HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 917/2011
of 12 September 2011
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to
31 March 2010 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). With
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
respect to the trends relevant for the injury assessment,
Union,
the Commission analysed data covering the period from
1 January 2007 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’).
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
2. Subsequent procedure
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9,
(5)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
impose provisional measures (‘provisional disclosure’),
Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,
several interested parties made written submissions
making known their views on the provisional findings.
Whereas:
The parties who so requested were granted the oppor
tunity to be heard and hearings with the Hearing officer
A. PROCEDURE
were held upon request of two interested parties.
1. Provisional measures
(6) The
Commission
continued
to
seek
information
it
(1) The
Commission,
by
Regulation
(EU)
No
258/2011
(
deemed necessary for its definitive findings.

2 )
(‘the provisional Regulation’), imposed a provisional
anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles orig
(7) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
inating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’).
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping
(2) A
corrigendum
( 3 ) was published on 31 May 2011 in
duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China and
order to correct certain typographical errors, in particular
the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way
the names of certain Chinese exporting producers that
of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period
were misspelled in Annex I to the provisional Regulation.
of time within which they could make representations
subsequent to this disclosure.
(3) Following
the
verification
of
certain
claims
received
after
the publication of the corrigendum which were found to
be warranted, it was noticed that certain other names
(8) The
oral
and
written
comments
submitted
by
the
were misspelled. The correct names for all companies
interested parties were considered and taken into
subject to the weighted average duty are listed in
account where appropriate.
Annex I to this Regulation.
3. Parties concerned by the proceeding
(4)
It is recalled that the proceeding was initiated as a result
of a complaint lodged by the European ceramic tiles
3.1. Sampling of Chinese exporting producers
manufacturer’s Association (CET) (‘the complainant’) on
behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in
(9) When
selecting
the
sample
of
exporting
producers,
an
this case more than 30 % of the total Union production
applicant ‘group’ of companies was included due to the
of ceramic tiles. As set out in recital 24 of the provi
fact that the combined export volume of the two
sional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and
producers included in the alleged group made them
together the third largest exporter by volume to the
Union market. These companies claimed a relationship
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 70, 17.3.2011, p. 5.
based on Article 143(1)(b) of Commission Regulation
( 3 ) OJ L 143, 31.5.2011, p. 48.
(EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down

---

L 238/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.9.2011
provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
supporting the complaint had provided sample responses
(EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
and should therefore be regarded as not cooperating with
Code ( 1 ) which provides that parties shall be deemed to
the proceeding. This argument was maintained following
be related if ‘they are legally recognised partners in
final disclosure.
business’. The investigation subsequently revealed that
these companies were not related in this sense and, as
mentioned in recital 35 of the provisional Regulation,
(15) With respect to the claim that the lack of sample
these two producers were treated as separate entities.
responses would indicate that the Union producers
supporting the complaint did not cooperate, it is
recalled that CET was the legal representative of all
complaining companies. As required, CET also provided
(10) Several exporting producers made submissions claiming
on behalf of the complainants the complementary
that these companies should have been excluded from
information concerning the data for the IP. As detailed
the sample for submitting false or misleading
in the Notice of initiation, information in view of
information. These producers further claimed that,
selecting a sample was only required for companies
consequently, the weighted average dumping margin
that had not already supplied all necessary information.
should have been calculated without taking into
It follows that the complaining producers were fully
account the two sampled companies.
cooperating since they provided all the necessary
information at the complaint stage and the necessary
updates as regards the IP data were provided on their
(11) In this regard, it is noted that the information provided
behalf by their legal representative during the investi
by these parties prior to the selection of the sample was
gation.
considered sufficient to consider them as related and
given their combined export sales volume to the Union
market they were included in the sample. Following the
(16) One
interested
party
claimed
that
the
division
of
the
on-spot verification visits at the premises of these two
Union industry into different segments and the
companies, the issue of their relationship was examined
geographical coverage of the sample meant that it was
in detail. The information provided by the companies in
not statistically valid. In this respect it is recalled that the
support of their claim to be related was verified but
Union ceramic tiles industry is highly fragmented with
found to be insufficient for them to be regarded as
over 500 producers. It was also found that the industry
related, contrary to the companies’ own view on this
was represented in all three industry segments, i.e. large,
matter. As a result, it was concluded that these
medium and small companies. In order to ensure that the
companies could not be considered to be related in the
results of large companies did not dominate the injury
sense of Article 143(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No
analysis but that the situation of the small companies,
2454/93. As the companies cooperated in the investi
collectively accounting for the biggest share of the Union
gation, including by providing information with regard
production, was properly reflected, it was considered that
to their alleged relationship, it is considered that there are
all segments (i.e. small, medium-sized and large
no grounds to exclude them from the sample. In these
companies) should be represented in the sample.
circumstances, this claim is rejected.
Within each of the segments, the largest companies
were chosen, provided that geographical representa
tiveness could be assured.
(12) Moreover,
even
assuming
that
selecting
other
companies
into the sample during the investigation would have led
(17) One
interested
party
also
claimed
that
the
Commission
to a considerably larger volume of exports towards the
had failed to show that the sample remained represen
Union market during the IP being covered, it would have
tative after the withdrawal of the Polish producer and
been difficult, within the time available, to investigate any
that it was in any event insufficiently representative in
newly selected companies. Therefore, in spite of the fact
terms of sales volume in the Union market.
that these companies have turned out not to be related,
the sample continues to comply with the criteria foreseen
in the basic Regulation. Finally it is pointed out that there
(18) It
is
correct
that
one
Polish
producer
decided
to
cease
was no evidence that the companies deliberately alleged
cooperation and therefore had to be excluded from the
being related in order to be included in the sample.
sample. However, it is not necessary for a sample to
reflect the exact geographical spread and weight of the
producing Member States in order to be representative.
(13) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments,
recitals
5
and
6
Given the fact that geographical spread is only one of the
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
factors to take into account to ensure representativeness,
such an approach would not have been administratively
practicable. Rather, it is sufficient that the sample largely
reflects proportions of the major manufacturing countries
3.2. Sampling of Union producers
involved. Assessed against this criterion, it was found that
the withdrawal of the Polish company did not affect the
(14) Following
the
imposition
of
the
provisional
measures,
overall representativeness of the sample. On this basis, it
one party claimed that none of the Union producers
is confirmed that the sample of Union producers was
sufficiently representative within the meaning of
( 1 ) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.
Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

---

EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/3
(19) As concerns the claim of the overall representativity of
(24) Following the final disclosure, an importers’ association
the sample, it is recalled that given the fact that the
claimed that Article 17 of the basic Regulation implied
Union industry is highly fragmented, it is unavoidable
that samples of Union producers and of exporting
that the companies in the sample cover a relatively
producers should be made on the basis of the same
small portion of the overall Union production. In any
criteria. Several Chinese parties continued to claim
event Article 17 of the basic Regulation sets out that
following final disclosure that there was discrimination
investigations may be limited to samples which are
between the treatment of Chinese exporting producers
either statistically valid, or which constitute the largest
and Union producers in choosing the respective samples.
representative volume of production, sales, or exports
which can be reasonably investigated, without, however,
indicating any specific quantitative threshold as to the
level of such representative volume. In view of the
above it is confirmed that the sample selected was repre
(25) In response to the claim following the final disclosure
sentative within the meaning of Article 17 of the basic
that the same criteria should be applied in the selection
Regulation.
of the samples of Union producers and exporting

producers, for the reasons outlined in recital 23, it is
considered that these samples may be made on the
basis of different criteria. In these circumstances, this
(20) One
interested
party
claimed
that
the
Commission
failed
claim is rejected.
to include in the sample Union producers which offer
low sales prices and which are located in countries like
Poland and the Czech Republic; therefore, the sample so
obtained would not be representative of the Union
(26) With
regard
to
the
fact
that,
as
mentioned
in
recital
23,
producers’ average sales prices.
no comments were received in relation to the represen
tativity of the sample, these parties claimed that, at the
time of selecting the samples, the Chinese parties were
not informed that different selection criteria were being
(21) In
response
to
the
above
claim,
the
Commission
found
used for the selection of the samples and so could not
that the average sales prices of the Union industry’s
comment on this fact.
sample were in the same range as the average sales
prices in the publicly available statistics. In any event,
and as explained in recital 125, the investigation has
shown that even taking into consideration publicly
available prices for those countries, the final findings
(27) Concerning the fact that the Chinese parties were not
would not change in any meaningful way.
informed of the different criteria used in selecting the
samples, it is standard practice, in line with
Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, to consult parties
on the composition of proposed samples for their own
(22) A
number
of
parties
made
comments
concerning
the
category, e.g. exporting producers will only be consulted
methodology used to select the Union industry sample
on the proposed sample of exporting producers. In these
as compared to the selection of the sample of Chinese
circumstances, these parties’ claim regarding the inability
exporters, which was solely based on export volume.
to comment on the different selection criteria for the
different samples at the time of selection of the
samples is disregarded.
(23) As
to
the
different
methodologies
used
for
selecting
a
sample of Union producers on the one hand and
Chinese exporting producers on the other hand, it
should be noted that the methodologies were used
(28) Following final disclosure, one interested party claimed
according to the objectives of the sampling exercise.
that by taking the different segments into account for the
Concerning the Union industry, the Commission had to
selection of the sample, the Commission breached
assess the situation of the whole industry and therefore
Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation that lays down that
the criteria that would ensure the most representative
the analysis should be made in relation to the Union
picture of the entire sector were chosen. As far as the
industry as a whole and not to certain groups or types
Chinese exporters are concerned, it was considered
of companies.
appropriate to choose a sample based on the largest
volume of exports of the product concerned and thus
the largest exporters were sampled. It is also noted that
there is no obligation in Article 17 of the basic Regu
(29) The
claim
that the
division
of the sample
in three
lation for both samples to be selected on the basis of the
segments is in breach of Article 4(1) of the basic Regu
same criteria. Furthermore, in this case, before finalising
lation cannot be upheld. As can be derived from recital
the sample of Chinese exporting producers, the coop
23, the sample selected represented the whole Union
erating parties in China as well as the Chinese authorities
industry and not only a specific group of companies,
were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed
as alleged by the party concerned. Furthermore,
sample. Comments were received with regard to the
Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation specifically allows
composition of the sample but not with regard to its
for the selection of a sample in order to determine injury.
representativity.
This claim was therefore unfounded and rejected.

