HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 316/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.11.2013
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1205/2013
of 26 November 2013
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of solar glass from the People's Republic of
China
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
(4) On
27
April
2013,
the
Commission
announced,
by
notice published in the Official Journal of the European
Union ( 4 ), the initiation of a parallel anti-subsidy
proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
solar glass originating in the PRC and commenced a
Union,
separate investigation.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
1.2. Registration
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
(5)
A request for registration of imports of solar glass from
the country concerned was received with the complaint
but was subsequently withdrawn on 2 October 2013.
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
1.3. Parties concerned
Whereas:
(6) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
complainant,
other
known Union producers, the known exporting producers
in the PRC, importers, traders, users, suppliers and the
authorities of the PRC of the initiation of the investi
1. PROCEDURE
gation. All interested parties were given the opportunity
to make their views known in writing and to request a
1.1. Initiation
hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initi
ation. The Commission also informed producers in
(1) On
28
February
2013,
the
European
Commission
(‘the
potential analogue countries about the initiation and
Commission’) announced, by a notice published in the
invited them to participate.
Official Journal of the European Union ( 2 ) (‘notice of initi
ation’), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with
regard to imports into the Union of solar glass orig
inating in the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or
the ‘country concerned’).
1.3.1. Sampling
(a) Sampling of Union producers
(2) The
investigation
was
initiated
following
a
complaint (7) The
investigation
revealed
that
the
Union
industry
lodged on 15 January 2013 by EU ProSun Glass (‘the
currently consists of seven active producers, two of
complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more
which are SMEs. The Commission announced in the
than 25 % of the total Union production of solar glass.
notice of initiation that it had provisionally selected a
The complaint contained prima facie evidence of
sample of Union producers. This sample consisted of
dumping of the said product and of material injury
four Union producers that were known to the
resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to
Commission prior to the initiation of the investigation
justify opening of an investigation.
to produce solar glass. The Commission selected the
sample on the basis of the largest representative sales
volume of the like product during the period 1 January
2012 – 31 December 2012. The sampled Union
producers accounted for more than 50 % of the total
(3)
Following the publication of the notice of initiation, the
Commission was informed that the product was defined
Union production. The Commission informed interested
incorrectly in point 2 of the notice of initiation. Accord
parties of the proposed sample of Union producers by
ingly, a corrigendum to the notice of initiation was
means of a note for the file for inspection by interested
published in the Official Journal of the European
parties. The Commission also sent a letter to the Union
Union (
producers informing them of the proposed sample.

3 ), in which the small error was corrected.
Interested parties were also invited in the notice of
initiation to make their views known on the provisional
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
sample.
( 2 ) OJ C 58, 28.2.2013, p. 6 and corrigendum published in OJ C 94,
3.4.2013, p. 11.
( 3 ) OJ C 94, 3.4.2013, p. 11.
( 4 ) OJ C 122, 27.4.2013, p. 24.

---

EN
27.11.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
316/9
(8) One
SME
showed
interest
to
be
part
of
the
sample
as
(c) Sampling of exporting producers
well. The Commission decided to include it together with
a second company in the sample due to the higher share
(14) In
view
of
the
high
number
of
exporting
producers,
of sales volume of the latter and to remove from the
sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for
sample the company with the lowest sales volume. No
the determination of dumping, in accordance with
other comments were received regarding the
Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable
provisionally selected sample. As a result, the
the Commission to decide whether sampling would be
Commission added two companies to the initially
necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting
proposed sample and removed one other.
producers were asked to make themselves known to
the Commission and to provide, as specified in the
notice of initiation, basic information on their activities
related to the product concerned during the period from
1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.
(9) Finally, after the verification visits, the Commission
decided to remove one of the five sampled companies,
as that company was found not to be representative for
the Union industry. In particular, it was in a start-up
(15) Twelve Chinese exporting producers or groups of
phase (which was not the case for the Union industry
exporting producers, representing over 95 % of total
taken as a whole) and the profitability trend would hence
Chinese exports to the Union during this period
not have given a true picture of the state of the Union
provided the requested information and agreed to be
industry.
included in the sample.
(10) Consequently, it finally selected a sample of four Union
(16) On the basis of the information received and in
producers. The final sample accounts for 79 % of the
accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, the
sales of the Union industry on the Union market. The
Commission selected a provisional sample of five
sample is thus considered to be representative of the
exporting producers based on the largest representative
Union industry.
quantity of exports of solar glass to the Union, which
could reasonably be investigated within the time
available.
(11) Three
of
the
seven
Union
producers
requested,
on
the
basis of Article 19 of the basic Regulation, that their
(17) All parties concerned, as well as the authorities of the
identities be kept confidential. They claimed that
PRC, were informed of the proposed sample and invited
disclosure of their identity could lead to a risk of
to comment. After having analysed the comments
significant adverse effects to their business activities.
received, the Commission decided to retain the
Their request was examined and found to be warranted.
proposed sample of five companies and all interested
It was further decided in view of the limited number of
parties were accordingly informed of the finally selected
Union producers not to disclose the names of those
sample.
Union producers which did not request anonymity as
this could inadvertently lead to the disclosure of the
identity of the others. The identity of the company
Interfloat Corporation/GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg
(18) Subsequently, the investigation revealed that two
GmbH (‘GMB/IF’) is, however, already known as it
exporting producers included in the sample had over
declared publicly that it is one of the complainants.
stated their export sales to the Union and had
therefore been included in the sample on unjustified
grounds. Both companies were therefore excluded from
the sample after having been given the opportunity to
provide comments. The Commission, after having duly
(b) Sampling of unrelated importers
analysed the comments provided by the companies,
(12) In order to enable the Commission to decide whether
concluded that they had not provided the incorrect
sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a
figures intentionally and decided that they should
sample, all unrelated importers were requested to make
remain being considered as cooperating parties in the
themselves known to the Commission and to provide
meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
information specified in the notice of initiation.
(19) Following these exclusions, an inclusion of other
exporting producers into the sample was considered.
(13) Four
unrelated
importers
replied
to
the
sampling
form
However, in view of the fact that both exclusions
attached to the notice of initiation, while only two
occurred at a late stage of the investigation, this was
importers submitted the specific questionnaire response.
deemed not feasible, as it could jeopardise the
In view of the low number of cooperating importers,
completion of the investigation within the statutory
sampling was not deemed to be necessary.
time limits.

