any direct correlation
between the development of the imports from the PRC
4. Interest of upstream operators
in the Union market and the exports from the PRC to
other markets. Moreover, publicly available sources, such
as EPIA's Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics 2013
2017, forecast that the PV market world-wide will grow
in the next years. As far as the Chinese market is
concerned, there are indications that the domestic
(356) Following the provisional disclosure, several parties reiter
consumption in the PRC will increase substantially (e.g.
ated the claim that a majority of inputs in the PV value
as indicated by EPIA). In view of the above, the exports
chain comes from the Union and that such advantageous
of the Union upstream operators to the PRC are not
situation may cease should the duties be imposed as
expected to drop significantly as a consequence of the
production in the PRC of the product concerned will
imposition of measures.
decrease as a consequence of the duty. In reply to the
final disclosure one party pointed out that the measures
in this case may trigger other measures, which the PRC
may impose on the Union products.
(360) It should also be noted that the contraction of demand in
(357) In this respect, as mentioned in recital (239) to the provi
the Union in 2013 and 2014 mentioned in recital (357)
sional Regulation, Chinese imports are expected to
above may have a negative impact on the upstream
continue to supply the Union market even with duties in
operators. This however cannot be linked, at least not for
place. In addition, various publicly available sources in
its major part, to the duties as it was foreseen well before
the PV sector, such as EPIA's Global Market Outlook
the imposition of provisional measures. Moreover,

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/43
concerning the Union producers of machinery for the PV
(364) One interested party contested the number of employees
industry, as also mentioned in in recital (239) to the
in the upstream sector quoted in recital (236) to the
provisional Regulation, due to the existing substantial
provisional Regulation.
spare capacity in the PRC, it is unlikely that their exports
to the PRC can significantly increase even under the
scenario that the Chinese producers increase their
production volume. Finally, the information gathered
during the investigation indicated that the machinery
(365) It is clarified that the number of 4 200 employees
producers may also be impacted by the Chinese 12th
reported in the provisional Regulation only referred to
five-year plan for Solar Photovoltaic Industry which fore
the cooperating upstream operators, such as equipment
sees that by 2015 80 % of the manufacturing equipment
manufacturers and polysilicon supplier, based on their
for cells should come from the PRC. As long as this
questionnaire replies, and not to the whole sector.
change is achieved in compliance with WTO rules, this
may also further limit the possibility of manufacturers of
machinery in the Union to compete in the Chinese
market. The above argument was therefore rejected.
(366) Following the exclusion of wafers from the product
scope, the producers in the Union of this product should
nevertheless benefit from the imposition of duties, since
the Union industry is expected to increase its production
of cells and modules.
(361) In reply to the final disclosure the GOC argued that the
12th five-year plan for the Solar Photovoltaic Industry
offers only some general guiding principles that are not
binding as there are no enforcement powers foreseen,
(367) In the absence of any further comments, recitals (235)
and that therefore it should not be considered as an indi
and (240) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
cation that the possibility of manufacturers of machinery
in the Union to compete in the Chinese market will be
limited. In this respect it is noted that the GOC included
the PV industry amongst strategic industries in the 12th
five-year plan and also issued a specific plan for the solar
photovoltaic industry. In this plan the GOC expressed its
support for ‘superior enterprises’ and ‘key enterprises’,
committed itself to ‘promote the implementation of various
photovoltaic support policies’, and ‘formulate overall preparation
5. Interest of downstream operators
of supporting policies on industry, finance, taxation …’.
Furthermore, as the plan contains essential directives to
be achieved by the Chinese industry during the period of
five years it has a deep impact on the business landscape,
both within the PRC and in countries that do business
(368) As mentioned in recital (329) above, after the imposition
with the PRC. Considering the above, there are clear indi
of provisional measures further verification visits were
cations that the freedom of choice of the Chinese manu
carried out to two project developers.
facturers of cells and the competitive pressure of the
Union producers of the manufacturing equipment
exporting to the Chinese market is restricted by the plan.
Therefore this argument was rejected.
(369) In addition to seven questionnaire replies of the down
stream operators whose activity is directly related to the
like product (namely the project developers and instal
lers), the analysis of which constituted the basis for the
assessment of the downstream operators in the provi
sional Regulation, six additional replies to questionnaires
submitted at provisional stage and considered not to be
(362) One cooperating raw material producer contested the
sufficiently complete (see recital (241) to the provisional
prospect of other markets compensation for the
Regulation) were further analysed as they provided indi
decreased production on the Chinese market, in view of
cations on the relative importance of their PV related
the substantial installed production capacity in the PRC,
activity as compared to their total activity.
which could not be easily built elsewhere.
(370) The six additional operators concerned were service
providers in the PV sector (logistics, transport, public
relations, etc.) thus operators whose activity is not
(363) In view of the conclusions in recital (359) above this
directly related to the product under investigation.
argument is dismissed since there are no indications of
Despite certain deficiencies in the replies, the data in the
the alleged decreased production on the Chinese market.
questionnaires showed that the PV related activity of