---

L 238/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.9.2011
(30) Following final disclosure, the same interested party chal
(37) It is recalled that Article 19 of the basic Regulation
lenged the fact that the geographical spread had been
allows for the protection of confidential information in
taken into account for the selection of the sample,
circumstances where disclosure would be of significant
arguing that the Union is a single market and that
competitive advantage to a competitor or would have a
Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation can only allow for
significantly adverse effect upon a person supplying the
a sample to be selected based on the largest represen
information or upon a person from whom that person
tative volume.
has acquired the information. A vast majority of the
complainants wanted their identity to remain confidential
and provided sufficient evidence showing that there
(31) As for the claim on the use of the criterion of
indeed was a significant possibility of retaliation, inter
geographical spread, it is observed that this is a frag
alia, in the form of lost sales for these producers
mented industry and in order to assess representativeness
should their names be disclosed. The request of these
of the selected companies, the producers’ geographical
companies was consequently accepted by the
spread amongst Member States is used to reflect the
Commission services.
different situations that can be encountered in the
Union. The sample covers Member States where
approximately 90 % of the Union production is manu
factured; after the withdrawal of the Polish company, this
(38) Regarding the claim that some producers had not
level remained high at approximately 80 %. Thus, the
requested the confidential treatment of their name, it
methodology applied by the Commission ensured that
should be noted that this fact does not prejudge the
the sample was representative of the Union production
right of other companies to ask for this treatment
as a whole and complied with Article 17(1) of the basic
when sufficient reasons are shown. The assessment for
Regulation. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
such requests was done on a case-by-case basis and
therefore the claim is rejected.
(32) Following final disclosure, one interested party claimed
that only small and medium-sized companies were
selected in the sample of Union producers which
(39) As
to
whether
all
related
companies
of
the
sampled
allegedly had higher costs and prices than the large
Union producers had submitted a questionnaire reply,
Chinese companies.
it should be noted that as a matter of principle the
lack of response from a related Union producer as
such would not necessarily prevent the Commission
(33) This argument was not supported by any evidence. It is
from reaching reliable conclusions on injury provided
noted that the sample included companies from all
that the questionnaire responses that are submitted can
segments. Furthermore, other factors beyond the size of
be verified. This would be the case in particular where
the company may have an impact on costs, such as raw
the related companies are separate legal entities with
material costs, depreciation or capacity utilisation.
separate accounting.
4. Rights of parties
5. Scope of investigation. Inclusion of imports from
4.1. Confidentiality of the name of the complainants and
Turkey
companies supporting the complaint
(40) One party representing the interests of exporting
(34) One
interested
party
claimed
that
the
lack
of
information
producers claimed that imports of the product
regarding the identity of the complainant did not allow
concerned from Turkey should have been included in
interested parties to exercise their rights of defence fully.
the scope of this investigation.
It was also argued that since some producers had not
requested to have their name withheld, the request for
anonymity was not justified.
(41) Concerning the non-inclusion in the complaint of
imports originating in Turkey, it should be noted that
at initiation stage, there was no evidence of dumping,
(35) One
party
reiterated
its
claim
that
there
had
not
been
injury and causal link from this country to justify the
grounds to allow for confidentiality as concerned the
initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding on such
names of most of the complaining producers as well as
imports. The claim that Turkey should have been
supporters of the complaint. In particular it was claimed
included in the scope of the investigation is therefore
that no evidence in support of the confidentiality
rejected.
requests had been included in the file open for inspection
by interested parties. It was further claimed that not
knowing the identity of the sampled companies meant
that other interested parties were unable to comment on
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND THE LIKE PRODUCT
the correctness of the assessment of the micro indicators.
(42) Following
the
imposition
of
the
provisional
measures,
one interested party indicated that there had been
(36) In response to the final disclosure, the same party ques
changes in the CN codes covering the product
tioned whether all related companies of the sampled
concerned contained in the Regulation imposing provi
producers had submitted a questionnaire response.
sional measures as compared to those of the notice

---

EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/5
of initiation and enquired concerning the reasons for
(50) In this regard, it is noted that Article 9(5) of the basic
these differences and whether they entailed a change in
Regulation sets out the conditions to be met in order to
product scope.
benefit from IT status. The alleged existence of subsi
disation in the Union is irrelevant for the purposes of
that examination. Therefore, this claim is rejected and the
(43) In this context it is underlined that the differences
conclusions as set out in recitals 41 to 44 of the provi
between the CN codes indicated in the Regulation
sional Regulation are maintained.
imposing provisional measures and those mentioned in
the notice of initiation are not linked to a change of the
product definition or the scope of the investigation. The
amendments do not change the types of tiles covered but
3. Individual Examination (‘IE’)
relate simply to the need to take account of the general
changes to the Combined Nomenclature, as provided for
(51) Claims for IE were
submitted by eight cooperating
by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010, which
exporting producers pursuant to Article 17(3) of the
became applicable on 1 January 2011 (
basic Regulation. It was decided to carry out IE for one

1 ).
exporting producer, Kito Group, as it was not unduly
burdensome to do so. This group represented by far
the largest export volume of the eight producers
(44) An
interested
party
asked
that
certain
ceramic
mosaics
be
claiming IE.
excluded from the product scope. The party alleged that,
should measures be imposed, this category of product
concerned would lose competitiveness against other
products with which it is substitutable and that, in any
(52) This group claimed IT. After examination of this claim, it
event, dumping is not taking place in this particular
was initially proposed to grant IT to the Kito Group as
segment.
no reasons were found as to why this group should not
have IT.
(45) Concerning
this
claim,
the
investigation
revealed
that
since ceramic mosaics and other types of ceramic tiles
have the same basic physical and technical characteristics,
(53) Following
final
disclosure,
the
complainant
argued
that
a revision of the product scope is not warranted. As for
Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation did not appear to
the absence of dumping in this segment, which was not
allow for a limited number of requests for IE to be made
supported by any evidence, the analysis of dumping and
in situations where numerous requests had been received.
injury has to mirror the situation for the entire product
The complainant claimed that this view was supported
concerned. In these circumstances, this claim is rejected.
by numerous previous anti-dumping investigations. In
this regard, it is noted that the benchmark in
Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation for examining
(46) In view of the above and in the absence of any further
requests for IE is whether these examinations would be
comments regarding the product concerned and the like
unduly burdensome and would prevent the completion
product, recitals 25 to 32 of the Regulation imposing
of the investigation in good time. In the investigation at
provisional measures are hereby confirmed.
hand and as mentioned in recital 51, to examine one of
the eight claims for IE was not unduly burdensome.
Concerning previous investigations where claims for IE
were addressed, it is noted that the extent of the
C. DUMPING
burdensome nature of such requests and the need for
the timely completion of an investigation must be
1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)
assessed on a case-by-case basis. In light of the above,
(47) In
the
absence
of
any
further
comments
or
findings
the complainant’s claims are rejected.
regarding Market Economy Treatment, the conclusions
set out in recitals 33 to 40 of the provisional Regulation
are hereby confirmed.
(54) Following final disclosure, information and evidence were
received that the Kito Group may not have disclosed all
related companies of the group with the result that the
2. Individual Treatment (‘IT’)
findings for the group may be incomplete. The group
(48) No
comments
were
received
with
regards
to
the
decision
was given the opportunity to comment on this
on granting or denying IT to individual companies.
information and was informed that Article 18 of the
basic Regulation may have to be applied. In reply, they
confirmed that indeed they did not disclose two related
companies in their reply to the anti-dumping ques
(49) However,
two
importers
questioned
the
validity
as
a
tionnaire but argued that, as it was a mere oversight
whole of the Commission’s IT analysis, claiming that
without consequence since they were not involved in
the Union annually distributes subsidies by way of the
the production and/or commercialisation of the product
Structural Funds scheme.
concerned, it should have no bearing on the findings.
However, the fact that the existence of these two
( 1 ) OJ L 284, 29.10.2010, p. 1.
companies was not disclosed did not allow a

