HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 318/28
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1072/2012
of 14 November 2012
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware
originating in the People’s Republic of China
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
(4) In
view
of
the
apparent
high
number
of
exporting
producers and unrelated importers, the notice of
initiation requested exporting producers and unrelated
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
importers to make themselves known to the Commission
Union,
and to provide basic information on their activities
related to the product concerned during the period
from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011. This
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
information would allow the Commission, in accordance
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to decide
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
whether sampling would be necessary and if so, to
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
select samples.
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
(5) In
view
of
the
large
number
of
Union
producers
involved
Whereas:
in this proceeding, the notice of initiation announced
that the Commission had provisionally selected a
sample of Union producers for the determination of
A. PROCEDURE
injury in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regu
lation. That pre-selection had been made by using the
1. Initiation
information available to the Commission at initiation
stage and it was based on the producers’ sales volume,
(1) On
16
February
2012,
the
European
Commission
size, geographic location in the Union and product
announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal
segment. It included six Union producers covering all
of the European Union ( 2 ) (‘the notice of initiation’), the
major product types and located in five Member States,
initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to
out of which two where small and medium-sized enter
imports into the Union of ceramic tableware and
prises (SMEs). That preliminary sample accounted for
kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of
over 15 % of the estimated total Union production.
China (‘the country concerned’, ‘China’ or ‘the PRC’).
However, one of the preliminary sampled producers did
not wish to be part of the sample and several interested
parties submitted that a Member State with large
(2) The
proceeding
was
initiated
following
a
complaint
production volumes had been overlooked and should
lodged on 3 January 2012 on behalf of EU producers
be included in a representative sample. In view of this,
(‘the complainants’), representing more than 30 % of the
the Commission changed its preliminary sample and the
total Union production of ceramic tableware and
resulting final sample included seven Union producers
kitchenware. The complaint contained prima facie
covering all major product types and located in six
evidence of dumping of the said product and of
Member States, out of which two were SMEs. That
material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered
sample represented over 20 % of the estimated total
sufficient to justify the opening of a proceeding.
Union production.
2. Parties concerned by the proceeding
(3) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
complainants, (6) Around
400
exporting
producers
or
groups
of
exporting
other known Union producers, the known exporting
producers in the PRC who account for over 60 % of total
producers in the PRC, importers, traders, users,
exports provided the requested information and agreed to
suppliers and associations known to be concerned, and
be included in the sample. On the basis of the
the representatives of the PRC of the initiation of the
information received the Commission provisionally
proceeding. The Commission also advised producers in
selected a sample of five exporting producers with the
the Russian Federation, which was proposed in the notice
highest export volume to the Union and invited all
of initiation as a possible analogue country. Interested
exporting producers known to the Commission to
parties were given the opportunity to make their views
make comments on the proposed sample. Two
known in writing and to request a hearing within the
exporting producers pre-selected to form part of the
time limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested
sample then corrected their sampling information such
parties who so requested and showed that there were
that their export volume was not sufficient for them to
particular reasons why they should be heard, were
be included in the sample. The Commission then selected
granted a hearing.
the final sample with the updated five largest companies
in terms of export volume. The sampled companies
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
account for almost 20 % of the exports to the Union
( 2 ) OJ C 44, 16.2.2012, p. 22.
of all cooperating exporting producers.

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/29
(7)
The companies or groups of companies finally selected to
Commission sent claim forms to the Chinese exporting
be included in the sample are:
producers that had so requested and to the Chinese auth
orities.
(a) Hunan Hualian China Industry Co., Ltd and its related
companies,
(12) Eleven Chinese exporting producers or groups of
exporting producers requested MET pursuant to
Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, or IT should the
(b) Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co., Ltd
investigation establish that they did not meet the
and its related companies,
conditions for MET. Three of these claimants were
included in the sample whereas the other eight were
(c) CHL International Ltd and its related companies,
not. One of these exporting producers, not included in
the sample, subsequently withdrew its MET request while
retaining its claim for IT. The remaining two exporting
(d) Shandong Zibo Niceton-Marck Huaguang Ceramics
producers in the sample and four other companies, not
Limited and its related companies (‘Niceton’), and
included in the sample, requested IT only.
(e) Guangxi Province Beiliu City Laotian Ceramics Co.,
(13) The
Commission
sent
questionnaires
to
the
five
sampled
Ltd
exporting producers in the PRC and to almost 300 other
exporting producers in the PRC that had so requested.
Moreover, questionnaires were sent to the seven Union
(8) One
company
contested
the
selection
of
sampled
producers selected in the sample, the five importers
companies and claimed that it should be included in
selected in the sample, four associations of retailers and
the sample. It argued that its inclusion would not
distributors and also to individual retailers and
make the number of sampled companies unreasonable
distributors who so requested. In addition, questionnaires
or cause delays to the investigation, especially since the
were sent to exporting producers in India, Turkey, Brazil,
company is a relatively small exporter. It further claimed
Thailand and Russia, which were considered candidate
that the company is foreign-owned and that the sample
countries for the selection of an appropriate analogue
would not be representative without its inclusion.
country.
(9) The
Commission
recalls
that
the
selection
of
sampled (14) Replies
were
received
from
thirteen
exporting
producers
companies was made on the basis of the largest quan
or groups of exporting producers in the PRC and from
tities of volumes in accordance with Article 17(1) of the
three producers from possible analogue countries (Brazil,
basic Regulation taking into account the number of
Thailand and Russia). Furthermore, questionnaire replies
producers that could reasonably be investigated within
were received from the seven Union producers selected
the time available. Considering that the company is a
in the sample and the five importers selected in the
relatively small exporter, its inclusion would not add
sample. Questionnaire replies were also received from
any value to the representativeness of the sample in
one retailer, one distributor and two associations of
terms of volume exported. Furthermore, it is also noted
retailers and distributors.
that the company came forward very late — four months
after the final selection had been communicated to all
exporting producers and also after verification visits at
(15) In
addition,
the
Commission
received
submissions
from
the selected companies’ premises had taken place. The
more than 20 importers not related to an exporting
request to be included in the sample has therefore been
producer, several retailers, a provider of marketing
rejected.
programmes and from the Chinese Chamber of Light
Industrial Products and Arts-Crafts (CCCLA).
(10) More
than sixty unrelated importers replied by the
deadline to the sampling questions and offered
(16) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
the
information
cooperation in the proceeding. From those companies,
deemed necessary for a provisional determination of
five were selected to form the sample. These five
dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification
unrelated importers were selected on the basis of the
visits were carried out at the premises of the following
volumes and value of imports and resales in the
companies:
Union, their geographical location, their business model
and their product segment. The sampled companies
(a) Union producers
corresponded to the largest representative volumes and
value of imports and resales in the Union which could
(17) Verification
visits
were
carried
out
at
the
premises
of
the
reasonably be investigated within the time available.
seven sampled Union producers.
According to the figures reported at the sampling stage,
they accounted for ca. 6 % of the imports of the product
concerned during the IP.
(18) The sampled Union producers as well as other
cooperating Union producers requested, on the grounds
of the provisions of Article 19 of the basic Regulation,
(11) In
order
to
allow
exporting
producers
in
the
PRC
to
that their identities be kept confidential. They claimed
submit a claim for market economy treatment (‘MET’)
that the disclosure of their identity could lead to a risk
or individual treatment (‘IT’), if they so wished, the
of significant adverse effects.

---

L 318/30
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
(19) Certain
complainant
Union
producers
supply
customers
— Shenzhen Grand Collection Industrial Co., Ltd
in the Union that also source their products from China,
and Chaozhou Grand Collection Tableware Co.,
thus benefiting directly from these imports. Those
Ltd (Grand Collection)
complainants considered themselves therefore in a
sensitive position since some of their clients might not
— Tienshan (Handan) Tableware Co., Ltd
be satisfied with their lodging or supporting a complaint
against alleged injurious dumping. For these reasons they
— Zibo Kun Yang Ceramic Corporation Limited
considered that there was a risk of retaliation by some of
their clients. In addition, certain complainant Union
producers are also exporting to China. Those
(c) Union importers
companies deemed that lodging or supporting a
complaint against alleged injurious dumping could
— Symbol srl, Treviso, Italy;
represent a threat to their business in China. The
request was granted as it was sufficiently substantiated.
— Metro AG, Dusseldorf, Germany;
(20) The
representatives
of
certain
exporting
producers,
the
— Ritzenhoff & Breker GmbH & Co. KG, Bad
CCCLA and some unrelated importers claimed that
Driburg, Germany;
they could not properly exercise their right of defence
because the identity of the complainants and supporters
— Joseph Maeser GmbH, Dornbirn, Austria;
had not been disclosed. They argued that, in those
circumstances, parties were precluded from commenting
— IKEA Supply AG, Pratteln, Switzerland
on standing, material injury, whether producers could be
excluded from the Union industry according to
(d) Exporting producer in the analogue country
Article 4(1)(a) of the basic Regulation and/or the repre
sentativity of the sample. However, it is noted that the
(21) The
cooperating
Brazilian
producer
requested
that
its
Commission ensured that these issues could be verified
identity should remain confidential as its disclosure
and dealt with in the files available for inspection by
could result in significant adverse effects on its
interested parties, such as correspondence to interested
business. The request was deemed warranted and hence
parties, via notes on standing and the sample selection
accepted.
and via requiring properly documented submissions from
other parties. The claim was therefore rejected.
3. Investigation period
(b) Exporting producers in the PRC
(22) The
investigation
of
dumping
and
injury
covered
the
period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011
— Hunan Hualian China Industry Co, Ltd, Hunan
(‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of the
Hualian Ebillion Industry Co., Ltd, Hunan Liling
trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the
Hongguanyao China Industry Co., Ltd and Hunan
period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the investi
Hualian Yuxiang China Industry Co., Ltd (Hunan
gation period (the period considered).
Hualian)
(23) The
complainants
claimed
that
the
period
for
assessment
— Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co.,
of injury should be extended by one year and start in
Ltd and Guangxi Sanhuan Lucky Xinda Export &
2007 whereas CCCLA claimed that it should be
Import Co., Ltd (Guangxi Sanhuan)
shortened by one year and start only in 2009. As
concerns the first claim, it was not granted given that
— CHL International Ltd and CHL Porcelain
nothing on file substantiated that a period considered of
Industries Ltd (CHL)
five years would reflect trends better, as suggested by the
complainants. As to the second claim, CCCLA referred in
— Shandong Zibo Niceton-Marck Huaguang
general terms to WTO case law which would have estab
Ceramics Limited, Shandong Silver Phoenix
lished that WTO members cannot select a baseline that
Company Limited and a related trader based in
results in a mere endpoint-to-endpoint comparison and
Hong Kong, Niceton International Limited
that if a change in the baseline year can easily reverse a
(Niceton)
finding of injury, the WTO member might have difficulty
establishing the existence of material injury. However, the
investigation showed that reducing the period considered
— Guangxi Province Beiliu City Laotian Ceramics
in this case would result in an unnecessarily short
Co., Ltd
analysis period which moreover, in view of the impact
of the economic crisis on certain indicators, could have
— Fujian Dehua Hiap Huat Koyo Toki Co., Ltd
offered a biased picture of injury trends. Thus, both
claims were provisionally rejected.
— Shenzhen Baosanhe Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
— Chaozhou Fairway Ceramics Manufacturing Co.,
1. Product concerned
Ltd

(24) The product concerned is ceramic tableware and
— Chaozhou Mingyu Porcelain Industries Co., Ltd
kitchenware currently falling within CN codes