---

L 325/44
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
these operators was marginal as compared to their total
investigation would amount to 9 % on average. Employ
activity. Indeed, during the IP the PV related activity
ment-wise, the PV activity including the activities not
represented on average only around 5 % of their total
directly linked to the product under investigation would
turnover and 8 % of their total employment. Profitability
amount to around 660 full-time jobs in the IP for the
was on average around 7 %. However, it is noted that
seven operators. Apart from PV projects and installations
data concerning profitability were not complete, as not
these operators were also active in wind energy installa
all operators reported on this item.
tions and production of electrical equipment.
(375) It is considered that any impact of measures on the
(371) On the basis of the further analysis, it was concluded
downstream operators has to be primarily assessed on
that in the light of the data provided, any possible impact
their activity directly related to the product under investi
of the measures on the economic situation of the service
gation which in the IP reached a profitability of 11 % on
providers in the PV sector is unlikely to be significant.
average. However, even if it is assessed on the basis of
the overall PV activity not directly related to the product
under investigation the conclusions would be similar to
the one made at provisional stage since, overall, the
various factors taken into account, namely profitability
and possibility to absorb part of the duty, do not vary
significantly (the profitability decreases from 11 % on
(372) Following the provisional and final disclosure, several
average to 9 % on average). In reply to the final disclo
parties contested the representativity of the data
sure one party on which premises the Commission had
concerning the downstream operators on turnover, prof
carried out a verification visit contested the representa
itability and employment derived by the Commission
tivity of the conclusion on profitability of the installers
from the replies to the questionnaires by seven down
and developers, which, as far as it is concerned, would
stream operators. AFASE submitted a ‘survey’ conducted
allegedly be based only on a single transaction. This argu
amongst its members (installers) to illustrate that for the
ment is dismissed as the Commission calculated the prof
majority of the installers the PV business constitutes a
itability of the downstream operators, on the basis of all
primary source of income. AFASE further alleged that the
data submitted by the downstream operators in their
downstream operators, in particular installers, in contrast
questionnaire replies.
to the findings set out in recital (242) to the provisional
Regulation would only realise one-digit profit margins
which do not allow for absorption of any duties.
(376) Regarding the survey conducted by AFASE amongst its
members, it is firstly noted that all operators had the
opportunity to come forward at the initiation of the
investigation and to reply to the specific questionnaire
(373) As regards the representativity of the data used in the
designed for downstream operators requesting the neces
provisional Regulation the Commission has used all the
sary information for the assessment of the impact of
data provided by those downstream operators that have
duties on these operators. Secondly, the identity of the
filled in the specific questionnaire, as well as the submis
installers was not provided in the survey which did not
sions provided by AFASE, as explained in recital (330)
allow for a verification of e.g. the relevance and reliability
above.
of the data provided. Thirdly, while a number of ques
tions asked in this survey concerned the installers' capa
city to absorb the possible duties, the survey lacked any
reference to the profit achieved by these installers in the
IP, thus missing an important element for the evaluation
of the impact of measures. As a consequence no mean
ingful conclusions could be drawn from the survey
(374) As regards the claim that the PV business constitutes a
primary source of income for installers, further analysis
provided.
of the questionnaire replies submitted by the seven
downstream operators (installers and project developers)
confirmed that the activity directly related to the like
product under investigation represented on average
around 42 % of the total activity of these operators and
(377) A number of parties contested the conclusions in reci
the profitability equalled on average 11 %. However,
tals (247) and (250) to the provisional Regulation that
when taking into account also their activities (not directly
the jobs in the downstream segment will be negatively
related to the product under investigation), their overall
impacted in the short term and that the overall impact
importance increases substantially for three out of the
will be negative but only to a limited extent in view of
seven operators. As a result, the corresponding ratio
the fact that the PV market in the Union is forecasted to
would range from around 45 % to 100 % during the IP.
grow in the mid- and long-term. Some parties further
In addition, for the seven operators (installers and project
claimed that in particular installers, who are dependent
developers) the profitability of the PV activity including
on the PV installations, will suffer from the decline in
the activities not directly linked to the product under
demand.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/45
(378) The possible job losses resulting from the imposition of
(382) In reply to the final disclosure some parties claimed that
the duties was further analysed. In general terms, the
the Commission's analysis was silent about the fact that
information gathered during the investigation confirmed
the duties will only add to the loss of jobs resulting from
that the downstream sector has been experiencing job
the smaller number of PV installations after 2011. It was
losses as a result of the contraction of the demand for PV
argued that such job losses, in particular in the down
installations in the Union of about 5 GW between 2011
stream sector, are closely linked to the fact that the PV
and 2012, as already stated in recital (246) to the provi
installers are dependent on the solar installations. In addi
sional Regulation. These job losses cannot be linked to
tion, AFASE criticised the Commission for not having
the measures as they reflected a market evolution. More
properly considered the survey it conducted amongst its
over, a further contraction of demand is foreseen in
members and a similar survey conducted by a UK Solar
2013 and 2014 and will most likely result in further job
Trade Association, which allegedly illustrated such depen
losses in the PV sector. Similarly, such evolution of the
dence.
demand was forecasted by major research centres such as
EPIA before the initiation of the investigation and there
fore such job losses cannot be attributed to the imposi
tion of measures.
(383) As regards the alleged silence of the Commission
concerning the impact of the duties on jobs, reference is
(379) The Union industry submitted a study by a consultant
made to recitals (377) and (379) above, where the claims
PriceWaterHouseCoopers (‘PWC’) on the possible impact
concerning the impact of the measures on jobs in the PV
of measure on PV related jobs. The PWC study refers to
sector are addressed and where it is acknowledged that
an earlier study by another consultant Prognos, which
indeed the jobs in the downstream sector might be
envisaged high job losses in the PV market resulting from
affected in the short term due to the measures.
the imposition of measures, which was submitted by
AFASE prior to the imposition of provisional duties and
which was addressed in recitals (243) to (246) to the
provisional Regulation. The PWC study criticised the
study by Prognos pointing to the fact that the total job
losses estimated by Prognos exceeded in fact the total
number of existing PV jobs in the Union. Regarding the
impact of duties in the Union market, PWC reached
opposite conclusions than Prognos, forecasting a net
positive impact on jobs in the Union and that the bene
fits outweigh the possible negative effects of the duties (e.
(384) With regard to the survey conducted by AFASE and the
g. on demand). In view of the absence of new substan
UK Solar Trade Association, in response to the final
tiated arguments on the impact of measures on the
disclosure the identity of the companies participating in
employment in the downstream sector, the conclusions
the interview was provided. The surveys remained
in recitals (247) to (250) to the provisional Regulation
however deficient, since for example certain replies were
are confirmed.
incomplete. The analysis of the surveys showed the
following. Concerning the survey by AFASE, it is firstly
noted that the majority of the 50 installers who replied
to the interview declared to be exclusively active in the
PV market. 15 out of 50 installers declared to be also
active in other non-PV activities such heating, electrical
installations, and wind to a certain extent. In case of the
UK survey, 21 out of 31 UK companies who replied to
the interview had also other than PV activities. This result
(380) AFASE argued that the Commission did not disclose the
shows that with regards to a nearly a half of the project
source of the margin of error of 20 % for the direct PV
developers and installers, the finding set out in
jobs calculated for 2011 mentioned in recital (245) to
recital (247) to the provisional Regulation on the ability
the provisional Regulation.
to perform other activities such as electrical and heating
installations, plumbing and other green energies installa
tions, is correct. It is, however, recognized that this ability
may exist to a lesser extent than assumed in the provi
sional Regulation. Its mitigating impact on job losses
may therefore be less important than initially assumed.
Secondly, some of the operators surveyed by AFASE and
the UK Solar Trade Association have been using products
(381) This margin of error of 20 %, which may apply upward
produced in the Union and some foresee buying non-
or downward, became apparent during the verification
Chinese products following the measures to avoid a price
visit at EPIA. It shows the difficulty to assess precise
increase. Thus, their dependence on the Chinese imports
figures on employment in the downstream sector as there
and the impact of the measures is expected to be reduced
are few sources, often contradictory, of data collection.
as they can access products produced in the Union.