---

L 238/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.9.2011
proper assessment and verification of the group’s
the purpose of this proceeding, since any such alle
activities in relation to the product concerned. In these
gations, assuming that there would be prima facie
circumstances, it is concluded that the group did not
evidence for them, could only be thoroughly examined
provide the necessary information within the appropriate
in a separate anti-dumping proceeding relating to the
time limits and consequently the findings for the
USA. It was therefore disregarded.
company are made on the basis of facts available in
accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
(61) These
importers
further
claimed
that
the
US
cooperating
producer was owned by, or affiliated with, Union
4. Normal value
producers, and thus the investigation was flawed as
data obtained were not independent.
4.1. Choice of the analogue country
(55) Two
importers
submitted
comments
against
the
choice
(62) It is recalled that the data submitted by the US coop
of the United States of America (‘USA’) as analogue
erating producer was verified on spot. Therefore this
country, claiming that the USA is inappropriate as
claim was found to be irrelevant and was disregarded.
analogue country due to its insignificant own production,
and its lack of competitiveness in the world market. They
further claimed that the USA was selected in an unreas
(63) These
importers
further
claimed
that
US
export
volumes
onable manner, claiming that the lack of alternative
were limited. This argument was considered to be
analogue countries was caused by undue pressure by
irrelevant to the selection of the analogue country,
the Union producers’ association on producers from
since the analogue country data are used to determine
other possible analogue countries in order to discourage
normal value and not export prices. It was therefore
their possible cooperation. Two importers argued that
rejected.
information from a number of possible cooperating
countries was disregarded by the Commission and that
publicly available data from national or transnational
(64) Finally
these
same
importers
claimed
that
maintaining
associations of producers in third countries was not
confidentiality over the identity, volume, value and
considered.
quality of the output of the cooperating analogue
producer was not justified. It is recalled that the coop
erating analogue producer had requested confidentiality
(56) To take the last argument first, it is recalled that
for fear of commercial retaliation, and this request was
company-specific information is required in order to
found to be justified. Moreover, it cannot be excluded
carry out the investigation of the level of dumping.
that furnishing any of the data which the importers
Therefore this argument was rejected.
request, even in ranges, could lead to the identification
of the analogue country producer. Therefore the
importers’ claim was disregarded.
(57) Regarding
the
allegations
of
undue
pressure
by
the
Union
producers’ association in order to discourage coop
eration, it is noted that no evidence was provided.
(65) Following final disclosure, the abovementioned two
Therefore these comments had to be disregarded.
importers repeated a number of their abovementioned
claims without, however, providing any further
substantiated evidence. In these circumstances, their
(58) These importers further claimed that the annual
production volume of ceramic tiles in the USA was
claims remain rejected.
approximately 60
million m 2 per year, and not
600 million m 2 as stated in recital 51 of the provisional
(66) Furthermore,
these
two
importers
also
claimed
that,
as
Regulation. This was verified and found to be correct.
the cooperating US producer is allegedly controlled by a
Union producer, the choice of this US company as a
(59) With regard to the suitability of the USA as analogue
suitable analogue country producer is flawed. In
country in light of the significantly lower level of
particular, they claimed that the US company is not
production, it should be emphasised that the US
economically independent and so cannot serve as a
market is highly competitive – there are several local
benchmark for dumping. The importers cite the third
production companies and import quantities are
and fourth paragraphs of Article 2(1) of the basic Regu
significant. Furthermore, as mentioned in recital 52 of
lation as justification for this claim. In reply to this claim,
the provisional Regulation, there is no evidence of any
it must first of all be stated that, as mentioned in recital
non-tariff barriers that would be a substantial hindrance
23 of the provisional Regulation and in recital 69 below,
to competition on the market. In these circumstances,
the cooperating US producer has requested anonymity
despite the lower production volume, the overall
and this request has been granted. In these circumstances,
conclusion that the USA is an appropriate analogue
whether a relationship exists between the US company
country remains unchanged.
and a Union producer cannot be confirmed or denied.
However, it is noted that the abovementioned provisions
of the basic Regulation concern how to treat the sales
(60) Two
importers argued that unit sales prices of US
prices of a company under investigation when it sells to
produced tiles in the US domestic market were much
a related party. These provisions do not concern the
higher than in the Union market and, when compared
matter of a possible relationship between an analogue
to export prices, give rise to the existence of dumping
country producer and a Union producer. In these circum
practices. This argument was found to be irrelevant for
stances, the claim is rejected.

---

EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/7
(67) Following
final
disclosure,
an
importers’
association
made
they are considered to be alike within the meaning of
numerous claims. Firstly, they claimed that the allegedly
Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. The association’s
low volume of sales of US producers on their domestic
claim is therefore rejected.
market compared to Chinese exports to the Union
rendered the USA an unsuitable analogue country
market. In this regard, in examining possible analogue
countries, the level of competition in those countries is,
(71) Finally,
the
association
asked
why
the
Union
was
not
inter alia, one of the elements examined. To have similar
considered as an appropriate analogue country in the
levels of domestic sales of the domestic industry and
absence of cooperation from third countries other than
imports from the country under investigation is not a
the USA. In this regard, given that the USA has been
precondition for deeming a country to be a suitable
found to be a suitable analogue country, as mentioned in
analogue country. As regards these claims, for this inves
recital 59, the need to examine possible other suitable
tigation, and as stated in recital 59, the US market was
markets did not arise. Therefore, the association’s claim is
found to be sufficiently competitive to be a suitable
rejected.
choice. In these circumstances, this claim is rejected.
(72) In the absence of further comments, it is confirmed that
the choice of the USA as analogue country was appro
priate and reasonable in accordance with Article 2(7)(a)
(68) The
importers’
association
also
claimed
that
it
did
not
of the basic Regulation, and recitals 45 to 54 of the
consider that the fact that imports into the US market
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
are significant was relevant to choosing the USA as
analogue country. As regards this claim, it should be
noted that the level of imports is indeed one of the
important factors examined when selecting a suitable
4.2. Determination of normal value
analogue country. The combination of domestic
production and high volumes of imports contribute to
(73) Two importers argued that without information
a competitive market as mentioned in recital 59. In these
regarding the US producer’s output in terms of volume,
circumstances, this claim is rejected.
interested parties could not verify whether due to
economies of scale, there could be significant difference
in the production costs of the US producer compared to
the sampled Chinese producers which produced annually
more than 10 million m 2 of ceramic tiles. These
(69) The
importers’
association
also
asked
what
evidence
had
importers further claimed that the production volumes
been provided by the cooperating analogue country
of the analogue producer and of the Chinese producers
producer to prove the risk of commercial retaliation as
were not comparable, given the lower production volume
mentioned in recital 64. In this regard, the US company
of the analogue producer or in the analogue country. It is
pointed out that there are numerous Chinese exporting
recalled that the production volume of the cooperating
producers of ceramic tiles on the US market with which
analogue producer is confidential and cannot therefore
the US company competes for the same customers. In
be disclosed. It is also recalled that the Chinese industry
these circumstances, the US company stated that it feared
is highly fragmented and mostly composed of SMEs.
commercial retaliation if its identity were to be revealed.
Therefore, these arguments were found to be unsub
Regarding the evidence provided to prove the risk of
stantiated.
retaliation, it should be noted that the possible risk
arising from the fact that the US company as well as
the Chinese exporting producers active on the US
market are competing for the same customers was
(74) These importers pointed out that since the second
found to be plausible. In these circumstances, the
subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation
company’s request for anonymity was accepted.
required that normal value be based on the prices of
‘other sellers or producers’, establishing normal value
on the basis of one single company’s data was flawed.
(70) The association also claimed that, as the average
(75) In this regard, it is recalled that this proceeding concerns
domestic sales price in the USA of the domestically
imports from a non-market economy country where the
produced ceramic tiles was allegedly several times
normal value needs to be established in accordance with
higher than the price of Union imports from China,
Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. Thus, this claim
the US product is not a ‘like product’ to the imported
was rejected.
product from China. In this regard, the fact that these
two prices differ is not a reason to consider that the US
product is not alike to the product concerned. As stated
in recital 32 of the provisional Regulation, it was found
(76) Following final disclosure, an importers’ association
that the product concerned and, inter alia, the product
stated that it considered that normal value in an
produced and sold on the domestic market of the USA
analogue country could not be based on data provided
have the same basic physical and technical characteristics
by one company. However, for the reasons set out in
as well as the same basic uses. In these circumstances
recital 75, this claim is rejected.

---

L 238/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.9.2011
(77) Finally, these importers claimed that the analogue
that all unrelated traders through which the exporting
producer’s product lacked representativeness since it
producer sold had provided price information. In these
exclusively served the high-priced segment. Because the
circumstances, the claim is rejected.
request for confidentiality of the analogue producer was
granted, this allegation is neither confirmed nor denied.
In any case, even if the allegation was correct, as
explained in recital 61 of the provisional Regulation,
(83) Another
exporting
producer
claimed
that
the
cost
of
adjustments were made where warranted to the
insurance had not been correctly taken into account
constructed normal value in order to take into account
when calculating its CIF value. This claim was found to
all types of tiles, including resale branding. Therefore this
be warranted and the CIF values of this exporter were
claim was found not to be warranted and was therefore
corrected accordingly.
rejected.
(84) One
group
of
exporting
companies
claimed
that
the
cost
of insurance included in their CIF values was wrongly
4.3. Export price
calculated. This claim was found to be warranted and
the CIF values were thus recalculated. In addition, it
(78) Following final disclosure, one exporting producer
was found that for one of the companies of the group
claimed that sales of certain types of ceramic tiles to
the handling cost had not been taken into account when
the Union in the IP had been misclassified by the
establishing the ex-works value. This was also corrected.
Commission services and that the company’s dumping
margin should be corrected accordingly. In this regard,
it was determined during the verification visit at the
company’s premises that the company had wrongly clas
(85) Two importers claimed that the calculation of the export
sified certain ceramic tiles and the company was
prices should have taken into account the USD exchange
informed thereof. These were then correctly reclassified
rate developments during the IP. It is however recalled
for the purposes of making an accurate dumping calcu
that, in accordance with the Commission’s standard
lation. In these circumstances, the company’s claim is
practice, monthly exchange rates were used for
rejected.
currency conversions during the IP. Thus exchange rate
developments during the IP were indeed taken into
account.
(79) Following
final
disclosure,
the
same
exporting
producer
claimed that certain export sales transactions to the
(86) Following final disclosure, one exporting producer
Union in the IP had been disregarded in calculating the
claimed that, as normal value was based on data from
company’s dumping margin. In this regard, it was found
one producer in the analogue country and consequently
that these transactions had been disregarded as the
precise data could not be disclosed for reasons of confi
invoice dates fell after the end of the IP. In these circum
dentiality, it was imperative to ensure that adjustments
stances, the company’s claim is rejected.
were made where appropriate to ensure product
comparability for the purposes of the dumping calcu
lations. In this regard, as mentioned in recital 61 of
the provisional Regulation, adjustments were made
(80) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
with
regard
to
export
where necessary to ensure a fair comparison between
prices, recital 59 of the provisional Regulation is hereby
normal value and export price.
confirmed.
(87) Following
final
disclosure,
two
importers
claimed
that
the
4.4. Comparison
cooperating US producer exclusively serves the high-
priced ceramic tiles sector while the Chinese exporting
(81) Comments were made concerning the comparison
producers serve the low-priced segment. In terms of
between the normal value and the export price.
ensuring a fair comparison between normal value and
export price, these importers claimed that the necessary
adjustments pursuant to Article 2(10) of the basic Regu
lation were not disclosed to them. In this regard, it is
(82) One
exporting
producer
claimed
that
for
the
calculation
noted that recital 61 of the provisional Regulation
of its CIF value, the fact that export sales were made
explains the adjustments that were made to ensure a
through unrelated traders should be taken into account.
fair comparison.
This claim was found to be warranted and subsequently
the CIF values for this exporter were recalculated.
Following final disclosure, the complainant claimed that
4.5. Dumping margins for cooperating sampled exporters
this recalculation of export prices should not have been
made as the information provided by the unrelated
(88) The
definitive dumping margins for the cooperating
traders was not reliable given that allegedly only some
sampled producers, taking into account all the above
of the traders through which the exporting producer sold
comments, and expressed as a percentage of the CIF
had provided information. In this regard it was found
Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