---

L 316/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.11.2013
(20) The
revised
sample
of
exporting
producers
or
groups
of
(d) Exporting producers in the PRC:
exporting producers of solar glass is therefore the
following:
— Sampled companies:
— Flat Solar Glass Group Co., Ltd, and related
— Zhejiang Jiafu Glass Co., Ltd; Zhejiang Flat
companies (‘Flat Glass Group’);
Mirror Glass Co., Ltd; Flat Solar Glass Group
Co., Ltd; Shanghai Flat Glass Co., Ltd (‘Flat
— Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings (‘Xinyi’) and its
Glass Group’);
related trader;
— Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd and
Xinyi Solar (Hong Kong) Limited (‘Xinyi
— Zhejiang Hehe Photovoltaic Glass Technology Co.,
Group’);
Ltd, and related companies (‘Hehe Group’).
— Zhejiang Hehe Figured Glass Co., Ltd.,
(21) The
Commission
corrected
the
volume
of
total
exports
Zhejiang Yaohua Import and Export Co.,
sales of the product concerned from the PRC after it was
Ltd.,), and Zhejiang Glaverbel Glass Tech
informed about the overestimation of exports sales of the
nology Co., Ltd, Zhejiang Hehe Photovoltaic
two exporting producers (see recital (18) above). The
Glass Technology Co., Ltd, Hangzhou Hehe
final sample accounts for more than 50 % of the total
Glass Industry Co., Ltd. (‘Hehe Group’).
volume of exports to the Union of the product
concerned during the period from 1 January 2012 to
31 December 2012 as reported by the cooperating
— Company subject to individual examination:
exporting producers. It is therefore considered represen
tative in terms of volumes of exports of solar glass to the
— Henan Yuhua New Material Co., Ltd (‘Henan
Union from the PRC.
Yuhua’).
(d) Questionnaire replies and verification visits
(e) Producer in the analogue country
(22) The Commission sent questionnaires to all Chinese
exporting producers that had so requested, as well as
— In view of the need to establish a normal value
to the sampled Union producers, the unrelated
for the exporting producers in the PRC in case
importers and their associations, as well as to users
market economy treatment as defined in
that made themselves known within the time limits set
Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation would
out in the notice of initiation.
not be granted, a verification visit to establish
normal value on the basis of data from Turkey
as analogue country took place at the premises of
(23) Questionnaire
replies
were
received
from
four
Chinese
the following company:
exporting producers, from all sampled Union producers,
two unrelated Union importers and 12 users.
— Trakya Cam Sanayii A.., Turkey.
(24) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
the
information
deemed necessary for the purpose of a provisional deter
1.3.2. Investigation period and period considered
mination of dumping, resulting injury and Union
(25) The
investigation
of
dumping
and
injury
covered
the
interest. Verification visits were carried out at the
period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012
premises of the following companies or group of
(‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of
companies.
trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the
period from 1 January 2009 to the end of the investi
(a) Union producers:
gation period (‘the period considered’).
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
— GMB/IF and other companies subject to confiden
tiality treatment.
2.1. Product concerned
(26) The
product
subject
to
this
investigation
is
solar
glass
(b) Importers:
consisting of tempered soda-lime-flat-glass, with an iron
content of less than 300 ppm, a solar transmittance of
— Vetrad NV, the Netherlands.
more than 88 % (measured according to AM1,5 300-
2 500 nm), a resistance to heat up to 250 °C (measured
according to EN 12150), a resistance to thermal shocks
(c) Users:
of Δ 150 K (measured according to EN 12150) and
having a mechanical strength of 90 N/mm 2 or more
(measured according to EN 1288-3) (‘the product
— Sunerg Solar SRL, Italy.
concerned’).

---

EN
27.11.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
316/11
(27) The
product
concerned
currently
falls
within
CN
code
concluded that the types of glass mentioned above and
ex 7007 19 80.
imported by this particular importer fall outside the
scope of the investigation.
(28) Solar glass is one of the components for manufacturing
(32) However,
any
types
of
horticultural
and
furniture
glass
crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and thin film
which may have similar technical characteristics as solar
photovoltaic modules producing electricity as well as
glass remain at this stage within the scope of the product
flat thermal collectors generating hot water.
concerned as they can potentially be used as solar glass.
2.2. Like product
(33) The
importer
also
argued
that
float
glass
should
be
excluded from the product scope since it has a
(29) The
investigation
has
shown
that
the
product
concerned
different production process than rolled glass which is
and the product produced and sold on the domestic
perceived by the importer as the only type of solar
market of the PRC, the product produced and sold in
glass. In addition, since float glass home furnishing
the Union by the Union industry, and the product
products cannot allegedly represent a substitute for
produced and sold on the domestic market of Turkey,
solar glass products, it was argued that the float glass
which was considered serving as an analogue country,
should not be considered as a like product and should
have the same basic physical and technical characteristics
be excluded from the scope of the investigation. The
as well as the same basic uses. They are therefore
Commission is of the preliminary opinion that float
provisionally considered to be ‘like products’ within the
glass cannot be excluded from scope of the investigation
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
since it complies with all the technical characteristics
contained in recital (26) above. Moreover, the investi
gation showed that float glass can clearly be used as
solar glass and it is produced by both the Union
2.3. Claims regarding product scope
industry and the Chinese exporters. Consequently, it is

provisionally concluded that float glass remains within
(30) An
importer
requested
exclusion
of
horticultural
glass
for
the scope of the investigation.
the construction of greenhouses from the scope of the
investigation, arguing that greenhouses use very
differently sized glass whereas solar glass is produced
in only certain fixed sizes. In addition, the importer
3. DUMPING
provided a certificate showing that part of its imports
3.1. Market economy treatment (‘MET’)
comprise of glass with iron content higher than
300 ppm. Consequently, that part of the imported horti
(34) Pursuant
to
Article
2(7)(b)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
in
cultural glass clearly does not fall within the scope of the
anti-dumping investigations concerning imports from
present investigation.
the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance
with Article 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation for those
exporting producers which were found to meet the
criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regu
(31) Another
importer argued that the furniture glass it
lation.
imports (used for glass shelves, panel fillings, table
tops, sliding door panels, top panels products, etc.) has
the same or very similar technical characteristics as solar
glass but requested its exclusion from the scope of the
(35) Briefly,
and
for
ease
of
reference
only,
these
criteria
are
investigation as it has a different end use. However, on
set out below:
the basis of the evidence provided, it seems that most of
the glass it imports would not share all the technical
characteristics of solar glass as described in recital (26)
(1) business decisions are made in response to market
above. In particular, six types of the imported glass have
conditions and without significant State interference,
iron content much higher than 300 ppm, while one type
and costs reflect market values;
of the imported glass has iron content lower than
300 ppm but their solar transmittance is significantly
lower than the minimum 88 % required to be defined
as solar glass. The importer argued that even though
(2) firms have one clear set of basic accounting records,
those types of glass do not fulfil one of the technical
which are independently audited, in line with inter
characteristics of solar glass as described in recital (26)
national accounting standards and applied for all
above, they are complying with the primary classification
purposes;
for solar glass, i.e. ‘tempered soda-lime-flat-glass’. The
Commission is of the preliminary opinion that only
those types of glass which fulfil all the technical char
acteristics of solar glass fall within the scope of
(3) there are no significant distortions carried over from
the investigation. Consequently, it is provisionally
the former non-market economy system;

---

L 316/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.11.2013
(4) legal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy
examination is carried out in respect of each company
and property laws; and
individually as well as to the group of companies as a
whole.
(5) currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.
(40) Accordingly,
the
MET
claims
of
four
exporting
producers
(groups of companies), comprised of eleven legal entities,
(36) Ten
cooperating
companies
requested
MET
pursuant
to
were investigated.
Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the
MET claim form within the given deadlines. Pursuant to
Article 2(7)(d) of the basic Regulation, a MET verification
was carried out to the companies which were included in
(41) The investigation established
that all four exporting
the sample as well as to the company that was granted
producers (groups of companies) claiming MET failed
individual examination (see recital (48) below).
to demonstrate that they fulfilled all of the criteria laid
down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
(37) It follows that a MET determination was made in respect
of the following four companies or groups of companies.
(42) More
specifically,
three
exporting
producers
failed
to
demonstrate, either individually or as a group, that they
had one set of clear set of accounts that were indepen
— Sampled companies:
dently audited in line with international accounting
standards and therefore did not fulfil MET criterion 2.
— Zhejiang Jiafu Glass Co., Ltd; Zhejiang Flat Mirror
Glass Co., Ltd; Flat Solar Glass Group Co., Ltd;
Shanghai Flat Glass Co., Ltd (‘Flat Glass Group’);
(43) Moreover, all four exporting producers, either indi
vidually or as a group, failed to demonstrate that they
were not to subject to significant distortions carried over
from the non-market economy system. Accordingly,
— Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd and Xinyi
these companies, or group of companies, did not fulfil
Solar (Hong Kong) Limited (‘Xinyi Group’);
MET criterion 3. More specifically, all four exporting
producers, or groups of exporting producers, benefitted
from preferential tax regimes.
— Zhejiang Hehe Figured Glass Co., Ltd., Zhejiang
Yaohua Import and Export Co., Ltd.,), and
Zhejiang Glaverbel Glass Technology Co., Ltd,
(44) In
addition,
one
of
these
exporting
producers
also
failed
Zhejiang Hehe Photovoltaic Glass Technology
criterion 3 on the basis that several companies within the
Co., Ltd, Hangzhou Hehe Glass Industry Co.,
group, notwithstanding their dire financial situation,
Ltd. (‘Hehe Group’).
obtained significant financing during the IP (and before)
at rates, which under conditions normally prevailing in a
market economy, would be reserved for financially
— Company subject to individual examination:
healthy companies. Another group of exporting
producers also failed criterion 3 on the basis of the
fact that companies within the group purchased natural
gas at a reduced rate from a state-owned supplier.
— Henan Yuhua New Materials Co., Ltd (‘Henan
Yuhua’).
(45) The
Commission
disclosed
the
results
of
the
MET
inves
tigation to the companies concerned, the authorities of
(38) The
Commission sought
all
the
information deemed
necessary and verified all the information submitted in
the PRC and the complainant and invited them to
the MET claims at the premises of the companies in
comment.
question.
(46) The
comments
received
were
not
such
as
to
alter
the
(39) In
case
of
related
parties,
the
Commission
shall
examine
Commission’s preliminary findings. After having
whether the group of the related companies as a whole
consulted the Member States in accordance with
fulfils the conditions for MET. Therefore, in cases where a
Article 2(7) (c), all applicants were individually and
subsidiary or any other company related to the applicant
formally notified, on 13 September 2013, of the
in the PRC is involved, directly or indirectly, in the
Commission’s final determination with regard to their
production or sales of the product concerned, the MET
respective MET claim.

