HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
128/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 451/2011
of 6 May 2011
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of coated fine paper originating in the People's Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
(3)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
impose provisional anti-dumping measures (‘the provi
Union,
sional disclosure’), several interested parties made
written submissions making known their views on the
provisional findings. The parties who so requested were
granted the opportunity to be heard.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 and 14(1)
thereof,
(4) The
Commission
continued
to
seek
and
verify
all
information it deemed necessary for its definitive
findings.
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
Commission (‘the Commission’) after consulting the Advisory
Committee,
(5) One
group
of
cooperating
Chinese
exporting
producers
(‘the exporting producer’) claimed that it should have
Whereas:
been heard prior to the imposition of provisional
measures given that, according to that group, a provi
sional Regulation is an individual measure in the sense of
Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES
European Union ( 3 ).
(1) The
Commission,
by
Regulation
(EU)
No
1042/2010
( 2 )
(‘the provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty (‘the provisional measures’) on imports of
coated fine paper (‘CFP’) originating in the People's
Republic of China (‘PRC’).
(6) With
respect
to
the
above
stated
claim,
the
following
points should be highlighted: The basic Regulation
delineates the rights of parties in the framework of
anti-dumping proceedings and in this particular matter
(2) The
proceeding
was
initiated
following
a
complaint
Article 7 sets out the procedural steps for imposition of
lodged on 4 January 2010 by CEPIFINE, the European
provisional measures. Article 7 of the basic Regulation
association of fine paper manufacturers (‘the
states, inter alia, that provisional measures, if any, can be
complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a
imposed within 9 months from the initiation of a case.
major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the
In the present proceeding the Commission conducted its
total Union production of coated fine paper. The
investigation in line with the provisions of Article 6 of
complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of
the basic Regulation and imposed provisional measures
the said product and of material injury resulting
in line with the provisions of Article 7 of the basic
therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify
Regulation while all interested parties that had
the initiation of a proceeding.
requested so were heard and had the adequate oppor
tunities to submit information and make comments.
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 299, 17.11.2010, p. 7.
( 3 ) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p.1.

---

L 128/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
The Court of Justice has consistently held that ‘even if …
legal representatives of other interested parties, unlike in
the principle of the right to a hearing requires exporters
the USA and Canadian systems, no such process is
to be informed of the essential facts and considerations
provided for by the basic Regulation. It is thus clearly
on the basis of which it is intended to impose provi
outside the established EU legal framework for anti-
sional duties, a failure to respect that right cannot in
dumping proceedings. In any event, the Court case
itself have the effect of vitiating the regulation
cited above does not support any claim of access to
imposing definitive duties where, in the course of the
confidential information. The judgment also refers to
procedure for the adoption of the latter regulation, the
some inherent limits of the principle of the right of
defect vitiating the procedure for the adoption of the
defence.
corresponding regulation imposing provisional duties
was remedied ( 1 )’. In the present case, the Commission
fulfilled its obligations to disclosure under the basic
Regulation and the right to a fair hearing of the
(10) The
exporting
produceralso
requested
access
to
evidence
exporting producer was respected during the procedure
concerning: rolls used in web-fed printing produced by
leading to the adoption of this Regulation.
the Union producers, detailed information about one
representative Union producer's legal status, the activities
and financial data of selected mills, detailed data related
to the Union industry's cost of production and product
(7) The
provisional
nature
of
measures
adopted
pursuant
to
control numbers of the products of representative Union
Article 7 of the basic Regulation is inter alia reflected in
producers. Some of the requested information was
the maximum period of six months for which they may
outside the scope of the investigation as it related to
be imposed as well as the fact that any provisional duty
products not covered by the investigation or the
is secured only by guarantee. Furthermore, the
activity of Union producers that does not involve the
Commission never prevented any party from coming
production of CFP. Concerning other information
forward with requests to hold more hearings prior to
requested, the Commission was not in a position to
the 9 month deadline stipulated by law for the
grant access to it, since pursuant to Article 19 of the
imposition of provisional measures should they have
basic Regulation this would have constituted an unauth
considered that there was a need to be heard further at
orised disclosure of confidential business secrets.
that stage.
(11) The
exporting
producer
also
requested
the
disclosure
of
(8) The
exporting
producer
requested
access
to
data
used
the names of the companies which opposed the investi
from the sole company in the United States of
gation and did not request confidential treatment. Such a
America (USA) that provided information in line with
disclosure would have revealed the identity and position
the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) for the establishment
of producers that requested confidentiality; therefore it
of normal value. It was claimed that otherwise the
was not possible to reveal this information.
party was prevented from having access to the evidence
on the basis of which provisional measures were imposed
and that this both violated the party's rights of defence
and was contrary to the principle of good administration.
(12) The provisional disclosure was as detailed as possible
The same party claimed that disclosure of confidential
without disclosing confidential information and was
data pertaining to specific parties could be made
thus not in breach of the exporting producer's funda
available to the legal representatives of the group of
mental rights, its rights of defence or of the principle
the exporting producer. The legal representatives would
of good administration.
undertake the obligation to guarantee the confidentiality
of companies’ business secrets. The claim was backed by
reference to the USA and the Canadian systems and to
(13) The injury analyses performed in the present anti-
the Court of Justice of the European Union in G.J. Dokter
dumping and the parallel anti-subsidy investigation are
and Others v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedsel
identical, since the definition of the Union industry, the
kwaliteit.
representative Union producers and the investigation
period are the same in both investigations. For this
reason, comments on injury aspects put forward in any
of these proceedings were taken into account in both
(9) These
requests
had
to
be
rejected.
The
exporting
producer's request referred to access of confidential
proceedings.
data on prices provided by the aforesaid US company.
The Commission could not grant the access to such
detailed confidential business information. Giving access
2.1. Investigation period
to such data would have been against Union law, notably
Article 19 of the Basic Regulation since it would have led
(14) It is recalled that, as set out in recital (13) of the provi
to an unauthorised disclosure of limited and sensitive
sional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and
business data of the US company. As to the proposed
injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to
methodology on disclosing company's business secrets to
31 December 2009 (the ‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment
( 1 ) Judgment of 3 May 2001, joined cases C-76/98 P and C-77/98 P,
of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to
Ajinomoto, ECR 2001 p. 3233, paragraph 67.
the end of the IP (‘the period considered’).