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/31
6911 10 00,
ex 6912 00 10,
ex 6912 00 30,
1.1.2. C e r a m i c ( k i t c h e n ) k n i v e s
ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912 00 90 and originating in
the People’s Republic of China (the product concerned).
(29) Two
exporting
producers,
CCCLA
and
various
importers
It can be of porcelain or china, of common pottery,
claimed that ceramic (kitchen) knives should be excluded
stoneware, earthenware or fine pottery or other materials.
from the product scope. This claim is based on the alle
The main raw materials include minerals such as kaolin,
gation that, in view of their specificities, such knives and
feldspar and quartz and the composition of raw materials
other types of ceramic tableware and kitchenware could
used determines the type of the final ceramic product
not be considered as forming one single product.
produced.
Ceramic (kitchen) knives usually have a ceramic
material made of zirconium oxide for the blade which
is not used for ‘standard’ tableware such as cups and
plates. Their degree of interchangeability with the main
(25) Ceramic
tableware
and
kitchenware
items
are
commer
categories of the product under investigation would be
cialised in a large variety of forms that have been
limited.
evolving over time. They are used in a wide range of
places, e.g. households, hotels, restaurants or care estab
lishments.
(30) The
investigation
revealed
that
ceramic
(kitchen)
knives
have the same physical characteristics (shape and hard
ness), industry design and end-use (slicing) as metal
1.1. Claims for exclusion
(kitchen) knives. Consequently, they are different from
the other products covered by the proceeding because
(26) During
the
investigation,
several
claims
for
exclusion
of
the latter are mainly items aimed at retaining foodstuff
specific products from the product scope were submitted
due to their specific design and physical characteristics.
and analysed. The analysis of these claims is summarized
hereunder.
(31) Moreover, it was claimed that the technology to produce
those ceramic (kitchen) knives would be inexistent in the
1.1.1. ( F i n e ) b o n e c h i n a
Union, so continuing the investigation with respect to
(27) In
its
representations
CCCLA
claimed
that
(fine)
bone
ceramic (kitchen) knives would infringe Union and
china should be excluded from the product scope of
WTO law. The complainants acknowledged that, to
the investigation. Allegedly, (fine) bone china is funda
their knowledge, there was no such production in the
mentally different from other kinds of table and
Union.
kitchenware due to differences in physical characteristics,
production processes, end-uses and consumer perception.
Made of bull bone powder, its high levels of whiteness
and translucency would be noticeable. With a very high
(32) It
was
also
added
that
ceramic
(kitchen)
knives
are
sold
mechanical strength and chip resistance, it would be
only in exclusive locations, while distribution channels
produced in much thinner cross-sections and via a
(kitchen tools distributors) and the representative
more sophisticated and costly production not typically
association (cutlery association) would also differ.
used by Union producers. Also, only few Union
However, the investigation could not confirm that these
producers would be manufacturing (fine) bone china.
issues would be tantamount to a different consumer
perception as compared to other types of ceramic
tableware and kitchenware.
(28) With
regard
to
these
claims,
the
investigation
revealed
firstly that there is no universally accepted definition of
bone china. (Fine) bone china is just one form of soft-
(33) It
was
further
alleged
that
measures
on
ceramic
knives
paste porcelain, a big share of the raw materials being the
would not restore fair market conditions for tableware
same as for other ceramic items. In its submissions
but rather harm end consumers (of ceramic (kitchen)
CCCLA contradicted itself as to the combination and
knives). Some parties stated that, ceramic (kitchen)
share of the different ingredients. Secondly, the investi
knives not being produced in the Union, it was not
gation could not confirm that (fine) bone china required
possible that there was material injury to the Union
a much more sophisticated production process. Thirdly,
industry in this respect. The Commission subordinated
the use of (fine) bone china as tableware is identical
the analysis of these claims to a conclusion on whether
everywhere, be it in China or in the Union. Also,
ceramic (kitchen) knives and other types of ceramic
hardness and robustness are not specific to (fine) bone
tableware and kitchenware are considered as forming
china. For instance, also ceramic tableware for restaurants
one single product.
or catering is specially hard and robust. Last but not
least, (fine) bone china is manufactured by a number
of Union producers and it is in competition with
imports of (fine) bone china originating in China. The
(34) On the basis of the considerations in recital (30) above,
claims for the exclusion of (fine) bone china from the
the investigation provisionally concluded that ceramic
product scope of the investigation are therefore
(kitchen) knives are fundamentally different from other
provisionally rejected.
kinds of ceramic table and kitchenware due to differences

---

L 318/32
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
in physical characteristics, production processes and end-
hand-made porcelain from the product scope of the
uses. Therefore, the claim to exclude them from the
investigation. It invoked the long history of such
product scope of this investigation is provisionally
handicraft in China, its affordability and the different
accepted.
consumer perception between Chinese handmade items
versus non-handmade items produced in the Union.
1.1.3. C h i n e s e / O r i e n t a l - l o o k i n g i t e m s
(35) Two importers claimed that Chinese/Oriental-looking
(41) However, the investigation showed that, on the one
tableware and kitchenware should be excluded from the
hand, there is no universally accepted/objective definition
product scope. The main reason alleged was that this
of this category and that, on the other hand, several
kind of items would not be produced in the Union,
Union producers do manufacture hand-made porcelain.
that in the Union the demand for these goods had
The investigation showed neither fundamentally different
always been supplied by imports and that imports of
physical characteristics from other kinds of ceramic
this type would not have any negative impact on any
tableware and kitchenware nor a different consumer
market share held by the Union industry.
perception as compared to hand-made porcelain
produced in the Union. The claim for the exclusion of
hand-made porcelain from the product scope of the
(36) The
investigation established that there is neither a
investigation is therefore provisionally rejected.
universally accepted and objective definition of this
category nor specific features to identify it. Moreover,
Union producers can manufacture this style as well. In
1.1.6. H a n d - p a i n t e d t a b l e w a r e
addition, Chinese/Oriental-looking tableware and
kitchenware do not have a unique or different end use.
(42) Various
importers
made
representations
for
excluding
Last but not least, the investigation pinpointed that in
hand-painted tableware from the product scope of the
many Asian restaurants western styled tableware is used
investigation. The arguments put forward concerned the
and that the products in question can easily be substi
fact that hand-painted tableware is targeted at a certain
tuted. The claims for the exclusion of Chinese/Oriental-
kind of consumers, that it may be used for different
looking items from the product scope of the investi
purposes than traditional tableware (e.g. decoration),
gation are therefore provisionally rejected.
that it is not produced in commercial quantities in the
Union, that it is neither directly competitive nor inter
changeable with other kitchen/tableware, the different
1.1.4. D u r a b l e p o r c e l a i n
perception by consumers, its luxury and more fragile
(37) On
the
one
hand,
it
was
claimed
that
durable
porcelain
nature, along with its specific production process, more
should be excluded from the product scope because of its
labour intensive and involving highly skilled workers.
unique physical characteristics and production process.
With higher endurance and strength, durable porcelain
raw materials would include 6-10 % of alumina powder,
(43) The investigation showed that the product is absolutely
while the preparation process of raw materials (kaolin)
identical to non-hand-painted tableware until the hand-
would be unique. Durable porcelain would require skilful
painting takes place. It also made clear that the fact that
workers and enjoy higher quality and price as compared
the manufacturing process involves more manual
to traditional tableware. Moreover, there would be no
handling does not render the product a different one;
Union producers of it.
indeed, for most end-users hand-painted porcelain is
difficult to distinguish, if at all, from non-hand painted
porcelain. The investigation further showed that hand-
(38) On
the
other
hand,
an
importer
submitted
that
durable
painted tableware has normally the same end-use as
tableware, typically used as hotelware, accounts for a
other types of ceramic tableware and that it is not
substantial share of overall Chinese ceramic production,
necessarily more fragile. It was also found that several
so its disregard would produce misleading results for the
Union producers do manufacture hand-painted porcelain
investigation.
and that Union-made and imported products are in direct
competition. The claims for the exclusion of hand-
painted tableware from the product scope of the inves
(39) The
investigation
found
that
there
is
neither
a
universally
tigation are therefore provisionally rejected.
accepted and objective definition of durable porcelain nor
uncontested features to identify it. Moreover, Union
producers can manufacture this type of tableware as
well and both Union-made and Chinese products are in
1.1.7. U n d e r g l a z e f i g u r a t i v e h a n d - p a i n t e d
direct competition. In addition, durable porcelain does
t a b l e w a r e
not have a unique or different end use. The claims for
the exclusion of durable porcelain from the product
(44) An importer made representations for excluding
scope of the investigation are therefore provisionally
underglaze figurative hand-painted tableware from the
rejected.
product scope of the investigation. The arguments put
forward concerned the fact that underglaze hand-painted
tableware entails a different production process, a
1.1.5. H a n d - m a d e p o r c e l a i n
different use (used for food and drink, whereas, allegedly,
on-glaze painted products normally cannot) and different
(40) A Swedish association
representing relevant Swedish
quality and physical characteristics, namely food-safe and
importers made representations in favour of excluding
100 % dishwasher and microwave proof. The party also

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/33
said that no Union producer is capable and willing to do
kitchenware, should be excluded from the product scope.
commercial volumes of underglaze figurative hand-
According to this party there would only be a marginal
painted tableware and suggested that there is no circum
production of stoneware products in the Union and a
vention risk, should underglaze figurative hand-painted
strong likelihood that complainants included stoneware
tableware be excluded from the product scope of the
products to pre-empt circumvention. The importer
investigation. It also argued that consumer perceive it
alleged also that the prices it charged on imported
in a different way, given that, rather than as part of a
products were much higher than those charged by any
brand, it is seen as collector/lifestyle item and not sold in
other producer in the Union and that these imports did
complete sets.
not cause any price depression or injury.
(45) Yet, the investigation showed that, on the one hand,
there is no universally accepted/objective definition of
this category and that, on the other hand, several
(49) Yet, the investigation has shown that the Union
production of stoneware is significant. It is also
Union producers can manufacture it. In addition, it was
concluded that Union-manufactured and Chinese
noted that Union-made and imported products are in
imported stoneware products are in direct competition,
direct competition. The investigation disclosed that the
can be easily substituted and share the same end use,
product is physically absolutely identical to non-hand-
similar production processes and customer perception
painted tableware and that the average consumer does
and physical characteristics. Price-related allegations are
not make a difference between underglaze figurative
dealt with in recital (240). The claim for the exclusion
hand-painted tableware and other types of decorated
of stoneware from the product scope of the investigation
tableware. It also made clear that the fact that the manu
is therefore provisionally rejected.
facturing process involves more skilled labour does not

render the product a different one and that underglaze
hand-painted tableware has basically the same end-use as
other types of ceramic tableware. The claims for the
exclusion of underglaze hand-painted tableware from
(50) Alternatively,
the
party
claimed
that
stoneware
glazed
the product scope of the investigation are therefore
and/or enamelled products or non-white and/or graded
provisionally rejected.
stoneware glazed and/or enamelled products should be
excluded from the scope of the investigation. However a
conclusion on this point could not be reached at this
1.1.8. N o n - E U p r o d u c e d t a b l e w a r e i t e m s
stage of the proceeding.
(46) Some
importers’
representations
claim
that
the
investi
gation should be limited to markets currently being
served by complaining Union producers. Otherwise
duties would harm certain ‘specialised’ importers
1.1.10. O t h e r c l a i m s
without them being able to source from Union
(51) An importer claimed that the product scope of the inves
producers. It was also submitted that Union producers
tigation was too wide to allow for a reasonable
with brands do not produce for other companies and
comparison amongst product types. An importer with
that Union producers do neither serve small orders nor
producing interests in China expressed a similar view.
work with castings as required for certain shapes. Also,
In this respect, some parties also referred to purely
Union producers would not be flexible and would not
decorative items.
offer gift presentations.
(47) This
claim
is
provisionally
rejected
as
it
is
too
wide
and
undefined and there is no objective basis for such
(52) In this respect, it is noted that the relevant criteria
exclusion. Moreover, Union producers have a wide
applied in order to determine whether or not the
range of products and do regularly offer new products,
product, subject of an investigation, can be considered
thus collections and products ranges vary continuously.
a single product, i.e. its basic physical and technical char
The types of products and qualities produced by the
acteristics, are set out in detail below. Purely decorative
Union industry are regularly also found with exporters.
items are thus not covered. Furthermore, even though the
In addition, the investigation unveiled that there are
various types of ceramic tableware and kitchenware may
Union producers that manufacture items under other
indeed have certain different specific characteristics, the
parties’ brands. It has also been found that Union-manu
investigation showed that, with the exception of ceramic
factured and Chinese imported products are in direct
knives, their basic characteristics remain identical. In
competition, can be easily substituted and share the
addition, the fact that the product concerned can be
same end use, similar production processes and
produced with some variations in the manufacturing
customer perception. The question of flexibility is
process is not in itself a criterion which could result in
addressed in the Union interest section.
a finding of two or more distinct products. Finally, the
investigation also revealed that the various types of the
product concerned were generally sold via the same sales
1.1.9. S t o n e w a r e
channels. While some specialised shops may focus on
certain specific types, a big share of the distributors
(48) An
importer
with
production
in
China
claimed
that
(retailers, department stores, supermarkets) sell various
imports of stoneware products, mainly consisting of
types of ceramic tableware and kitchenware, in order to