---

EN
27.11.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
316/13
(47) Accordingly,
neither
of
the
four
cooperating
exporting
with the Commission. These countries were: Australia,
producers or groups of exporting producers in the PRC
India, Indonesia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa,
that had requested MET could show that they fulfilled all
South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and the USA.
the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regu
lation and their MET claims were therefore rejected.
(53) Based on the information at the Commission’s disposal,
apart from the PRC and the Union, only India and
Turkey produce the like product. In order to make a
3.2. Individual examination
proper assessment of the suitability of Turkey and India
(48) One
of
the
two
exporting
producers
that
had
originally
as appropriate analogue countries, the Commission
been included in the sample but subsequently excluded
analysed information concerning the like product and
(see recital (18)) - had requested individual examination,
more specifically, the number of producers, the size of
pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation, should
the domestic market, the level of imports and the
it not be included in the sample. Following its exclusion
importance of trade and non-trade barriers in both coun
from the sample and in view of the fact that an MET
tries. However, only one company from Turkey came
verification visit had already taken place (see recital (37)
forward and expressed its willingness to cooperate with
above), it was considered that it would not be unduly
the Commission despite many attempts from the
burdensome to grant this company individual exam
Commission to receive cooperation also from
ination (‘IE’). No other exporting producer, which was
producers in India.
not included in the sample had requested IE.
(54) Turkey
is
a
market
economy
third
country.
The
import
duties applicable to the like product are 3 % MFN. Due to
3.3. Normal value
the Turkey-EU Customs Union import duties applicable
bilaterally are 0 %. There seem to be no other duties or
3.3.1. Choice of the analogue country
other significant non-trade barriers concerning the like
product.
(49) In
accordance
with
Article
2(7)(a)
of
the
basic
Regulation,

the Commission envisaged in the notice of initiation that
normal value should be determined on the basis of the
price or constructed value in a market economy third
country or, should an appropriate market economy
(55) According to the Turkish producer that expressed its
third country not be found, the normal value should
willingness to cooperate in the investigation, it is the
be established on the basis of Union prices in accordance
sole company producing the like product in Turkey.
with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. Before
The company has significant production and is both
resorting to Union prices the Commission would inves
exporting and selling domestically the like product with
tigate all possibilities for selecting an appropriate
the export quantity being higher than the quantity sold
analogue country.
domestically.
(56) Notwithstanding
the absence of trade and non-trade
(50) Interested
parties
were
invited
to
comment
on
the
choice
barriers, there were virtually no imports of solar glass
of an analogue country and on the use of Union prices.
on the Turkish market during the IP. In the same time,
the Commission’s investigation confirmed that the
cooperating analogue country producer was making a
reasonable and not an excessive profit during the IP.
(51) Comments
were
received
from
the
China
Chamber
of
Commerce for Export/Import of Light Industrial
Products and Arts-crafts (‘CCCLA’), from an unrelated
importer, as well as from two Chinese exporting
(57) Based
on
the
above
and
considering
all
information
producers, which all contested the use of Union prices
available at this stage of the investigation, Turkey has
to establish the normal value. Turkey and India were put
provisionally been chosen as an analogue country in
forward as appropriate analogue countries.
accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.
3.3.2. Normal value
(52) Meanwhile,
in
order
to
investigate
all
possibilities
for
selecting an appropriate analogue country, the
(58) In
view
of
the
fact
that
all
requests
for
MET
were
denied,
Commission services had identified eleven market
normal value for all Chinese exporting producers was
economy third countries with possible production of
established on the basis of information received from
solar glass and, based on publicly available information,
the producer in the analogue country, pursuant to
invited 24 companies in those countries to cooperate
Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.

---

L 316/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.11.2013
(59) In
accordance
with
Article
2(2)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
costs plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and
the Commission first examined whether the sales of the
administrative costs (‘SG&A’) and for profit. The cost of
like product in Turkey to independent customers were
coating and the cost of the float production process were
representative. The sales of the Turkish cooperating
based on data provided by the Union Industry.
producer of the like product were found to be sold in
representative quantities on the Turkish domestic market
compared to the product concerned exported to the
Union by the Chinese exporting producers included in
the sample.
3.4. Export prices
(65) The export prices were based on the prices actually paid
or payable for the product concerned, in accordance with
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
(60) The
Commission
subsequently
examined
whether
these
sales could be considered as having been made in the
ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the
basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the
3.5. Comparison
proportion of profitable sales to independent customers.

The sales transactions were considered profitable where
(66) The
normal
value
and
export
price
were
compared
on
an
the unit price was equal or above the cost of production.
ex-works basis. The dumping margins were established
The cost of production of the Turkish producer during
by comparing the individual ex-works prices of the
the IP was therefore determined.
sampled exporters to the domestic sales prices of the
analogue country producer or to the constructed
normal value as appropriate.
(61) For
those
product
types
where
more
than
80
% by
volume of sales on the domestic market of the type in
question were above cost and the weighted average sales
(67) For
the
purpose
of
ensuring
a
fair
comparison
between
price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of
the normal value and the export price, due allowance in
production, normal value, by product type, was
the form of adjustments was made for differences
calculated as the weighted average of the actual
affecting prices and price comparability in accordance
domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irre
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
spective of whether those sales were profitable or not.
(68) On
this
basis,
adjustments
were
made
for
transport,
(62) Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type
ocean freight and insurance costs, handling, loading
represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that
and ancillary costs, export duties and commissions in
type, or where the weighted average price of that type
all cases where demonstrated to affect price compara
was below the unit cost of production, normal value was
bility.
based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated
as a weighted average price of only the profitable
domestic sales of that type made during the IP.
3.6. Dumping margin
(69) For the sampled exporting producers, the weighted
(63) As
regards
the
types
of
product
that
were
not
profitable,
average constructed normal value of each type of the
normal value was constructed using the cost of manu
like product in Turkey was compared with the
facturing of the Turkish producer plus SG&A and profit
weighted average export price of the corresponding
for the product types of the Turkish producer that are
product type, as provided for in Article 2(11) and (12)
profitable.
of the basic Regulation.
(64) Due
to
the
lack
of
coating
technology
applied
on
the
(70) Pursuant to Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regu
solar glass produced in Turkey during the IP and
lation, the dumping margins for the sampled exporting
because none of the Turkish solar glass was produced
producers and to the one granted IE were established on
using a float production process, there was no sale of
the basis of a comparison of the weighted average
several product types on the Turkish domestic market.
constructed normal value of each product type of the
Therefore, for the product types which were not sold in
like product established in Turkey, with each
Turkey during the IP but were exported from the PRC to
company’s weighted average export price of the
the Union, the normal value had to be constructed
corresponding type of the product concerned, expressed
pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation on the
as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty
basis of the Turkish analogue producer’s manufacturing
unpaid.