---

EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/9
Company/group name Definitive
dumping
margin
4.9. Submissions concerning the list of cooperating exporters
Shandong Yadi Co. Ltd 36,5
%
(94) A
number
of
allegations
received
suggested
that
13
of
the exporting producers benefiting from the weighted
Xinruncheng Group 29,3
%
average provisional duty under the provisional Regu
lation, included in the Annex thereto, were only traders
Wonderful Group 26,3
%
and not producers, and consequently should not have
been included in the Annex.
Heyuan Becarry Co. Ltd 67,7
%
4.6. Dumping margins for all other cooperating exporting
producers
(95) After
further
examination,
it
was
found
that
these
alle
gations were correct in the case of five companies. These
(89) As a result of the changes in the calculation of the
companies were informed of the intention to remove
dumping margins as mentioned in recital 88, the
them from the relevant Annex and were given the oppor
weighted average dumping margin of the sample,
tunity to comment. Three of these companies did not
which is based on the dumping margins of the four
submit further comments, while two companies made
sampled cooperating exporting producers, is 30,6 %. In
further claims on this matter. These further claims did
this context, it is noted that for Heyuan Becarry Co. Ltd,
not contain sufficient evidence to show that these
which was granted neither MET nor IT, a dumping
companies were in fact exporting producers of the
margin was calculated in the manner described in
product concerned and so were rejected. These five
recital 88 of the provisional Regulation. In accordance
companies were accordingly removed from the list of
with the first sentence of Article 9(6) of the basic Regu
companies benefiting from the weighted average
lation, this dumping margin was used for calculating the
definitive duty.
weighted average dumping margin of the parties in the
sample, applied to cooperating exporters not chosen in
the sample. Furthermore, since Heyuan Becarry Co. Ltd
was not granted MET and it was found that its export
sales decisions were subject to significant state inter
4.10. Post-IP events
ference, the duty to be applied to imports from
Heyuan Becarry Co. Ltd should be the same as that
(96) Since
disclosure
of
the
provisional
findings,
the
rela
applicable to imports from cooperating exporters not
tionship between a group of two cooperating exporting
chosen in the sample.
producers has allegedly been severed due to changes in

the shareholding structure. As a result, one of these
companies requested an individual duty independent
from that of the other company.
(90) With
regard
to
the
method
of
calculation
of
the
dumping
margin for Heyuan Becarry Co. Ltd, which, as previously
stated, was a cooperating exporting producer included in
the sample but was not granted IT, as referred to in
recital 65 of the provisional Regulation, the reference
(97) From the information provided, it appears that the links
in that recital to recital 64 of the provisional Regulation
between these two companies were severed after the IP.
should be to recital 62 instead.
The impact of this alleged split in the group structure as
well as the request by one of the companies to have an
individual duty rate established would need to be
4.7. Dumping margin for company claiming individual exam
reviewed in detail. In this regard, should one or both
ination
of these companies request a review of their situation
following this alleged split, this can be considered in
(91) For
the
company
mentioned
in
recitals
51
to
54
that
was
due time in line with the basic Regulation. In these
individually examined, in view of the application of
circumstances, the company’s claim to have an individual
Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the countrywide
duty established in this investigation is rejected.
dumping margin will apply.
4.8. Dumping margins for all other non-cooperating exporting
(98) Following
final
disclosure,
the
complainant
claimed
that
producers
one of the related exporting producers, referred to in
recital 97, should have a separate duty calculated for it
(92) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
with
regard
to
the
on the grounds that there was evidence that it was
calculation of the dumping margin for all other
dumping at a higher level than the other exporting
exporting producers, recitals 66 to 67 of the provisional
producer. In this regard, it should be noted that for
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
exporting producers that are related during the IP of an
investigation not to calculate one weighted average
dumping margin and duty for them would leave scope
(93) Taking
into
account
the
comments
expressed
in
recitals
for circumvention of duties by the exporting producer
81 to 85, the country-wide margin of dumping is estab
subject to the higher duty. As the two exporting
lished at 69,7 %.
producers concerned in this investigation were

---

L 238/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.9.2011
found to be related during the IP, there are no grounds
Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation refers to ‘quantity’,
for the establishment of separate duties for each of them.
rather than ‘cubic volume’. For each product, the most
As stated in recital 97, should one or both of these
representative unit of measure should be used. As to the
companies request a review of their situation following
product concerned, operators in the world market
their alleged split, this can be considered in line with the
consistently use square metres (m 2 ). Therefore, this unit
basic Regulation. In these circumstances, the
has been considered as the most appropriate for the
complainant’s claim is rejected.
purpose of this investigation and the claim in this
respect was rejected.
D. INJURY
(107) As concerns the developments in price and volume of
1. The Union production and the Union industry
imports from China, it holds true that the variations are
limited when considered in absolute terms. Chinese
(99) In the absence of any comments or new findings
imports decreased by 3 % in the period considered.
regarding the Union production and the Union
However, the conclusion as to the volume of Chinese
industry, the conclusions in recitals 68 to 70 of the
imports had to be put in the context of an overall
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
decrease in consumption in the Union market. The fact
that the Chinese imports dropped by only 3 % in this
period when the overall consumption fell by 29 % clearly
1.1. Union Consumption
had an impact on their presence in the Union market.
Keeping imports stable thus allowed the Chinese imports
(100) In the absence of any comments or findings regarding
to gain market share in a period where other operators
the Union consumption, the conclusions in recitals 71
lost out.
and 72 of the provisional Regulation are hereby

confirmed.
(108) As for the evolution of Chinese prices, the average
import prices indicated in recital 73 of the provisional
2. Imports from China
Regulation were based on Eurostat statistics. Questions
(101) One interested party questioned the analysis of the
have been raised as concerns the accuracy of the average
imports claiming that both the complaint and the provi
import prices to certain Member States but no changes
sional Regulation lacked data concerning the volume of
to official statistics have been confirmed. In any event, it
imports, alleging that a measurement in m
is recalled that the Eurostat data was used only to

2 is a
measurement of area and not of volume.
establish the general trends and that even if the
Chinese import prices were to be adjusted upwards, the
injury picture as a whole would still remain the same
with high margins for undercutting and underselling. In
(102) Another interested party claimed that the developments
in price and volume of imports from China simply
this context it should be noted that for the calculation of
showed normal trade fluctuations and could therefore
both injury and dumping margins Eurostat data was not
not be an indication of the Chinese exporters’
used. Only verified data from visited companies have
behaviour in terms of dumping.
been used in order to determine the level of the

margins. Therefore, even if the discrepancies to the
statistics were to be found, this would not have any
impact on the level of the margins disclosed.
(103) After final disclosure, one party questioned the reliability
of the Eurostat statistics claiming that actual Chinese
import prices are higher and therefore comparable to
import prices from other third countries. In addition, it
(109) As concerns the claim that the Commission services
was claimed that this would have an effect of the
failed to take into account Eurostat data from 2010,
dumping margins found.
this argument cannot be upheld as the figure for the IP

included the first quarter of 2010. As concerns the
second to fourth quarters of 2010, it should be noted
that these figures relate to the post-IP period which
(104) Another interested party claimed that their own analysis
should not be taken into consideration. Furthermore,
of the Eurostat statistics in terms of market share and
even if these were to be taken into account, the import
import price were slightly different to those of the provi
statistics show that also import prices from third
sional Regulation and that these findings should be
countries increased, indicating that this was a general
amended accordingly.
trend and not specifically isolated to the Chinese imports.
(105) Another interested party claimed that the Commission
3. Price undercutting
services had failed to take into account the increase in
the prices of Chinese imports that occurred post-IP, in
(110) It is recalled that at the provisional stage, as outlined in
2010.
recital 76 of the provisional Regulation, undercutting was
defined as the weighted average sales prices of the Union
producers to unrelated customers on the Union market,
(106) Regarding the claim on the unit of measure used to
adjusted to an ex-works level, compared per product type
determine import volumes, the term ‘volume’ of
to the corresponding weighted average prices of