---

L 325/46
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
Thirdly, the estimation of the impact of the measures on
in recital (374) above, profitability of the downstream
the businesses of all surveyed operators' did not allow for
cooperating operators related directly to the product
firm conclusions as their assessment was very diverse.
concerned was assessed at around 11 % on average
Some companies were even unable to assess such impact.
which leaves to the operators in question the possibility
Fourthly, also the answers to the question about the
to absorb at least partially some price increase if any. In
number of the PV projects that risk cancelling in case of
this context, it is recalled as mentioned in recital (335)
duties ranged from ‘not many’ to ‘all projects’ in the UK
above that the overall trend of prices is downward. The
survey. Some operators were unable to make an estima
argument is therefore rejected.
tion. Finally, both surveys lacked the question about the
profitability of the economic operators interviewed,
which is important for the assessment of the possible
absorption of the price increase, if any, resulting from the
duty.
(388) In reply to the final disclosure some parties reiterated the
claim of the serious risk of contraction of demand for
solar products in the Union as a result of the measures,
which according to these parties speaks against the
measures. One party argued that the solar energy
(385) Other parties claimed that installers cannot easily change
currently has a high price elasticity of demand and even
their activities or switch to other green energy installa
a limited increase in the price of solar products would
tions because of the very different technologies and
result in a severe contraction of demand. This party esti
know-how involved. Therefore, should the duties be
mated that an anti-dumping duty in the range of 30 %
imposed, they would go out of business. After final
may further contract demand by 8 GW whereas a duty
disclosure, this claim was reiterated by one interested
of 50 % would contract demand by 10 GW. In the same
party, arguing that installers have invested substantial
tone, AFASE referred to a study made by a market
resources in PV specialisation, such a specific training,
analyst, which also foresees a contraction of demand of
which would show that their main focus is on the PV
up to 2GW in 2013 as a result of a duty of 50 %, thus a
sector and that they would not be able to switch easily to
contraction of a much smaller magnitude.
other activities.
(389) Although different contraction scenarios were submitted
(386) This argument was insufficiently substantiated as it was
by parties during the investigation in addition to the ones
not demonstrated what precise knowledge an installer
referred to above, they did not contain comparable
would need to acquire and how difficult and expensive it
results. While it cannot be excluded that the duties might
is to obtain it. Irrespectively, the institutions acknowledge
result in a contraction of demand for PV installations, the
that installers have developed know-how specific to the
quantification of such effect is difficult to establish in
installation of PV modules. However, the development of
view of the various elements that influence the attractive
this know-how is relatively recent and adds to the
ness of the PV installations in the Union (see for instance
primary expertise of the installers being electrical and
recital (258) to the provisional Regulation). In addition,
heating installations, plumbing etc. It also developed in
even if such contraction were to take place in the short
response to an unfair practice namely the massive inflow
term, the mid- and long-term benefits resulting from fair
of dumped imports from the PRC. Independently from
trade are expected to outweigh the short term negative
the specialised skills of the employees of the installers,
impact. Finally, AFASE itself recognised that the assess
the argument has to be considered in parallel with the
ment of the direct link between the demand and the
analysis made in recitals (378) and (382) above on the
duties would only be available once duties are in place.
employment situation in the downstream sector which in
Therefore, this argument was rejected.
the short term might be negatively impacted but which,
thanks to sustainable trade, would lead to an increase in
the employment of installers in the mid- to long term.
Therefore, the argument was rejected.
(390) In the absence of any further comments, recitals (243)
and (250) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
The findings on the six service providers for which the
PV related activity constitutes only a small fraction of
(387) Several parties contested the argument regarding the
their broader activities (see recital (370) above) do not
ability of the downstream operators to absorb partly the
change the conclusion contained in recital (250) to the
possible price increase mentioned in recital (247) to the
provisional Regulation nor does the distinction of the PV
provisional Regulation. Also this argument was insuffi
activity not directly related to the product concerned of
ciently substantiated thus preventing from assessing to
the seven project developers/installers referred to in
which extent this allegation was accurate. As mentioned
recital (374).

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/47
6. Interest of the end-users/consumers
prices following the measures is possible (see recital (247)
to the provisional Regulation). Indeed, such price increase
may result from the difference in price levels between the
Chinese dumped prices and the non-Chinese products.
Yet, the information gathered during the investigation
allows claiming that the eventual price increase may be
partly absorbed by a number of factors in view of the
(391) Following the provisional disclosure, some parties reiter
profits in the downstream sector at the level of 11 %.
ated the argument that the duties would increase the
Finally, regarding the claim that there is no evidence that
price of the product concerned. Consequently, there
suggests that FITs might compensate the price increase, it
would be a decline in demand for PV installations as they
is reasonable to assume that FITs will be adjusted over
would be too expensive for consumers and not attractive
time in line with the development of prices for projects.
enough for the other investors.
(392) As already mentioned in recital (335) above, even if a
temporary increase of prices may happen as a result of
(395) One party claimed that in fact since March 2013
the imposition of measures, the overall trend of prices is
modules prices increased by 20 % in Europe and that
downward as confirmed by several public sources. While
there is a severe lack of stock since 2013. The argument
it is difficult to quantify the exact possible price increase
was not substantiated and to the contrary, the public
resulting from the measures and a consequent possible
information sources confirm a relative stability of prices
contraction of the demand, several elements are recalled.
in the second quarter of 2013. Even if that information
Firstly, the product under investigation constitutes up to
was correct, it would only reflect the fact that following
50 % of the total cost of a PV installation and therefore
registration of imports, the risk of a possible anti
the duty may be at least partly absorbed. Secondly, the
dumping duty has been priced in. The argument was
competition of the Union industry with the third coun
therefore rejected.
tries' producers, already present on the Union market, is
likely to keep the prices down. At the same time the
Union industry should be able to achieve better financial
results thanks to the economies of scales resulting from a
better utilisation of the production plants and reduced
cost of production. Thirdly, the demand for PV installa
tions is correlated not only with the price levels of the
product under investigation but also with the level of
(396) Another party claimed that the PV projects would not
FITs. At present low levels of demand, as compared to
generate a return for an investor if the fall in FITs is not
those achieved in 2011 and the IP, it is expected that the
correlated with falling project costs, including the price
FITs should not decrease as quickly as in the period
of modules, as they represent a significant part of the
considered, allowing for continuous investment in PV
costs in a given project. To this end, it was claimed that
projects. The argument was therefore dismissed.
the duties would put in question the viability of many PV
projects as they increase the price.
(393) In reply to the final disclosure one party contested the
above reasoning. It claimed that the downward price
trend cannot be maintained after the imposition of the
measures. The party recalled that the measures represent
(397) As mentioned in recital (335) above, the overall trend of
a very significant cost increase that cannot be fully offset
prices of the cells and modules is downward. Further
by cost decreases and or imports from the third coun
more, the importance of FIT with regard to the market is
tries. In addition, it was reiterated that the Union industry
decreasing as grid parity is likely to be achieved in several
will not be able to undertake new investments in plants
regions. On these grounds the argument that the price of
and machinery and the downstream operators can absorb
PV modules could have a negative impact on PV projects
a little if their profit is 11 %. Finally there is no evidence
including the question of their viability was rejected.
that
suggests
that
FITs
might
compensate
the
price increase.
(394) It is recalled that contrary to this claim it is not expected
(398) One interested party provided an internal modelling to
that the price increase resulting from the measures may
prove that the viability of many PV projects was endan
be fully offset but rather that a temporary increase in
gered if duties were applied.