---

EN
27.11.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
316/15
(71) The weighted average dumping margin for the
(76) All
available information concerning Union industry,
cooperating exporting producers not included in the
including information provided by the complainant,
sample was calculated in accordance with the provisions
macro-economic data provided by the Union Industry's
of Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation. This margin was
association (Glass for Europe) and the questionnaire
established on the basis of the margins established for the
responses of the sampled Union producers were used
sampled exporting producers.
in order to establish the total Union production for the
IP. Since solar glass is imported in the Union under
customs heading 7007 19 80 – Other - Laminated
(72) With
regard
to
all
other
exporting
producers
in
the
PRC,
safety glass, which covers other products not subject to
the dumping margin was established on the basis of the
the present investigation, Eurostat could not be used to
facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic
determine import volumes and values. Import volumes
Regulation. To this end the Commission determined the
and values were based on data provided by the
level of cooperation in the PRC. The level of cooperation
complainant and the Union industry's association.
is the proportion of the volume of exports of the
When possible, the data was cross-checked with the
cooperating exporting producers to the Union towards
questionnaire replies. On this basis, the total Union
the total export volume from the country concerned to
production was estimated to be around 21 734 000 m 2
the Union reported in the complaint (see recital (15)
during the IP.
above).
(77) As
explained
in
recital
(10)
above,
four
Union
producers
(73) The level of cooperation is high since the imports of the
were selected in the sample representing 79 % of the
cooperating exporting producers constitute more than
total Union sales of the like product.
80 % of the total exports to the Union during the IP.
On this basis, the residual dumping margin applicable to
all other exporting producers in the PRC was set at a
level corresponding to the highest dumping margin
4.2. Determination of the relevant Union market
found for the cooperating exporting producers in the
sample.
(78) It
was
found
during
the
investigation
that
none
of
the
sampled Union producers’ production was destined for
captive use.
(74) The
established
provisional
dumping
margins,
expressed
as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty
unpaid, are as follows:
(79) Consequently,
for
the
purpose
of
this
investigation
there
is no need to make a distinctive analysis of captive sales.
Name of company Provisional dumping
margin
4.3. Union consumption
Sampled companies Flat
Glass
Group 86,2
%
(80) The
Union
consumption
was
established
on
the
basis
of
the volume of the total Union sales on the Union market
Hehe Group 75,3
%
of all Union producers, minus their exports, plus imports
from the PRC and imports from other third countries. As
Xinyi Group 74,0
%
explained in recital (76) above, the Union consumption
was based on data provided by the complainant and the
Union industry's association (Glass for Europe) and,
Company with indi
Henan Yuhua 31,9
%
when possible, cross-checked with the sampled Union
vidual dumping margin
producers' questionnaire replies.
Non-sampled
79,8 %
cooperating companies
for which a sample
(81) Union
consumption
developed
as
follows:
average will apply
All other companies 86,2
%
Table 1
Union consumption (1 000 m 2 )
4. INJURY
4.1. Definition of the Union industry and Union
2009 2010 2011 IP
production
Total Union
19 440 28
504 35
258 29
040
(75) The
like
product
was
manufactured
by
eight
producers
in
consumption
the Union during the IP. They constitute the Union
industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the
Index 100 147 181 149
basic Regulation and will hereafter be referred to as
Source: Glass for Europe and the complainant.
‘the Union industry’.

---

L 316/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.11.2013
(82) In the period considered, the total Union consumption
able to benefit to a much larger extent from the Union's
increased by 49 % between 2009 and the IP, but
growing consumption and greatly reinforced their
decreased in the IP compared to 2011. In overall terms
position on the market.
the Union consumption of solar glass grew significantly
when compared to its 2009 level. This is mainly due to
the increase in consumption of the end products, in
particular solar modules (see recital (142) below).
4.4.2. Prices of the dumped imports from the country
concerned and price undercutting
(86) The
average
price
of
dumped
imports
into
the
Union
from the country concerned developed as follows:
4.4. Imports from the country concerned
4.4.1. Volume and market share of the dumped imports
from the country concerned
Table 3
(83) Dumped imports into the Union from the country
concerned developed as follows:
Import prices (EUR/m 2 )
2009 2010 2011 IP
PRC 6,02 6,10 4,96 4,38
Table 2
Index 100 101 82 73
Import volume (1 000 m 2 ) and market share
Source: Complainant and questionnaire replies of the Chinese exporting
producers.
2009 2010 2011 IP
Volume of
1 200 2
050 6
150 8
350
imports from
the PRC
(87) The
average
import
price
for
the
product
concerned
(1 000 m 2 )
dropped over the period considered. The average
import price decreased by 27,2 % from 6,02 EUR/m 2 in
2009 to 4,38 EUR/m 2 in the IP.
Index 100 171 513 696
Market share 6,2
% 7,2
% 17,4
% 28,8
%
(88) In
order
to
determine
price
undercutting
during
the
IP,
Index 100 117 283 466
the weighted average sales prices per product type of the
sampled Union producers charged to unrelated
customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-
Source: Glass for Europe and the complainant.
works level, were compared to the corresponding
weighted average prices per product type of the
imports from the sampled cooperating Chinese
producers to the first independent customer on the
(84) Over
the
period
considered,
dumped
import
volumes
of
Union market, established on a CIF basis, with upward
the product concerned to the Union increased
adjustments, i.e. custom clearance, duty, handling and
considerably by 596 %. This led to significant market
loading costs. Those adjustments increase the price,
share increases of the dumped imports of the product
depending on the product control number, by 7 to 15 %.
concerned into the Union. In particular, the market share
of these imports increased from 6,1 % to 28,7 %. In
overall terms the dumped imports of the product
concerned increased significantly both in volume and
market share between 2009 and the IP.
(89) The
price
comparison
was
made
on
a
product
type
number -by- product type number basis for transactions
at the same level of trade, duly adjusted as set out in
recital (88) above, and after deduction of rebates and
discounts. The result of the comparison, when
expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union
(85) The increase in dumped imports from the country
producers’ turnover during the IP, showed a weighted
concerned by far exceeded the increase in the Union
average undercutting margin between 10,6
% and
consumption for the product concerned and the like
26,7 % of the prices of the sampled Union producers
products. Consequently, the exporting producers were
by the dumped imports of the product concerned.

---

EN
27.11.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
316/17
4.5. Economic situation of the Union industry
2009 2010 2011 IP
(90) In
accordance
with
Article
3(5)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
Production
17 540 29
245 31
245 21
734
the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on
volume
the Union industry included an evaluation of all
(1 000 m 2 )
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the
state of the Union industry during the period considered.
Index 100 167 178 124

Capacity
45 % 66
% 64
% 40
%
utilisation
(91) As
explained
in
recitals
(7)-(8)
above,
sampling
was
used
Index 100 146 143 88
for the examination of the possible injury suffered by the
Source: Complainant and Union producers' questionnaire replies.
Union industry.
(96) Production
of
the
Union
industry
increased
over
the
period considered in line with consumption. Production
(92) For the purpose of the injury analysis, the Commission
reached a peak in 2011 and then dropped by 30 % in
distinguished between macro-economic and micro-
the IP. Against the background of a high increase in
economic injury indicators. The Commission analysed
consumption, the Union industry increased its
the macro-economic indicators for the period considered
production capacity during the period considered by
on the basis of the data provided by the Union industry
40 %. Even though production levels were higher, the
relating to all Union producers. The Commission
Union producers' capacity utilisation rate decreased by
analysed the micro-economic indicators on the basis of
5 percentage points, as the Union industry had ramped
the sampled Union producers’ questionnaire responses.
up its production capacity in response to strong demand,
reaching 40 % during the IP.
(93) For
the purpose of this investigation, the following
macro-economic indicators were assessed: production,
production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume,
(97) Even
if
the
Union
industry
expanded
its
capacity
in
market share, growth, employment, productivity,
response to an increased consumption, the Union
magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from
industry's production levels increased at a lower rate
past dumping.
than the consumption and the capacity utilisation, after
a substantial increase in the first three years of the period
considered, decreased during the investigation period,
which coincided with an increased market share of the
(94) The
following
micro-economic
indicators
were
assessed:
dumped imports from the country concerned.
average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories,
profitability, cash flow, investments, return on
investments and ability to raise capital.
4.6.2. Sales volume and market share
(98) The
Union
industry’s
sales
volume
and
market
share
4.6. Macro-economic indicators
developed as follows over the period considered:
4.6.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utili
sation
(95) The
total
Union
production,
production
capacity
and
capacity utilisation developed as follows over the
Table 5
period considered:
Sales volume and market share
2009 2010 2011 IP
Table 4
Sales volume
17 540 25
568 27
821 19
667
Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation
(1 000 m


2 )
Index 100 146 159 112
2009 2010 2011 IP
Production
39 000 44
611 48
511 54
615
Market share 90,2
% 89,7
% 78,9
% 67,7
%
capacity
(1 000 m 2 )
Index 100 99 87 75
Index 2009 100 114 124 140
Source: Glass for Europe and the complainant.