---

EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
128/3
3. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
interested parties, in particular, the Union industry, nor
did the exporting producer submit a meaningful non-
3.1. Product concerned
confidential summary thereof despite repeated reminders.
(15) Following
provisional
measures,
the
exporting
producer
and the complainant submitted further comments
concerning the product definition. Some of these
(22) It is recalled that at the provisional stage the Commission
comments were a repetition of comments already
concluded that the objectivity and reliability of the test
addressed in the provisional Regulation.
was insufficient to base conclusions thereon. No further
detailed information was provided by the exporting
producer which could help further assess the reliability
(16) The exporting producer reiterated that there is no
of the test. Since no non-confidential version of this test
substantial difference concerning basic characteristics
was provided, the companies whose web rolls were
between CFP in sheets and rolls suitable for use in
allegedly tested could not respond to the conclusions
sheet-fed printing machines (‘the product concerned’)
of the test. The Commission thus could not objectively
and rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses and that,
check whether the submitted test results were reliable
therefore, CFP for web-fed printing should not have
and correct and could be relied upon for the purposes
been excluded from the product scope. The party also
of the investigation. On the basis of the facts available to
argued that the Commission's finding that these products
the Commission, conclusions reached at provisional stage
are not interchangeable was not supported.
about the objectivity and reliability of the test could not
be reconsidered since the information submitted under
confidentiality could not be counterchecked by any
(17) It is recalled that the investigation found that CFP used in
reliable sources.
web-fed and sheet-fed printing processes are distinct
product groups and are not interchangeable as
described in recitals (18) and (20) of the provisional
Regulation. The exporting producer itself also
(23) After the imposition of the provisional measures, the
acknowledged that these products are not fully inter
exporting producer presented the results of a further
changeable.
test conducted on its behalf by an external test laboratory
and reiterated that CFP used in web-fed printing has been
arbitrarily excluded from the scope of the investigation.
(18) It
should
be
noted
as
well
that
no
rolls
for
use
in
web-
The test reports stated that the resistance to picking has
fed presses were imported from the PRC during the
been measured on 25 samples of web-fed rolls provided
period considered. It may also be considered unlikely
and identified by the exporting producer to the
that these products would be imported in the future as
laboratory as paper samples produced by Union
sourcing these products from long distance is econ
producers. According to this report, none of the paper
omically not viable for the reasons mentioned in recital
met both criteria set in recital 16 of the provisional
(20) of the provisional Regulation.
Regulation.
(19) It
was
further
claimed
by
the
exporting
producer
that
the
(24) The
assessment
of
the
test
report
brought
to
light
that,
criteria defined in the provisional Regulation in recital
first of all, the test report by the external laboratory
(16), namely the technical characteristic of resistance to
related mostly to products for which these results were
picking, was not appropriate to distinguish between CFP
irrelevant as most of the samples tested were not in fact
suitable for use in web-fed printing on the one hand and
web rolls; secondly, the test report related to products
CFP used in sheet-fed printing on the other hand. It
which were not sufficiently identified as it could not be
further claimed that the exclusion of web rolls was
ascertained from the test report whether the paper tested
made on an arbitrary basis alleging that web-fed rolls
was for sheet-fed printing or web-fed printing as the
produced by Union producers do not meet the criteria
paper brand described in the report existed in both
set in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation as regards
formats. Furthermore the test report provided no
the characteristics of resistance to picking.
assurance that the sampled rolls indicated were indeed
the ones that were tested.
(20) The
exporting
producer
also
argued
that
the
Commission
fell short of its obligation to examine objectively the
evidence presented by that exporting producer to the
(25) In response to the external laboratory's test report, the
Commission's services before the provisional Regulation,
complainant provided the results of the testing
namely the results of the testing conducted in its own
performed by one of the Union producers on the same
laboratory measuring the resistance to picking of web
samples of web rolls that were allegedly tested by the
rolls produced by the Union producers.
external laboratory. This test showed different results.
The complainant attributed the differences to possibly
different test conditions and thus a potential non-
(21) The
test
results
presented
by
the
exporting
producer
compliance with the ISO 3783:2006 standard, i.e. the
consisted of a summary of the test results performed in
standard according to which resistance to picking set in
its own laboratory. Crucially, the results were not made
recital (16) of the provisional Regulation should be
available for inspection and comments by other
measured.

---

L 128/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
(26) After
disclosing
the
definitive
findings,
the
exporting
fully meet all the criteria for resistance to picking set in
producer questioned the Commission's objectivity in
the provisional Regulation which could still be used in
rejecting the test result of the external laboratory. It
web-fed printing. However, it sustained its view that pick
claimed that the testing was carried out blindly by the
resistance is the only test that is able to identify with
independent expert and in accordance with the relevant
certainty that a roll is indeed suitable for web-fed
ISO standard. It provided an affidavit of its manager
printing, i.e. if a roll meets the picking resistance
explaining the sourcing process of the samples used in
criteria in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation, it
the testing in order to prove the independence,
is certainly a web roll.
correctness and representativeness of the testing.
(31) In support of the above claims concerning resistance to
(27) Firstly,
the
objectivity
of
the
external
laboratory
test
picking the exporting producer referred to arguments put
report was never questioned by the Commission and in
forward by one of the complainant Union producers in
this regard it is irrelevant that the testing was carried out
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the USA
blindly. On the other hand, doubts were raised as to the
in which the Union producer allegedly acknowledged
assurances on the selection and origin of the samples
that web rolls cannot be differentiated based on pick
tested and not on the test itself. The arguments of the
resistance test or by any other measurement.
exporting producer did not remove these doubts as these
were not comprehensive and were unclear in several
aspects, for example the inclusion of products other
than web rolls were claimed to have been caused by
(32) The complainant contested these statements of the
administrative errors or were blamed on mistakes by
exporting producer and claimed that contrary to what
the suppliers in providing possibly wrong samples.
has been claimed, it follows from the proceedings in
the USA that there is a clear dividing line distinguishing
web rolls from CFP.
(28) Since both the source as well as the samples of the
allegedly tested products were not clear and the results
of the testing by the different parties were contradictory,
(33) Firstly,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
statements
referred
to
it was considered that the submitted test report of the
by the exporting producer were presented in investi
external laboratory acting on behalf of the exporting
gations under other jurisdictions and by different
producer did not conclusively demonstrate that the
parties than the ones in the current proceeding and
resistance to picking test was not appropriate to
thus are not relevant. Secondly, the US authorities in
distinguish between CFP suitable for use in web-fed
the mentioned investigations concluded that there was
printing on the one hand and CFP used in sheet-fed
a clear distinction between, on the one hand, CFP used
printing on the other hand. Consequently, the test
in sheet-fed printing and, on the other hand, rolls
report did not demonstrate that CFP used in web-fed
suitable for use in web-fed printing. Cutter rolls were
printing had been arbitrarily excluded from the scope
regarded as semi-finished products while rolls suitable
of the investigation.
for web fed printing were not considered as ‘product
concerned’. The US authorities did not explicitly define
web rolls in their definition of the product scope. For this
(29) As regards the relevance of the resistance to picking as a
reason, the criterion of resistance to picking was not
distinguishing criterion for rolls suitable for web-fed
relevant in the definition of the product scope in the
printing, it is recalled that in the product definition the
mentioned investigations.
two product groups are distinguished from each other
based on, among other things, the use of the products,
i.e. whether the product is suitable for use in web-fed or
(34) Based on the above comments, the technical
char
sheet-fed printing as determined by the requirements of
acteristic ‘resistance to picking’ was confirmed as being
the presses on which they are used which is reflected in,
a reliable characteristic to describe CFP suitable for use in
inter alia, the characteristic of resistance to picking.
web-fed printing.
Furthermore it is noted that resistance to picking is
only one of the characteristics that distinguish CFP
suitable for use in web-fed printing from CFP used in
sheet fed printing; Recitals (16) and (18) of the provi
(35) The
comments
put
forward
have
however
also
revealed
sional Regulation set out additional criteria which have
that there exist web rolls that can be used in web-fed
not been contested by the exporting producer. The
printing even if they do not fully meet all the criteria of
exporting producer claimed that humidity as defined in
resistance to picking. For this reason it was considered
recital (18) of the provisional Regulation was not a
necessary to further refine the definition of rolls suitable
distinct basic characteristic to distinguish products.
for for use in web-fed printing.
During the investigation however differing claims in
this regard were made by other parties. In any event, it
was found that stiffness and resistance to picking are the
(36) In order to provide a further criterion to distinguish web
most relevant factors.
rolls which do not fully meet all the criteria for resistance
to picking, the complainant suggested that a roll which
does not fully meet the picking resistance test but has an
(30) In its responding submission the complainant
internal core size of less than 80 mm, should be
acknowledged that there might be rolls that do not
considered as a web roll.