---

L 325/48
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(399) This modelling did not allow for a proper quantification
G. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
as to what extent the attractiveness of the investment in
the PV installations (e.g. return on investment) could
decline in the event of increased prices of the cells and
modules. Nevertheless, the assumption that any duty
would be entirely passed on to end-users or consumers,
(406) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to
used in the said modelling, is unlikely in view of the
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, definitive
existing profit margins of the downstream operators.
anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to
Moreover, an investment decision is not only based on
prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry
the price of modules but also depends on many other
by the dumped imports.
factors including inter alia the existence of a general
favourable framework for PV installations in a given
country, the level of support respectively the electricity
price (for grid parity). Therefore, this argument has to be
rejected.
(400) In the absence of any further comments, recitals (252)
and (254) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
1. Injury elimination level
7. Other arguments
(407) For the purpose of determining the level of these
measures, account was taken of the dumping margins
(401) Following the provisional disclosure, the argument that
found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the
the Union industry is not capable of supplying the Union
injury sustained by the Union producers, without
market and that only the PRC possesses the capacity to
exceeding the dumping margins found.
supply the Union market was reiterated.
(402) The claim was addressed in recital (256) to the provi
sional Regulation. Even if a more conservative assump
tion on the Union production capacity was made (see
(408) Following the provisional disclosure one interested party
recital (183) above), the joint Union and third countries
contested the 10 % profit margin used to calculate the
spare capacity would be sufficient to complement in the
injury elimination level claiming that this level was too
short-term the potential decrease of Chinese imports.
high for this industry in the current market circum
Also in the medium-term it is reasonable to assume that
stances and it was used both for modules and cells. It is
the Union industry will expand its production capacity to
noted that the legal benchmark to determine the profit
cover demand which will allow it to achieve economies
before tax for the purpose of calculating the injury elimi
of scale, which in turn would allow for further price
nation level is whether such profit could be reasonably
reduction. Therefore, this argument was rejected.
achieved by the industry under normal conditions of
competition, i.e. in the absence of dumping. In line with
the jurisprudence of the General Court, such profit is the
one realised at the beginning of the period considered, i.
(403) Some parties reiterated the argument regarding the diffi
e. before the increase in dumped imports. Therefore the
culty in achieving the Commission's green energy 2020
target profit was adjusted at 8 % on the basis of the
goals if duties are imposed. This argument has already
weighted average profit realised by the Union industry in
been addressed in the provisional Regulation recitals (257)
2009 and 2010 for modules and cells when profitable.
to (259), therefore, in the absence of any further
elements, recitals (257) and (259) to the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.
(409) Following the final disclosure, the Union industry
claimed that the profitability of the year 2010 should be
used as the level of profitability that Union industry
8. Conclusion on Union interest
could reasonably achieve in the absence of dumped
imports rather than the average profit margin of the
years 2009 and 2010. In this respect, it was argued that,
(404) In view of the above, the assessment in recitals (260) to
the profitability in 2009 was insufficient and the circum
(261) to the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
stances in the two years were clearly distinct given in par
ticular the development in consumption in 2010 which
alleviated the effects of dumping in that year. In this
(405) Therefore, there are no compelling reasons against the
regard, it should be noted that it is not relevant whether
imposition of definitive measures on imports of the
the average profit margin realised by the Union industry
product concerned originating in the PRC.
was ‘sufficient’ when determining the injury elimination

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/49
level. As already stated in recital (264) to the provisional
should therefore be adjusted accordingly. It should be
Regulation the injury elimination level should be based
noted that this claim should not be decisive for the calcu
on the profit which can be reasonably achieved in the
lation of the injury margin, since the investigation
absence of dumped imports. It is the Investigating Autho
showed that Union producers were not profitable.
rities' practice to consider that this level had been
reached at the beginning of the period considered. As in
this case the Union industry realised losses with regard to
(413) In the absence of other comments concerning the injury
the sales of cells at the beginning of the period consid
elimination level, the methodology described in reci
ered in 2009, this methodology was unsuitable and it
tals (263) to (266) to the provisional Regulation
was deemed more reliable to base the determination of
is confirmed.
the injury elimination level on the average profit margin
of the first and the second year of the period considered.
In this regard it was also considered that it is irrelevant
that circumstances were different in these two years.
2. Definitive measures
(410) Another party reiterated that the different target profits
should be established for modules and cells, as the profit
ability of these product types showed different trends
(414) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to
during the period considered. While indicators were
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest and in
shown separately for each product type, the conclusions
accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, it is
reached for each indicator refer to the product under
considered that definitive anti-dumping measures should
investigation as a whole. It is also recalled that modules
be imposed on imports of crystalline silicon PV modules
and cells are one single product and therefore the
or panels and cells of the type used in crystalline silicon
dumping margins and the injury elimination level were
PV modules or panels, originating in or consigned from
established on this basis.
the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping and the
injury margins found, in accordance with the lesser duty
rule. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set
at the level of the injury margins found.
(411) Moreover, the revised sample of unrelated importers
post-importation
costs
(modified
for
the
reasons
explained in recital (21) ) had an impact on the injury
margins calculated. Finally, all underselling margins were
(415) It is noted that an anti-subsidy investigation was carried
out in parallel with the anti-dumping investigation. In
affected by the correction of CIF prices, the exclusion of
view of the use of the lesser duty rule and the fact that
wafers and the new target profit.
the definitive subsidy margins are lower than the injury
elimination level, it is considered appropriate to impose a
definitive countervailing duty at the level of the estab
(412) One party argued that sales of the sampled Union produ
lished definitive subsidy margins and then impose a defi
cers focused on the high-end market, such as the residen
nitive anti-dumping duty up to the relevant injury elimi
tial/small commercial sector, which attracted higher FITs
nation level. On the basis of the above, the rate at which
and suggested that the Union industry's sales price
such duties will be imposed are set as follows:
Injury
Anti
Subsidy
Dumping
Countervail
Company
elimination
dumping
margin
margin
ing duty
level
duty
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. Ltd;
3,5 %
90,3 %
48,2 %
3,5 %
44,7 %
Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co.
Ltd;
Changzhou Youze Technology Co. Ltd;
Trina Solar Energy (Shanghai) Co. Ltd;
Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd
Delsolar (Wujiang) Ltd
de minimis
111,5 %
64,9 %
0,0 %
64,9 %
Jiangxi LDK Solar Hi-Tech Co. Ltd
11,5 %
91,9 %
58,2 %
11,5 %
46,7 %
LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Hefei) Co. Ltd
LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Nanchang) Co. Ltd
LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Suzhou) Co. Ltd

---

L 325/50
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
Injury
Anti
Subsidy
Dumping
Countervail
Company
elimination
dumping
margin
margin
ing duty
level
duty
JingAo Solar Co. Ltd
5,0 %
97,5 %
56,5 %
5,0 %
51,5 %
Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd
JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. Ltd
Hefei JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd
Shanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co. Ltd
Jinko Solar Co. Ltd
6,5 %
88,1 %
47,7 %
6,5 %
41,2 %
Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. Ltd
ZHEJIANG JINKO SOLAR CO. LTD
ZHEJIANG JINKO SOLAR TRADING CO. LTD
Jinzhou Yangguang Energy Co. Ltd
6,4 %
53,8 %
33,7 %
6,4 %
27,3 %
Jinzhou Huachang Photovoltaic Technology Co.
Ltd
Jinzhou Jinmao Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
Jinzhou Rixin Silicon Materials Co. Ltd
Jinzhou Youhua Silicon Materials Co. Ltd
RENESOLA ZHEJIANG LTD
4,6 %
88,1 %
47,7 %
4,6 %
43,1 %
RENESOLA JIANGSU LTD
Wuxi Suntech Power Co. Ltd
4,9 %
73,2 %
46,3 %
4,9 %
41,4 %
Suntech Power Co. Ltd
Wuxi Sunshine Power Co. Ltd
Luoyang Suntech Power Co. Ltd
Zhenjiang Ren De New Energy Science Technology
Co. Ltd
Zhenjiang Rietech New Energy Science Technology
Co. Ltd
Yingli Energy (China) Co. Ltd
6,3 %
93,3 %
41,8 %
6,3 %
35,5 %
Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co.
Ltd
Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co.
Ltd
Yingli Energy (Beijing) Co. Ltd
Other co-operating companies in the anti-dumping
6,4 %
88,1 %
47,7 %
6,4 %
41,3 %
investigation (with the exception of the companies
subject to the residual duty in the parallel anti
subsidy Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/
2013 (1)) (Annex I)
Other co-operating companies in the anti-dumping
11,5 %
88,1 %
47,7 %
11,5 %
36,2 %
investigation, subject to the residual duty in the
parallel anti subsidy Implementing Regulation
(EU) No 1239/2013 (Annex II)
All other companies
11,5 %
111,5 %
64,9 %
11,5 %
53,4 %
(1) Council Implementing Regulation (Eu) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of
crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China
(see page 66 of this Official Journal)