---

EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/11
the imports from China to the first independent
5.1.2. S a l e s v o l u m e s a n d m a r k e t s h a r e
customer on the Union market, established on a CIF
basis, with appropriate adjustments for the existing
(116) In the absence of any comments or findings regarding
customs duties, post-importation costs and level of trade.
sales volumes and market share, the conclusions in
recitals 86 to 87 of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
(111) One party claimed that the calculations disclosed to the
parties regarding the calculation of the export price did
not correspond to the explanation given in recital 76 of
5.1.3. E m p l o y m e n t a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y
the provisional Regulation. Upon verification, it is
confirmed that there was a textual error in that recital.
(117) In the absence of any comments or findings regarding
Indeed at provisional stage, the adjustment of the level of
employment and productivity, the conclusions in recitals
trade was made to the ex-works sales prices of the Union
88 to 89 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
producers to unrelated customers on the Union market
confirmed.
and no adjustment for post-importation costs was made
in the calculation of the average export price. At the
definitive stage, the CIF Union frontier prices of
exporting producers of the country concerned were
5.1.4. M a g n i t u d e o f d u m p i n g m a r g i n
adjusted for the existing custom duties and for post-
importation costs (costs incurred at Union port for
(118) The dumping margins are specified in recitals 88 to 93.
importation, transportation and warehouse expenses
It is confirmed that all margins established are
which are incurred before the resale by importers), on
significantly above the de minimis level. Given the
the basis of the information provided by the cooperating
volumes and the prices of dumped imports, it is
unrelated importers.
therefore confirmed that the impact of the actual
margin of dumping cannot be considered negligible.
(112) Another party held that when adjusted downwards to
take into account the cost of distribution/marketing,
5.2. Microeconomic indicators
the prices would be similar to those of the Chinese
exports. However, the provisional calculation already
5.2.1. S t o c k s
included these adjustments. Consequently, this claim
was unfounded and therefore rejected.
(119) One party challenged the correctness of the data
provided in recitals 93 to 95 of the provisional Regu
lation. The party claimed that the value of stocks as a
percentage of production over the entire period under
(113) The investigation revealed undercutting levels between
consideration was considerably lower than what was
43,2 % and 55,7 %, which slightly differ from what
listed in Table 10 of the same Regulation. Those calcu
was provisionally found (see recital 77 of the provisional
lations were reviewed and it was found that only the
Regulation). The reason for this change is the calculation
percentage data for 2009 and IP were wrongly calculated,
of a new CIF value for the exporting producer mentioned
and that in those periods the percentage of stocks was
in recitals 83 to 85 and the calculation of an individual
indeed slightly higher than what previously indicated. A
CIF export price for the exporting producer Kito Group,
correct version of this calculation is contained in Table 1
mentioned in recital 51.
of this Regulation.
4. Imports from third countries other than China
(120) The same party alleged that if the Union industry was
forced to increase its stock level up to 6 months of
(114) In the absence of any comments or findings regarding
production, as stated in recital 94 of the provisional
the imports from third countries other than China the
Regulation, that would represent a stock percentage of
conclusions in recitals 78 to 80 of the provisional Regu
50 % over the total production, rather than 59 % as
lation are hereby confirmed.
shown in Table 10 of the provisional Regulation.
5. Situation of the Union industry
(121) In this respect it should be underlined that the analyses
5.1. Macroeconomic indicators
made in recitals 93 and 94 of the provisional Regulation
were complementary but not identical. The first analysis
5.1.1. P r o d u c t i o n , c a p a c i t y a n d c a p a c i t y
showed the percentage of stocks of the sampled
u t i l i s a t i o n
companies measured in square metres compared to the
production of the sampled companies, also expressed in
(115) In the absence of any comments or findings regarding
square metres (61 % for the IP). The second analysis, also
production, capacity and capacity utilisation, the
for the sampled companies, showed the number of
conclusions in recitals 84 to 85 of the provisional Regu
months of production stocked in relation to the 12
lation are hereby confirmed.
months of the year (50 % for the IP).

---

L 238/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.9.2011
(122) Further analysis allowed the fine-tuning of the assessment of the evolution on the number of months
of production being stocked. In this respect, in 2007 the sampled producers kept around 5 months
of production (43 %) but the pressure of the dumped imports forced them to increase stocks to more
than 7 months of production (corresponding to 61 % of total yearly production) during the IP. Table
1 expresses the stocks volumes also under the form of number of months over the yearly production.
(123) Table 1
Stocks
2007 2008 2009 IP
Stock (thousands m 2 ) 48
554 50
871 39
689 41
887
Index (2007 = 100) 100 105 82 86
Stocks as percentage of production 43
% 49
% 56
% 61
%
Index (2007 = 100) 100 113 130 142
Number of months stocked compared to annual
5,2 5,9 6,7 7,4
production
Index (2007 = 100) 100 113 130 142
Percentage of months stocked (base 12 months) 43
% 49
% 56
% 61
%
(124) The conclusion that the trend of stocks shows an
industry was forced to sell lower quantities and a larger
injurious situation is therefore confirmed.
variety was wrong as the Union industry in such case
allegedly should have lost much more than a 2 % market
share.
5.2.2. S a l e s p r i c e s
(125) One interested party, as already mentioned in recital 20,
(128) It should be observed that the focussing on sales of lower
challenged the findings in recitals 96 to 99 of the provi
batches does not necessarily entail the loss of a larger
sional Regulation regarding the Union industry’s sales
share of the market. Firstly, the Union industry has not
prices, claiming that the Commission did not include
been completely ousted from the market for larger,
in its determination of the Union unit price producers
uniform batches of product, notwithstanding the fact
in Poland and the Czech Republic and that the findings
that the pressure of low-priced Chinese imports is
were not consistent with actual public data.
particularly strong in that sector. Secondly, the Union
industry was able to maintain its presence on the
whole market by means of a compression of its sales
(126) Regarding this claim, a simulation was made including
prices and the production of a costlier product-mix,
the sales prices registered in Poland, which accounts for
which led to falling profitability as mentioned in recital
approximately 10 % of the total Union production. No
100 of the provisional Regulation. Therefore, the fact
simulation had been done for the Czech Republic, whose
that the Union industry did not lose a larger portion
production amounts to less than 3 % of the total Union
of the market is explained by the choice to keep a
production. The simulation showed that, even taking into
presence on the market despite price pressure from
consideration Polish prices, the final findings do not
China.
change in any meaningful way. Finally, consistently
with its methodology, the Commission calculated the
Union industry sales prices after making the relevant
adjustments to obtain the prices to the first independent
5.2.3. P r o f i t a b i l i t y , c a s h f l o w , r e t u r n o n
customer, to ensure comparability with Chinese sales
i n v e s t m e n t s a n d w a g e s
prices.
(129) One party held that there are large differences in profit
ability between large and small companies. For this
reason it was claimed that the average profit had to be
(127) One interested party held that the reasoning in recital 97
considered as unrepresentative as the sample only
of the provisional Regulation explaining that the Union
contained data from one large company.

---

EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/13
(130) Another party claimed that the large Union producers are
relevant indicator of injury. The Union producers
in good financial condition. The same party argued that
managed to keep their share in the Union market only
since there were no losses even when adding the small
to the detriment of profitability, which fell during the
companies in the average profit margin of the Union
period under consideration. It cannot therefore be
industry as shown in recital 101 and Table 12 of the
concluded that the stability of the Union producers’
provisional Regulation, no overall injury could be
market share excludes the presence of injury.
demonstrated.
(137) Considering the above, the conclusions on injury as set
(131) It should be noted that in order to ensure the consistency
out in recitals 107 to 111 of the provisional Regulation
of the findings with the representativeness of the
are hereby confirmed.
sampling, all the injury indicators (including profit)
have been weighted against the share of each segment
in the total Union production. On the other hand, the
E. CAUSATION
representativeness of the large company of the situation
of the larger segment is confirmed. Therefore, the overall
(138) The Commission received comments on the provisional
indicators as obtained from the analysis of the sampled
findings concerning causation. Those comments were a
companies are representative of the situation of the
repetition of comments already addressed in the provi
whole Union industry and the abovementioned claim
sional Regulation in recitals 128 to 132 concerning self-
had to be rejected.
inflicted injury. No further evidence was submitted that
would change the provisional conclusions. Therefore, the
conclusions as set out in recitals 135 and 136 of the
(132) In relation to the claim that the large companies suffered
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
no injury, it should be noted that in accordance with
Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation the analysis should
be made in relation to the Union industry as a whole and
1. Impact of the imports from China
not to certain groups or types of companies. As
mentioned already in recital 130, the fact that no
(139) In accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic
losses are made in the IP does not per se mean that
Regulation, at provisional stage it was examined
no injury occurred.
whether the dumped imports of the product concerned
originating in China had caused material injury to the
Union industry.
5.2.4. C o s t o f p r o d u c t i o n
(133) One interested party challenged the conclusion that the
(140) Some parties claimed that the decline in the Union
cost of production of the Union industry had risen by
industry’s production and sales was a result of decreasing
14 % as a consequence of the increase in stocks and
consumption. It was also held that the effects of Chinese
change in product mix. According to this party, this
imports must have been limited given that the Chinese
conclusion would not hold true as stock levels as well
market share only increased by 1,6 % out of which no
as product mix are not part of the cost of production.
more than 1 % could have related to the Union industry’s
market share.
(134) This claim has to be rejected since high stock levels
represent a considerable financial cost, which is
(141) In this context it is recalled that the investigation revealed
included in the analysis of the cost of production. On
a coincidence in time between the increased market share
the other hand, the repeated change in product mix
of the Chinese imports and the decrease of the Union
entails additional production costs as the producer has
industry’s profits and an increase of stock levels.
to frequently revise the production process: this
Furthermore, it is not only an increased market share
operation can be costly since it causes idle times and
that has put pressure on the Union industry but even
sub-optimal utilisation of the machineries.
more so the pricing behaviour and the high undercutting
levels of the Chinese exporting producers.
6. Conclusion on injury
(142) As recalled in recital 113, the investigation revealed
(135) One interested party questioned the conclusion in recital
significant levels of price undercutting. It also showed
107 of the provisional Regulation that the decrease in
that the Union industry and importers to a large extent
consumption had a negative effect on the Union
were selling to the same customers which meant that the
industry. According to this party, there could be no
Union industry was in direct competition with the
injury as a consequence of the decrease in consumption
dumped imports for orders.
as the overall market share remained the same.
(143) Overall this shows that it was the price pressure and not
(136) As for the comment on the stability of the Union
only the volumes of imports that caused the fall of the
producers’ market share despite falling consumption, it
Union industry profitability figures and the deterioration
should be noted that market share is not the only
of most injury indicators.