---

EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
128/5
(37) The government of PRC and the exporting producer
5. DUMPING
claimed that the addition of core size as a new element
into the product definition constituted a revision of the
(45) Only
one
Chinese
cooperating
group
(APP,
the
exporting
definition of web rolls and thus the product concerned. It
producer) submitted comments on dumping as a follow-
also claimed that the internal core size is not a suitable
up to the imposition of provisional measures.
criteria as there exist web rolls with higher than 80 mm
core size and cutter rolls with lower than 80 mm core
size.
5.1. Market economy treatment (MET)
(46) With respect to criterion 1, APP alleged that the
Commission's arguments relied solely on the alleged
(38) The
Commission
endeavoured
to
further
refine
the
defi
impossibility of verifying payment. It was consequently
nition of rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing and to
argued that the methods used by the party are in line
give further clarification in order to distinguish even
with International Accounting Standards (‘IAS’).
more clearly between the product concerned and other
products, also with a view to minimizing the possibility
of circumvention of the measures. The evidence
submitted on the suitability of the core size as an alter
(47) This
had
to
be
rejected.
In
this
respect
it
is
noted
that
the
native criterion in the definition however proved that this
investigation revealed that it was not possible to establish
criterion would lead to the possible exclusion of the
the existence of payments with respect to transfer of
product concerned, i.e. cutter rolls with a core size of
companies’ shares and cost of major raw material
less than 80 mm from the measures. Therefore this
inputs. As to the accounting methods used it is noted
criterion to define rolls suitable for use in web-fed
that the methods followed were not in line with IAS
printing was abandoned.
(offsetting and related party disclosures).
(39) The above is without prejudice to the reliability of the
(48) With
respect
to
criteria
1
and
2,
APP
submitted
that
the
method according to which rolls suitable for use in web-
Commission had dismissed the opinion of a well-known
fed printing have been excluded from the scope of the
firm of accountancy advisors in a summary fashion on
investigation as it was claimed by the Chinese group of
the grounds that it was irrelevant. Such dismissal would
exporting producers.
amount to an inadmissible rejection of an independent
witness statement, thereby violating APP's right to a fair
process. APP argued that its accounting advisors found
the Commission's analysis on accounting procedures and
(40) No further
comments were received concerning the
principles flawed while some of the points that the
exclusion of multi-ply paper from the product scope of
Commission identified were, according to those
the investigation.
advisors, not material.
(41) Based on the above, recitals (14) to (26) of the provi
(49) APP
allegations
were
not
backed
by
any
evidence
and
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
had to be rejected. In this respect it is noted that the
accountancy advisors referred to in the recital above do
not appear to dispute the actual facts established in this
investigation but rather attempted to present an analysis
3.2. Like product
of some of the basic accounting principles, notably the
prudence principle, the accrual principle, the principle of
(42) Since
no
comments
were
received
with
regard
to
the
faithful representation and the materiality principle. It
conclusions outlined in recital (27) of the provisional
should be noted that those accountancy advisors were
Regulation, the provisional findings with regard to the
not present during the on-spot verification carried out
like product are hereby confirmed.
by the Commission in the PRC in the course of which
the Commission got first-hand knowledge about APP's
actual practices relevant for the MET assessment. The
Commission has explained in detail in writing to the
4. SAMPLING
party the deficiencies spotted and their links with the
IAS accounting principles. The interpretation of these
(43) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
on
sampling,
recitals
principles given by the accounting firm was not
(28) to (30) of the provisional Regulation are hereby
sufficiently substantiated or supported by evidence and
confirmed.
could also not be reconciled with the actual facts estab
lished. Indeed, the evidence on file confirmed that the
aforesaid accounting principles were not respected.
(44) The
four
producers
referred
to
in
recital
(29)
of
the
provisional Regulation that were considered to be repre
sentative of the Union industry as defined in recital (77)
(50) APP
submitted
that
its
fundamental
rights
were
breached.
of the provisional Regulation are further referred to as
It was argued that the Commission imposed an excessive
‘representative Union producers’.
burden of proof on the party when investigating MET.

---

L 128/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
(51) This
claim
had
to
be
rejected.
In
this
respect
it
is
noted
Regulation, the Commission verified all the information
that the Commission has informed APP fully on the type
submitted by interested parties in order to arrive at a
of information requested with respect to MET and
representative finding. The findings of the investigation
endeavoured to verify at every stage of the proceeding
were based on verified facts during a period of time that
any information provided by the party. The fact that the
spread across four months and not on mere suspicions
information provided by the party does not confirm the
or any type of unverified statements or allegations.
compliance with IAS of its accounting methods does not
imply the existence of an excessive burden of proof. MET
is an exception to the normal regime for companies
located in non-market economy countries and parties
(56) APP
submitted
that
the
MET
criteria
should
be
read
in
in such cases are simply requested to show that they
light of their objective to ensure that prices are the result
complied with the rules set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the
of normal market forces. In this respect it is noted that
basic Regulation, failure to one criterion being enough to
the purpose of the MET criteria is clearly set out under
justify the refusal for granting MET. In this particular
Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation and the Commission
proceeding the investigation established that APP was
applied with respect to APP these clearly set out rules
not able to show that it complied with the requirements
when analyzing its MET claim.
of Criterion 2.
(52) APP also argued that there was a lack of objectivity in the
(57) APP
also
claimed
that
the
MET
assessment
had
short
MET assessment. It submitted that the MET decision was
comings, given that the verification of the reply to the
possibly influenced by the Commission's knowledge
anti-dumping questionnaire had established a ‘reliable’
about the impact of the MET rejection on the group's
cost of production, while the MET assessment points to
dumping margin.
a lack of ability to establish payments for inputs.
(53) Moreover,
these
claims
are
unsubstantiated
and
thus
had
to be rejected. There is no indication that the MET
(58) This
interpretation
of
the
findings
has
to
be
rejected
as
decision was influenced by the Commission's
erroneous. It is recalled that the basic Regulation
knowledge about the impact of the MET rejection on
explicitly conditions the granting of MET and thus the
the group's dumping margin. The MET analysis is a
reliability and use of an exporting producer's own price
technical analysis of the fulfilment of the five clear
and cost data for the purpose of establishing normal
criteria set out under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regu
value on the company successfully showing that it
lation and the MET analysis presented by the
meets the requirements set out in Article 2(7)(c). If the
Commission was carried out on the basis of the MET
aforementioned claim by APP were to be accepted it
criteria and without considering the impact of the
would simply ‘by-pass’ the findings of the MET
outcome of that analysis on the exporting producer's
assessment and the provisions of Article 2(7)(c) by
potential dumping margin. In this respect it is recalled
using other type of information collected for other
that the scheduling of the various segments of the on-
purposes. This is not in conformity with the provisions
spot verifications and the difference in the calendars
of the basic Regulation.
followed (MET claim forms, anti-dumping questionnaires,
analogue country data, export sales via related Union
parties) together with the periods within which parties
filed replies and subsequent amendments to their
(59) It is recalled that for APP two out of the four related
submissions demonstrates that the Commission was
exporting producers were found to produce only the
not able to establish any effect of a MET decision on
multi-ply paperboard. Account taken of the fact that
the party's potential dumping at the time of MET
multi-ply paper board is excluded from the product
disclosure. Finally, APP kept up to a late stage submitting
scope as confirmed in recitals (40) and (41) above, it is
new information and replacing information already on
concluded that the MET findings with respect to the two
file thus it cannot be upheld that the Commission
related exporting producers that produce only multi-ply
could be able to compute dumping margins on the
paperboard within the APP group are not relevant for
basis of information that it did not have.
this proceeding.
(54) APP
also
argued
that
the
Commission
did
not
need
to
verify in full the party's replies in order to have a detailed
(60) In the absence of any other comments concerning MET,
picture of the data included in the party's reply to the
recitals (31) to (51) of the provisional Regulation are
anti-dumping questionnaire and that suspicions exists
hereby confirmed.
that the Commission had all the necessary data in
order to calculate a dumping margin.
5.2. Individual treatment (IT)
(55) This
claim
had
to
be
rejected.
In
this
respect
it
is
noted
(61) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
on
IT,
recitals
(52)
to
that in line with the provisions of Article 16 of the basic
(55) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