---

L 318/34
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
offer a wide choice range to their customers. Claims that
2.1. Claims
the product scope of the investigation was too wide are
therefore provisionally rejected.
(59) During
the
investigation,
certain
interested
parties
argued
that ceramic tableware and kitchenware produced by the
Union industry and sold on the Union market was not
similar to the product concerned. They claimed that this
(53) A
party
claimed
that
certain
ceramic
spice
mill
should
be
is evidenced in particular by differences between products
excluded from the product scope. However, the investi
in terms of properties, quality, consumer perceptions,
gation could not come to a conclusion on their specifi
channels of sales and segmentation. It was further
cities, thus the claim was provisionally rejected.
claimed that the consumers in the Union usually
perceive the product concerned as being a cheaper
product and that those products do not benefit from
any brand premium.
1.2. Conclusion on product concerned
(54) The
investigation
has
shown
that
all
types
of
ceramic
tableware and kitchenware, despite the differences in
terms of properties and style, have the same basic
(60) The
investigation
revealed
contradictory
statements
by
physical and technical characteristics, i.e. ceramic ware
importers in that respect. While some claimed that the
primarily aimed at being in contact with food, they are
product concerned is usually of inferior quality and
basically used for the same purposes, and can be
remains in a different price category compared to
regarded as different types of the same product.
Union made products, others claimed that brand
ceramic tableware and kitchenware manufactured in the
country concerned is imported at higher prices from
China.
(55) In
addition
to
the
fact
that
they
share
the
same
basic
physical and technical characteristics, all those various
styles and types are in direct competition and to a very
large extent interchangeable. This is clearly illustrated by
the fact that there are no clear dividing lines between
(61) On the one hand one non-sampled importer submitted
them, i.e. there is quite some overlapping and
that German producers place particular emphasis to the
competition between different product types and
quality profile ‘made in Germany’. The party stated that
standard buyers do not often make a distinction for
the quality of the flat tableware supplied by certain
instance between porcelain versus non-porcelain goods.
German brands is considerably better because of the

manufacturing method, while other importers stated
that they sourced from China because of the good
qualities, casting capabilities and the skilled workers.
(56) However,
as
explained
in
recitals
(29)-(34)
above,
it
was
The investigation confirmed that in the Union both
also deemed appropriate to narrow down the product
low and high quality ceramic tableware and kitchenware
scope definition on the basis of which the current inves
are manufactured and sold via the same distribution
tigation has been initiated by excluding ceramic knives.
channels as the product concerned, i.e. via independent
Therefore, the product concerned is provisionally defined
retailers, non-specialised supermarkets, department stores,
as ceramic tableware and kitchenware, excluding ceramic
etc. Therefore, they compete at the same market.
knives, originating in the People’s Republic of China,
currently falling within CN codes ex
6911
10
00,
ex 6912 00 10, ex 6912 00 30, ex 6912 00 50 and
ex 6912 00 90.
(62) In addition, ceramic tableware and kitchenware does not
necessarily indicate its country of origin. It is therefore
often very difficult for the consumer to make the
distinction between ceramic tableware and kitchenware
(57) In conclusion, for the purposes of this proceeding and in
manufactured in the country concerned and Union-
accordance with consistent Union practice, it is therefore
made products.
considered that all types of the product described above,
with the exception of ceramic knives, should be regarded
as forming one single product.
2.2. Conclusion
2. Like product
(63) For
those
reasons,
it
is
concluded
that,
while
there
may
be some minor differences, ceramic tableware and
(58) The
investigation
has
shown
that
ceramic
tableware
and
kitchenware produced in and exported from the
kitchenware produced and sold by the Union industry in
country concerned, ceramic tableware and kitchenware
the Union, ceramic tableware produced and sold on the
produced in and sold on the Brazilian market and
domestic market of the PRC and ceramic tableware and
ceramic tableware and kitchenware produced in and
kitchenware imported into the Union from the PRC, as
sold in the Union share the same basic physical char
well as that produced and sold in Brazil, which serves as
acteristics and end uses and are therefore considered to
an analogue country, have the same basic physical and
be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic
chemical characteristics and the same basic end uses.
Regulation.

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/35
C. DUMPING
judgment it was decided to examine not only the MET
claims of the three exporting producers or groups of
1. Market Economy Treatment (MET)
exporting producers that are included in the sample
but also the seven exporting producers or groups of
(64) Pursuant
to
Article
2(7)(b)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
in
exporting producers, which were not included in the
antidumping investigations concerning imports orig
sample. The Commission sought all information
inating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined
deemed necessary and verified information submitted in
in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said
the MET claim at the premises of the companies in
Article for those producers which were found to meet
question.
the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic
Regulation. Briefly and for ease of reference only, these
criteria are set out in summarised form below:
(67) It is the Union’s established and consistent practice to
examine whether a group of related companies as a
whole fulfils the conditions for MET. Therefore, in
— Business decisions are made in response to market
cases where a subsidiary or any other company related
signals, without significant State interference, and
to the applicant in the PRC is involved, directly or indi
costs reflect market values,
rectly, in the production or sales of the product
concerned, the MET examination is carried out in
respect of each company individually as well as to the
— Firms have one clear set of basic accounting records,
group of companies as a whole.
which are independently audited in line with inter
national accounting standards and are applied for all
purposes,
(68) Accordingly,
the
MET
claims
of
ten
exporting
producers,
comprised of sixteen legal entities, were verified.
— There are no significant distortions carried over from
the former non-market economy system,
(69) None
of
the
ten
cooperating
exporting
producers
or
groups of exporting producers in the PRC was found
to meet the criteria to be granted MET. The MET inves
tigation revealed, in particular, that none of the exporting
— Bankruptcy and Property laws guarantee stability and
producers, either individually or as a group, have a clear
legal certainty, and
set of basic accounting records, which are independently
audited in line with international accounting standards.
The investigation also established that seven companies,
or group of companies, could not demonstrate to the
— Exchange rate conversions are carried out at market
Commission that there were no significant distortions
rates.
carried over from the former non-market economy
system. In addition, three of the ten companies failed
to demonstrate that business decisions were made in
(65) As set out in recital 12 above, eleven exporting
response to market signals, without State interference
producers or groups of exporting producers from the
and that costs reflect market values.
PRC requested market economy treatment (MET) and
replied to the MET claim form within the given
deadline. One exporting producer, however, subsequently
(70) Moreover, during the verification visit of one of the
withdrew its claim for MET.
above companies it was established that it had
provided misleading and deficient information in its
MET claim form, particularly in relation to a related
company. Its overall cooperation was severely deficient
(66) In
its
judgment
in
case
C-249/10
P
– Brosmann and others
and the company was therefore informed that
v. Council, the Court of Justice ruled that the sampling
article 18(1) of the basic Regulation may be applied
technique laid down in Article 17 of the basic Regulation
and was asked to submit its comments. The comments
may not be applied for the purpose of determining
received confirmed the lack of cooperation, particularly
claims of individual market economy treatment made
with regard to the related company. It is therefore
under Article 2(7)(c) of that Regulation. The Court
provisionally decided that it can no longer be deemed
found that under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation
a cooperating exporting producer and that any
cooperating producers, which are not part of the sample,
provisional or final findings would be made on facts
are entitled to have their claims for market economy
available pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
treatment examined, regardless of whether an individual
dumping margin was to be calculated for those
companies outside the sample ( 1 ). In view of this
(71) The
Commission
officially
disclosed
the
results
of
the
MET findings to the companies concerned in the PRC,
( 1 ) See also Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and
the authorities of the PRC and the complainant. They
of the Council Amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
were given an opportunity to make their views known
on protection against dumped imports from countries not members
of the European Community; Brussels, 8.6.2012 COM(2012) 270
in writing and to request a hearing if there were
Final, 2012/0145(Cod).
particular reasons to be heard.

---

L 318/36
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
(72) Several
companies argued that the Commission had
(77) It follows from the foregoing that none of the arguments
failed to reply to their MET claim within three months,
brought forward were such as to alter the findings with
as required by Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
regard to the MET determination.
Therefore, the investigation would be vitiated by a
procedural error and the Commission should, in
accordance with the Brosmann judgment ( 1 ), terminate
(78) On the basis of the above, neither of the ten cooperating
the investigation.
exporting producers or groups of exporting producers in
the PRC that had requested MET could show that they
fulfilled the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic
(73) The
Commission
acknowledges
that
due
to
the
large
Regulation.
number of MET claims examined and verified on spot
in China, in this particular case, it was not possible to
make a determination on the MET claims within the
2. Individual Treatment (IT)
stipulated period. However, it is recalled that the
General Court has recently held that a MET deter
(79) Pursuant
to
Article
2(7)(a)
of
the
basic
Regulation
a
mination made outside the three month deadline laid
country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries
down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation is not
falling under that Article, except in those cases where
in itself sufficient to lead to an annulment of a regulation
companies are able to demonstrate that they meet the
imposing anti-dumping measures
( 2 ). The claim is
criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
therefore rejected.
Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are
set out below:
(74) Moreover, six companies contest the Commission’s
assessment that they do not have a clear set of
— In the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms
accounting records, which are independently audited in
or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate
line with international accounting standards. The
capital and profits,
Commission carefully examined these claims and found
that the explanations provided were not such as to rebut
the overall findings made following the on the spot
— Export prices and quantities, and conditions and
verifications. More particularly, in some cases the new
terms of sale are freely determined,
information provided contradicted the information
previously given whereas in some other cases the
companies submitted new supporting evidence that had
not been provided or made available during the on the
— The majority of the shares belong to private persons.
spot verifications
State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or
holding key management positions shall either be in
minority or it must be demonstrated that the
(75) Five
companies
also
contest
the
Commission’s
findings
company is nonetheless sufficiently independent
that they failed to demonstrate that no significant
from State interference,
distortions were carried over from the former non-
market economy system. The comments received are
however not of such character that they could alter the
— Exchange rate conversions are carried out at the
Commission’s findings following the verification visits. In
market rate, and
particular, the companies did not provide any evidence
that were liable to dispel the Commission’s original
findings that distortions have been carried over from
— State interference is not such as to permit circum
the non-market economy system in respect of, e.g.
vention of measures if individual exporters are given
assets and land-use rights.
different rates of duty.
(76) Finally,
two
companies
contest
the
findings
that
they
(80) Three
exporting
producers,
which
were
included
in
the
failed to demonstrate that business decisions were
sample and seven exporting producers that were not
made in response to market signals, without State inter
included in the sample and which requested MET, also
ference and that costs reflect market values. In particular,
claimed IT in the event it would not be granted MET. In
the comments received from one company were not
addition, two exporting producers in the sample and four
such as to rebut the Commission’s finding that the
exporting producers not selected in the sample requested
State interfered in its recruitment policy whereas the
IT only. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic
other company provided new and contradictory
Regulation, only the IT claims of the sampled companies
information regarding raw material purchases.
were examined.
( 1 ) Court of Justice judgment of 2 February 2012 in case C-249/10 P,
Brosmann Footwear HK and others v. Council.
(81) Given the fact that all MET claims have been
( 2 ) General Court judgment of 18 September 2012 in case T-156/11,
provisionally rejected and based on the information
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd v.Council, paragraph 167 (not yet
available, it has provisionally been established that all
published) and General Court judgment of 10 October 2012 in case
T-170/09; Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd v. Council,
sampled companies that have requested IT met the
paragraph 53 (not yet published).
criteria for being granted IT.