---

L 238/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.9.2011
2. Lack of competition between tiles produced in
In terms of prices one party challenged the conclusion
the Union and the dumped tiles imported from
that the increase of 19 % of Turkish prices was
China
substantial.
(144) Several interested parties claimed that imports of ceramic
tiles from China could not have caused injury to the
Union industry as they are not comparable. In this
(150) This argument was discussed in recital 118 of the provi
context it was held that ceramic tiles from China cater
sional Regulation and no new evidence was found which
the market for homogeneous products while the Union
would invalidate the conclusion made at provisional
industry produces to order, in smaller batches. It was also
stage. In this context it is confirmed that the increase
held that the Chinese and the Union industry are not in
of 19 % of the Turkish prices must be considered as
competition due to the fact that the Chinese operate in
substantial. It is furthermore recalled, as indicated in
the low to mid-end segment while the Union industry
recital 41, that there was no evidence of dumped
operates in the mid to high-end segment. The limited
imports that caused injury to the Union industry from
loss of market share by the Union industry was put
this country and therefore this argument cannot be
forward as evidence in this respect.
upheld.
(145) While no substantive evidence has been supplied in
3.2. Impact of decrease in consumption
support of the above claims, it was nevertheless
carefully considered whether Chinese imports were
(151) One interested party claimed that the decrease in
indeed competing with the tiles produced in the Union.
consumption affected mainly Spain and Italy where
allegedly injury was most present. Conversely, the main
destination of the Chinese exports was the northern
Member States that did not show a decrease in
(146) In this context it should be noted that the Commission
consumption and where Union producers were
made very detailed comparisons, distinguishing between
allegedly less injured. The same party also held that the
hundreds of different types of tiles. In this case, the
Spanish ceramic tiles industry has recovered in 2010
investigation showed a significant level of matching
which shows that there is no link between Chinese
types between the Union industry and the exporters.
exports and the production and sales figures of the
This clearly shows that the Union industry and the
Union industry.
Chinese imports are competing in terms of product
types. It is also recalled that it has been established in
the investigation that the Union industry and the
exporting producers are in direct competition as they
(152) One party claimed that the increase of stocks registered
share the same client base.
by the Union industry should be attributed to a fall in
Union consumption, and not to the dumped Chinese
imports.
(147) In respect of the claim that ceramic tiles from China
cater the market for homogeneous products while the
Union industry produces to order, in smaller batches, it
(153) The claims that the northern European Member States
is recalled – see recital 95 of the provisional Regulation –
were not affected by the decrease in consumption and
that it was exactly the pressure from the Chinese imports
that imports from China would have been directed only
that forced the Union industry to move towards smaller
towards northern Europe, was not supported by any
batches of products with larger varieties in terms of
substantiated evidence. To the contrary, data from the
colours and size. The Union industry still has a
sampled Chinese exporting producers shows that these
presence in all segments of the market and unlike what
sales are evenly spread across the Union. Furthermore,
was claimed above, the pattern showing that the Union
Spain and Italy collectively account for 28 % of these
industry had to focus on specific product types must be
sales, only slightly below sales to Germany (32 %). On
seen as an indication that direct competition was at
this basis, these claims were rejected.
hand.
(154) With regards to the claim that the increase of stocks
registered by the Union industry should be attributed
(148) In view of the above, the argument that the Chinese
to a fall in Union consumption, the Commission recalls
imports did not cause injury to the Union industry as
the reasoning contained in recital 108 of the provisional
they were not competing cannot be upheld.
Regulation, i.e. that the pressure of Chinese imports was
very strong especially in the sector of sales of big batches
and that this had a clear impact on the Union producers’
3. Effects of other factors
stocks. The growth of the stock ratio over the period
considered cannot be explained only by the difficulty in
3.1. Impact of imports from other third countries
selling the products, but also by the necessity to keep an
extremely high variety of products available in the stocks.
(149) Some parties maintained the argument that the impact of
The conclusion on the injurious effect of Chinese imports
the Turkish imports had to be considered as significant.
on stocks is therefore confirmed.

---

EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/15
3.3. Impact of the economic crisis
types, colour and size and had to increase its stocks in
order to react in a short time to very specific orders. This
(155) Several interested parties maintained that the economic
claim has therefore to be rejected.
crisis was the real cause of the difficulties facing the
Union industry. This was evidenced by the fact that the
main deteriorations took place between 2008 and 2009,
i.e. in the year that the crisis hit, while the trend was less
(161) Concerning the impact of inflation in the costs of
sharp in the following period. It is also pointed out that
production, it is observed that the inflation rate in the
the period considered included the high and low peaks of
Union has not been on average higher than in China
a cycle with the high point being characterised by the
during the period under consideration and that it
boom in the construction sector and the low point by
cannot therefore explain the difficulties of Union
the financial crisis and the decrease in exports due to the
producers in selling at sustainable prices. Given the
establishment of new production sites in third world
level of undercutting it can furthermore not be
countries.
concluded that a downward pressure on Chinese
import prices has been caused by the Union industry.
On this basis, the claim brought forward by this party
(156) After final disclosure, one interested party maintained
had to be rejected.
that the deterioration of a number of injury indicators
was due to the economic crisis rather than the dumped
imports. According to this party, the effect of the
recession was to increase the demand of large bulk of
(162) As concerns the situation of the Union industry on the
low priced products. As a result, the Union industry had
other hand, it is recalled that the provisional Regulation
to focus more into the production for large bulk orders,
(recital 126) showed that the aggressive pricing
a segment where the Chinese were already operating,
behaviour by the Chinese exporters affected the Union
with an increase in stock level as a result. Furthermore,
industry profitability over the period under consideration
the recession allegedly caused inflation in the Union,
already before the world economic downturn. This shows
comparatively higher than in China, causing the
that even in the absence of the crisis, the pressure of low-
increase in costs of production of the Union producers
priced imports from China was on its own sufficient to
which allegedly led the Union industry to sell at prices
be able to cause material injury to the Union industry.
below costs of production.
(163) This fact, if considered together with dumped prices,
(157) Another party claimed that the profit of the Union
strengthens the conclusion that the causal link between
industry had gone up significantly in the last quarter of
Chinese exports and the Union industry’s injury is not
the IP and that this showed that the Union industry had
broken by the economic downturn.
recovered after the economic crisis. This party requested
that profit for the IP should be given per quarter which
would likely indicate a significantly higher profitability
towards the end of the IP.
(164) Concerning the request that profit for the IP be given per
quarter, this was not considered to be relevant in the
current investigation because even if such a more
(158) The fact that the economic downturn did have an effect
pronounced improvement of the profit had occurred, it
on the performance of the Union industry was already
would have to be compared to the target profit of 3,9 %.
acknowledged in recital 120 of the Regulation imposing
provisional measures. In this context it should be recalled
that in order for causation to be established, the relevant
legal standard stipulates that the dumped imports need to
3.4. Impact of the Union industry’s failure to restructure
have caused material injury to the Union Industry.
Dumped imports however need not have been the sole
(165) One interested party claimed that injury to the Union
cause of injury.
producers should be attributed to their failure to

restructure as the market contraction of 29 % had been
met only with a 7 % capacity cut and a 16 % cut in
employment.
(159) Furthermore the investigation showed that the Chinese
trend of increasing exports could continue despite the
economic crisis. China was indeed the only actor in the
market that was able to maintain its market share in the
(166) In this sector, the dismissal of production capacity is a
difficult economic situation.
difficult process, as the recuperation of the capacity in
case of an eventual recovery of the market is extremely
costly for the producers. The cut in employment seen in
(160) As for the structural change in the Union demand
the period concerned was in the same order of
mentioned in recital 156, no evidence was brought
magnitude as the decrease of the market. The trend for
forward in support of this claim. To the contrary, it is
employment does not have to perfectly mirror the trend
recalled that, as explained in recital 106 of the provi
of the output, since not all jobs are directly linked to
sional Regulation, the investigation revealed that the
actual production. In conclusion, the fact that the
Union industry had to change its product mix by
dismissal of capacity and working force in the industry
supplying a larger variety of products in terms of
did not exactly match the contraction of the market

---

L 238/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.9.2011
does not point to a failure to restructure. Contrary to the
the products originating in the Union, the investigation
claims and taking into account the structure of the
found that importers can apply to their selling prices
industry, a 7 % capacity cut and a 16 % cut in
mark-ups in excess of 30 %. This, together with the
employment must therefore be considered significant.
fact that importers have been found to have realised
profits of around 5 % and their possibility to pass on
at least part of potential cost increases to their customers,
3.5. Effect of the Union industry’s performance on export
suggests that they are in a position to cope with the
markets
impact of measures.
(167) One interested party claimed that it was the high prices
and not the effect of the Chinese exports that had caused
(175) Furthermore, and as concluded in recital 144 of the
the decline in the Union industry export sales.
provisional Regulation, the imposition of measures
would not hamper Union importers from increasing
their import shares of products from the other non-
(168) In respect of this claim it is recalled that the Union
industry export performance has recovered after the
dumped sources available to them both in the Union
economic crisis. The claim that the export performance
and in other third countries.
would have had a significantly detrimental effect on the
results of the Union industry can therefore not be
(176) One importer alleged that for a certain product type,
accepted.
Chinese prices would currently be higher that those of
the Union industry and that measures would therefore
4. Conclusion on causation
not allow to export this specific type in the future.