---

EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
128/7
5.3. Normal value
analogue country and thus no comparison could be
made. With respect to the export quantities of this
5.3.1. Analogue country
particular company it is noted that they represented
only a minor part of the total APP export sales and
(62) No party disputed the selection of theUSA as an
their price levels appeared to be in line with the overall
analogue country for the definitive determination.
APP export sales price levels. Finally, it should be pointed
out that the great majority of export transactions were
used for the purposes of determining whether or not the
(63) In the absence of any comments concerning the selection
exports were dumped, i.e. those offering an absolute
of the analogue country, recitals (56) to (63) of the
match to normal value established in the analogue
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
country. Thus, APP claims with respect to export price
had to be rejected as they cannot put into question the
finding of injurious dumping given that the basis for the
5.3.2. Determination of normal value
calculation is clearly representative. The fact, that a
matching normal value in the analogue country does
(64) It
is
recalled
that
the
normal
value
was
calculated
on
the
not necessarily exist for each and every export trans
basis of the data provided by the sole cooperating
action is inherent to such a finding.
producer in the analogue country (i.e. USA). Thus,
normal value was established on the basis of prices of
domestic sales of one US producer of the like product
produced in the USA. During the IP this producer
(70) APP
also
submitted
that
the
aforesaid
export
sales
should
produced and sold in the US market the great majority
have been used in the dumping margin calculations since
of the types of the like product.
the investigating authority has the possibility to identify
similar product types used for the normal value calcu
lation, adjust the export price to the normal value or
(65) APP
submitted
that
the
Commission
did
not
provide
construct a normal value to compare with the aforesaid
necessary information in relation to the normal value
export sales.
in the analogue country, such as comparability of the
products, representativeness, cost structure, fair
comparison mechanics and adjustments.
(71) These
claims
had
to
be
rejected
as
there
were
no
product
types in the analogue country that had been close
(66) These
claims
had
to
be
rejected.
In
this
respect
it
is
noted
enough to those exported to cover the differences by
that, as explained under recital (9) above, the
an adjustment for differences in physical characteristics.
Commission provided to the party all relevant
Equally, it was not possible to construct normal value for
information concerning the data used in order to
such product types. Neither similar product types in
calculate normal value that could be released without
other normal value transactions were identifiable, nor
infringing the provisions of Article 19 of the basic Regu
any basis was available to make adjustments or
lation, i.e. assuring at the same time that any confidential
otherwise construct normal value using selling, general
data provided by the sole US producer is treated as such
administrative expenses and profit assumptions.
and is not disclosed to other parties. The information
provided to the exporting producer was meaningful
and offered it the possibility to understand the
methodology used in line with the provisions of
(72) APP requested clarifications with respect to the
Article 2 of the basic Regulation.
reasonable profit margin used for constructing export
price in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regu
lation.
(67) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments,
recitals
(64)
to
(67) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(73) In
this
respect
it
is
noted
that
the
Commission
revisited
5.4. Export price
this point following new developments. It is recalled that
as explained in recital (71) of the provisional Regulation
(68) APP argued that the export sales of one of its companies
a reasonable profit rate, much lower than the target
cooperating with the investigation should not have been
profit for the Union industry was used. The Commission
disregarded from the dumping margin calculation even if
reviewed the available data and decreased the profit
there are no matching products. It was also argued that
margin rate used for constructing export price to a rate
the export quantities of this company were not small but
equal to the weighted average rate reported by a series of
substantial.
unrelated Union importers of the product concerned,
i.e. 4,5 %.
(69) With
respect
to
these
claims
it
is
noted
that
the
sales
values of the transactions in question were considered for
the establishment of the export prices but no normal
(74) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments,
recitals
(68)
to
value for these transactions could be established since
(71) of the provisional Regulation, as modified above, are
there were no comparable product types in the
hereby confirmed.

---

L 128/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
5.5. Comparison
(81) On the basis of the facts stated in recital (76) of the
provisional Regulation, the country-wide definitive
(75) APP claimed to be unable to understand the basis of
dumping margin for the PRC was established using the
calculations of certain allowances with respect to
definitive dumping margin established for the coop
normal value (namely the type of adjustments and their
erating companies with the highest individual duty rate,
impact on the normal value) and export price (namely
i.e. 63 %. In the absence of any other comments,
the methodology used and calculations made in order to
recital (76) of the provisional Regulation is hereby
arrive at several ratios).
confirmed.
(76) With
respect
to
normal
value
adjustments,
as
explained
under recitals (9) and (66) above, the Commission
6. UNION PRODUCERS
provided to APP all the relevant data that could be
provided, account taken of the provisions on confiden
(82) The government of PRC commented that one of the
tiality in the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the
representative producers was allegedly related to a
Commission checked with the cooperating party in the
Chinese company and thus should be excluded from
analogue country whether further information relating to
the definition of the Union industry. The investigation
adjustments could be disclosed in order to improve
however revealed that the products produced by the
transparency. Having obtained the analogue country
Chinese company referred to are not product concerned.
producer's agreement, more detailed information was
Therefore the relationship does not have any impact on
indeed provided to APP following provisional disclosure,
the injury analysis nor on the inclusion of this Union
further elaborating on the normal value adjustments.
producer in the definition of Union industry.
(77) With
respect
to
export
price
adjustments
it
is
noted
that
APP received full disclosure. Then, following APP's
(83) In the absence of further comments on Union
request, clarifications were provided to APP following
production, recitals (77) to (79) of the provisional Regu
provisional disclosure further elaborating on the export
lation are hereby confirmed.
price adjustments.
(78) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments,
recitals
(72)
and
(73) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
7. INJURY
7.1. Union consumption
5.6. Dumping margin
(84) In
the
absence
of
comments
on
Union
consumption,
recitals (80) to (82) of the provisional Regulation are
(79) No
pertinent
comments
with
respect
to
the
dumping
hereby confirmed.
margin were submitted. In the absence of any other
comments, recital (74) of the provisional Regulation is
hereby confirmed.
7.2. Imports into the Union from the PRC
(80) Taking
into
account
the
revised
profit
margin
rate
used
(85) In the absence of comments on the level of imports into
for constructing export price for APP and on the basis of
the Union from the PRC, recitals (83) to (84) of the
the methodology set out in recitals (31) to (73) of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
provisional Regulation, the definitive dumping margins,
expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price,
duty unpaid, are as follows:
7.2.1. Price undercutting
Exporting producer Dumping
margin
(86) To ensure that the dumping and undercutting and under
selling calculations follow a coherent approach, and for
Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang
43,5 %
the reasons set out in recitals (68) to (71), the under
City, Jiangsu Province, PRC
cutting calculation has been revised to exclude the export
sales of a company within the group of one cooperating
Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park)
43,5 %
exporting producer.
Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC
Shangdong Chenming Paper Holdings
63 %
Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong
Province, PRC
(87) Based
on
the
modified
dataset
used
for
the
calculation,
and also due to a minor calculation correction, the rate
Shouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd,
63 %
of price undercutting in recital (87) was slightly revised.
Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC
The dumped imports undercut the Union producers’ sales
prices on average by 7,6 % in the IP.