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/37
3. Individual Examination (IE)
4.2. Determination of normal value
(82) Claims for individual examination pursuant to
(89) In
view
of
the
fact
that
all
requests
for
MET
were
denied,
Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation were submitted by
normal value for all Chinese exporting producers was
seven cooperating exporting producers or groups of
established on the basis of information received from
exporting producers not selected in in the sample.
the producer in the analogue country, pursuant to
Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(83) At this stage of the proceedings the Commission has not
taken any decisions in respect of the requests for indi
(90) In
accordance
with
Article
2(2)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
vidual examination, which will be taken in due course.
the Commission first examined whether the sales of the
like product in Brazil to independent customers were
representative. The sales of the Brazilian cooperating
4. Normal value
producer of the like product were found to be sold in
representative quantities on the Brazilian domestic
4.1. Choice of the analogue country
market compared to the product concerned exported to
the Union by the exporting producers included in the
(84) According
to
Article
2(7)(a)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
normal value for exporting producers not granted MET
sample.
has to be established on the basis of the domestic prices
or constructed normal value in an analogue country.
(91) The
Commission
subsequently
examined
whether
these
sales could be considered as having been made in the
(85) In the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its
ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the
intention to use the Russian Federation as an appropriate
basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the
analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal
proportion of profitable sales to independent customers.
value and interested parties were invited to comment on
The sales transactions were considered profitable where
this.
the unit price was equal or above the cost of production.
The cost of production of the Brazilian producer during
the IP was therefore determined.
(86) The
Commission
received
numerous
submissions
stating
that Russia was not an appropriate analogue country. In
particular, the information received indicated that Russia
(92) For
those
product
types
where
more
than
80
% by
is a premium porcelain market specialised in ornamental
volume of sales on the domestic market of the type in
porcelain with expensive materials while the domestic
question were above cost and the weighted average sales
production of the product concerned is relatively small
price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of
compared to domestic consumption. In addition, the
production, normal value, by product type, was
Russian market is protected by non-tariff barriers, e.g.
calculated as the weighted average of the actual
the GHOST certification systems. It was therefore
domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irre
considered that Russia is not an appropriate analogue
spective of whether those sales were profitable or not.
country.
(93) Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type
(87) Accordingly,
the
Commission
examined
whether
other
represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that
countries could be a reasonable choice of analogue
type, or where the weighted average price of that type
country and sent letters to known producers in several
was below the unit cost of production, normal value was
countries including Thailand, India, Malaysia, Turkey,
based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated
Brazil, Ukraine, Indonesia, Egypt, Colombia, South
as a weighted average price of only the profitable
Korea, Bangladesh and Argentina following which
domestic sales of that type made during the IP.
producers from India, Turkey, Brazil and Russia
confirmed their willingness to cooperate with the
Commission. However, only three producers from
(94) As
regards
the
types
of
product
that
were
not
profitable,
Brazil, Thailand and Russia respectively submitted a ques
normal value was constructed using the cost of manu
tionnaire reply. The investigation demonstrated that
facturing of the Brazilian producer plus SG&A and profit
Brazil has a competitive domestic market for ceramic
for the product types of the Brazilian producer that are
tableware and kitchenware with numerous producers
profitable.
and a relatively low customs duty. In addition, the data
submitted by the cooperating Brazilian producer were
analysed and found to be reliable information on
5. Export prices for the exporting producers granted
which a normal value could be based.
IT
(95) As
all
cooperating
exporting
producers
granted
IT
made
(88) In view of the above and considering all information
export sales to the Union directly to independent
available at this stage of the proceedings, Brazil has
customers in the Union, the export prices were based
provisionally been chosen as an appropriate and
on the prices actually paid or payable for the product
reasonable analogue country in accordance with
concerned, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic
Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.
Regulation.

---

L 318/38
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
6. Comparison
market whereas the Chinese exporting producers do not
sell branded products but rather — so called - ‘private
(96) The
normal
value
and
export
price
were
compared
on
an
label’ products or generic ceramic tableware and
ex-works basis. The dumping margins were established
kitchenware. Branded products are normally perceived
by comparing the individual ex-works prices of the
by customers to be products signifying a certain
sampled exporters to the domestic sales prices of the
prestige, assured quality and design thus commanding
analogue producer or to the constructed normal value
higher market prices whereas generic (private label)
as appropriate.
products, whilst having the same physical and technical
characteristics, are usually sold at considerably lower
price levels. While the additional value of a branded
(97) For
the
purpose
of
ensuring
a
fair
comparison
between
product cannot generally be exactly quantified as it
the normal value and the export price, due allowance in
depends on many different factors, such as customer
the form of adjustments was made for differences
perception, brand recognition and other non-quantifiable
affecting prices and price comparability in accordance
factors, the Brazilian producer has, in this particular case,
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments
confirmed that its ceramic branded products can be sold
were made, where appropriate, in respect of level of
at significantly higher prices on the Brazilian market than
trade, differences in physical characteristics and for
other non-branded (generic) products. Accordingly, a
other factors affecting price comparability, notably
further adjustment was made to the normal value
‘branding’.
pursuant to Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation.
(98) First,
it
was
examined
whether
a
level
of
trade
adjustment
under Article 2(10)(d) of the basic Regulation was
warranted. In this respect it was found that the Chinese
(101) Further adjustments were made, where appropriate, in
exports were essentially made at wholesale level whereas
respect of transport, insurance, handling and ancillary
the sales in the analogue country were also made at retail
costs, packing, credit, bank charges and commissions in
level. The investigation further established that on both
all cases where they were found to be reasonable,
markets the different distribution chains affected the
accurate and supported by evidence.
price level thus affecting fair price comparability
between export price and normal value. Furthermore,
the investigation also demonstrated that the majority of
Chinese export sales were made in large quantities while
the majority of domestic sales in the analogue country
7. Dumping margins
were made in smaller quantities resulting in price
differences on the same level of trade on the two
(102) Pursuant to Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regu
relevant markets. Accordingly, in order to make a fair
lation, the dumping margins for the exporting producers
comparison between the export price and the normal
granted IT were established on the basis of a comparison
value, the normal value was adjusted on the basis of
of a weighted average normal value established for the
the price differences within the same level of trade in
analogue country, as adjusted with each company’s
the analogue country and, where appropriate, on the
weighted average export price, as adjusted, expressed as
price differences found in respect of the quantities sold
a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.
at each level of trade.
(99) Second,
it
was
examined
whether
an
adjustment
under
(103) A weighted average of the sampled exporting producers’
Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation for differences in
dumping margins was calculated for the cooperating
physical characteristics was warranted. In this regard the
exporting producers not selected in the sample. On this
investigation established that Chinese exporting
basis the provisional dumping margin for the non-
producers qualify their products in up to five different
sampled exporting producers, expressed as a percentage
grades ranging from A to E with significant price differ
of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid is 26,6 %.
ences. The vast majority of export to the Union consists,
however, of A-grade, B-grade or C-grade or a
combination thereof. This grading is however not
universal or based on any general industry wide
standards but is rather company specific and allows for
(104) In order to calculate the country-wide dumping margin
price differentiation. On the other hand, the analogue
applicable to the non-cooperating or unknown exporting
country producer only sell the equivalent of grade A
producers in the PRC, the level of cooperation was first
on the domestic Brazilian market and price comparability
established by comparing the volume of exports to the
was therefore found to be affected. Accordingly, the
Union reported by the cooperating exporting producers
export price was adjusted upwards to Chinese A-grade
with the equivalent Eurostat statistics.
level in order to be comparable with the product sold by
the analogue producer on the Brazilian market.
(100) Third, the investigation established that the Brazilian
(105) In this investigation, cooperation from the PRC was
producer only sells branded products on the Brazilian
considered high for a fragmented industry since the

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/39
exporting producers that came forward represent over
On this basis the country-wide level of dumping was
60 % of total exports from the PRC to the Union of
provisionally established at 58,8 % of the CIF Union
the product concerned. Therefore, the country-wide
frontier price, duty unpaid.
margin applicable to all other exporting producers was
established by using the weighted average of the highest
(106) On this basis, the provisional dumping margins
dumping margins established for representative product
expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier
types and volume of the sampled exporting producers.
price, duty unpaid, are:
Company Provisional
dumping
margin
Hunan Hualian China Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Hualian Ebillion Industry Co., Ltd;
26,8 %
Hunan Liling Hongguanyao China Industry Co., Ltd and Hunan Hualian Yuxiang
China Industry Co., Ltd
Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co., Ltd 31,2
%
CHL Porcelain Industries Ltd 30,0
%
Shandong Zibo Niceton-Marck Huaguang Ceramics Limited; Zibo Huatong Ceramics
17,6 %
Co., Ltd; Shandong Silver Phoenix Co., Ltd; Niceton Ceramics (Linyi) Co., Ltd and
Linyi Jingshi Ceramics Co., Ltd
Guangxi Province Beiliu City Laotian Ceramics Co., Ltd 23,0
%
Non-sampled cooperating exporting producers 26,6
%
Country-wide dumping margin 58,8
%
D. INJURY
(Poland), Portuguese Republic (Portugal), Romania,
Kingdom of Spain (Spain) and the United Kingdom of
1. Union production and Union industry
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom).
(107) All available information concerning Union producers,
including the data reported in the complaint and
2. Union consumption
subsequent submissions in respect of the producers that
did not come forward in this investigation was used to
(109) The Union consumption was established on the basis of
establish the total Union production. The total Union
Eurostat import statistics for the product under investi
production of the like product was estimated by extra
gation and submissions regarding Union industry sales
polating data provided by the European and national
on the Union market.
associations, cross-checked with data provided by indi
vidual producers and also with research and statistical
(110) On this basis, the Union consumption developed as
sources.
follows:
(108) During the IP, the like product was manufactured in the
Table 1
Union by more than 200 Union producers. On the basis
referred to in the previous recital, the total Union
Volume (tonnes) 2008 2009 2010 IP
production was estimated to be around 240
200
tonnes during the IP. The Union producers accounting
Union
826 896 687
609 750
830 726
614
for the total Union production constitute the Union
consumption
industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the
basic Regulation and will be thereafter referred to as
Index (2008 = 100) 100 83 91 88
the ‘Union industry’. The Union industry was divided
into two segments: SMEs and larger companies. SMEs
accounted for 42 % of the total Union production in
(111) The consumption of ceramic tableware and kitchenware
that period. Indeed, the Union production is highly frag
in the Union overall decreased during the period
mented, though concentrated in Czech Republic, French
considered by 12 %. The main decrease by 17 %
Republic (France), Germany, Italy, Republic of Poland
happened between 2008 and 2009.

---

L 318/40
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
(112) This overall decrease in consumption during the period
This is the average import price per tonne of all imports
considered has to be seen in conjunction with a recovery
of the product concerned and therefore, the trend could
situation following the 2009 economic crisis. There are
be affected by changes in the product mix.
good prospects for the market for ceramic tableware and
kitchenware. ( 1 )
3.2. Price undercutting
3. Imports from the country concerned
(116) For the purposes of price undercutting, the weighted
average sales prices of the sampled Union producers to
3.1. Volume, price and market share of dumped imports from
unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an
the country concerned
ex-works level, i.e. excluding freight costs in the Union
and after deduction of discounts and rebates, were
(113) Based on Eurostat data, the volume, market share and
compared to the corresponding weighted average prices
average prices of imports of the product concerned
of the cooperating exporters from the PRC to the first
developed as set out below:
independent customer on the Union market, i.e. net of
discounts and adjusted where necessary to CIF Union
Table 2
frontier price and also duly adjusted for existing
customs duties, customs clearance costs and post-
Imports from the
importation costs. Prices of lower-grades products were
PRC
2008 2009 2010 IP
adjusted to A-grade level prices as lower grade products
were, from a consumer perspective, found to be
Volume of imports 535 593 449
346 516
618 485
814
competing with A-grade products as also concluded in
(tonnes)
recital 61 above. Union industry prices were also
adjusted for differences in level of trade and to neutralize
the price element linked to branding, if applicable.
Index (2008 = 100) 100 84 96 91
Market share 64,8
% 65,3
% 68,8
% 66,9
%
(117) The comparison showed that during the IP the dumped
Average import 1 274 1
307 1
473 1
499
products concerned originating in the PRC sold in the
price (EUR/tonne)
Union undercut the Union industry’s sales prices, when
expressed as a percentage of the latter, by 26,3 % to
47,6 %.
Index (2008 = 100) 100 103 116 118
(114) The volume of total imports from China decreased by
4. Situation of the Union industry
9 % over the period considered and amounted to
485 814 tonnes during the IP. However, in percentage
4.1. General
terms, it should be noted that imports from China
decreased less than the overall EU consumption.
(118) Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the
Commission examined all relevant economic factors
Indeed, when analysed from the perspective of the
and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union
whole period considered, the market share of Chinese
industry.
imports increased from 64,8 % in 2008 to 66,9 % in

the IP.
(119) The macroeconomic indicators (production, production
(115) The import price increased by 17,7 % during the period
capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market
considered, from 1 274 EUR/tonne to 1 499 EUR/tonne.
share, employment, productivity and magnitude of
dumping margins) were assessed at the level of the
whole Union industry. The assessment was based on
( 1 ) The publicly available CBI market survey ‘The tableware, kitchenware
the information provided by European and national
and other household articles market in the EU, November 2009’
pointed at a number of trends (demographic, social, cultural,
associations, cross-checked with data provided by
fashion and technical) which would result in a continued strong
Union producers and available official statistics.
presence of ceramic products on the Union tableware and
kitchenware market which it expected to grow overall. The
reasons put forward by the survey range from the increasing
demand for more informal table and kitchenware, namely easy-to-
handle utility products, new products and new designs, to the
(120) The analysis of microeconomic indicators (stocks, sale
changing size of households. In the current investigation, a large
prices, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on
sampled importer, which is as well a retailer, also reported to
investments, ability to raise capital, wages and cost of
expect a healthy consumption in the future as it anticipated that
production) was carried out at the level of the sampled
people still want to eat from ceramic plates rather than from other
ones — and it therefore announced ambitious expansion plans in
Union producers. The assessment was based on their
this area.
information, duly verified.