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/51
(416) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates speci
(420) In order to ensure equal treatment between any new
fied in this Regulation were established on the basis of
exporters and the cooperating companies not included in
the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they
the sample, mentioned in Annex I and Annex II to this
reflect the situation found during that investigation in
Regulation, provision should be made for the weighted
respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed
average duty imposed on the latter companies to be
to the countrywide duty applicable to ‘all other compa
applied to any new exporters which would otherwise be
nies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of the
entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic
products originating in the PRC and produced by the
Regulation.
companies and thus by the specific legal entities
mentioned. Imports of the product concerned manufac
tured by any other company not specifically mentioned
in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and
address, including entities related to those specifically
mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be
subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other compa
nies’.
(421) Measures are imposed to allow the producers in the
Union to recover from the injurious effect of dumping.
To the extent that there would be any initial imbalance
between the potential benefit for producers in the Union
and the cost for other economic operators in the Union,
this imbalance could be offset by an increase and/or
(417) Following disclosure, the GOC argued that the weighted
restart of the production in the Union.
average duty rate for the companies listed in Annex I and
Annex II is in violation of the WTO Anti-Dumping
Agreement, since it is allegedly based on the weighted
average of the duties calculated separately for the
sampled exporting producers of cells and modules. This
assessment is, however, incorrect. For the sampled
exporting producers, a uniform duty rate has been calcu
(422) However, the envisaged scenario of increased production
lated for all their exports of the product concerned —
in the Union may not be in line with the market develop
and the majority of exporting producers did export cells
ment in this volatile market. As indicated in recital (108)
and modules. The assessment that duties were separately
to the provisional Regulation, Union consumption of
calculated for exporting producers of cells and modules is
modules increased by 264 % between 2009 and 2011,
therefore incorrect, and the argument can therefore not
only to decrease by 43 percentage points during the 6
be accepted.
month period between 2011 and the IP. The volatility is
even more impressive when looking at the period
of 2006-2011, where the Union consumption of
modules increased from less than 1 GW to almost 20
GW or an increase of around 2000 % in just five years.
(418) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting
This volatility is expected to continue, and forecasts
from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in
published by business associations show differences of
volume after the imposition of the measures concerned,
100 % and more between the different scenarios even for
such an increase in volume could be considered as consti
the medium term period of 2014-2015.
tuting 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 rates and the consequent imposition of a country
(423) For these reasons, it is considered appropriate, in such
wide duty.
exceptional circumstances, to limit the duration of
measures to a period of two years only.
(419) Any claim requesting the application of an individual
anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the
name of the entity or following the setting up of new
production or sales entities) should be addressed to the
(424) This period should be enough for the producers in the
Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in
Union to increase and/or restart their production, while
particular any modification in the company's activities
at the same time not significantly endanger the situation
linked to production, domestic and export sales asso
of other economic operators in the Union. It is consid
ciated with, for instance, that name change or that
ered that the period of two years will be the most appro
change in the production and sales entities. If appro
priate to analyse whether the imposition of measures had
priate, this Regulation will then be amended accordingly
indeed the effect of increasing European production and
by updating the list of companies benefiting from indivi
thereby balancing the negative effects on other economic
dual anti-dumping duty rates.
operators in the Union.

---

L 325/52
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
(425) Following final disclosure, one Union producer raised the
(430) The oral and written comments submitted by the inter
argument that the limited duration of 2 years is too short
ested parties were considered and taken into account
to recover from the injury suffered. In addition it was
where appropriate.
argued that a duration of 2 years would not allow Union
producers to file business plans for the current and the
coming business year. In this respect, it is noted that the
duration of the measures until December 2015, which
should be sufficient for Union producers to file business
plans until 2015.
3. Retroactivity
(426) Furthermore, the Union producer did not contest the
reasons for which the duration was limited to two years,
(431) As concerns a possible retroactive application of anti
notably the volatility of the market. The producer even
dumping measures, the criteria set out in Article 10(4) of
explicitly appreciated a review in case the measures need
the basic Regulation have to be evaluated. Pursuant to
to be changed due to changed market situation. Since the
Article 10(4)(b), one key criterion which needs to be
likelihood of a change in market circumstances within
fulfilled is that there is ‘a further substantial rise in imports’
two years is indeed high in this volatile market, it is
‘in addition to the level of imports which caused injury during
considered appropriate to limit the measures to two years
the investigation period’.
from the outset.
(432) A comparison of monthly average imports (1) of modules
and cells with monthly average imports for the period
under registration (March 2013 — June 2013) shows a
(427) Following final disclosure, the complainant argued that
sharp decrease of import volumes after the IP. Indeed, as
two years are insufficient to invest in production, refer
stated in recital (110) to the provisional Regulation, the
ring to recital (424) above. However, due to the substan
monthly average import quantity of Chinese modules
tial spare capacity of the Union industry, an increase in
and cells amounted to 1 250 MW (2) during the IP. For
production can be done through a better utilisation of
comparison, during the period of registration the
the existing production capacities, which should be
monthly average import volume of Chinese modules and
feasible without significant additional investments.
cells was only around half as high.
(433) Alternatively, given the volatile nature of the market, the
further substantial rise in imports could be assessed in
(428) The complainant further argued that an imposition of
relative rather than absolute terms. To assess whether
definitive anti-dumping duties for a period of two years
there is a further substantial rise in imports in relative
is insufficient for the Union Industry to recover from the
terms, it is necessary to compare the import volumes
injurious effects of past dumping. However, the imposi
with the consumption on the Union market, i.e. the
tion of anti-dumping duties cannot only look at the inter
consumption would have to decrease at a substantially
ests of the Union Industry alone, but needs to balance
higher rate than the decrease in Chinese imports. Since
the potential benefit for producers in the Union and the
the import volume of Chinese modules and cells during
cost for other economic operators in the Union. On this
the period of registration was only half as high as during
basis, the decision to limit measures to two years is main
the IP, this decrease in consumption would need to be
tained.
substantially higher than 50 %. While no precise infor
mation concerning the consumption during the period
under registration is available, there are no indications
that the consumption decreased by more than 50 %.
(429) All parties were informed of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
(434) For the reasons stated above, the criterion concerning a
recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping
further substantial rise in imports is therefore not met.
duty on imports of crystalline silicon PV modules or
As a consequence, it is concluded that the definitive anti
panels and cells of the type used in crystalline silicon PV
dumping duty shall not be levied retroactively prior to
modules or panels, originating in or consigned from the
the date of application of provisional measures.
PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured
by way to the provisional duty (final disclosure). All
(1) Since the period under registration is significantly shorter than the IP, a
comparison of monthly average values is more useful than a compar
parties were granted a period within which they could
ison of total volumes of the two respective periods.
make comments on the final disclosure.
(2) 13 986 MW of modules + 1 019 MW of cells allocated to 12 months.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/53
H. FORM OF THE MEASURES
(435) Subsequent to the adoption of the provisional anti-dumping measures, a group of cooperating
exporting producers, including their related companies in the PRC and in the European Union, and
together with the CCCME offered a joint price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the
basic Regulation. The undertaking offer was also supported by the Chinese authorities.
(436) The Commission examined the offer, and by Decision 2013/423/EU accepted this undertaking offer.
As already indicated in recitals (3), (4) and (7) of this Decision, in order to assess whether the price
undertaking removes the injurious effect of dumping, the Commission has analysed any changed
market circumstances of a lasting nature concerning, inter alia, the current export prices and the
injury elimination level which was found lower than the level of dumping.
(437) Subsequent to Decision 2013/423/EU, the exporting producers together with CCCME submitted a
notification to amend their initial undertaking offer. They requested to revise the undertaking to take
account of the exclusion of wafers from the product scope as described in recitals (31) and (72). In
addition, a number of additional exporters, within the deadline stipulated in Article 8(2) of the basic
Regulation, requested to be included in the undertaking.
(438) By Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU, the Commission confirmed the acceptance of the under
taking offered by exporters listed in the Annex to that Decision with regards to the definitive duties,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1.
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic
modules or panels and cells of the type used in crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels (the cells
have a thickness not exceeding 400 micrometres), currently falling within CN codes ex 8501 31 00,
ex 8501 32 00, ex 8501 33 00, ex 8501 34 00, ex 8501 61 20, ex 8501 61 80, ex 8501 62 00,
ex 8501 63 00, ex 8501 64 00 and ex 8541 40 90 (TARIC codes 8501 31 00 81, 8501 31 00 89,
8501 32 00 41, 8501 32 00 49, 8501 33 00 61, 8501 33 00 69, 8501 34 00 41, 8501 34 00 49,
8501 61 20 41, 8501 61 20 49, 8501 61 80 41, 8501 61 80 49, 8501 62 00 61, 8501 62 00 69,
8501 63 00 41, 8501 63 00 49, 8501 64 00 41, 8501 64 00 49, 8541 40 90 21, 8541 40 90 29,
8541 40 90 31 and 8541 40 29 0239) and originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of
China, unless they are in transit in the sense of Article V GATT.
The following product types are excluded from the definition of the product concerned:
— solar chargers that consist of less than six cells, are portable and supply electricity to devices or charge
batteries,
— thin film photovoltaic products,
— crystalline silicon photovoltaic products that are permanently integrated into electrical goods, where the
function of the electrical goods is other than power generation, and where these electrical goods
consume the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell(s),
— modules or panels with a output voltage not exceeding 50 V DC and a power output not exceeding
50 W solely for direct use as battery chargers in systems with the same voltage and power characteris
tics.
2.
The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before
duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed below shall be as
follows:
TARIC additional
Company
Duty rate
code
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. Ltd;
44,7 %
B791
Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. Ltd;
Changzhou Youze Technology Co. Ltd;
Trina Solar Energy (Shanghai) Co. Ltd;
Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd

---

L 325/54
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
TARIC additional
Company
Duty rate
code
Delsolar (Wujiang) Ltd
64,9 %
B792
Jiangxi LDK Solar Hi-Tech Co. Ltd
46,7 %
B793
LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Nanchang) Co. Ltd
LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Suzhou) Co. Ltd
LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Hefei) Co. Ltd
46,7 %
B927
JingAo Solar Co. Ltd
51,5 %
B794
Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd
JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. Ltd
Hefei JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd
Shanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co. Ltd
Jinko Solar Co.Ltd
41,2 %
B845
Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. Ltd
ZHEJIANG JINKO SOLAR CO. LTD
ZHEJIANG JINKO SOLAR TRADING CO. LTD
Jinzhou Yangguang Energy Co. Ltd
27,3 %
B795
Jinzhou Huachang Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
Jinzhou Jinmao Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
Jinzhou Rixin Silicon Materials Co. Ltd
Jinzhou Youhua Silicon Materials Co. Ltd
RENESOLA ZHEJIANG LTD
43,1 %
B921
RENESOLA JIANGSU LTD
Wuxi Suntech Power Co. Ltd
41,4 %
B796
Suntech Power Co. Ltd
Wuxi Sunshine Power Co. Ltd
Luoyang Suntech Power Co. Ltd
Zhenjiang Ren De New Energy Science Technology Co. Ltd
Zhenjiang Rietech New Energy Science Technology Co. Ltd
Yingli Energy (China) Co. Ltd
35,5 %
B797
Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd
Yingli Energy (Beijing) Co. Ltd
Other co-operating companies in the anti-dumping investigation (with the excep
41,3 %
tion of the companies subject to the residual duty in the parallel anti-subsidy
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013) (Annex I)
Other co-operating companies in the anti-dumping investigation, subject to the
36,2 %
residual duty in the parallel anti-subsidy Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/
2013 (Annex II)
All other companies
53,4 %
B999

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/55
3.
Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force
Article 3
concerning customs duties shall apply.
4.
Where any new exporting producer in the People's
Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commis
sion that:
1.
Imports declared for release into free circulation for
products currently falling within CN code ex 8541 40 90
(TARIC
codes
8541 40 90 21,
8541 40 90 29,
— it did not export to the Union the product described in para
8541 40 90 31 and 8541 40 90 39) which are invoiced by
graph 1 in the period between 1 July 2011 and 30 June
companies from which undertakings are accepted by the
2012 (investigation period),
Commission and whose names are listed in the Annex to Imple
menting Decision 2013/707/EU, shall be exempt from the anti
— it is not related to any exporter or producer in the People's
dumping duty imposed by Article 1, on condition that:
Republic of China which is subject to the anti-dumping
measures imposed by this Regulation,
— it has actually exported to the Union the product concerned
(a) a company listed in the Annex to Implementing Decision
after the investigation period on which the measures are
2013/707/EU manufactured, shipped and invoiced directly
based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obli
the products referred to above or via its related company
gation to export a significant quantity to the Union,
also listed in the Annex to Implementing Decision
2013/707/EU either to their related companies in the Union
acting as an importer and clearing the goods for free circula
paragraph 2 may be amended by adding the new exporting
tion in the Union or to the first independent customer
producer to the cooperating companies not included in the
acting as an importer and clearing the goods for free circula
sample and thus subject to the weighted average duty of 41,3 %.
tion in the Union;
(b) such imports are accompanied by an undertaking invoice
Article 2
which is a commercial invoice containing at least the
elements and the declaration stipulated in Annex III of this
Regulation;
1.
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti
dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 on
imports
of wafers (the
wafers have a
thickness not
exceeding 400 micrometers) and modules or panels with a
(c) such imports are accompanied by an Export Undertaking
output voltage not exceeding 50 V DC and a power output not
Certificate according to Annex IV of this Regulation; and
exceeding 50 W solely for direct use as battery chargers in
systems with the same voltage and power characteristics origin
ating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China shall
be released.
(d) the goods declared and presented to customs correspond
precisely to the description on the undertaking invoice.
2.
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti
dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 on
imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels
and cells of the type used in crystalline silicon photovoltaic
2.
A customs debt shall be incurred at the time of acceptance
modules or panels (the cells have a thickness not exceeding 400
of the declaration for release into free circulation:
micrometres), currently falling within CN codes ex 8501 31 00,
ex
8501 32 00,
ex
8501 33 00,
ex
8501 34 00,
ex
8501 61 20,
ex
8501 61 80,
ex
8501 62 00,
ex
8501 63 00,
ex
8501 64 00
and
ex
8541 40 90
(TARIC
codes
8501 31 00 81,
8501 31 00 89,
(a) whenever it is established, in respect of imports described in
8501 32 00 41,
8501 32 00 49,
8501 33 00 61,
paragraph 1, that one or more of the conditions listed in
8501 33 00 69,
8501 34 00 41,
8501 34 00 49,
that paragraph are not fulfilled; or
8501 61 20 41,
8501 61 20 49,
8501 61 80 41,
8501 61 80 49,
8501 62 00 61,
8501 62 00 69,
8501 63 00 41,
8501 63 00 49,
8501 64 00 41,
8501 64 00 49,
8541 40 90 21,
8541 40 90 29,
8541 40 90 31 and 8541 40 90 39) and originating in or
(b) when the Commission withdraws its acceptance of the
consigned from the People's Republic of China, unless they are
undertaking pursuant to Article 8(9) of Regulation (EC) No
in transit in the sense of Article V GATT, shall be definitively
1225/2009 in a Regulation or Decision which refers to par
collected. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of
ticular transactions and declares the relevant undertaking
anti-dumping duties shall be released.
invoices as invalid.