---

L 316/18
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.11.2013
(99) During the period considered the Union industry’s sales
period until 2011 when it reached its peak of 932 Full
volume increased by 12 %. However, in the context of an
time equivalent (FTE) and subsequently decreased to 857
increase in Union consumption by 49 %, this was
FTE during the IP. Productivity remained relatively stable
translated into a decrease of the Union industry's
throughout the period 2009-2011. This is partially due
market share from 90,2 % in 2009 to 67,7 % during
to the fact that the production of the like product is
the IP, i.e. a considerable decrease by 25 % over the
highly automated and requires a small number of
period considered. The Union industry's sales grew
personnel. However, during the IP it decreased by
much less than the dumped imports from the country
24,4 % in comparison with 2011. This was a result of
concerned. Consequently, the Union producers could not
the decrease by around 30 % in production during the
fully benefit from the growing consumption and thus
same period.
their market share decreased during the period
considered.
(103) Therefore, employment decreased during the IP,
4.6.3. Growth
responding to the trend in the Union production of
the like product during the IP.
(100) The growth of the Union industry is reflected in its
volume indicators such as production, sales but in
particular, in its market share. Despite an increase in
consumption during the period analysed the market
share of the Union producers did not grow in line
with consumption. The market share of the Union
4.6.5. Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery
industry declined over the period as the volume of
from past dumping
imports rose. During the same period, the market share
of the imports from the PRC increased by 366 %. The
(104) All dumping margins are significantly above the de
fact that the Union industry could not fully benefit from
minimis level. Given the volume and prices of imports
market growth had an overall negative impact on its
from the country concerned, the impact of the
economic situation.
magnitude of the actual margins of dumping on the
Union industry can be considered substantial.
4.6.4. Employment and productivity
(101) Employment and productivity developed as follows over
(105) Since this is the first anti-dumping investigation
the period considered:
regarding the product concerned, recovery from past
dumping is not an issue in the assessment.
Table 6
4.6.6. Micro-economic indicators
Employment and productivity
(106) As indicated above in recital (92), the micro-economic
indicators are analysed on the basis of the questionnaire
2009 2010 2011 IP
responses provided by the sampled Union producers. For
Employment -
565 792 932 857
the majority of the sampled Union producers 2009 was
Full time
the year when they made their initial investments and
equivalent
started the production of the like product. Thus, all the
(FTE)
indicators analysed below are significantly influenced by
this start-up phase in 2009. In order to show the trends
Index 100 140 165 152
without the distortive impact of the start-up phase of the
Productivity
31 37 34 25
sampled companies, indexes are also shown from 2010.
(1 000 m 2 /FTE)
Index 100 119 108 82
Source: Complainant and Union producers' questionnaire replies.
4.6.7. Prices and factors affecting prices
(107) The average sales prices of the sampled Union producers
(102) Overall, employment increased by 52 % between 2009
to unrelated customers in the Union developed as follows
and the IP. However, the increase took place in the
over the period considered:

---

EN
27.11.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
316/19
Table 7
Table 8
Average sales prices in the Union
Average labour costs per employee
2009 2010 2011 IP
2009 2010 2011 IP
Average unit
10,64 9,07 8,91 8,20
Average costs 45 232 44
503 48
288 50
615
selling price
per employee
on the Union
(EUR)
market
(EUR/m 2 )
Index 2009 100 98 107 112
Index 2009 100 85 84 77
Index 2010 102 100 109 114
Index 2010 117 100 98 90
Source: Union producers' questionnaire replies.
Unit cost of
13,00 8,34 8,42 9,30
production
(EUR/m 2 )
(112) Between 2009 and the IP, the average labour costs per
employee continuously increased, overall by 12
%.
Index 2009 100 64 65 72
However, the major increase was between 2011 and
the IP, i.e. by 4,8 %. The overall increase of labour
Index 2010 156 100 101 112
costs can be partly explained by inflation and redundancy
costs incurred by some Union producers linked to the
Source: Union producers' questionnaire replies.
downsizing of the industry between 2011 and the IP.
(108) Unit sales prices fell continuously throughout the period
4.6.9. Inventories
considered, but the decrease in prices was particularly

pronounced during the IP when they dropped by 7,9 %
(113) Stock levels of the sampled Union producers developed
in comparison with 2011, by 9,5 % in comparison with
as follows over the period considered:
2010 and by 23 % in comparison with 2009.
Table 9
Inventories
(109) Despite the big difference between Union industry's
average unit selling price and the Chinese import
prices, as explained in recital (89) above, the actual
2009 2010 2011 IP
undercutting based on a comparison per product type
was much lower, i.e. between 10,6 % and 26,7 %
Closing
1 540 1
875 1
657 1
778
during the investigation period.
stocks
(1 000 m 2 )
Index 2009 100 122 108 115
Index 2010 82 100 88 95
(110) The unit cost of production increased by more than 10 %
between 2011 and the IP, while it remained relatively
Source: Union producers' questionnaire replies.
stable between 2010 and 2011. The cost of production
generally followed the trend of the sales price between
2009 and the IP. The increase in the unit cost of
production was due to decrease in production volume,
(114) Stocks increased by 7,3 % between 2011 and the IP and
while the total cost of production actually decreased
by 15 % between 2009 and the IP, while they dropped
between 2011 and the IP.
by 11,6 % between 2010 and 2011.
(115) The investigation showed that given the reduction in
sales both in volume and in value, Union producers
4.6.8. Labour costs
would tend to hold limited stocks for the like product.
Therefore, the increase in stocks for the like product over
(111) The average labour costs of the sampled Union producers
the period considered is a relevant indicator in estab
developed as follows over the period considered:
lishing if the Union industry suffered material injury.

---

L 316/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.11.2013
4.6.10. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on
that time. In 2010 the average profit was already 8,31 %.
investments and ability to raise capital
Subsequently the profitability slightly decreased in 2011
when the dumped imports started increasing. Finally, the
(116) Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on
industry suffered significant losses during the IP, i.e. a
investments of the sampled Union producers developed
drop by 276,6 % in comparison with 2011.
as follows over the period considered:
(119) The trend in net cash flow, which is the ability of the
Table 10
sampled Union producers to self-finance their activities,
had a pronounced drop of 81 % between 2011 and the
Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on
IP. It was increasing progressively as from 2010 and
investments
overall it increased over the period considered.
2009 2010 2011 IP
Profitability –
20,3
% 8,3
% 8,2
% –
14,5
%
(120) The return on investments (‘ROI’) was expressed as the
profit in percentage of the net book value of investments.
Index 2009 100 241 240 129
(121) The table above shows that after the start-up phase in
Index 2010
– 244 100 99
– 174
2009 when industry made major investments in the like
product, investments constantly decreased between 2009
and 2011 and then increased in the IP. However,
investments remained at low level in the IP in
Cash flow
– 21 550 29
574 33
425 6
200
(1 000 EUR)
comparison with 2009 levels. The investments made in
the IP were mainly linked to R&D as well as improving
and maintaining production technology and process in
Index 2009 100 337 355 229
order to improve efficiency. In particular, the industry
invested in new product types that are not imported
from the PRC during the same period and that are
research and innovation intensive.
Index 2010
– 73 100 113 21
Investments
46 087 18
230 7
633 10
712
(1 000 EUR)
(122) By contrast, the return on investments decreased by 34 %
between 2009 and 2012. However, it constantly
increased before the IP, i.e. it increased by 293 %
between 2009 and 2011, but it dropped by 186 %
Index 2009 100 40 17 23
during the IP in comparison with 2011.
Index 2010 253 100 42 59
(123) As far as the ability to raise capital is concerned, it has
been found that there was a constant deterioration of the
Return on
– 6,9 % 9,6
% 13,3
% –
11,5
%
investments
ability of the Union industry to generate cash for the like
product and, consequently, a weakening of the financial
situation of the Union industry.
Index 2009 100 339 393 66
Index 2010
– 72 100 139
– 120
4.7. Conclusion on injury
Source: Questionnaire replies of the Union producers.
(124) The analysis of the situation of the Union industry shows
a clear downward trend of most of the injury indicators.
(117) Profitability of the sampled Union producers was estab
Against a generally increasing consumption, overall
lished by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of
production increased in the period considered.
the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a
Although the volume of sales increased, the market
percentage of the turnover of such sales.
share of the Union industry shrank in the IP in the back
ground of the higher rate of increase of consumption
during the period considered. Average sales price fell
sharply during the period considered, negatively
(118) In 2009 most of the sampled Union producers incurred
impacting all the financial performance indicators such
losses, which, as explained above, were mainly due to the
as profitability, cash flow, return on investments and
fact they started their production of the like product at
ability to raise capital.