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/41
(121) For some microeconomic indicators (sales price, profit
considered. It is noted that between 2009 and 2010 the
ability, return on investments and cost of production) the
sales volume continued to fall while Union consumption
results of the sampled companies in the specific segment
increased by 8 %.
have been weighted in accordance with the share of that
segment in the total Union production (using the specific
Table 4
weight in terms of production volumes of each segment
in the total ceramic tableware sector – 42 % for SMEs,
Volume (tonnes) 2008 2009 2010 IP
58 % for non-SMEs). As a consequence it has been
ensured that the results of large companies did not
distort the injury analysis but that the situation of the
Sales in the Union 190
332 156
798 152
609 152
095
smaller companies, collectively accounting for a large
share of the Union production, was properly reflected
Index (2008 = 100) 100 82 80 80
where possible.
4.2. Macroeconomic indicators
(126) The market share held by the Union industry decreased
by 9 % over the period considered, or by 2.1 percentage
4.2.1. P r o d u c t i o n ,
p r o d u c t i o n
c a p a c i t y
points.
a n d c a p a c i t y u t i l i s a t i o n
Table 5
(122) Over the period considered, the production, production
capacity and capacity utilisation of the Union industry
2008 2009 2010 IP
developed as set out below.
Market share in 23,0 % 22,8
% 20,3
% 20,9
%
the Union
Table 3
2008 2009 2010 IP
Index (2008 = 100) 100 99 88 91
Production volume 281 300 230
300 235
700 240
200
(tonnes)
4.2.3. E m p l o y m e n t a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y
Index (2008 = 100) 100 82 84 85
(127) The employment decreased throughout the period
considered and fell by 21 %. The trend follows the
Production
371 540 361
253 326
573 324
072
same pattern as the decline of sales volumes on the
capacity (tonnes)
Union market to unrelated customers.
Index (2008 = 100) 100 97 88 87
Table 6
Capacity utilisation 75,7
% 63,8
% 72,2
% 74,1
%
2008 2009 2010 IP
Index (2008 = 100) 100 84 95 98
Number of
31 559 26
146 24
993 25
093
employees
Index (2008 = 100) 100 83 79 79
(123) The production of the Union industry decreased by 15 %
over the period considered. In overall terms, the
reduction is more pronounced than the decrease of
(128) Productivity of the Union industry’s workforce, measured
Union consumption over the same period. Production
as output per person employed per year, increased by
did not pick up in the same way consumption did in
8 % over the period considered. This is partly due to
2010.
the efforts of the Union industry to respond to the
pressure derived from dumped imports from China.
(124) The Union’s industry production capacity decreased by
13 % over the period considered. In spite of this, the
Table 7
industry’s capacity utilisation rate further decreased
during the period considered, overall by 2 % to 74,1 %.
2008 2009 2010 IP
Productivity
8,9 8,8 9,4 9,6
4.2.2. S a l e s v o l u m e a n d m a r k e t s h a r e
(tonnes/employee)
(125) Sales of the Union industry on the Union market to
unrelated customers fell at a higher rate (8 % more)
Index (2008 = 100) 100 99 106 108
than the decrease in consumption during the period

---

L 318/42
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
4.2.4. M a g n i t u d e o f t h e d u m p i n g m a r g i n
4.3.2. S a l e s p r i c e s
(129) The dumping margins are specified above in the
(131) Sales prices of the Union industry on the Union market
dumping section. All margins established are significantly
decreased by 12 % during the period considered.
above the de minimis level. Furthermore, given the
volumes and the prices of dumped imports, the impact
of the actual margin of dumping cannot be considered
Table 9
negligible.
2008 2009 2010 IP
4.3. Microeconomic indicators
Average sale price 4 103 3
818 3
811 3
615
4.3.1. S t o c k s
in EU to unrelated
customers (EUR/
(130) The level of closing stocks of the Union industry
tonne)
decreased in absolute terms by 14 % over the period
considered. The investigation revealed that this is not a
Index (2008 = 100) 100 93 93 88
crucial indicator for this type of industry, which basically
works on orders.
Table 8
4.3.3. 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
m e n t s ,
r e t u r n
o n
i n v e s t m e n t ,
2008 2009 2010 IP
a b i l i t y t o r a i s e c a p i t a l , a n d w a g e s
Stocks (tonnes) 7
754 6
647 7
611 6
647
(132) Over the period considered, the profitability, cash flow,
return on investment (ROI), ability to raise capital,
Index (2008 = 100) 100 86 98 86
investments and wages of the Union industry
developed as follows:
Table 10
2008 2009 2010 IP
Net profit of Union sales to
4,2 % 2,2
% 0,1
% 3,5
%
unrelated customers (% of net sales
turnover)
Cash flow (EUR) 10
531
970 6
205
824 9
267
381 11
998
647
Index (2008 = 100) 100 59 88 114
Net investments (EUR) 13
686
363 9
423
983 10
805
215 9
690
923
Index (2008 = 100) 100 69 79 71
ROI (net profit in % of net book
19,2 % 14,8
% –
51,3
% 5,5
%
value of investments)
Index (2008 = 100) 100 77
– 267 29
Annual labour cost per employee 20
436 20
526 21
619 20
832
Index (2008 = 100) 100 100 106 102
(133) The profitability of the Union industry dropped by 0,7
reached a very significant market share after the elim
percentage points during the period considered. Profit
ination of the import quota for such imports as from
ability was at its lowest in 2010 when the magnitude
2005. This had caused a major restructuration of the
of the fall reached 4,1 percentage points between 2008
sector which was in its ending phase at the beginning
and 2010.
of the period considered.
(134) It should be highlighted that the Union industry was
already in a fragile state at the beginning of the period
(135) Therefore, in view of this development prior to the
considered, due to the huge volumes of low-priced
period considered, the profit achieved in the beginning
imports from China on the Union market which
of the period considered cannot be considered as a
increased strongly in 2002-2004 and which had
normal profit. In the absence of any submission in this

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/43
regard, it is considered that the normal profit level for
(141) Overall, not only did the profitability never reach a satis
another widely used and important consumer product
factory profit level for the sector, but it also deteriorated
which has been subject to an anti-dumping investigation,
over the period considered. The continuous decreases in
leather footwear, can instead provisionally serve as a
sales prices made by the Union industry entailed that at a
valid benchmark. That profit level is 6 % ( 1 ). It is thus
point the industry was almost unable to make any profit.
clear that overall the Union industry, throughout the
period considered, was never able to reach a profit
level which can be deemed acceptable for this product.
(142) Although the productivity of the Union industry
increased over the period considered, this is mainly due
to its significant efforts to compete against the highly
present dumped Chinese imports.
(136) Overall, the cash flow of the Union industry significantly

increased during the period considered. However this is
to be attributed to some bigger and well-established
companies – this was not the case of SMEs. The level
(143) Considering the above, it is provisionally concluded that
of net investments went down by 33 %. However, it
the Union industry suffered material injury within the
should be noted that by the end of the period considered
meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.
for SMEs the level of investments became almost
inexistent. Only two non-SMEs could afford making
some significant investments over the period considered.
The drop of the return on investment was higher than
E. CAUSATION
the shrinkage of profitability over the whole period
considered.
1. Introduction
(144) In accordance with Article 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic
Regulation it was examined whether the dumped
imports from China had caused injury to the Union
(137) Between 2008 and the IP, the average wage per
industry to a degree sufficient to be considered as
employee increased by 2 %. This labour cost increase is
material. Furthermore, known factors other than
significantly below the overall labour cost development
dumped imports, which might have injured the Union
in the Union during the period considered, which
industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused
suggests that the Union industry made efforts to keep
by those factors was not attributed to dumped imports.
labour wages as low as possible.
2. Effect of the dumped imports
4.3.4. C o s t o f p r o d u c t i o n
(145) The investigation showed that the Union consumption
(138) Over the period considered the cost of production fell by
decreased by 12 % over the period considered. At the
10 %.
same time while the volume of dumped imports from
China decreased by about 9 %, their market share
Table 11
increased. Moreover, sales volume of the Union
industry decreased by 20 % and market share dropped
2008 2009 2010 IP
from 23 % in 2008 to 20,9 % in the IP.
Cost of production
3 578 3
583 3
514 3
230
(EUR/tonne)
(146) In the period from 2009 up to the end of the IP, Union
Index (2008 = 100) 100 100 98 90
consumption increased while the Union industry market
share dropped, in contrast to an increase in dumped
imports from China which market share increased signifi
cantly in that period.
5. Conclusion on injury
(139) The investigation has shown that the injury indicators
such as production volume, capacity, sales to unrelated
(147) Prices of dumped imports from China increased in the
customers and employment deteriorated during the
period considered. Even if in the period considered the
period considered.
average import price from China increased by 18 %,
these prices consistently remained significantly lower
than sales prices of the Union industry and in particular
during the IP, thus keeping pressure on the prices in the
(140) In addition, the injury indicators related to the financial
Union market. Consequently, the shrinkage of sales
performance of the Union producers, such as profit
prices of the Union industry on the Union market and
ability, investments and return on investments
its profitability can be attributed to the price depression
developed negatively during the period considered.
caused onto the Union market by dumped imports from
China. The fall of the Union industry’s cost of production
( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006, as published in OJ L 275,
and employment level demonstrate the efforts it made to
6.10.2006, p. 36 (recital 292).
respond to such imports.

---

L 318/44
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
(148) Based on the above it is concluded that the presence of
Union market and its segmentation, the export
Chinese imports and the increase of the market share of
performance of the Union industry, the imports from
dumped imports from China at prices constantly under
other countries of the product under investigation, anti-
cutting those of the Union industry have had a deter
competitive practices on the Union market, differences in
mining role in the material injury suffered by the Union
production methods and the second-hand market. Other
industry, which is reflected in particular in its poor
factors were also analysed.
financial situation and in the deterioration of most of
the injury indicators.
3.1. Imports from third countries other than the country
concerned
3. Effect of other factors
(150) The volume of imports from other third countries during
(149) The other factors which were examined in the context of
the period considered is shown in the table below. The
the causality are: the development of demand on the
quantity and price trends are based on Eurostat data.
Table 12
2008 2009 2010 IP
Volume of imports from all other
100 971 81
464 81
602 88
706
third countries (tonnes)
Index (2008 = 100) 100 81 81 88
Market share 12,2
% 11,8
% 10,9
% 12,2
%
Average import price (EUR/tonne) 2
378 2
354 2
591 2
522
Index (2008 = 100) 100 99 109 106
Volume of imports from Turkey
36 952 33
275 32
887 40
553
(tonnes)
Index (2008 = 100) 100 90 89 110
Market share 4,5
% 4,8
% 4,4
% 5,6
%
Average import price (EUR/tonne) 2
027 2
014 2
171 2
058
Index (2008 = 100) 100 99 107 102
(151) The imports from third countries decreased by 12 % over
(154) With regard to this claim, it is noted that when
the period considered, while the market share of these
comparing the situation at the beginning and at the
imports remained rather stable.
end of the period considered import volumes from
Turkey increased by 10 % or 1.1 percentage point, but
also that their average prices remained consistently much
(152) It should be noted that average import prices from other
higher (from 37 % to 60 %) than Chinese import prices.
third countries increased by 6 % during the period
Moreover they never represented more than a 5,6 %
considered, remaining consistently higher than the
market share. Thus it is difficult to conclude that the
average selling price of Chinese export sales (by 68 %
material injury suffered by the Union industry is due to
during the IP).
Turkish imports.
(153) CCCLA observed that imports from Turkey would have
increased by 8 % between 2010 and 2011, the import
(155) For the above reasons, it is concluded that imports from
prices from Turkey being allegedly only around 20 %
other third countries did not materially affect the
higher than import prices from China.
situation of the Union industry.