---

L 325/56
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
Article 4
commercial invoice containing at least the elements stipulated
in Annex V of this Regulation.
Article5
The companies from which undertakings are accepted by the
Commission and whose names are listed in the Annex to Deci
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
sion 2013/707/EU and subject to certain conditions specified
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
therein, will also issue an invoice for transactions which are not
exempted from the anti-dumping duties. This invoice shall be a
It shall expire on 7 December 2015.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 December 2013.
For the Council
The President
E. GUSTAS

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/57
ANNEX I
TARIC
Name of the Company
additional code
Anhui Schutten Solar Energy Co. Ltd
B801
Quanjiao Jingkun Trade Co. Ltd
Anji DaSol Solar Energy Science & Technology Co. Ltd
B802
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc.
B805
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc.
CSI Cells Co. Ltd
CSI Solar Power (China) Inc.
Changzhou Shangyou Lianyi Electronic Co. Ltd
B807
CHINALAND SOLAR ENERGY CO. LTD
B808
CEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co. Ltd
B809
CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science Technology Co. Ltd
China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co. Ltd
China Sunergy (Shanghai) Co. Ltd
China Sunergy (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd
Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd
B810
ChangZhou EGing Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B811
ANHUI RINENG ZHONGTIAN SEMICONDUCTOR DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
B812
CIXI CITY RIXING ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
HUOSHAN KEBO ENERGY & TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.
CNPV Dongying Solar Power Co. Ltd
B813
CSG PVtech Co. Ltd
B814
DCWATT POWER Co. Ltd
B815
Dongfang Electric (Yixing) MAGI Solar Power Technology Co. Ltd
B816
EOPLLY New Energy Technology Co. Ltd
B817
SHANGHAI EBEST SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD
JIANGSU EOPLLY IMPORT & EXPORT CO. LTD
Era Solar Co. Ltd
B818
ET Energy Co. Ltd
B819
ET Solar Industry Limited
GD Solar Co. Ltd
B820
Guodian Jintech Solar Energy Co. Ltd
B822
Hangzhou Bluesun New Material Co. Ltd
B824
Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd
B825
Zhejiang Jinbest Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd
Hanwha SolarOne Co. Ltd
B929
Hanwha SolarOne (Qidong) Co. Ltd
B826
Hengdian Group DMEGC Magnetics Co. Ltd
B827

---

L 325/58
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
TARIC
Name of the Company
additional code
HENGJI PV-TECH ENERGY CO. LTD.
B828
Himin Clean Energy Holdings Co. Ltd
B829
Jetion Solar (China) Co. Ltd
B830
Junfeng Solar (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd
Jetion Solar (Jiangyin) Co. Ltd
Jiangsu Green Power PV Co. Ltd
B831
Jiangsu Hosun Solar Power Co. Ltd
B832
Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B833
Jiangsu Runda PV Co. Ltd
B834
Jiangsu Sainty Machinery Imp. And Exp. Corp. Ltd
B835
Jiangsu Sainty Photovoltaic Systems Co. Ltd
Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd
B836
Changzhou Shunfeng Photovoltaic Materials Co. Ltd
B837
Jiangsu Shunfeng Photovoltaic Electronic Power Co. Ltd
Jiangsu Shunfeng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
Jiangsu Sinski PV Co. Ltd
B838
Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co. Ltd
B839
Jiangsu Zhongchao Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B840
Jiangxi Risun Solar Energy Co. Ltd
B841
Jiangyin Hareon Power Co. Ltd
B842
Taicang Hareon Solar Co. Ltd
Hareon Solar Technology Co. Ltd
Hefei Hareon Solar Technology Co. Ltd
Jiangyin Xinhui Solar Energy Co. Ltd
Altusvia Energy (Taicang) Co, Ltd
Jinggong P-D Shaoxing Solar Energy Tech Co. Ltd
B844
Juli New Energy Co. Ltd
B846
Jumao Photonic (Xiamen) Co. Ltd
B847
Kinve Solar Power Co. Ltd (Maanshan)
B849
GCL SOLAR POWER (SUZHOU) LIMITED
B850
GCL-Poly Solar Power System Integration (Taicang) Co. Ltd
GCL Solar System (Suzhou) Limited
GCL-Poly (Suzhou) Energy Limited
Jiangsu GCL Silicon Material Technology Development Co. Ltd
Jiangsu Zhongneng Polysilicon Technology Development Co. Ltd
Konca Solar Cell Co. Ltd
Suzhou GCL Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
Lightway Green New Energy Co. Ltd
B851
Lightway Green New Energy (Zhuozhou) Co. Ltd

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/59
TARIC
Name of the Company
additional code
Motech (Suzhou) Renewable Energy Co. Ltd
B852
Nanjing Daqo New Energy Co. Ltd
B853
LEVO SOLAR TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD
B854
NICE SUN PV CO. LTD
Ningbo Jinshi Solar Electrical Science & Technology Co. Ltd
B857
Ningbo Komaes Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B858
Ningbo Osda Solar Co. Ltd
B859
Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd
B860
Ningbo South New Energy Technology Co. Ltd
B861
Ningbo Sunbe Electric Ind Co. Ltd
B862
Ningbo Ulica Solar Science & Technology Co. Ltd
B863
Perfectenergy (Shanghai) Co. Ltd
B864
Perlight Solar Co. Ltd
B865
Phono Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B866
Sumec Hardware & Tools Co. Ltd
RISEN ENERGY CO. LTD
B868
SHANDONG LINUO PHOTOVOLTAIC HI-TECH CO. LTD
B869
SHANGHAI ALEX NEW ENERGY CO. LTD
B870
SHANGHAI ALEX SOLAR ENERGY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD
BYD(Shangluo)Industrial Co.Ltd
B871
Shanghai BYD Co. Ltd
Shanghai Chaori International Trading Co. Ltd
B872
Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy Science & Technology Co. Ltd
Propsolar (Zhejiang) New Energy Technology Co. Ltd
B873
Shanghai Propsolar New Energy Co. Ltd
Lianyungang Shenzhou New Energy Co. Ltd
B875
Shanghai Shenzhou New Energy Development Co. Ltd
SHANGHAI SOLAR ENERGY S&T CO. LTD
Jiangsu ST-Solar Co. Ltd
B876
Shanghai ST-Solar Co. Ltd
Shanghai Topsolar Green Energy Co. Ltd
B877
Shenzhen Sacred Industry Co. Ltd
B878
Leshan Topray Cell Co. Ltd
B880
Shanxi Topray Solar Co. Ltd
Shenzhen Topray Solar Co. Ltd
Shanghai Sopray New Energy Co. Ltd
B881
Sopray Energy Co. Ltd