---

EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
128/9
7.3. Economic situation of the Union industry and
related to another producer that did not cooperate in the
the representative Union producers
investigation. The companies were alleged to be related
as a consequence of transitional agreements concluded at
7.3.1. Preliminary remarks
the time of the acquisition by the cooperating Union
producer of the CFP business segment of the other
(88) One
of
the
coooperating
Chinese
exporting
producers
producer It was alleged that through these transitional
(APP) claimed that the injury analysis should be done
agreements the cooperating Union producer controls
at the level of a properly defined Union industry that
some of the mills which remained in the ownership of
should be limited to Union producers that support the
the partially acquired producer. To support its claim the
complaint and cooperate with the investigation. That
exporting producer made reference to the Commission
producer suggests that the conclusions concerning
Decision (
material injury would be different, were some indicators

1 ) examining at the time of the acquisition
whether the transaction should be considered as an
such as market share established at the level of such
acquisition within the meaning of Council Regulation
‘properly defined’ Union industry. The government of
(EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control
PRC commented that the injury analysis failed to
of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger
analyze all injury indicators for the complainant and
Regulation) (
for the Union industry as a whole in a coherent and

2 ).
comprehensive fashion.
(94) This
claim
was
already
addressed
in
recital
(91)
of
the
provisional Regulation. It is recalled that the transitional
(89) Firstly it is noted that the statements of that producer
agreements referred to did not show any relationship
seem to have been drawn on the basis of indicators
between the companies that would be extending
calculated from different datasets and information than
beyond a normal business relationship between a buyer
those established during the investigation and presented
and a seller. In particular, the terms of the transitional
below and in the provisional Regulation. Consequently,
agreements aim to administer the coated paper sales for a
these conclusions are factually wrong and are thus
transitional period and according to these terms the
irrelevant.
Union producer only has functions comparable to a
sales agent during the transitional period. Furthermore,
in its consolidated audited accounts and in its reply to
the questionnaire it reported commission income while
(90) Secondly,
it
is
the
Commission's
practice
to
evaluate
acting as an agent for the mills concerned; no ownership
macroeconomic factors for the indication of the injury
and therefore no costs were recognized for these mills by
suffered at the level of the Union industry as a whole, as
the Union producer.
it was explained in recital (89) of the provisional Regu
lation. In the present investigation, the Union industry
was defined at the level of Union producers accounting
for the total Union production (recital (77) of the provi
(95) According to the Commission Decision referred to above,
sional Regulation), regardless of whether producers
the transaction between the companies was considered as
supported the complaint or have been cooperating in
an acquisition by the Union producer of part of the other
the investigation. Given this broad definition, the
companies’ business, not the take-over of the company as
exporting producer claims that Union industry has not
such. The Decision does not suggest that the companies
been defined ‘properly’ is rejected.
should be considered as one entity after the acquisition;
in particular, there is no joint venture between the
companies. It is also noted that the geographical scope
examined in the above decision is EEA – wide and not
EU wide. To note is also that in the Decision the
(91) Microeconomic
factors
are
analyzed
at
the
level
of
the
representative Union producers, regardless of whether
Commission did not analyze the relationship between
these support the complaint or not. The representative
the companies in question within the meaning of
producers covered 58 % of the Union production. None
Article 143 of the IPCCC ( 3 ).
of the other Union producers came forward claiming that
the Commission's conclusions on microeconomic factors
would be unreliable or not substantiated. Therefore there
(96) In
this
regard,
there
are
consequently
no
grounds
to
re-
are no reasons to put into question the findings estab
consider the provisional conclusions, i.e. that the two
lished based on the information provided by the repre
companies are not related in the sense of Article 143
sentative Union producers only.
of the IPCCC and that the Union producer in question
cooperated fully with the investigation.
( 1 ) Commission Decision of 31.10.2008 declaring a concentration to be
(92) Further
comments
on
the
level
of
cooperation
by
one
of
compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.5283 -
the representative Union producers were received.
SAPPI / M-REAL) according to Council Regulation (EC)
No 139/2004 (OJ C 324, 19.12.2008, p. 8.).
( 2 ) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
( 3 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
(93) It
was
claimed
that
one
of
the
representative
Union
(EC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
producers cooperated only partially as it was allegedly
(OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).

---

L 128/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
(97) The
exporting
producer
also
claimed
that
each
affiliated
sufficiently detailed to identify information about the
company of the Union producers should have filled in a
product concerned. Assumption and / or estimations
separate questionnaire reply as they were separate legal
used were made on a reasonable and justifiable basis,
entities. The exporting producer claimed discrimination
e.g. cutter rolls were not taken into account because of
as it was requested to provide a separate MET claim for
their clearly insignificant volumes as witnessed in their
each entity within the group.
proportion in the total sales volume of the representative
Union producers. Therefore this claim had to be rejected.
(98) It
is
noted
that
in
case
of
MET
claims,
a
group
of
companies has the burden of proof of showing that all
(104) The exporting producer claimed that the market share of
companies in the group fulfill the MET-criteria as the
the Union producers should also include imports from
determination of whether or not MET should be
Switzerland as these come from a mill owned by one of
granted is specific to the group. In the case of the ques
the representative Union producer.
tionnaires for Union producers, the purpose is to
determine whether material injury to the Union
industry (as a whole) exists during the IP. The claim of
discrimination disregards the clear difference between the
(105) The geographical scope of anti-dumping investigations is
objectives of an injury investigation and a MET deter
the European Union. Therefore this claim had to be
mination.
rejected.


(106) It was also claimed that the complainant's market share
(99) In
any
event,
in
the
case
of
the
Union
producer
in
increased remarkably during the period considered.
question it was considered that one questionnaire reply
would be sufficient for a meaningful reply and analysis of
the injury aspects. In particular, the reply provided a
detailed breakdown of information at individual paper
(107) Market share is a macro indicator analyzed at the level of
mill level and all the necessary data relating to all of
the whole Union industry and not at the level of the
the related producers/sellers of the like product could
complainant. Secondly, the statement concerning the
be verified during the verification visits.
complainant's market share is factually erroneous.
(100) In a subsequent submission the exporting producer also
(108) In the absence of any further comments in this regard,
claimed that the same company failed to fully cooperate
the provisional findings set out in recitals (92) to (98) of
as it filed its questionnaire reply on behalf of a non-
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
existing entity and that the audited accounts of the
company do not reflect the data provided in its ques
tionnaire reply. The conclusions in the preceding recital
are relevant also in this regard.
7.3.3. Data relating to the representative Union producers
(microeconomic indicators)
(109) The exporting producer commented that the injury
analysis is flawed due to the fact that information
(101) Therefore the conclusions in recital (88) to (91) remain
about the paper mills that were acquired by the Union
unaffected.
producer referred to in recital (93) was not included in
the analysis of the microeconomic indicators for the
years 2006-2008.
7.3.2. Data relating to the Union industry (macroeconomic
indicators)
(110) Following the arguments presented by this party the
microeconomic indicators were adjusted to present a
(102) The government of PRC argued that the macro-economic
data used for the analysis is incomplete and inaccurate
fully comparable trend over the years by excluding
thus cannot be used as a positive evidence of material
information about the acquired mills for all years under
injury.
examination.


(111) Following the modified scope of the data used for the
(103) The on-spot verification at the complainant confirmed
analysis of the economic situation of the representative
that the data used to establish macroeconomic indicators
Union producers, as explained in the previous recital, the
are directly collected from Union producers covering
microeconomic indicators are definitively established as
around 98 % of the total Union production and are
follows:

---

EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
128/11
7.3.3.1. A v e r a g e u n i t p r i c e s o f t h e r e p r e
(114) Due to the paper mill closures and consolidation of the
s e n t a t i v e U n i o n p r o d u c e r s
representative Union producers, the number of
employees was reduced substantially by 20 % (almost
(112) Despite the slightly modified figures, the basic trends and
1 600 jobs) during the period considered. Efficiency
the findings in recital (99) in the provisional Regulation
gains have been achieved by raising and maintaining a
concluding that prices of coated fine paper remained
high output per employee even at a time of significant
stable over the years are confirmed.
layoffs. Labour costs increased steadily, totalling an 8 %
increase over the period considered.
Table 5
Prices of the Union producers
(115) The conclusions presented in recital (102) of the provi
Prices of the Union
sional Regulation are thus further supported by the
producers
2006 2007 2008 2009/IP
slightly modified figures.
Average price
692 717 691 699
(EUR/tonne)
7.3.3.4. P r o f i t a b i l i t y , c a s h f l o w , i n v e s t
Index 100 104 100 101
m e n t s , r e t u r n o n i n v e s t m e n t
Source: Verified questionnaire replies.
Table 8
Profitability
7.3.3.2. S t o c k s
2006 2007 2008 2009/IP
(113) Stocks represented around 10 % of the production
volume in the IP. The representative Union producers
Profitability –
1,08
% –
0,20
% –
2,49
% 2,88
%
increased their stock levels by 10 % during the period
considered, in particular between 2006 and 2007 and
Change
+ 0,88 % –
1,41
% +
3,95
%
later between 2008 and the IP. Notably, this coincided
(100=2006)
with the surge in the low-priced dumped imports from
the PRC.
Cash flow
260 047 211
036 172
570 336
753
(EUR thousand)
Table 6
Stocks
Index 100 81 66 129
Stocks 2006 2007 2008 2009/IP
Investments
151 900 151
027 127
845 87
875
(EUR thousand)
Stocks (tonnes) 278
265 298
547 296
387 306
588
Index 100 99 84 58
Index 100 107 107 110
Return on
– 0,73 % –
0,54
% –
2,73
% 0,39
%
Source: Verified questionnaire replies.
investments
Change
+ 0,19 % –
2,00
% +
1,12
%
7.3.3.3. E m p l o y m e n t , w a g e s a n d p r o d u c
(100=2006)
t i v i t y
Source: Verified questionnaire replies.
Table 7
Employment
(116) The profitability rate throughout the period considered
was corrected to reflect more accurately the profitability
Employment 2006 2007 2008 2009/IP
level. However, the basic trend concerning profitability
Employment — full-
7 756 7
487 7
207 6
197
remains unaffected by the change. The representative
time equivalent
Union producers incurred losses in the years 2006 to
(FTE)
2008 and the financial situation only turned positive in
2009 when the world price of pulp, the main raw
Index 100 97 93 80
material exceptionally decreased significantly as a result
of the economic downturn. The drop in the price of pulp
Labour cost
54 053 54
948 57
026 58
485
(– 19 %) was considered an abnormally large drop that
(EUR/FTE)
directly contributed to the improved financial situation in
Index 100 102 105 108
the IP. It is to be noted that since the IP, pulp prices have
returned to their pre-IP levels.
Productivity
453 478 486 484
(unit/FTE)
(117) Subject to the slight modification of the figures, the
Index 100 106 107 107
findings concerning cash flow, investment and return
on investment presented in recital (104) and (105) of
Source: Verified questionnaire replies.
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

---

L 128/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
(118) The exporting producer claimed that the improvement of
Furthermore, the parties’ analysis was not consistent in
profitability should not be considered as a limited
the use of two different datasets for macro and micro
instance based on an exceptional drop of raw material
indicators.
costs as explained in recital (107) of the provisional
Regulation. The drop in costs benefited both: all local
as well as Chinese producers, not only the complainant.
Therefore the breakthrough in profitability was not
(125) It was further claimed that the improvement of profit
exclusively based on the drop in costs but was rather
ability should be regarded also as a consequence of the
the result of a change in the pricing behaviour of the
restructuring efforts of the industry including reduction
complainant.
of production, employment and increased productivity.
In this case, the latter factors cannot be deemed to be
the sole indicators of injury, but all injury indicators
(119) Furthermore the exporting producer claimed that the
should be looked at together.
profitability is driven by CFP prices, rather than the
price of pulp. It was found, however, that when pulp
prices sharply fell in 2009, CFP prices remained stable
and profits rose as a consequence. Therefore given that
(126) Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation lists the economic
prices remained stable, no correlation can be made
factors and indices to be evaluated in the examination of
between prices and profitability in this specific time
the impact of the dumped imports on the Union
period.
industry. Article 3(5) explicitly states that the list of
factors is not exhaustive, nor can any one or more of
these factors necessarily give decisive guidance. Thus,
while indicators have to be assessed individually,
(120) The profitability rate is an indicator that is analysed at
conclusions should be reached through the analysis of
the level of the representative Union producers and not
all factors.
at the level of the complainant, as suggested by the party.
The analysis of information gathered showed a direct link
between the exceptional fall in pulp prices, the main raw
material and the increased profitability; whereby stable
(127) Overall, the claims of the exporting producer and the
prices of the finished products indeed played a role in
government of China as presented above do not affect
the improvement of profitability. While this was
the conclusion reached at the provisional stage which is
probably the case for other producers on the market as
therefore hereby confirmed, i.e. that the Union industry
well, this does not affect the conclusion that this
suffered material injury within the meaning of Article
temporary improvement of profitability is due to the
3(5) of the basic Regulation.
exceptional drop in raw material prices in the IP.
7.3.3.5. A b i l i t y t o r a i s e c a p i t a l
(128) Parties also commented repeatedly on the possible threat
of further material injury in view of the huge capacity
(121) The findings concerning the representative producers’
build-up by Chinese producers supported by State
ability to raise capital presented in recital (106) of the
policies and subsidies. The scope of the investigation
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
was the existence of material injury and not the threat
of further material injury. Therefore these comments
could not affect the findings and had to be disregarded.
7.4. Conclusion on injury
(122) One exporting producer and the government of PRC
claimed that there was no positive evidence that the
(129) Based on the above, the provisional findings set out in
complaining Union producers suffered material injury.
recitals (107) to (111) of the provisional Regulation are
On the contrary, the complainants presented overall
hereby confirmed.
stable economic results and increased profitability in
the IP.
8. CAUSALITY
(123) First of all, the state of the Union industry is analysed at
the level of the representative Union producers and not
(130) The Commission received several comments on the
at the level of complainants as suggested by the parties.
provisional findings concerning the causal link between

dumping and injury.
(124) Secondly, as already pointed out in recitals (89) and
(107) above, the conclusions of these parties seem to
8.1. Effect of the dumped imports
have been drawn from indicators calculated on the
basis of different datasets and information than that
(131) Provisional findings concerning the effect of dumped
which was established during the investigation and
imports were contested by several parties. The main
presented above and in the provisional Regulation.
argument brought forward was that Chinese imports
Consequently, these conclusions are factually wrong.
did not have significant impact in terms of volume and

---

EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
128/13
prices. It was argued that there was no surge of Chinese
through merchants either directly or indirectly (so
imports but rather these grew gradually over the years
called ‘indent sales’ when products are directly shipped
and therefore their impact was quite limited which
to the customer but ordering and invoicing process goes
should not be exaggerated for the purpose of the
through merchants). Indeed merchants play a crucial role
injury determination. It was further argued that Chinese
in both stocking products and providing price trans
prices, even if they were below Union prices, did not
parency to the market.
have any impact on the relatively stable prices of the
Union industry. One of the cooperating Chinese
exporting producers questioned the Commission's
finding that there would be price suppression caused
(136) Based on the above, the provisional findings set out in
by Chinese prices. It pointed out that in 2009 when
recitals (113) to (117) of the provisional Regulation are
the Chinese prices declined further, the Union industry's
hereby confirmed.
prices not only recorded an increase but in fact allowed
the Union industry to make profits.
8.2. Effect of other factors
8.2.1. Development of consumption on the Union market and
(132) The evolution of Chinese imports was analyzed in detail
the economic crisis
in recitals (84) and (114) of the provisional Regulation. It
was established that imports almost tripled over the
(137) One of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers and
period considered, especially in the years from 2006 to
the government of PRC claimed that the decrease in
2007 (+ 118 %) and from 2008 to the IP (+ 81 %). The
Union production was the consequence of the global
increase in the volume therefore cannot be regarded as
financial crisis and the sharp decline in consumption
insignificant.
on the Union market, as witnessed by the negative
trends shown by the Union producers’ domestic sales,
capacity utilization, employment and stock level, and
should not be attributed to Chinese imports.
(133) In terms of prices Chinese imports undercut the prices of
the representative Union producers by 7,6 % which is
considered significant in a market where price trans
(138) To support its claim, the government of PRC quoted a
parency is high. As depicted in recital (112) above,
Manifesto for Competitiveness and Employment
indeed prices of the representative Union producers
launched by the paper and pulp industry in June 2009
were stable over the period considered, with an excep
(‘Manifesto’). This document covers the whole paper and
tional increase in 2007, the year where Chinese exports
pulp industries sectors and serves a general policy
did not grow. In 2009 the Union producers could keep
purpose. On the basis of the information included in
their prices stable at the expense of losing further market
this document, no separate conclusions could be drawn
share and their profitability derived from the combi
for the production and sales of the product concerned. It
nation of these stable prices and the decreased cost of
is therefore not possible to conclude whether the
raw material.
statements or findings of the Manifesto in fact apply
one-to-one to the product concerned. Since, in
addition, the investigation did not bring to light a
strong link between the financial crisis and the material
(134) The exporting producer claimed that CFP imports from
injury suffered by the Union industry, this argument had
PRC do not have an impact on the prices of the Union
to be rejected.
industry as these are not comparable to the CFP manu
factured and sold by the representative Union producers
as only 10 % of the sales of the representative Union
producers were compared in the determination of the
8.2.2. Prices of raw materials
undercutting and non-injurious price level. It is noted
that these determinations are made on the basis of
(139) No new arguments were brought forward to reconsider
fully comparable products that are directly matching in
the conclusions reached in recital (120) to (122) of the
all characteristics so as to ensure a fair comparison.
provisional Regulation and in recital (118) of this Regu
However, CFP produced by the Chinese and Union
lation.
producers in general are comparable products as
concluded in recital (42) and thus are competing with
each other directly on the Union market.
8.2.3. Export performance of the representative Union
producers
(140) The revision of the microeconomic indicator as explained
(135) It was furthermore alleged that the finding that the CFP
in recital (110) impacted the analysis of export
market is a commodity-market characterized by a high
performance of the representative Union producers to
degree of transparency is incorrect as the Union
the extent that the decrease of their export sales in the
producers sell around half of their products directly to
period considered was 16 %. Export sales to unrelated
end users. In contrast to this claim the representative
parties made by these companies represented 26 % of
Union producers sold the majority of their products
their total sales.