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/45
3.2. Market segments
(161) CCCLA stated that the complaint showed a substantial
fluctuation in the level of consumption within the Union
(156) A Germany-based association of importers and some of
throughout the period considered, in line with general
its members submitted that, on the basis of end-customer
macroeconomic conditions. According to CCCLA,
prices, product qualities and sales channels, the market
during the period considered injury factors developed
for the ceramic products under investigation is to be
in parallel with the fluctuations in demand in the
divided into at least the following three segments:
Union and other markets and both sales by Union
premium (high quality, high prices), medium/low
producers and Chinese imports followed changes in
(medium/low quality, medium/low prices) and special
demand.
products (such as decorative items, souvenirs, pots and
hotel porcelain). Allegedly, most Union production
would be sold on the premium and/or special product
markets, whereas Chinese imports predominantly serve
(162) A Germany-based association of importers and some of
the low price market segment. The Union industry
its members submitted that Chinese import figures
would target mostly boutique sales rather than places
following the enlargement of the Union in 2004 and
where standard consumers do shopping. Chinese
the lifting of import quotas for this product as of
imports, therefore, would not directly compete with the
1 January 2005 indicate a huge demand for cheaper
Union production.
tableware on the Union market between 2002 and
2005, which was followed by a decrease between 2005
and 2010. Allegedly, Union producers were not willing
and/or not capable to satisfy such demand.
(157) However, the investigation did not confirm the alle
gations. Firstly, it is noted that the like product does
not cover certain items referred to by these parties,
(163) As to these claims, firstly, reference is made to section
such as purely decorative items (see recitals (51) and
B.1.2 above where it was concluded that all types of the
(52)). Secondly, the investigation showed that currently
product concerned and the like product were regarded as
Union production serves all markets, as do Chinese
forming one single product. Any claim regarding certain
imports. In fact a relevant part of Chinese imports
ranges is therefore not relevant and the analysis should
would fall under the so-called premium or special
be carried out at the level of the product concerned and
products segments. A British importer claimed to be
the like product.
importing premium products from China, while a
group of EU companies with production interest in
China also referred to the very high prices it charged
on the Union market for its China-origin stoneware
(164) Secondly, the allegation that injury factors developed in
products.
parallel with the fluctuations in demand in other export
markets is contradicted by the fact that the export
performance of sampled Union producers developed
positively during the period considered.
(158) Finally, reference is made to section B.1.2 above where it
was concluded that all types of the product concerned
and the like product were regarded as forming one single
product. Thus the analysis should be carried out at the
(165) Thirdly, as concluded in section D.2 above, consumption
level of the product concerned and the like product.
has decreased over the period considered. There was no
Therefore, any claim regarding certain segments could
evidence confirming that Union producers were not
not be retained.
willing and/or not capable to satisfy a huge demand
for cheaper tableware in the Union. On the contrary,
the investigation established that throughout the period
considered Union producers were meeting demand of
3.3. Consumption and demand
various types, including for cheaper tableware. Even if
there were fluctuations in the level of consumption
(159) A European association of importers and retailers and
within the Union through the period considered which
CCCLA pointed at a contraction in demand in the
may have contributed to the Union industry’s poor
Union. One non-sampled importer stated that demand
performance at some stage, overall, it cannot be
for porcelain, particularly in the side and ancillary
considered to have an impact such as to break the
ranges and in the private sector, has fallen sharply and
causal link between the dumped imports and the
that the remaining demand is extremely diversified.
injurious situation of that industry suffered during the IP.
Likewise several parties claimed that due to changing
fashions, consumers nowadays are looking for affordable
ceramic tableware and kitchenware. In a wholesaler’s
view, the high end premium market is decreasing and
(166) The claims were therefore rejected.
will decrease over next years.
3.4. Exports by Union industry
(160) According to the above-mentioned European association
(167) According to data from Eurostat (export volume) and the
of importers and retailers, contraction in demand would
sampled Union producers (average export price), exports
explain the drop in sales and production by Union
by the Union industry developed as follows during the
producers during the period considered.
period considered:

---

L 318/46
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
Table 13
noted that, given that the quotas were gradually increased
and removed 3 years before the beginning of the period
2008 2009 2010 IP
considered and 6 years before the beginning of the IP,
there had already been a severe restructuring in the
Volume of exports 90 968 73
502 83
091 88
105
Union market as from 2002 to account for these
(tonnes)
changed market circumstances. This is also corroborated
by information submitted by the complainant on
Index (2008 = 100) 100 81 91 97
closures and insolvencies of European ceramic
tableware producers. As a result, the Union industry
Average export 3 136 2
983 3
462 3
125
had been, by the beginning of the period considered,
price (EUR/tonne)
converted into a downsized and performing sector.
Index (2008 = 100) 100 95 110 100
(173) Consequently, one might argue that the effects of the
(168) In the complaint, exports by Union producers increased
ending of the import quotas for the product concerned
substantially between 2009 and 2011, CCCLA observed.
in 2005 may have negatively affected the health state of
This party submitted that injury factors developed
the Union industry before the beginning of the period
negatively when the export performance of Union
considered. But even if this is the case, it is still the
producers decreased. Therefore, the injury would have
dumped imports which have caused the injury in the
been caused by the unfavourable development of the
IP. Therefore, the elimination of the import quota as
export sales of the EU industry.
from 2005 does not break the causal link between the
dumped imports and the injurious situation of the
industry during the period considered and the IP.
(169) In this context, it should firstly be noted that the injury
analysis focuses on the situation of the Union industry
on the Union market. Therefore changes of the export
3.6. Anti-competitive practices on the Union market
performance, if any, does not have any impact on most
of the indicators analysed above, such as sales volume,
(174) Several parties alleged that injury is caused by anti-
market share and prices. Secondly, exports by the Union
competitive practices on the Union market and it was
industry can be interpreted as a way to compensate
also stated that this anti-dumping proceeding was
decreasing sales on the Union market, i.e. where injury
launched to recuperate losses produced by fines for
is being suffered. Thirdly, as the above table shows,
illegal cartels. CCCLA stated that the presence of
overall exports from the Union decreased by 3 %.
collusive practices on the Union market may render the
Lastly, the exports prices of the cooperating sampled
injury data (namely sales prices, sales volumes, market
producers sales remained stable over the period
share and profits) both in the complaint and collected
considered.
throughout the investigation unreliable given that they
do not represent a situation that reflects the normal
operation of the market.
(170) The claim was therefore rejected and it is concluded that
the export performance of the Union industry did not
cause any material injury.
(175) On the one hand, it is noted that in 2010 the
Commission fined seventeen bathroom fixtures and
fittings undertakings for a price fixing cartel between
1992 and 2004 affecting six Member States: Germany,
3.5. Elimination of the import quotas
Austria, Italy, France, Kingdom of Belgium (Belgium) and
the Kingdom of Netherlands (Netherlands)
( 1 ). The
(171) Until 1 January 2005, for the Members States that were
practices in question took place before the period
members of the Union at the time the products orig
considered and concerned other products. In addition,
inating in China and falling within the CN codes
the only undertaking concerned which was also active
referred to in recital (56) were subject to quantitative
in the ceramic tableware and kitchenware sector during
quotas of which altogether amounted to 84 473 tonnes
the period considered filed an action for the annulment
in 2000 and which were gradually increased to 147 744
of that fine with the General Court of the European
tonnes in 2004. Available statistical data indicate that in
Union. This action remains pending. On the other
2004 imports of the product concerned by the 27
hand, the German authorities launched a cartel investi
countries that are now Member States amounted to
gation on some German tableware producers in February
173 809 tonnes. One year later, once the quotas lifted,
2011. The outcomes of the investigation have not been
those imports went up to 530 294 tonnes. Since then,
made public by German authorities yet, so no
Chinese imports have never been less than 449 000
conclusions can be drawn on this point. Moreover, that
tonnes per year.
investigation concerns only one Member State, while the
Union industry is quite widespread. The claims were
therefore rejected.
(172) As concerns the role of the import quotas in the injury
( 1 ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:
observed during the period considered it should first be
52011XC1129(02):EN:NOT

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/47
(176) As to the reference made by some parties to the fact that
3.9. Economic crisis
some manufacturers in the Union changed their activities
and became also traders of China-origin products, this is
(181) According to CCCLA, the alleged injury is caused by the
a business option which cannot be labelled as being anti-
impact of the financial crisis, economic recession and
competitive.
sovereign debt crisis on consumer budgets. The
complainants being, allegedly, profitable at the
operating level, CCCLA considers that the losses
reported are to be attributed to financial speculation
3.7. Production methods
(such as losses on equity or on sovereign bonds) and
non-operating expenses linked to the financial crisis.
(177) According to certain parties, the choices made by Union
producers as far as production methods are concerned
clearly contributed to the injury suffered by the Union
industry. These parties underline that Union production
(182) The economic crisis may explain contraction in
methods are by far less efficient than Chinese ones –
consumption during parts of the period considered.
Union production methods are fully automatic which
However, it is noteworthy that in a situation of
would entail high re-setting costs when runs are short,
decreasing consumption in the period considered and
expensive mould making, more costly raw materials and,
in a situation of increasing consumption in the period
due to a two-firing process, higher energy costs.
between 2009 and the IP, the performances of the low-
Moreover, unlike Union producers, Chinese manufac
priced dumped imports contrast with those of the Union
turers would work on the basis of orders, bear less
industry.
storing costs and sell their total production in batches
without grading and coupled with price discounts. Also
the cost for decal transfers for in-glaze decoration would
be almost double in the Union. On the other hand,
certain parties pointed at the efficiency of Union
(183) The investigation clearly shows that the dumped imports
production methods for instance as regards longer runs.
from China have intensified the effect of the economic
downturn. Even during the general economic recovery,
the Union industry was unable to recover and to regain
significant sales volumes and lost significant market share
(178) The investigation showed the existence of relevant tech
throughout the period considered whereas the Chinese
nology transfer worldwide. It could not establish a link
dumped imports gained more market share.
between a specific production method and success in the
business. It could not establish either that having opted
for a specific production method was significant enough
to have an impact such as to break the causal link
(184) Therefore, although the economic crisis may have
between dumped imports from the country concerned
contributed to the Union industry’s poor performance,
and the injury suffered by the Union industry.
overall, it cannot be considered to have an impact such
as to break the causal link between the dumped imports
and the injurious situation of that industry suffered
during the IP.
3.8. Second-hand markets
(179) According to a non-sampled importer households have
become smaller over the last decades and dispose of
unnecessary items via flea markets, web auctions or
3.10. Other factors
other forms of second-hand markets. For this party,
second-hand tableware and kitchenware serve a
(185) An association pointed at other factors that, in its view,
significant part of current demand and are in direct
would break the causal link. This party referred to intra-
competition with newly-manufactured tableware and
Union competition (on the basis that prices within the
kitchenware. The non-sampled importer provided
Union differ considerably) and to the Union safety and
supporting documentation on web auction values for
health requirements, which are becoming more stringent,
several product lines of well-known German porcelain
thus causing increased production costs. Other factors
manufacturers.
cited included counterfeiting by some Chinese manufac
turers and the existence of non-tariff barriers in a
number of non-EU markets, which would hinder
exports by Union manufacturers.
(180) However, no reasonable basis could be found for extra
polating the volumes and prices from a German speaking
platform on very specific collections of three German
companies to other Union countries or other product
(186) As regards the inter-Union competition argumentation,
ranges. It was, therefore, impossible to quantify this
the investigation did not show any link between injury,
market and the investigation could not establish that
the location of Union producers and prices in that
second-hand sales were significant enough to have an
Member State. As to the Union safety and health require
impact such as to break the causal link between
ments, it is noted that they are applicable to Union-made
dumped imports from the country concerned and the
and imported products, thus impact prices of all oper
injury suffered by the Union industry.
ators. Given that no information to substantiate the

---

L 318/48
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
counterfeiting claim was submitted, the effects of that
F. UNION INTEREST
claim could not be analysed. The claim regarding the
existence of non-tariff barriers in a number of non-EU
1. Preliminary remarks
markets could not be retained: such barriers could
prevent Union producers from exploiting their export
(192) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation it
potential, however it has no impact on decreasing sales
was examined whether, despite the provisional
on the Union market, i.e. where injury is being suffered.
conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons
existed for concluding that it is not in the Union
interest to adopt provisional anti-dumping measures in
this particular case. The analysis of the Union interest
(187) CCCLA pointed at other factors namely shortages of
was based on an appreciation of all the various
skilled labour on the Union market and self-inflicted
interests involved, including those of the Union
injury, on the basis that some Union manufacturers
industry, importers and users of the product concerned.
import the product concerned. However, based on the
information available, it is concluded that overall the
whole Union industry was in a poor situation and the
fact that the number of business models has spread did
2. Interest of the Union industry
not cause any injury to the Union industry and should
rather be interpreted as a way to compensate decreasing
(193) The Union industry consists of more than 200
sales on the Union market. As regards any shortage of
producers, with factories located in different Member
skilled labour in the ceramic tableware and kitchenware
States of the Union, directly employing more than
sector in the Union, no interested parties located in the
25 000 people in the IP in the production and sale of
Union claimed to be concerned.
the like product.
(188) An importer invited the institutions to analyse the impact
(194) The investigation established that the Union industry has
of other types of tableware and kitchenware, such as
suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports
plastic, aluminium, melamine and glass. However, no
from the country concerned during the investigation
information was submitted to substantiate the claim.
period. In particular, injury indicators relating to the
The investigation could not establish any finding about
financial performance of the Union industry, such as
this issue.
production, profitability and return on investment,
showed a declining trend in the period considered.
SMEs were suffering the most: in the period considered,
they were loss-making since 2010. In the absence of
(189) Some parties link the injury suffered by the Union
industry to the situation of the Union industry before
measures, it is considered that the efforts already made
the period considered. In this respect, several importers
in the sector will not be sufficient to allow the recovery
alleged that the deterioration of the Union industry
of the Union industry’s financial situation which might
started already in the period 1975-2002. However, the
deteriorate further.
Commission’s analysis could not possibly go back so far,
inter alia, because of the unavailability of reliable data for
that period. That was also the case for another event
(195) The findings of the current investigation are not put into
which took place long before the period considered:
question by the fact that certain Union producers are
the state aid received by the German porcelain industry
doing better than others or by the situation of the
and which, according to a non-sampled importer, would
Union industry before the period considered.
prove that the Union industry did not increase its effi
ciency ( 1 ).
(196) It is expected that the imposition of measures will restore
effective and fair trading conditions on the Union
(190) The examination of the other known factors which could
market. That would, in its turn, have a further positive
have caused injury to the Union industry revealed that
impact on its economic situation and profitability.
these factors are not such as to break the causal link
established between the dumped imports from the PRC
and the injury suffered by the Union industry.
(197) Some importers claimed that if measures are imposed the
product concerned will be replaced by other types of
4. Conclusion on causation
products (than Union-made ceramic tableware and

kitchenware), such as textiles (e.g. for gift-oriented
(191) Based on the above analysis, which has properly distin
items) or plastic tableware, thus benefiting non-ceramic
guished and separated the effects of all known factors on
sectors. However, the investigation could not confirm
the situation of the Union industry from the injurious
that such substitution would be significant.
effects of the dumped imports, it is provisionally
concluded that the dumped imports from China have
caused material injury to the Union industry within the
(198) It was therefore concluded that the imposition of
meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.
provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of
ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China
( 1 ) Case T-20/03 Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan v Commission.
would be in the interest of the Union industry.