---

EN
27.11.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
316/21
(125) Over the period considered, the overall Union industry's
volumes significantly by 596 % and their market share by
sales volume increased. However, the increase in sales
366 %. Therefore, it is confirmed that volume of imports
volumes of the Union industry was accompanied by a
and market share for the product concerned increased
significant decrease in average sales price, as well as in
dramatically during the period considered. There was a
the Union industry's market share.
clear coincidence in time between the increase in
dumped imports and the loss of market share of the
Union industry. The investigation also established that
as mentioned in recital (89) above, the dumped
(126) In view of the above, the investigation confirmed in
imports undercut the prices of the Union industry
particular the fact that the Union industry's sales prices
during the IP.
are below their production costs, thus having a negative
effect on the Union industry's profitability, reaching
significant negative levels during the IP.
(132) The investigation showed that the prices of the dumped
imports decreased by 27,2
% during the period
(127) However, capacity developed positively between 2009
considered and led to higher undercutting margins.
and the IP. In addition, although investments did
Against this extreme price pressure, the Union industry
decrease between 2009 and the IP, they increased
underwent considerable effort to decrease its production
between 2011 and the IP. This is due to the fact that,
costs. Despite these efforts the exceptionally low level of
as explained in recital (121), the sampled companies
Chinese import prices forced the Union industry to
continued investing in the like product by, amongst
further decrease its sales price to unprofitable levels.
other things, concentrating on product types in market
Thus, the profitability of the Union industry decreased
niches where there are no exports of these particular
dramatically during the period considered and showed
product types yet from the country concerned and
losses during the IP.
which are research and innovation intensive. At the
same time, it is evident that the Union industry also
needs to be able to produce and sell the high volumes
of the more basic product types (which are currently in
competition with the dumped imports from the PRC) in
(133) Based on the above, it is provisionally concluded that the
order to dilute fixed costs and achieve economies of
presence of dumped imports and the massive increase of
scale.
their market share at prices constantly undercutting those
of the Union industry have had a determining role in the
material injury suffered by the Union industry.
(128) Consequently, it can be concluded that the Union
industry not only suffered material injury during the IP,
but also actively sought ways to reduce of its exposure to
the dumped imports of the product concerned whereby
5.2. Effects of other factors
developing innovative products which are not yet
imported from the country concerned.
5.2.1. Imports from third countries
(134) The volume of imports from other third countries
developed as follows over the period considered:
(129) In the light of the foregoing, it is provisionally concluded
that the Union industry suffered material injury within
the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.
Table 11
5. CAUSATION
Imports from third countries (1 000 m 2 )
(130) In accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic
Regulation, it was examined whether the dumped
2009 2010 2011 IP
imports from the country concerned have caused injury
to the Union industry to a degree that may be considered
Volume (m 2 ) 700 886 1
287 1
023
as material. Known factors other than the dumped
imports, which could at the same time have injured the
Index 100 127 184 146
Union industry, were also examined in order to ensure
Market share 3,6
% 3,1
% 3,7
% 3,5
%
that the possible injury caused by these other factors was
not attributed to the dumped imports.
Index 100 86 101 98
Average price
10,50 10,09 9,60 8,40
EUR/m 2
5.1. Effects of the dumped imports
Index 100 96 91 80
(131) The investigation showed that dumped imports increased
Source: Glass for Europe and the complaint.
dramatically over the period considered, increasing their

---

L 316/22
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.11.2013
(135) The volume of imports from other third countries during
(139) Export sales of the sampled Union producers increased
the period considered increased by 46 %, in line with
between 2009 and 2011, but dropped suddenly in the IP
increase in Union consumption. Their market share
by 74 % in value and by 71,9 % in volume. Based on the
slightly decreased during the IP in comparison with
replies of the sampled Chinese exporters, this is most
2011 (3,5 %) but overall it remained stable over the
probably due to very low prices of Chinese exports to
period considered. Turkey is the second largest exporter
the Union industry's major destinations of exports (i.e.
after the PRC, followed by India.
US, Canada).
(136) The information available as regards imports from all
third countries shows that the average import price
was higher than the average Chinese import price. This
(140) Export sales of the sampled Union producers constituted
20 % of their total sales in volume in 2009 (in the start-
is also valid for unit price per particular types of the
up phase), during 2010 11 % and during the peak year
product concerned. On the other hand, the third coun
of 2011 only 14 %. 2012 showed a further decrease to
tries’ average import price was similar or higher than the
5 % when they entered in competition with Chinese low
Union industry’s average price.
price exports to major third country destinations.
Consequently, as the Union market is the main market
for the Union industry, also because solar glass is
relatively heavy and fragile, which translates into
additional costs when transported over a distance (due
(137) On these grounds, in particular in view of the import
to breakage and corrosion), it cannot be concluded at
volumes and market shares from third countries as well
this stage that the deteriorated export performance of
as their price levels, it can be provisionally concluded
the sampled Union producers breaks the causal link
that third country imports could not break the causal
between the dumped imports and the injury suffered
link between the dumped imports and the injury
by the Union industry.
suffered by the Union industry.
5.2.2. Export performance of the Union industry
5.2.3. Development of consumption
(138) The volume of exports of the sampled Union producers
developed as follows over the period considered:
(141) As mentioned above, the Union consumption increased
between 2009 and the IP by 49 %. It had its peak in
2011 when it increased by 81 % in comparison with
2009. However, the Union industry could not benefit
from this increase in consumption. Its market share fell
Table 12
constantly during the period considered reaching a drop
of 25 % during the IP in comparison with 2009
Export performance of the sampled Union producers
(– 14,1 % in comparison with 2011). On the contrary,
the Chinese market share was increasing sharply, even
when consumption fell between 2011 and IP, resulting
2009 2010 2011 IP
in an increase by 64,8 % between 2011 and the IP and
an overall increase by 366 % during the whole period.
Export sales
19 313 19
814 27
419 7
001
The increase of Chinese imports was a massive 596 %
value
during the period considered.
(1 000 EUR)
Index 100 103 142 36
Export sales
1 460 1
713 2
708 760
volume
(142) As the Union consumption increased in the period
(1 000 m 2 )
considered, its development is such that reinforces the
causal link between the increasing dumped imports and
Index 100 117 185 52
the injury suffered by the Union industry and it is not
itself a cause of injury to the Union industry. In addition,
Average price
13,22 11,56 10,12 9,21
even in the IP, when consumption decreased, Chinese
(EUR/m 2 )
dumped imports were able to further increase their
market share at the detriment of the Union industry.
Index 100 87 77 70
Therefore, it can provisionally be concluded that the

decrease in consumption in the IP could not break the
causal link between the dumped imports and the injury
Source: Questionnaire replies of the Union producers.
suffered by the Union industry.