(169) None of the arguments submitted by the interested
(177) This claim was not supported by any evidence.
parties demonstrates that the impact of factors other
Furthermore, according to the information available,
than dumped imports from China is such as to break
this product type only represented a minor proportion
the causal link between the dumped imports and the
of the market and would not affect significantly the
injury found. The conclusions on causation in the provi
supply situation in the Union market. The claim was
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
therefore rejected.
F. UNION INTEREST
3. Interest of users
(170) In view of parties’ comments the Commission conducted
(178) Some interested parties claimed that the impact on users
further analysis of all arguments pertaining to the Union
would be significant. In particular it was held that even
interest. All issues have been examined and the
the minimum price increase of 32,3 % will prevent
conclusions of the provisional Regulation confirmed.
customers’ quality purchases. It was also held that
while it may be true that the impact on large diversified
1. Interest of the Union industry
Do-It-Yourself shops might be limited, small specialist
shops would be significantly affected.
(171) In the absence of comments regarding the interest of the
Union industry, the conclusions in recitals 137 to 141 of
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(179) As for the impact on final users, the Commission
confirms what was provisionally concluded in the
Commission Regulation imposing provisional duties,
2. Interest of importers
under recitals 152 and 153, i.e. that the price effect
will be limited.
(172) One party claimed that the imposition of measures
threatened the economic existence of importers as they
would be able to only partially pass over the extra costs
(180) The construction sector, one of the larger customers of
of the duties to their customers.
ceramic tiles’ producers, decided not to cooperate in the
investigation. After the imposition of provisional
measures, the European Construction Industry Federation
(173) Following final disclosure two parties opposed the
– FIEC – was again invited to provide statistics showing
conclusion that importers can easily switch from
to what extent, if any, it would be affected by the
Chinese supplies to other sources of supply, in particular
imposition of measures. FIEC confirmed that, although
because qualities and prices were not comparable.
there is no information directly available, the cost
impact of the measures on their overall business is
very low. They also explained that the low interest by
(174) Regarding this claim, it is recalled that a large part of
their members should be seen as supporting the
imports is not affected by duties as it is of non-Chinese
Commission proposal.
origin. The characteristics of the product, being produced
all over the world in comparable qualities, suggest that
these products are interchangeable and that therefore a
(181) Finally, regarding small specialist shops, the Commission
number of alternative sources are available, despite the
could not obtain any conclusive data that would confirm
allegations made. Even for importers that rely on Chinese
the magnitude and the extent of impact of anti-dumping
imports, which the investigation found to be dumped
measure. Parallel to what happens to importers, it should
and sold at prices which significantly undercut those of
be remembered that ceramic tiles are produced in

---

EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/17
the Union and in many non-dumping third countries;
disclose this data meant that interested parties were not
therefore a serious risk of shortage of supply for retail
able to assess whether the lesser duty rule had been
shops can be excluded.
correctly applied.
4. Interest of final consumers
(189) In response to the above, the provisional margins were as
follows:
(182) Efforts were directed towards obtaining a more detailed
impact assessment from consumers. The investigation
showed that the impact is likely to be limited.
Company Injury
margin
Group Wonderful 52,6
%
(183) First of all, the absolute value of the measures is
calculated on the import price, therefore on a basis
Group Xinruncheng 95,8
%
which is much lower than the final retail price of the
product concerned. This value can be diluted in the
Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd 72,1
%
various steps (importers, wholesalers and retailers)
before reaching the final customer. And even if the
Heyuan Becarry Ceramic Co. Ltd 73,9
%
importers and resellers would transfer the whole
burden of the duty to the customers, it is recalled that
All other cooperating producers 66,0
%
there is a large offer of products in the market not
subject to measures, produced both by Union
Residual 95,8
%
producers and third countries producers.
1.2. Injury margin
(184) The Commission calculated the impact of the anti-
dumping duties on prices to consumers by assessing
(190) One party claimed that the Commission used an incon
the amount of duties to be paid, according to the
sistent approach for the determination of injury and
actual imports from China, and allocating this amount
should have based its conclusions on weighted average
directly to the consumers, assuming that importers,
data of the whole industry.
wholesalers and retailers would pass all the additional
cost on to final consumers. The cost impact so calculated
(191) In respect to this claim, it is noted that the findings on
is significantly lower than EUR 0,5 per m 2 . It is recalled
the injury elimination level are based on verified
that the provisional Regulation concluded that the
company specific data which was considered the most
average yearly average consumer consumption is
reliable basis in order to take into account all pertinent
around 2,2 m 2 per person in the Union. Given the low
facts for comparison purposes. This claim had therefore
impact of the duty per square metre, the cost increase
to be rejected.
will therefore probably be limited even if the consumer
was to buy a considerable quantity of the product
concerned for construction or renovation works.
(192) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to
dumping, resulting injury, causation and Union interest,
measures should be imposed in order to prevent further
5. Conclusion on Union interest
injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped
imports from China.
(185) The effects of the imposition of measures can be

expected to assist the Union industry, with consequent
beneficial effects on the competitive conditions on the
(193) For the purpose of determining the level of these duties,
Union market and the reduction of the threat of closures
account was taken of the dumping margins found and
and reductions in employment.
the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury
sustained by the Union industry.
(186) Furthermore, the imposition of the measures can be
expected to have a limited impact on the users/importers,
(194) It was therefore found appropriate to calculate the under
which would be able to source from a wide range of
selling margin on the basis of the prices identified from
suppliers in the Union market and in other third
the data submitted by Union producers and Chinese
countries.
exporters.
(187) In the light of the foregoing, it cannot be concluded that
(195) When calculating the amount of the anti-dumping duty
the imposition of measures would go against the Union
necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping,
interest.
it was considered that the duty should be so calculated to
allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production
and achieve a reasonable profit. It was considered that
G. DEFINITIVE MEASURES
this reasonable profit, before tax, shall be what was
1. Injury elimination level
achieved by an industry of this type under normal
conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of
1.1. Disclosure
dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the
Union. This profit has been assessed by reference to
(188) Two interested parties held that the Commission should
the profitability of 3,9 % that the Union industry
have disclosed the underselling margin in the provisional
achieved in 2007 as detailed in Table 12 in the provi
Regulation and one of them claimed that failure to
sional Regulation.

---

L 238/18
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.9.2011
(196) The injury margins established are as follows:
Union industry, it is considered necessary that the
amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-
dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation,
Company Injury
margin
be definitively collected.
Group Wonderful 58,5
%
Group Xinruncheng 82,3
%
(202) Where the definitive duties are higher than the provi
sional duties, only the amounts secured at the level of
Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd 66,6
%
the provisional duties should be definitively collected,
while the amounts secured in excess of the definitive
Heyuan Becarry Ceramic Co. Ltd 58,6
%
rate of anti-dumping duties should be released.
All other cooperating producers 65,0
%
4. Form of measures
Residual 82,3
%
(203) One interested party suggested that measures take the
form of minimum import price (MIP) instead of ad
(197) It is noted that the injury margin for ‘all other coop
valorem duties. However, an MIP is not suitable for the
erating producers’ was determined without using data
product concerned as it exists in a multitude of product
from the Kito Group, since the Kito Group did not
types, for which prices vary significantly, thus posing a
form part of the sample, and in order to be coherent
substantial risk of cross-compensation. In addition, it is
with the way the dumping margin for ‘all other coop
expected that the product types will further evolve in
erating producers’ is calculated (see Article 9(6) first
design and finishing and the MIP would no longer
sentence of the basic Regulation). For the Kito Group,
provide the appropriate basis for the level of the duty.
in view of the application of Article 18 of the basic
Therefore, the request to impose measures under the
Regulation as mentioned in recital 54, the residual
form of MIP is rejected.
injury margin will apply.
(198) It is also noted that the underselling margins are higher
(204) Another party requested that measures should take the
than the margins of dumping established above in
form of import quotas. However, import quotas are
recitals 88 to 93 and therefore the dumping margin
neither in line with the basic Regulation nor with the
should serve as the basis to establish the level of the
internationally agreed rules. Therefore the request had to
duty in accordance with the lesser-duty rule.
be rejected,
(199) In order to ensure equal treatment between any new
exporting producers and the cooperating companies
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
not included in the sample, mentioned in Annex I to
this Regulation, provision should be made for the
weighted average duty imposed on the latter companies
Article 1
to be applied to any new producers which would
otherwise not be entitled to a review pursuant to
1. A
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on
Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, as Article 11(4)
imports of glazed and unglazed ceramic flags and paving,
does not apply where sampling has been used.
hearth or wall tiles; glazed and unglazed ceramic mosaic
cubes and the like, whether or not on a backing, currently
2. Custom declaration
falling within CN codes 6907 10 00, 6907 90 20,