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/49
3. Interest of unrelated importers
in recital 112 above reports EU border CIF – consumer
prices ratios ranging between 2,6 and 5,3 ( 2 ). Finally, the
(199) As mentioned in recital 4 above, in view of the apparent
sampled importers/retailers never indicated that they will
high number of unrelated importers sampling was
exclude the ceramic tableware and kitchenware from
applied.
their imports or sales if anti-dumping duties were
imposed.
(200) Overall, during the IP the sampled importers sourced
their supplies mainly from the country concerned and
employed some 350 people in the importation and
(203) Taking account of the above, and in the absence of any
resale of ceramic tableware and kitchenware. They were
other reliable information obtained in this investigation
active in different kinds of products, ranging from gift
so far, it is provisionally considered that the distribution
porcelain items through branded earthenware to simple
chain in general, including importers, is likely to be able
tableware for households. Their level of cooperation
to take in the increase in CIF prices at the proposed
varied. For instance, the two largest importers in the
levels without any major problem and that consumers
sample, which also have major retail activities, did not
are unlikely to experience any price increases. However,
provide full profitability data and the margin between
interested parties are, again, explicitly invited to submit
purchase and resale prices to unrelated customers and
additional, comprehensive and verifiable data on this
one of them even denied access to its accounts. These
issue which would enable to further analyse the impact
parties only provided transfer purchase prices and/or
of measures on the supply chain and, eventually,
transfer sales prices. Therefore, although repeatedly
consumers in the next stage of this proceeding.
requested, no meaningful information was received
which enabled an estimation of a representative
importers’ gross and net margin on the product
concerned for the sample as a whole.
(204) Submissions on Union interest were received from more
than 20 non-sampled importers, mostly small enter
prises, an association of European and International
commerce, a Swedish association of importers and
(201) In the same vein, the data provided by the two sampled
retailers, a Dutch association of importers from the Far
importers/retailers, as it was deficient in many aspects,
East and a Germany-based association and network of
did not enable an estimation of the gross and net margin
importers. A common concern of the importers was
of profit of retailers of the product concerned. Therefore,
that measures would entail import price increases, a
on the basis of the cooperation of the importers in the
(partial) shrinkage of their business and thus a negative
sample, no determination could be made as regards the
impact on them in general in terms of margins and
ability of the EU supply chain to absorb the proposed
profitability, inter alia. These arguments could not be
anti-dumping duty and, consequently, the impact of such
retained on the basis of the conclusions reached in the
duty on the retail price and, thus, consumers.
next recital and in recital 202.
(202) However, firstly, as concerns importers, the vast majority
of the importers which replied to the importers’ sampling
(205) Several importers submitted that more jobs would be lost
questions reported a gross margin between purchase and
with importers if measures are imposed than jobs would
resale price ranging between 50 % and 200 %. The
be saved with Union producers. However, this is contra
verified figures of the pure importers in the sample
dicted by other representations of importers where they
confirm that such gross margins are representative.
submitted that they might replace ceramic items by non-
Secondly, publicly available documentation would
ceramic ones (like textiles for gifts) or that they would be
suggest that the supply chain in the Union (i.e.
willing to procure more within the Union.
importers and subsequent channels) would be perfectly
capable of taking in an anti-dumping duty at the
proposed rate, without jeopardizing the viability of the
economic operators concerned. According to a recent
(206) The Swedish association deemed that measures would
publication ( 1 ), a Chinese ceramic mug which is
have a negative economic impact upon importers in
purchased by EU distributors for USD 0.70 would
terms of significant re-sourcing and administration
retail, in the EU, for USD 3.50 — with a mark-up of
costs should the latter have to find alternatives to
more than 150 % for the distributor/retailer. In such
Chinese imports. An association of European and Inter
scenario, the anti-dumping duties as proposed would
national commerce pinpointed that changing suppliers is
result for most imports in an extra charge of EUR
difficult because importers would have heavily invested in
0,16 (and of EUR 0,36 for non-cooperating producers)
them. However, this does not seem to be a main concern
for the EU supply chain which would have, overall, a
of some importers which prefer the possibility of being
gross margin of EUR 2.08 on this particular product.
able to switch sources of supply. Moreover, the fact that
Moreover, the 2009 CBI market survey on ‘tableware,
kitchenware and other household markets’ referred to
( 2 ) It should be noted that this market survey targets a range of
products which is broader than the product scope of this investi
( 1 ) ‘Dumping case likely to harm ceramic makers’, China Daily,
gation, as it also includes plasticware, woodware, glassware,
17 February 2012.
metalware and cutlery.

---

L 318/50
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
the products offered and Union consumption changes
pass on the duty to their customers (i.e. wholesalers,
with fashion suggests that the occurrence of costs to
distributors, retailers), all the more so because the
develop new products (from new suppliers) is inherent
duties affect the major source in the market. For
to this sector.
importers that came forward and which are at the
same time retailers, the investigation showed that the
product concerned represents a very small proportion
of their overall business. The information submitted by
these parties did not allow a proper quantification as to
(207) Several non-sampled importers claimed that Union
what extent they would be able to take in a purchase
factories are not interested in manufacturing somebody
price increase by the proposed duty levels but, as
else’s branded products. However, this was contradicted
explained in recitals 202-203, the information collected
by the outcome of the investigation as regards sampled
so far does not suggest that they would not be in a
Union producers (which showed that they produced
position to do so.
branded goods for third parties), by the representation
made by another importer and by the fact that several
importers which distribute products under their own
brand are procuring part of their assortment within the
Union.
(211) It is therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition
of measures at the proposed levels does not have a
significantly adverse impact on the situation of
unrelated importers of the product concerned.
(208) One non-sampled importer expressed its unwillingness to
share production ideas, product design and in-house
developments with certain competing Union producers
of ceramic tableware and kitchenware. However the
investigation did not show that this was a general
4. Interest of other economic sectors
concern amongst importers. It should be noted that the
importer concerned had legal disputes with some
(212) Several importers alleged that the imposition of any
German manufacturers and that part of its collection
measures will probably negatively affect importers’
would be in direct competition with that of Union
business partners, ranging from finishing and decorating
manufacturers.
firms to wholesalers, distributors or retailers. In this
respect, they claimed that the imposition of measures
may cause more job losses with their ‘satellite businesses’
such as designers or logistics than the number of jobs
kept/created by the Union industry. Some importers also
(209) Certain importers claimed that they cannot procure from
alleged that the gift items sector, the advertising industry,
Union manufacturers because of their higher costs, lack
the hotel and catering industries, group catering and
of capacity for craft items, inability to offer small
commercial consumers in general would also be
production runs, inflexibility, lack of an adequate organi
directly affected by a shortage of products. This would
sation to duly serve big retailers offering many products;
lead to an increase in price competition within a short
and/or the inexistence of some production processes,
period at the level of large discounts outlets. Institutions
qualities, types of decoration or shapes. These parties
which usually struggle with their budgets, such as care
claimed that the problems were particularly important
establishments, would suffer as well. Moreover, some
as regards crafts and promotion-oriented items (e.g.
parties claimed that anti-dumping measures would
pottery), certain branded products sold under license,
entail a shortage of raw material for artistic and
the manufacturing of certain registered utility models
creative work such as by porcelain painters or craft
and special side or catering items (e.g. large-volume
workshops.
porcelain items). Some claimed to have no alternative
but importing from China. Yet the investigation estab
lished that most of the importers that came forward do
procure ceramic tableware and/or kitchenware from
several sources, including Union producers in a wide
variety of ranges and qualities. Moreover, Union
(213) All these claims have been found to be unwarranted. On
producers offer a wide variety of products and have
the one hand, the statements of these importers seem to
the production capacity to sell more on the Union
contradict those points in their representations where
market.
they suggest that they might replace ceramic items by
non-ceramic ones (like textiles for gifts), thus resorting in
any case to their usual business partners referred to
above. Moreover, it can be expected the ‘satellite busi
nesses’ to the Union industry will benefit from the
(210) In sum, it can be concluded that the imposition of
imposition of measures. On the other hand, the investi
measures may indeed have a possible negative effect on
gation could not conclude that there will be a shortage of
the financial situation of certain importers. On average
products if imports from China would compete at non-
however, this negative effect is not expected to have a
dumped prices. Measures are designed and expected to
significant financial impact on the overall situation of the
create a level playing field for all the suppliers of ceramic
importers. In general it is expected that they are able to
tableware and kitchenware – and not to unduly limit
(partially) support the price increases and/or (partially)
imports from the country concerned. As regards the

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/51
suggested increase in price competition, this could be
(219) However, in view of the publicly available data, as
also seen as a positive effect for instance by those insti
mentioned under recital (202) above, it is provisionally
tutions which usually struggle with their budgets, such as
concluded that measures at the proposed duty level will
care establishments.
be taken in by the supply chain and, therefore, not result
in higher prices for consumers at retail level.
(214) The Swedish association deemed that measures would
(220) According to CCCLA and several parties representing the
have a negative economic impact upon wholesale and
interests of importers and retailers, if anti-dumping duties
retail sectors in Sweden. It estimated a decrease of 2-
are imposed, EU consumers will suffer the most. In the
3 % in employment (more for young people) and of
Union, low income consumers would represent the
20 % in imports. However, the suggested impact seems
highest share of the consumers and will be confronted
to be overstated. In this respect is noteworthy that none
to a more limited choice and higher prices for no
of the importers that are at the same time retailers and
additional value and this at a time of a fragile EU
which made representations in the context of the inves
economy. Allegedly, this product has psychological
tigation indicated that the whole product will be
price-limits above which consumers would not buy.
excluded from their product range if anti-dumping
Certain types of the product would disappear from the
duties were imposed. The job projections made by one
market or be replaced by other materials such as plastic,
of them in the event of imposition of measures are
melamine, metal or wood. In general these options
basically the same as in the case where no measures
would be more environmentally unfriendly products. It
are imposed.
was also claimed that the choice will also be limited since
imports concerned meeting over 60 % of demand will be
removed from the Union market while a lack of supply
will push prices up. In the same line, some parties
(215) CCCLA pointed to a Danish study according to which for
claimed that customers do their shopping in their close
each euro Union producers gain from trade protection,
neighbourhood but that Union producers are unable and
user companies in the Union must pay up to more than
unwilling to serve low cost products at local supply
60 times as much. Yet this statement is very general, it
facilities. The fact that German producers can offer
does not specifically related to this investigation and
bigger standard volumes for a cheap price will not
there is no evidence that shows that this would indeed
satisfy the Union market, which requires variety in line
be the impact in this investigation.
with changing fashion and trends. Some representations
underline that if Chinese imports still remain on the
Union market, this will likely be in substantially lower
volumes and at significantly higher prices, namely due to
higher wages in China and the additional duties. It was
(216) A provider of special retailer promotion actions to major
also claimed that if the product is not affordable, new
retailers across the world claimed that its business
generations will not get the culture for this product.
required large quantities over short periods for retail
promotions running for a few months. According to
this party, which sources some two thirds of the
products from Asia, mainly China, a significant duty
(221) As regards claims linked to a more limited choice, it is
would destroy its ability to sell at promotion prices in
noted that the investigation revealed that the Union
the future. It must be recognised that anti-dumping
industry is offering a very wide range of products
duties may negatively affect this type of business.
aimed at various markets segments and distribution
However, the purpose of the duties is not to exclude
channels. Measures are expected to help the Union
the Chinese merchandise from the market. Moreover
industry exploit its full potential and further enrich the
over the past three years, Union producers covered
market with its products. In addition, none of the
33 % of what this party labelled as volatile demand.
importers that are at the same time retailers indicated
that they might consider fully removing the product
from their product range if anti-dumping duties were
imposed.
(217) At this provisional stage, it is therefore concluded that
the benefits that would be obtained by preventing injury
for the remainder of this investigation through the
(222) As to the claims on higher prices, the investigation aims
imposition of provisional measures on imports of the
at creating a level playing field and not at excluding
product concerned cannot be outweighed by its poten
Chinese merchandise from the Union market. No price-
tially negative effect on some other economic sectors.
limits could objectively be established above which
consumers would not buy this kind of product.
Moreover, given that importers are often bound by
price lists for at least one year, overall it is not
5. Interest of consumers (households)
expected that they are able to transfer the price
increases to their customers in the short term. More
(218) No parties directly representing the interests of end-
importantly, given the level of the measures and the
buyers such as associations of consumers made any
significant difference between the import price and the
representations.
resale price it is unlikely that users and consumers will