---

EN
27.11.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
316/23
5.2.4. Trends in solar modules
(146) Based on the above analysis, which has properly distin
guished and separated the effects of all known factors on
(143) According to the information at the Commission's
the situation of the Union industry from the injurious
disposal, around 80-85 % of solar glass sales are made
effects of the dumped imports, it is therefore
to solar modules producers (Crystalline silicon photo
provisionally concluded that the dumped imports from
voltaic modules and thin-film photovoltaic modules),
the country concerned have caused material injury to the
and around 15-20
% of the sales are made to
Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the
producers of solar thermal flat plate collectors
basic Regulation.
producing hot water. Consequently, the trends observed
in solar modules have an important impact on the
consumption of solar glass. Consumption of solar
modules increased constantly throughout the same
period, i.e. 2009-2012, and even though there was a
decrease in 2012, the level of consumption remained
221 % higher than in 2009 and 44 % higher than in
6. UNION INTEREST
2010 ( 1 ). In addition, it was established that while
demand for modules in the Union was initially
(147) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation,
generated by the feed-in-tariffs (FITs), it could not be
the Commission examined whether, despite the
concluded that the FITs cutbacks (at the end of 2011,
provisional conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling
beginning of 2012) had broken the causal link between
reasons existed for concluding that it was not in the
dumped imports and injury ( 2 ). This was due to the fact
Union interest to adopt measures in this particular
that demand for solar modules remained relatively high
case. The analysis of the Union interest was based on
over the same period 2009-2012.
an appreciation of all the various interests involved,
including those of the Union industry, importers, raw
materials suppliers and users of the product concerned.
(144) Consequently, the level of consumption of solar modules,
and as a result the demand of solar glass, remained high
during the period considered. Its slight decrease in 2012
cannot be regarded on its own as a factor such as to
6.1. Interest of the Union industry
break the causal link established between the dumped
(148) The Union industry directly employed about 860 people
imports from the PRC and the material injury by the
in the IP in the production and sale of the like product.
Union industry.
The investigation established that the Union industry has
suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports
from the country concerned during the investigation
period. Some Union producers were already forced to
close down their production facilities while some
others have faced insolvency. In the absence of
5.2.5. Conclusion
measures, a further deterioration in the Union industry’s
economic situation appears very likely.
(145) The investigation has established a causal link between
the material injury suffered by the Union industry and
the dumped imports from the PRC. Other possible causes
of injury, such as imports from other third countries,
consumption and the market situation of some of their
users such as solar modules were analysed and none of
them, analysed both individually and cumulatively, were
(149) It is expected that the imposition of anti-dumping duties
found to be such as to break the causal link established
will restore fair trade conditions on the Union market,
between the dumped imports from the PRC and the
allowing the Union industry to align the prices of the like
material injury suffered by the Union industry.
product to reflect the costs of production thus improving
its profitability. It can also be expected that the
( 1 ) Tables 1-a and 1-b on p. 16 of Commission Regulation (EU) No
imposition of measures would enable the Union
513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping
industry to regain at least part of the market share lost
duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and
during the period considered, with a positive impact on
key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned
its overall financial situation. Moreover, the Union
from the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EU)
industry should be able to have better access to capital
No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or consigned
from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration, OJ
and to further invest in R&D and innovation in the solar
L 152, 5.6.2013, p. 5. (‘Solar Panels Regulation’). According to
glass market. Finally, it is likely that the Union producers
section B of the Solar Panels Regulation, the product covered by
who were forced to cease production as a result of the
that investigation is crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or
pressure of the Chinese dumped imports might restart
panels and cells and wafers of the type used in crystalline silicon
their business activity. Overall, under this scenario, not
photovoltaic modules or panels. Therefore, thin-film photovoltaic
only the existing jobs would be secured, but there would
modules are not subject to that investigation and their consumption
is not covered.
also be a reasonable prospect for further production
( 2 ) See section 3.2 of the Solar Panels Regulation.
expansion and increase in employment.

---

L 316/24
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.11.2013
(150) Should measures not be imposed, further losses in the
6.4. Interest of users
market share are expected with a further deterioration of
the Union industry’s profitability. This would be unsus
(156) All users that responded are producers of solar modules
tainable in the short to medium-term. As a consequence,
and/or thermal collectors. Three users are firmly in
in addition to the large number of the Union producers
favour of imposing anti-dumping duties, arguing that
that were already forced out of the market, other
the Union industry produces better quality solar glass
producers could be facing insolvency which would in
which cannot always be supplied by Chinese companies.
the short to medium term lead to a likely disappearance
By contrast, three other users were against the imposition
of the Union industry with the consequent significant
of anti-dumping measures. Those users expect that the
impact of the existing jobs.
imposition of anti-dumping duties would have a negative
impact on their business. They expect not to be able to
pass on the increase in prices to final consumers given
the dire situation of the solar modules industry.
(151) It is therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition
of the anti-dumping duties would be in the interest of
the Union industry.
(157) According to the information submitted by users, solar
glass constitutes only around 6-8 % of the total costs of
the solar modules. Thus, solar glass constitutes only a
limited part of the costs and of the final value of the
photovoltaic modules. In addition, it can be estimated
6.2. Interest of unrelated importers and traders
that if anti-dumping duties are imposed on solar glass
(152) For the two cooperating importers the major business
imported from the PRC, the impact on the total costs of
activity consisted of trading the product concerned.
the solar modules should be less than 1 %. This is mainly
Both of them had diversified sources of the product
due to the fact that cooperating users buy significant
concerned, i.e. they were not only sourcing from the
quantities of the solar glass from Union producers.
PRC, but also from the Union and third countries.
Accordingly, while a possible imposition of anti-
dumping duties will most probably slightly increase
input prices for solar modules, they should not have a
significant negative impact on the costs and on the final
prices of the Union solar modules industry.
(153) An argument was put forward that the imposition of
measures on the product concerned will negatively
affect the importers’ business activity. Firstly, the
imposition of duties should not result in the elimination
(158) In addition, some of the users already have other sources
of all imports from the PRC. Secondly, although it can be
of supply such as Turkey and India which would not be
expected that the imposition of measures may have a
negatively influenced by the imposition of anti-dumping
negative effect on the financial situation of the
duties. Other users can switch to other sources of supply
importers importing only or mainly from the PRC, in
as well, either from third countries or from the Union
view of the possibility to source from third countries,
industry.
the importers can be expected to be flexible and shift
their sources of supply if deemed necessary.
(159) In view of the above, the arguments brought forward by
some of the users against the imposition of measures are
(154) It is therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition
provisionally rejected.
of measures at the proposed level may have a certain
negative impact on the situation of unrelated importers
of the product concerned, but that its impact is mitigated
by the fact that importers and traders can use other
sources of supply, both from third countries and the
6.5. Competition aspects
Union industry, the latter having the capacity to
increase its production, and in any case it would not
(160) One importer argued that since some Union producers
weight out the positive impact on other parties.
participated in a world cartel of flat glass (solar glass is
part of it) and were fined by the European Commission
in 2007, they are using the anti-dumping tool as a way
of recuperating the losses they made on fines for the
cartel and on losing market share in the Union. In
6.3. Interest of raw materials suppliers
addition, if the access to the Union market were to be
restricted by means of anti-dumping duties, there will be
(155) No raw materials supplier cooperated with the investi
stronger incentives for the Union producers to enter into
gation. In the absence of data from such suppliers, there
a cartel or other anti-competitive behaviour in respect of
was no evidence that the imposition of measures would
products with low volume leverage capabilities in the
be against the interest of these parties.
Union like home furnishing products.