6907 90 80,
6908 10 00,
6908 90 11,
6908 90 20,
(200) Statistics of the product concerned are frequently
6908 90 31, 6908 90 51, 6908 90 91, 6908 90 93 and
expressed in square metres. However, there is no such
6908 90 99, and originating in the People’s Republic of China.
supplementary unit for the product concerned specified
in the Combined Nomenclature laid down in Annex I to
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
to
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products
Common Customs Tariff ( 1 ). It is therefore necessary to
described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies
provide that not only the weight in kg or tonnes but also
listed below shall be as follows:
the number of square metres of the product concerned
for imports is entered in the declaration for release for
free circulation.
TARIC
Company Duty
Additional
3. Definitive collection of provisional duty
Code
(201) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found
Dongguan City Wonderful Ceramics 26,3 % B011
and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the
Industrial Park Co., Ltd; Guangdong Jiamei
Ceramics Co. Ltd; Qingyuan Gani Ceramics
Co. Ltd; Foshan Gani Ceramics Co. Ltd
( 1 ) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

---

EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/19
TARIC
Republic of China, shall be definitively collected. The amounts
Company Duty
Additional
secured in excess of the amount of the definitive anti-dumping
Code
duties shall be released.
Guangdong Xinruncheng Ceramics Co. Ltd 29,3
% B009
Article 3
Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd 36,5
% B010
Where any producer from the People’s Republic of China
Companies listed in Annex I 30,6
%
provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that it did not
export the goods described in Article 1(1) originating in the
All other companies 69,7
% B999
People’s Republic of China during the period of investigation
(1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010), that it is not related to an
exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this
3. The
application
of
the
individual
duty
rates
specified
for Regulation and that it has either actually exported the goods
the companies referred to in paragraph 2 shall be conditional
concerned or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obli
upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member
gation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the
States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall comply with
end of the period of investigation, the Council, acting by simple
the requirements set out in Annex II. If no such invoice is
majority on a proposal by the Commission, after consulting the
presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall
Advisory Committee, may amend Article 1(2) in order to
apply.
attribute to that producer the duty applicable to cooperating
producers not in the sample, i.e. 30,6 %.
4. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
concerning customs duties shall apply.
Article 4
Article 2
Where a declaration for release for free circulation is presented
in respect of the products referred to in Article 1, the number
Amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties
of square metres of the products imported shall be entered in
pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No 258/2011
the relevant field of that declaration.
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
ceramic tiles currently falling within CN codes 6907 10 00,
Article 5
6907 90 20,
6907 90 80,
6908 10 00,
6908 90 11,
6908 90 20,
6908 90 31,
6908 90 51,
6908 90 91,
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
6908 90 93 and 6908 90 99, and originating in the People’s
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 September 2011.
For the Council
The President
M. DOWGIELEWICZ

---

L 238/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.9.2011
ANNEX I
CHINESE COOPERATING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED OR NOT GRANTED INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT
Name TARIC
additional
code
Dongguan He Mei Ceramics Co. Ltd B132
Dongpeng Ceramic (Qingyuan) Co. Ltd B133
Eagle Brand Ceramics Industrial (Heyuan) Co. Ltd B134
Enping City Huachang Ceramic Co. Ltd B135
Enping Huiying Ceramics Industry Co. Ltd B136
Enping Yungo Ceramic Co. Ltd B137
Foshan Aoling Jinggong Ceramics Co. Ltd B138
Foshan Bailifeng Building Materials Co. Ltd B139
Foshan Bragi Ceramic Co. Ltd B140
Foshan City Fangyuan Ceramic Co. Ltd B141
Foshan Gaoming Shuncheng Ceramic Co. Ltd B142
Foshan Gaoming Yaju Ceramics Co. Ltd B143
Foshan Guanzhu Ceramics Co. Ltd B144
Foshan Huashengchang Ceramic Co. Ltd B145
Foshan Jiajun Ceramics Co. Ltd B146
Foshan Mingzhao Technology Development Co. Ltd B147
Foshan Nanhai Jingye Ceramics Co. Ltd B148
Foshan Nanhai Shengdige Decoration Material Co. Ltd B149
Foshan Nanhai Xiaotang Jinzun Border Factory Co. Ltd B150
Foshan Nanhai Yonghong Ceramic Co. Ltd B151
Foshan Oceanland Ceramics Co. Ltd B152
Foshan Oceano Ceramics Co. Ltd B153
Foshan Sanshui Hongyuan Ceramics Enterprise Co. Ltd B154
Foshan Sanshui Huiwanjia Ceramics Co. Ltd B155
Foshan Sanshui New Pearl Construction Ceramics Industrial Co. Ltd B156
Foshan Shiwan Eagle Brand Ceramic Ltd B157
Foshan Shiwan Yulong Ceramics Co. Ltd B158
Foshan Summit Ceramics Co. Ltd B159
Foshan Tidiy Ceramics Co. Ltd B160
Foshan VIGORBOOM Ceramic Co. Ltd B161

---

EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/21
Name TARIC
additional
code
Foshan Xingtai Ceramics Co. Ltd B162
Foshan Zhuyangyang Ceramics Co. Ltd B163
Fujian Fuzhou Zhongxin Ceramics Co. Ltd B164
Fujian Jinjiang Lianxing Building Material Co. Ltd B165
Fujian Minqing Jiali Ceramics Co. Ltd B166
Fujian Minqing Ruimei Ceramics Co. Ltd B167
Fujian Minqing Shuangxing Ceramics Co. Ltd B168
Gaoyao Yushan Ceramics Industry Co. Ltd B169
Guangdong Bode Fine Building Materials Co. Ltd B170
Guangdong Foshan Redpearl Building Material Co. Ltd B171
Guangdong Gold Medal Ceramics Co. Ltd B172
Guangdong Grifine Ceramics Co. Ltd B173
Guangdong Homeway Ceramics Industry Co. Ltd B174
Guangdong Huiya Ceramics Co. Ltd B175
Guangdong Juimsi Ceramics Co. Ltd B176
Guangdong Kaiping Tilee’s Building Materials Co. Ltd B177
Guangdong Kingdom Ceramics Co. Ltd B178
Guangdong Monalisa Ceramics Co. Ltd B179
Guangdong New Zhong Yuan Ceramics Co. Ltd Shunde Yuezhong Branch B180
Guangdong Ouya Ceramics Co. Ltd B181
Guangdong Overland Ceramics Co. Ltd B182
Guangdong Qianghui (QHTC) Ceramics Co. Ltd B183
Guangdong Sihui Kedi Ceramics Co. Ltd B184
Guangdong Summit Ceramics Co. Ltd B185
Guangdong Tianbi Ceramics Co. Ltd B186
Guangdong Winto Ceramics Co. Ltd B187
Guangdong Xinghui Ceramics Group Co. Ltd B188
Guangning County Oudian Art Ceramic Co. Ltd B189
Guangzhou Cowin Ceramics Co. Ltd B190
Hangzhou Nabel Ceramics Co. Ltd B191
Hangzhou Nabel Group Co. Ltd B192
Hangzhou Venice Ceramics Co. Ltd B193
Heyuan Becarry Ceramics Co. Ltd B194

---

L 238/22
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.9.2011
Name TARIC
additional
code
Heyuan Wanfeng Ceramics Co. Ltd B195
Hitom Ceramics Co. Ltd B196
Huiyang Kingtile Ceramics Co. Ltd B197
Jiangxi Ouya Ceramics Co. Ltd B198
Jingdezhen Tidiy Ceramics Co. Ltd B199
Kim Hin Ceramics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd B200
Lixian Xinpeng Ceramic Co. Ltd B201
Louis Valentino (Inner Mongolia) Ceramic Co. Ltd B202
Louvrenike (Foshan) Ceramics Co. Ltd B203
Nabel Ceramics (Jiujiang City) Co. Ltd B204
Ordos Xinghui Ceramics Co. Ltd B205
Qingdao Diya Ceramics Co. Ltd B206
Qingyuan Guanxingwang Ceramics Co. Ltd B207
Qingyuan Oudian Art Ceramic Co. Ltd B208
Qingyuan Ouya Ceramics Co. Ltd B209
RAK (Gaoyao) Ceramics Co. Ltd B210
Shandong ASA Ceramic Co. Ltd B211
Shandong Dongpeng Ceramic Co. Ltd B212
Shandong Jialiya Ceramic Co. Ltd B213
Shanghai Cimic Tile Co. Ltd B214
Sinyih Ceramic (China) Co. Ltd B215
Sinyih Ceramic (Penglai) Co. Ltd B216
Southern Building Materials and Sanitary Co. Ltd of Qingyuan B217
Tangshan Huida Ceramic Group Co. Ltd B218
Tangshan Huida Ceramic Group Huiquin Co. Ltd B219
Tegaote Ceramics Co. Ltd B220
Tianjin (TEDA) Honghui Industry & Trade Co. Ltd B221
Topbro Ceramics Co. Ltd B222
Xingning Christ Craftworks Co. Ltd B223
Zhao Qing City Shenghui Ceramics Co. Ltd B224
Zhaoqing Jin Ouya Ceramics Company Limited B225
Zhaoqing Zhongheng Ceramics Co. Ltd B226
Zibo Hualiansheng Ceramics Co. Ltd B227

---

EN
15.9.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/23
Name TARIC
additional
code
Zibo Huaruinuo Ceramics Co. Ltd B228
Shandong Tongyi Ceramics Co. Ltd B229
ANNEX II
A declaration signed by an official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice, in the following format, must appear on
the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3):
1. The name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice.
2. The following declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of ceramic tiles sold for export to the European Union covered by this
invoice was manufactured by (company name and registered seat) (TARIC additional code) in (country concerned). I
declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.
(Date and signature)’.

---