---

L 325/60
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
TARIC
Name of the Company
additional code
Ningbo Sun Earth Solar Energy Co. Ltd
B882
NINGBO SUN EARTH SOLAR POWER CO. LTD
SUN EARTH SOLAR POWER CO. LTD
TDG Holding Co. Ltd
B884
Tianwei New Energy (Chengdu) PV Module Co. Ltd
B885
Tianwei New Energy Holdings Co. Ltd
Tianwei New Energy (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd
Wenzhou Jingri Electrical and Mechanical Co. Ltd
B886
Winsun New Energy Co. Ltd
B887
Wuhu Zhongfu PV Co. Ltd
B889
Wuxi Saijing Solar Co. Ltd
B890
Wuxi Solar Innova PV Co. Ltd
B892
Wuxi Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Co. Ltd
B893
Wuxi Taichang Electronic Co. Ltd
Wuxi Taichen Machinery & Equipment Co. Ltd
Shanghai Huanghe Fengjia Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B896
State-run Huanghe Machine-Building Factory Import and Export Corporation
Xi'an Huanghe Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
Wuxi LONGi Silicon Materials Co. Ltd
B897
Xi'an LONGi Silicon Materials Corp.
Years Solar Co. Ltd
B898
Yuhuan BLD Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B899
Zhejiang BLD Solar Technology Co. Ltd
Yuhuan Sinosola Science & Technology Co. Ltd
B900
Yunnan Tianda Photovoltaic Co. Ltd
B901
Zhangjiagang City SEG PV Co. Ltd
B902
Zhejiang Global Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B904
Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B905
Zhejiang Jiutai New Energy Co. Ltd
B906
Zhejiang Topoint Photovoltaic Co. Ltd
Zhejiang Kingdom Solar Energy Technic Co. Ltd
B907
Zhejiang Koly Energy Co. Ltd
B908
Zhejiang Longbai Photovoltaic Tech Co. Ltd
B909
Zhejiang Mega Solar Energy Co. Ltd
B910
Zhejiang Fortune Photovoltaic Co. Ltd
Zhejiang Shuqimeng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B911
Zhejiang Shinew Photoelectronic Technology Co. Ltd
B912

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/61
TARIC
Name of the Company
additional code
Zhejiang SOCO Technology Co. Ltd
B913
Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Limited Liability Company
B914
Zhejiang Yauchong Light Energy Science & Technology Co. Ltd
Zhejiang Tianming Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B916
Zhejiang Trunsun Solar Co. Ltd
B917
Zhejiang Beyondsun PV Co. Ltd
Zhejiang Wanxiang Solar Co. Ltd
B918
WANXIANG IMPORT & EXPORT CO LTD
Zhejiang Xiongtai Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B919
ZHEJIANG YUANZHONG SOLAR CO. LTD
B920
Zhongli Talesun Solar Co. Ltd
B922
ZNSHINE PV-TECH CO. LTD
B923
Zytech Engineering Technology Co. Ltd
B924

---

L 325/62
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
ANNEX II
TARIC
Name of the Company
additional code
Jiangsu Aide Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd
B798
Alternative Energy (AE) Solar Co. Ltd
B799
Anhui Chaoqun Power Co. Ltd
B800
Anhui Titan PV Co. Ltd
B803
TBEA SOLAR CO. LTD
B804
Xi'an SunOasis (Prime) Company Limited
XINJIANG SANG'O SOLAR EQUIPMENT
Changzhou NESL Solartech Co. Ltd
B806
Dotec Electric Co. Ltd
B928
Greenway Solar-Tech (Shanghai) Co. Ltd
B821
Greenway Solar-Tech (Huaian) Co. Ltd.
GS PV Holdings Group
B823
Jiangyin Shine Science and Technology Co. Ltd
B843
King-PV Technology Co. Ltd
B848
Ningbo Best Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd
B855
Ningbo Huashun Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd
B856
Qingdao Jiao Yang Lamping Co. Ltd
B867
SHANGHAI SHANGHONG ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD
B874
Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co. Ltd
B879
SUZHOU SHENGLONG PV-TECH CO. LTD
B883
Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing USA Co. Ltd
B888
Wuxi Shangpin Solar Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd
B891
Wuxi UT Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B894
Xiamen Sona Energy Co. Ltd
B895
Zhejiang Fengsheng Electrical Co. Ltd
B903
Zhejiang Yutai Photovoltaic Material Co. Ltd
B930
Zhejiang Sunrupu New Energy Co. Ltd
B915

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/63
ANNEX III
The following elements shall be indicated in the Commercial Invoice accompanying the Company's sales to the European
Union of goods which are subject to the Undertaking:
1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS SUBJECT TO AN UNDERTAKING’.
2. The name of the Company issuing the Commercial Invoice.
3. The Commercial Invoice number.
4. The date of issue of the Commercial Invoice.
5. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be customs-cleared at the European Union
frontier.
6. The exact plain language description of the goods and:
— the product code number (PCN),
— technical specifications of the PCN,
— the company product code number (CPC),
— CN code,
— quantity (to be given in units expressed in Watt).
7. The description of the terms of the sale, including:
— price per unit (Watt),
— the applicable payment terms,
— the applicable delivery terms,
— total discounts and rebates.
8. Name of the Company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the Company.
9. The name of the official of the Company that has issued the Commercial Invoice and the following signed declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Union of the goods covered by this invoice is
being made within the scope and under the terms of the Undertaking offered by [COMPANY], and accepted by the
European Commission through Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU. I declare that the information provided on this
invoice is complete and correct.’

---

L 325/64
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2013
ANNEX IV
EXPORT UNDERTAKING CERTIFICATE
The following elements shall be indicated in the Export Undertaking Certificate to be issued by CCCME for each Commer
cial Invoice accompanying the Company's sales to the European Union of goods which are subject to the Undertaking:
1. The name, address, fax and telephone number of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import & Export of
Machinery & Electronic Products (CCCME).
2. The name of the company mentioned in the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU issuing the
Commercial Invoice.
3. The Commercial Invoice number.
4. The date of issue of the Commercial Invoice.
5. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be customs cleared at the European Union
frontier.
6. The exact description of the goods, including:
— the product code number (PCN),
— the technical specification of the goods, the company product code number (CPC) (if applicable),
— CN code,
7. The precise quantity in units exported expressed in Watt.
8. The number and expiry date (three months after issuance) of the certificate.
9. The name of the official of CCCME that has issued the certificate and the following signed declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that this certificate is given for direct exports to the European Union of the goods covered
by the Commercial Invoice accompanying sales made subject to the undertaking and that the certificate is issued
within the scope and under the terms of the undertaking offered by [COMPANY] and accepted by the Euro
pean Commission through Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU. I declare that the information provided in this
certificate is correct and that the quantity covered by this certificate is not exceeding the threshold of the under
taking.’
10. Date.
11. The signature and seal of CCCME.

---

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/65
ANNEX V
The following elements shall be indicated in the Commercial Invoice accompanying the Company's sales to the European
Union of goods which are subject to the anti-dumping duties:
1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS SUBJECT TO ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTER
VAILING DUTIES’.
2. The name of the Company issuing the Commercial Invoice.
3. The Commercial Invoice number.
4. The date of issue of the Commercial Invoice.
5. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be customs-cleared at the European Union
frontier.
6. The exact plain language description of the goods and:
— the product code number (PCN),
— technical specifications of the PCN,
— the company product code number (CPC),
— CN code,
— quantity (to be given in units expressed in Watt).
7. The description of the terms of the sale, including:
— price per unit (Watt),
— the applicable payment terms,
— the applicable delivery terms,
— total discounts and rebates.
8. The name and signature of the official of the Company that has issued the Commercial Invoice.

---