---

EN
27.11.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
316/25
(161) These arguments are provisionally rejected. Firstly, the
7. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
cartel has ceased to function in 2007 at the latest.
Therefore, the effects of the cartel in the past had no
(165) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to
impact on the industry during the period considered.
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest,
Secondly, it did not concern any of the sampled Union
provisional measures should be imposed in order to
producers and the majority of the current Union
prevent further injury being caused to the Union
producers with highest sales volume. Thirdly, the
industry by the dumped imports.
possible imposition of anti-dumping duties is not
expected to have any impact on the competitive
behaviour of the Union industry since, on the one
hand, it will not change the structure of the Union
7.1. Injury elimination level
market and, on the other hand, companies have a
general duty to comply with the applicable Union and
(166) For the purpose of determining the level of these
national competition rules, irrespective of whether duties
measures, account was taken of the dumping margins
are imposed or not.
found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate
the injury suffered by the Union industry, without
exceeding the dumping margins found.
(162) It was also argued by an importer that the imposition of
(167) When calculating the amount of duty necessary to
duties would have a negative impact on the Union
remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was
market of antireflective coating of solar glass. This
considered that any measures should allow the Union
market, identified by the importer as a related market,
industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain
is allegedly dominated by the Union producers and the
a profit before tax on the sales of the like product in the
imposition of measures would reinforce their position to
Union that could be reasonably achieved by an industry
the detriment of competing providers of anti-reflective
of this type in the sector under normal conditions of
coating. Furthermore, it was stated that importers faced
competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports. A
difficulties in obtaining orders from the Union producers
profit margin of 8,3 % of turnover is regarded as an
or in having such orders delivered within a reasonable
appropriate minimum which the Union industry could
period of time and at reasonable prices.
have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious
dumping. This profit margin is based on the average
profit achieved by the sampled Union producers in
2010 when the imports of the product concerned were
still small and therefore could not have distorted the
normal conditions of competition yet.
(163) Firstly, the market of anti-reflective coating is part of the
investigation and not a related market. The investigation
showed that indeed Union producers still remain
competitive on this niche market despite the relatively
higher prices they charge thanks to the seemingly
(168) On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the
lower quality of the coated solar glass imported from
Union industry of the like product. The non-injurious
the PRC. No evidence was however provided that the
price was obtained by adding the above-mentioned
Union industry would not be able to meet the demand
profit margin of 8,3 % to the cost of production
of a possible increase of antireflective coated solar glass.
during the IP of the sampled Union producers.
Consequently, this argument is rejected at this stage.
Regarding the claims that Union producers have
refused providing orders or on-time delivery at
reasonable prices, it is entirely up to each producer to
(169) The necessary price increase was then determined on the
choose its commercial strategy to the extent that such
basis of a comparison of the weighted average import
producer or producers do not enjoy single or joint
price of the sampled cooperating exporting producers in
dominance on the relevant market. There is sufficient
the PRC, as established for the price undercutting calcu
competition on the Union market in order to change
lations, with the weighted average non-injurious price of
and/or diversify suppliers. Therefore, this argument is
the like product sold by the sampled Union producers on
provisionally rejected as well.
the Union market during the IP. Any difference resulting
from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage
of the weighted average import CIF value.
6.6. Conclusion on Union interest
7.2. Provisional measures
(164) In view of the above, it was provisionally concluded that,
(170) In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with
based on an appreciation of all the various interests taken
Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, provisional anti-
as a whole, including the interest of the Union industry,
dumping measures should be imposed on imports of
importers and users, no compelling reasons exist against
solar glass originating in the PRC at the level of the
the imposition of provisional measures on imports of
lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in
solar glass originating in the PRC.
accordance with the lesser duty rule.

---

L 316/26
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.11.2013
(171) On the basis of the above, the anti-dumping duty rates
export sales associated with, for example, that name
have been established by comparing the injury elim
change or that change in the production and sales
ination margins and the dumping margins. Consequently,
entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly
the provisional anti-dumping duty rates, expressed on the
be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting
CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, are as
from individual duty rates.
follows:
7.3. Final provisions
Provisional
(174) In the interests of sound administration, a period should
Company
Dumping
margin
Injury margin
anti-dumping
be fixed within which the interested parties which made
duty
themselves known within the time limit specified in the
notice of initiation may make their views known in
Xinyi Group 74,0
% 39,3
% 39,3
%
writing and request a hearing. The findings concerning
Hehe Group 75,3
% 32,3
% 32,3
%
the imposition of provisional duties are provisional and
may be amended at the definitive stage of the investi
Flat Glass
86,2 % 42,1
% 42,1
%
gation. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings
Group
concerning the imposition of duties made for the
purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may
Henan Yuhua 31,9
% 17,1
% 17,1
%
have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive
Other
79,8 % 38,4
% 38,4
%
measures,
cooperating
companies
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
All other
86,2 % 42,1
% 42,1
%
companies
Article 1
(172) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates
1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports
specified in this Regulation were established on the
of solar glass consisting of tempered soda-lime-flat-glass, with
basis of the findings of the present investigation.
an iron content of less than 300 ppm, a solar transmittance of
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during this
more than 88
% (measured according to AM1,5 300-
investigation with respect to these companies. These
2 500 nm), a resistance to heat up to 250 °C (measured
duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty
according to EN 12150), a resistance to thermal shocks of
applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively
Δ 150 K (measured according to EN 12150) and having a
applicable to imports of product concerned originating in
mechanical strength of 90
N/mm 2 or more (measured
the countries concerned and produced by the companies
according to EN 1288-3), currently falling within CN code
and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned.
ex 7007 19 80 (TARIC code 7007 19 80 10) and originating
Imported product concerned produced by any other
in the People’s Republic of China.
company not specifically mentioned in the operative
part of this Regulation with its name and address,
including entities related to those specifically mentioned,
2. The
rates
of
the
provisional
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to
to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the
the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’. Due to
product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the
the fact that there was high level of cooperation from the
companies listed below shall be as follows:
exporting producers (above 80 %, see recital (15) above),
this duty rate is based on the highest individual injury
margin established for the sampled exporting producers.
The duty applicable to ‘other cooperating companies’ is
TARIC additional
based on the weighted average of the sampled exporters
Company
Provisional
anti-dumping duty
code
and applies to all cooperating non-sampled companies
(except for Henan Yuhua, which is subject to individually
Xinyi PV Products (Anhui)
39,3 % B943
established duty following its request for individual
Holdings Ltd;
examination (see recital (48) above).
Zhejiang Hehe Photovoltaic
32,3 % B944
Glass Technology Co., Ltd;
(173) Any claim requesting the application of these individual
Zhejiang Jiafu Glass Co., Ltd; Flat
42,1 % B945
company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a
Solar Glass Group Co., Ltd;
Shanghai Flat Glass Co., Ltd
change in the name of the entity or following the
setting-up of new production or sales entities) should
Henan Yuhua New Material Co.,
17,1 % B946
be addressed to the Commission ( 1 ) with all relevant
Ltd
information, in particular any modification in the
company's activities linked to production, domestic and
Other cooperating companies
38,4 %
listed in Annex I
( 1 ) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H,
All other companies 42,1
% B999
1049 Brussels, Belgium.

---

EN
27.11.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
316/27
3. The
application
of
the
individual
duty
rates
specified
for of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which
the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional
this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing
upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member
and apply to be heard orally by the Commission and/or the
States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the
Hearing Officer for DG Trade within one month of the date of
requirements set out in Annex II. If no such invoice is pres
entry into force of this Regulation.
ented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.
2. Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No
4. The
release
for
free
circulation
in
the
Union
of
the 1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the appli
product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the
cation of this Regulation within one month of the date of its
provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the
entry into force.
provisional duty.
5. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
Article 3
concerning customs duties shall apply.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 2
1. Without
prejudice
to
Article
20
of
Council
Regulation Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six
(EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure
months.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 November 2013.
For the Commission
The President
José Manuel BARROSO

---

L 316/28
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.11.2013
ANNEX I
Cooperating exporting producers not sampled and not granted individual examination
Name TARIC
additional
code
Henan Ancai Hi-Tech Co., Ltd B947
Henan Succeed Photovoltaic Materials Corporation B948
Avic Sanxin Sol-Glass Co. Ltd;
B949
Avic (Hainan) Special Glass Material Co., Ltd
Wuxi Haida Safety Glass Co., Ltd B950
Dongguan CSG Solar Glass Co., Ltd B951
Pilkington Solar Taicang, Limited B952
Zibo Jinxing Glass Co., Ltd B953
Novatech Glass Co., Ltd B954
ANNEX II
A declaration signed by an official of the entity issuing the commercial voice, 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 solar glass sold for export to the European
Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) in the PRC.
I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.
3. Date and signature,

---

Document Outline

• �

---