HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
15.5.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
131/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 412/2013
of 13 May 2013
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the
period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP (‘the
period considered’).
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union,
1.2. Subsequent procedure
(4)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
impose a provisional anti-dumping duty (‘provisional
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 ),
disclosure’), several interested parties made written
and in particular Article 9 thereof,
submissions making known their views on the
provisional findings. The parties who so requested were
granted an opportunity to be heard. Two importers and
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
one exporting producer requested and were afforded
Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,
hearings in the presence of the Hearing Officer of the
Directorate-General for Trade.
Whereas:
(5) The
Commission
continued
to
seek
and
verify
all
information it deemed necessary for its definitive
1. PROCEDURE
findings. The oral and written comments submitted by
the interested parties were considered and, where appro
1.1. Initiation
priate, the provisional findings were modified accord
ingly.
(1) The
Commission,
by
Regulation
(EU)
No
1072/2012
( 2 )
(‘the provisional Regulation’), imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and
(6) In
addition,
as
explained
in
recital
(55)
below,
a
verifi
kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of
cation visit was carried out at a Thai producer, the
China (‘PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’).
purpose of which was to investigate the suitability of
Thailand as an appropriate analogue country.
(2) The
proceeding
was
initiated
on
16
February
2012
( 3 )
following a complaint lodged on behalf of Union
(7)
Subsequently all parties were informed of the essential
producers (‘the complainants’), representing more than
facts and considerations on the basis of which it was
30 % of the total Union production of ceramic
intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive
tableware and kitchenware.
anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware
and kitchenware originating in the PRC and the definitive
collection of the amounts secured by way of provisional
(3) As
set
out
in
recital
(22)
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
duty (‘the final disclosure’). All parties were granted a
the investigation of dumping and injury covered the
period within which they could make comments on
period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011
the final disclosure. The Chinese Chamber of
(‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of
Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial
Products and Arts-crafts (‘CCCLA’) and a group of
importers requested and were granted hearings in the
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 28.
presence of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-
( 3 ) OJ C 44, 16.2.2012, p. 22.
General for Trade.

---

L 131/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.5.2013
(8) The
comments
submitted
by
the
interested
parties
were
hand, Union producers and importers and, on the
considered and taken into account where appropriate.
other hand, exporting producers, they are not in a
similar situation. Therefore, neither the principle of
non-discrimination nor equal treatment requires the use
of an identical methodology for selecting the respective
samples. It follows that this claim is wholly unwarranted
1.3. Sampling
and is therefore rejected.
(9) Following
provisional
disclosure
several
interested
parties
challenged the sample of exporting producers from the
PRC arguing that the sample is not representative, as it is
based only on the largest exported volumes and thus
failed to take into account other factors characterising
(13) Furthermore, one exporting producer maintained its
the diversity and fragmentation of the ceramic industry
request, as referred to in recital (8) of the provisional
in the PRC.
Regulation, that it should have been included in the
sample. The company has however not put forward
any new arguments that would justify its inclusion in
the sample. Therefore, and taking into account the
findings in recital (10) above, the conclusions in recital
(9) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(10) It follows from Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 1225/2009 (‘the basic Regulation’) that the
selection of companies to be included in the sample
may be limited to the largest representative volume of
exports that can reasonably be investigated within the
time available. In view of the fragmentation of the
(14) The
same
non-sampled
exporting
producer
claimed
that
industry it was considered that a selection based on
it was not afforded sufficient time to submit its
export volumes would allow a representative sample
comments on the final disclosure and that, in addition,
that could be investigated within the time available. In
the disclosure was insufficient since it did not disclose,
this respect it should nevertheless be noted that the
e.g. figures for allowances, sales prices, adjustments, etc.
companies selected are located in three different regions
Therefore, its rights of defence have not been respected.
in the PRC and have significant production of the
product concerned of different types of ceramic
material, e.g. porcelain and stoneware as well as
production of a wide variety of product types. Therefore,
this claim cannot be accepted.
(15) According
to
Article
20(5)
of
the
basic
Regulation
an
interested party should be afforded a time period of at
least 10 days to submit comments on the final
disclosure. The exporting producer in question received
the final disclosure by way of electronic mail on
(11) One
exporting
producer
claimed
that
the
use
of
different
methodologies for selecting the sample for the Union
25 February 2013 and was given until 8 March 2013,
industry and importers as compared to the sampling of
i.e. 11 days, to submit comments. The disclosure
exporting producers amount to discrimination and that
document was, in addition, also sent by registered mail
the same criteria should have been used. The use of
the following day. It follows that the party concerned
different methodologies is discriminatory against the
was given sufficient time to submit commen