---

L 128/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
(141) Contrary to the claim of one exporting producer, the
break the causal link established between the dumped
evolution of export of the product concerned by the
imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the
representative Union producers was addressed in the
Union industry.
provisional Regulation in recitals (123) to (124). The
above revision does not affect these conclusions
reached at the provisional stage.
9. UNION INTEREST
9.1. Union industry
(142) The arguments and evidence brought forward concerning
(147) No further comments or information was received
the effect of export performance of the Union industry
regarding the interest of the Union producers and
thus did not cause a change in the conclusions reached at
importers and traders. Therefore the provisional
the provisional stage.
findings in recitals (134) to (138) of the provisional
Regulation on the interest of these groups are hereby
confirmed.
8.2.4. Imports from other third countries
(143) Arguments brought forward about the effect of imports
9.2. Importers and traders
from other third countries were already addressed in
recitals (125) to (127) of the provisional Regulation.
(148) No further comments or information was received
regarding the interest of importers and traders.
Therefore the provisional findings in recitals (139) to
(143) of the provisional Regulation on the interest of
these groups are hereby confirmed.
8.2.5. Structural overcapacity
(144) It was claimed that injury suffered by the Union
producers is caused by structural overcapacity. This
9.3. Users
factor was already analysed in recital (128) of the provi
sional Regulation.
(149) Three additional printers and an association of European
printers and publishers came forward after the publi
cation of provisional measures. They claimed that the
measures would have negative effects on the downstream
industries as price increases could lead to the relocation
(145) The main argument brought forward in this respect is
of the printing industry leading to increased imports of
that restructuring efforts of the Union industry were
downstream printed matter. The claim was supported by
completed in 2009 by the consolidation of two large
the fact that imports of printed matter from PRC
producers that resulted in the immediate improvement
increased rapidly in recent years and apparently took a
of the situation of the Union industry. As described in
considerable market share within European consumption
recital (93) of the provisional Regulation, restructuring
for all printed matter.
efforts took place since 2000 up until the IP. The
positive effect of the mentioned consolidation should
have been reflected in the improvement of capacity utili
sation and at least in stable sales volume but both these
(150) It was also claimed that measures would cause a shortage
indicators deteriorated in the IP. On the other hand, it
of supply on the market and longer delivery times for
had been established that the improved profitability of
users.
the Union industry in the IP was caused primarily and
directly by the exceptional one-off drop in pulp prices.
Therefore the conclusions reached in recital (128) of the
provisional Regulation that the restructuring efforts of
(151) Most of these claims were not company specific and
the industry were undermined by the dumped imports
similar to claims already made at the provisional stage
are maintained.
of the investigation and addressed in recitals (146) and
(150) of the provisional Regulation. It is recalled that the
cooperation of printers was limited and on the basis of
the limited quantitative information received it was
8.3. Conclusion on causation
concluded that because of their profitability level and
the share of CFP in their costs, printers are indeed
(146) Based on the above, the provisional findings as set out in
sensitive to price increases. However, most printers had
recitals (129) to (132) of the provisional Regulation that
no or very limited direct purchases of Chinese paper in
the dumped imports from the PRC caused material injury
the IP and the amount of Chinese paper used by printers
to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6)
is in general low therefore the direct impact of the duty
of the basic Regulation are maintained. The provisional
would be negligible. Most printers also stated that
findings about the effect of the other known factors
because of their need for short delivery times, the share
which could have caused injury to the Union industry
of supplies directly from third countries would remain
were also confirmed: these factors are not such as to
limited.

---

EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
128/15
(152) As regards the claims concerning downstream printed
target profit of 8 % used for the calculation of the non-
matter from PRC it should be noted that the import
injurious price. It referred to the complaint in which the
statistics of printed matter cover a wide range of
target profit suggested was lower.
products that include final printed matter that is not
printed on coated fine paper. Based on the information
available it could not be assessed what part of the
products imported from PRC is printed on the product
concerned and what is printed on other types of paper.
(157) The complainant on the other hand requested that the
However, from information submitted it is known that
target profit should be set at minimum 10 %, basing its
printed matter originating in PRC is mostly comprised of
arguments on the expected profit margin used by inde
some specific categories of books, children's books,
pendent rating agencies in their classification
calendars, packaging and greeting cards. Products that
methodology and the profitability achieved by a
are more ‘time sensitive’ such as weekly/monthly
producer active in another paper production segment
magazines and other newsprint are less susceptible to
that is not affected by Chinese imports.
being imported from PRC because of the time needed
for transportation. While the printing of some printed
products may be more susceptible to relocation, on the
other hand there exist product types for which proximity
and service are crucial and therefore would not be
(158) It should be clarified that the target profit as suggested in
affected by foreign competition. Furthermore, even
the complaint was examined based on the questionnaire
though paper is an important cost element for the
replies and verification visits to the representative Union
printing industry, it is also a labour-intensive industry
producers. More specifically, the cost of investment in
and thus labour costs may be a more significant driver
machinery was considered. The target profit set on this
in relocation trends. In summary, it cannot be excluded
latter basis was found to reflect the high up-front
that imports of printed products that are printed on CFP
investment needs and risk involved in this capital-
will increase but it is not possible to estimate with any
intensive industry in the absence of dumped and/or
accuracy what the level of increase might be and how far
subsidised imports. Therefore a target profit of 8 % is
this would play a role in the competitiveness of printing
considered as the level that the industry could obtain
producers and therefore what direct impact price
in the absence of dumped imports. As stated in recital
increases might have on the downstream Union
(86), to ensure that the dumping and undercutting and
printing industry.
underselling calculations follow a coherent approach and
for the reasons set out in recitals (68) to (71), the calcu
lation of the injury elimination level has been revised to
(153) From information submitted, it is also known that the
exclude the export sales of a company within the group
printing industry suffers from structural overcapacity that
of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers.
leads to the continuing restructuring of the sector. One
of the driving forces towards the restructuring was also
the consolidation of the paper manufacturers within the
value chain. Any difficulty of the printing industry to
increase prices is considered to be rather largely due to
(159) In all other aspects recitals (153) to (161) of the provi
this structural overcapacity within the printing industry
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
itself.
(154) The interested parties claiming possible shortages of
supply did not quantify or give an estimate of the
10.2. Definitive measures
possible shortages. The claims in any case do not seem
to be supported by the capacity utilization rate of the
(160) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to
Union producers that was at 83 % in the IP leaving
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in
around one million tonnes of free capacity. On this
accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a
basis, it is unlikely that shortages would occur.
definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on
imports of coated fine paper originating in the PRC at
the level of the lower of the dumping and injury margins
9.4. Conclusion on Union interest
found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. In this

case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level
(155) In view of the above, the provisional findings concerning
of the injury found.
Union interest are confirmed, i.e. there are no compelling
reasons against the imposition of definitive measures on
imports of CFP originating in the PRC.
(161) It is noted that an anti-subsidy investigation was carried
10. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
out in parallel with the anti-dumping investigation
concerning imports of coated fine paper originating in
10.1. Injury elimination level
the PRC. Since, pursuant to Article 14(1) of the basic
Regulation and Article 24(1), second subparagraph of
(156) One group of Chinese exporting producers requested
Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June
further details for the method used to calculate the
2009 on protection against subsidised imports from

---

L 128/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.5.2011
countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
subsidy margin established for the cooperating Chinese
(‘the basic anti-subsidy Regulation’), no product shall be
exporting producers with the highest individual duty
subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties
rates i.e. 63 % for the definitive dumping margin and
for the purpose of dealing with one and the same
16 % for the definitive subsidy margin.
situation arising from dumping or from export subsi
disation, it was considered necessary to determine
whether, and to what extent, the subsidy amounts and
(164) It is recalled that the same injury elimination level applies
the dumping margins arise from the same situation.
for both the anti-dumping and the anti-subsidy investi
gations. In this respect it is noted that the injury elim
ination level is lower than the definitive dumping
margins but higher than the definitive subsidy margins.
(162) As concerns the subsidy schemes that constituted export
subsidies within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a) of the
It is thus considered appropriate to impose a definitive
basic anti-subsidy Regulation, the definitive dumping
countervailing duty at the level of the established
margin established for two Chinese exporting producers
definitive subsidy margins and then impose a definitive
are partly due (i.e. 0,05 %) to the existence of counter
anti-dumping duty up to the relevant injury elimination
vailable export subsidies. With respect to other subsidy
level.
schemes, in view of the use of the lesser duty rule in this
case and the amount of subsidisation found in the anti-
(165) On the basis of the above, and taking into account the
subsidy investigation carried out in parallel, it was not
findings set out in Council Regulation (EU) No 452/2011
considered necessary to further examine whether and to
of 6 May 2011 imposing a definitive countervailing duty
what degree the same subsidies are being offset twice
on imports of coated fine paper originating in the
when anti-dumping and countervailing duties are simul
People's Republic of China ( 2 ) and in light of Article 14
taneously imposed on the same imported product.
paragraph 1 last sentence of the basic Regulation that
duty will not be imposed to the extent necessary to
comply with the rule laid down in that sentence the
(163) As concerns the country-wide definitive dumping and
rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty for the PRC
subsidy levels it is recalled that they were established
and the rate at which such duties will be imposed are
using the definitive dumping margin and the definitive
set as follows:
Total
Out of
Definitive
Definitive
Definitive
Company
subsidy
which
Dumping
Injury
CVD duty
AD duty
AD duty
margin
export
margin
margin
rate to be
subsidy
rate
rate
imposed
Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City,
12 % 0,05
% 43,5
% 20
% 12
% 20
% 8
%
Jiangsu Province, PRC; Gold Huasheng Paper
(Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City,
Jiangsu Province, PRC
Shangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited,
4 % 0
% 63
% 39,1
% 4
% 39,1
% 35,1
%
Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC;
Shouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang
City, Shandong Province, PRC
All other companies 12
% 0,05
% 63
% 39,1
% 12
% 39,1
% 27,1
%
11. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL
(167) One of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers
DUTY
claimed that the definitive collection of the provisional
duty at the rates set out in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU)
(166) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found
No 1042/2010 would be contrary to Article 10
and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the
paragraph 3 second sentence of the basic Regulation.
Union industry, and taking into account that no provi
However, as clarified in this Regulation, and in particular
sional measures were imposed in the parallel anti-subsidy
in Article 1 paragraph 2 thereof, the definitive duty
investigation, it is considered necessary that the amounts
imposed by this Regulation is actually higher than the
secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty
provisional duty which has been imposed. In these
imposed by the provisional Regulation should be
circumstances the provisional duty at the rates set out
definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the
in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1042/2010 should
provisional duty imposed.
be definitively collected,
( 1 ) OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.
( 2 ) See page 18 of this Official Journal.

---

EN
14.5.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
128/17
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
3. With
regard
to
the
anti-dumping
duty
provided
for
in
Article 1(2), 12 % will not be collected for Gold East Paper
(Jiangsu) Co. and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial
Article 1
Park) Co., 4 % for Shangdong Chenming Paper Holdings
1. A
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on Limited and Shouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd and
coated fine paper, which is paper or paperboard coated on
12 % for all other companies in so far as the corresponding
one or both sides (excluding kraft paper or kraft paperboard),
amount is collected in accordance with Regulation (EU)
in either sheets or rolls, and with a weight of 70 g/m
No 452/2011.

2 or more
but not exceeding 400 g/m 2 and brightness of more than 84
(measured according to ISO 2470-1), currently falling within
CN codes ex 4810 13 20, ex 4810 13 80, ex 4810 14 20,
4. In the light of Article 1(2) and 1(3) above, the rate of the
ex 4810 14 80, ex 4810 19 10, ex 4810 19 90, ex 4810 22 10,
definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-
ex 4810 22 90, ex 4810 29 30, ex 4810 29 80, ex 4810 99 10,
Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in
ex 4810 99 30
and
ex 4810 99 90
(TARIC
codes
paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below
4810 13 20 20,
4810 13 80 20,
4810 14 20 20,
shall be as follows:
4810 14 80 20,
4810 19 10 20,
4810 19 90 20,
4810 22 10 20,
4810 22 90 20,
4810 29 30 20,
4810 29 80 20,
4810 99 10 20,
4810 99 30 20
and
4810 99 90 20) and originating in the People's Republic of
Company AD
duty
rate
TARIC
China.
additional code
Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd,
8 % B001
The definitive anti-dumping duty does not concern rolls suitable
Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province, PRC;
for use in web-fed presses. Rolls suitable for use in web-fed
Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou
Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City,
presses are defined as those rolls which, if tested according to
Jiangsu Province, PRC
the ISO test standard ISO 3783:2006 concerning the deter
mination of resistance to picking – accelerated speed method
Shangdong Chenming Paper Holdings
35,1 % B013
using the IGT tester (electric model), give a result of less than
Limited, Shouguang City, Shandong
30 N/m when measuring in the cross-direction of the paper
Province, PRC; Shouguang Chenming
(CD) and a result of less than 50 N/m when measuring in the
Art Paper Co., Ltd, Shouguang City,
machine direction (MD). The definitive anti-dumping duty does
Shandong Province, PRC
also not concern multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard.
All other companies 27,1
% B999
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
shall
be
as
follows:
5. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
concerning customs duties shall apply.
Company AD
duty
rate
Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, Zhenjiang City,
20 %
Article 2
Jiangsu Province, PRC; Gold Huasheng Paper
(Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City,
Amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty
Jiangsu Province, PRC
pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1042/2010 shall be definitively
collected at the rate set in Article 1 of that Regulation.
Shangdong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited,
39,1 %
Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC;
Shouguang Chenming Art Paper Co., Ltd,
Shouguang City, Shandong Province, PRC
Article 3
All other companies 39,1
%
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
of its 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, 6 May 2011.
For the Council
The President
MARTONYI J.

---