---

L 318/52
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
pay substantially higher prices – the duty is calculated
the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons
based on the CIF import price and the retail prices is a
against the imposition of provisional measures on
multiple of the import price. Thus, the duty will most
imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware orig
likely be taken up by the supply chain from the importer
inating in China.
to the final consumer. Should some price increases take
place, they will be small and not impact on the consumer
choice. It is not expected that anti-dumping measures
will lead to new generations not purchasing ceramic
(228) This conclusion cannot be outweighed by the consider
tableware and kitchenware. It is further noted that the
ations put forward by several parties, namely that anti-
investigation revealed that Union industry can offer
dumping duties in general are a trade-off to their efforts
competitive prices.
to transfer some Union values to non-Union countries
such as improving the social standards of suppliers, child
labour or environmental and general development
programs. These issues cannot undermine the goal of
(223) It could not be concluded that measures would have a
significant impact on materials used for kitchenware and
achieving open and fair trade via the defence of Union
tableware either. The type of material is not always the
production against international trade distortions such as
main driver when choosing for instance a ceramic gift-
dumping, by applying trade defence instruments in
oriented item. However it is clear that interchangeability
compliance with EU law and WTO rules.
of materials is not always possible: for instance the
Union legislation of food contact materials imposes
certain requirements for materials to be in contact with
(229) Notwithstanding the above, this preliminary assessment
foodstuffs. It is noteworthy as well that a well-established
may require further careful analysis following comments
importer which is also a retailer also thinks that people
of interested parties.
will continue to eat from ceramic plates rather than from
plates made of other types of materials — and its
expansion plans are tailored accordingly.
G. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
(224) The claims regarding supply problems cannot be
1. Injury elimination level
accepted because, on the one hand, the fact of creating
(230) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to
a level playing field with fair prices is not tantamount to
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest,
fully removing imports from China. On the contrary, all
provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed
world players are expected to benefit from a fairer trade
in order to prevent further injury being caused to the
situation. On the other hand, it was found that the fact
Union industry by the dumped imports.
that currently the Union industry is capable of supplying
for one third of the total Union consumption does not
undermine the fact imports from China should entry the
Union market at non-dumped prices. Both the export
(231) For the purpose of determining the level of these
performance of the Union industry and the fact that it
measures, account was taken of the dumping margins
was not working at full capacity during the period
found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate
considered suggest that Union manufacturers could
the injury sustained by the Union industry.
indeed sell more on the Union market, should dumped
imports be removed. Last but not least, China is not the
only source of imports into the Union.
(232) When calculating the amount of duty necessary to
remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was
(225) Both a Danish study mentioned by CCCLA and a
considered that any measures should allow the Union
Swedish piece of research referred to by a Swedish
industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain
association suggest that anti-dumping measures in
a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by
general have a costly impact on consumers. Yet these
an industry of this type in the sector under normal
statements are very general, they do not specifically
conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of
related to this investigation and there is no evidence
dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the
that shows that this would indeed be the impact in
Union. As explained in recital (135) above, a profit
this investigation.
margin of 6 % of turnover is provisionally regarded as
an appropriate minimum which the Union industry
could have expected to obtain in the absence of
injurious dumping.
(226) On the basis of the above, it is provisionally concluded
that the imposition of measures would not, overall, have
a significant impact on consumers such as households.
(233) On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the
Union industry for the like product. The non-injurious
6. Conclusion on Union interest
price was obtained by deducting the actual profit from
the ex-works price and adding to the thus calculated
(227) In view of the above, it was provisionally concluded that,
break-even sales price of the Union industry the above-
overall, based on the information available concerning
mentioned profit margin of 6 %.

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/53
(234) The necessary price increase was then determined on the
related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit
basis of a comparison of the weighted average import
from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate
price of the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC,
applicable to ‘all other companies’.
as established for the price undercutting calculations,
with the non-injurious price of the products sold by
the Union industry on the Union market during the IP.
(238) Any claim requesting the application of these individual
Any difference resulting from this comparison was then
company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a
expressed as a percentage of the average total CIF import
change in the name of the entity or following the
value.
setting up of new production or sales entities) should
be addressed to the Commission ( 1 ) forthwith with all
relevant information, in particular any modification in
2. Provisional measures
the company’s activities linked to production, domestic
and export sales associated with, for example, that name
(235) In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in
change or that change in the production and sales
accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation,
entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly
provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed
be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting
in respect of imports originating in the PRC at the
from individual duty rates.
level of the lower of the dumping and the injury
margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.
(239) In order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-
dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only
(236) On the basis of the above, the anti-dumping duty rates
apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but
have been established, in this case, at the level of the
also to those producers which did not have any
dumping margins.
exports to the Union during the IP.
(237) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates
(240) A party requested measures, if any, to be imposed in the
specified in this Regulation were established on the
form of a minimum price. The party stated that ad
basis of the findings of the present investigation.
valorem duties would particularly hit customers who
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that
buy high quality and/or high weight imported products.
investigation with respect to these companies. These
However, the investigation revealed that no other form of
duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty
measures would have been more suitable, account taken
applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively
of the range of items falling within the product scope.
applicable to imports of products originating in the PRC
and produced by the companies and thus by the specific
legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by
(241) On the basis of the above, the dumping and injury
any other company not specifically mentioned in the
margins established and the provisional duty rates are
operative part of this Regulation including entities
as follows:
Company
Dumping
margin
Injury margin Provisional duty
rate
Hunan Hualian China Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Hualian Ebillion Industry
26,8 % 45,3
% 26,8
%
Co., Ltd; Hunan Liling Hongguanyao China Industry Co., Ltd and Hunan
Hualian Yuxiang China Industry Co., Ltd
Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co., Ltd and Guangxi
31,2 % 85,3
% 31,2
%
Sanhuan Lucky Xinda Import & Export Co., Ltd
CHL International Ltd and CHL Porcelain Industries Ltd 30,0
% 109,3
% 30,0
%
Shandong Zibo Niceton-Marck Huaguang Ceramics Limited; Zibo
17,6 % 76,0
% 17,6
%
Huatong Ceramics Co., Ltd; Shandong Silver phoenix Co., Ltd; Niceton
Ceramics (Linyi) Co., Ltd and Linyi Jingshi Ceramics Co., Ltd
Guangxi Province Beiliu City Laotian Ceramics Co., Ltd 23,0
% 44,8
% 23,0
%
All other cooperating exporting producers 26,6
% 76,1
% 26,6
%
All other companies 58,8
% 109,3
% 58,8
%
( 1 ) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H,
1049 Brussels, Belgium.

---

L 318/54
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
H. FINAL PROVISION
(242) In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties
which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make
their views known in writing and request a hearing. The findings concerning the imposition of duties
made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the
purpose of any definitive measures,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A
provisional
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on
imports
of
ceramic
tableware
and
kitchenware,
excluding ceramic knives, currently falling within CN codes ex 6911 10 00, ex 6912 00 10, ex 6912 00 30,
ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912 00 90 (TARIC codes 6911 10 00 90, 6912 00 10 11, 6912 00 10 91,
6912 00 30 10, 6912 00 50 10 and 6912 00 90 10) and originating in the People’s Republic of China
2.
The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before
duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below, shall be as
follows:
Company Duty
TARIC
additional code
Hunan Hualian China Industry Co., Ltd;
26,8 % B349
Hunan Hualian Ebillion Industry Co., Ltd;
Hunan Liling Hongguanyao China Industry Co., Ltd;
Hunan Hualian Yuxiang China Industry Co., Ltd
Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co., Ltd 31,2
% B350
CHL Porcelain Industries Ltd 30,0
% B351
Shandong Zibo Niceton-Marck Huaguang Ceramics Limited;
17,6 % B352
Zibo Huatong Ceramics Co., Ltd;
Shandong Silver Phoenix Co., Ltd;
Niceton Ceramics (Linyi) Co., Ltd
Linyi Jingshi Ceramics Co., Ltd
Guangxi Province Beiliu City Laotian Ceramics Co., Ltd 23,0
% B353
Companies listed in Annex I 26,6
% B354
All other companies 58,8
% B999
3. The
application
of
the
provisional
anti-dumping
duty
rates
Article 2
specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be
conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the
1. Without
prejudice
to
Article
20
of
Council
Regulation
Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall be
(EC) No 1225/2009, interested parties may request disclosure
conform to the requirements set out in the Annex II. If no such
of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which
invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies
this Regulation was adopted, make their views known in writing
shall apply.
and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one
month of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
4. The
release
for
free
circulation
in
the
Union
of
the
product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the
provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the
provisional duty.
2. Pursuant
to
Article
21(4)
of
Council
Regulation
(EC)
No
1225/2009, the parties concerned may comment on the appli
5. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force cation of this Regulation within one month of the date of its
concerning customs duties shall apply.
entry into force.

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/55
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Union.
Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 November 2012.
For the Commission
The President
José Manuel BARROSO

---

L 318/56
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
ANNEX I
Cooperating Chinese exporting producers not sampled (TARIC additional code B354):
(1) Amaida Ceramic Product Co., Ltd
(2) Asianera Porcelain (Tangshan) Ltd
(3) Beiliu Changlong Ceramics Co., Ltd
(4) Beiliu City Heyun Building Materials Co., Ltd
(5) Beiliu Jiasheng Porcelain Co., Ltd
(6) Beiliu Quanli Ceramic Co., Ltd
(7) Beiliu Windview Industries Ltd
(8) Betterway International Co., Ltd
(9) Cameo China (Fengfeng) Co., Ltd
(10) Changsha Ellen-Design Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd
(11) Changsha Happy Go Products Developing Co., Ltd
(12) Chao Ao Huadayu Craftwork Factory
(13) Chao’an Lian Xing Yuan Ceramics Co., Ltd
(14) Chaoan Oh Yeah Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd
(15) Chaoan Xin Yuan Ceramics Factory
(16) Chao’an Yongsheng Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd
(17) Chaozhou Baode Ceramics Co., Ltd,
(18) Chaozhou Baodyai Porcelain Co., Ltd
(19) Chaozhou Baolian Ceramics Co., Ltd
(20) Chaozhou Big Arrow Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd
(21) Chaozhou Boshifa Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(22) Chaozhou Cantake Craft Co., Ltd
(23) Chaozhou Ceramics Industry and Trade General Corp.
(24) Chaozhou Chaofeng Ceramic Making Co., Ltd
(25) Chaozhou Chengxi Jijie Art & Craft Painted Porcelain Fty.
(26) Chaozhou Chengxinda Ceramics Industry Co., Ltd
(27) Chaozhou Chenhui Ceramics Co., Ltd
(28) Chaozhou Chonvson Ceramics Industry Co., Ltd
(29) Chaozhou Daxin Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd
(30) Chaozhou Dayi Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd
(31) Chaozhou Dehong Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(32) Chaozhou Deko Ceramic Co., Ltd
(33) Chaozhou Diamond Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd
(34) Chaozhou Dongyi Ceramics Co., Ltd
(35) Chaozhou Dragon Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd
(36) Chaozhou Fairway Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(37) Chaozhou Feida Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd
(38) Chaozhou Fengxi Baita Ceramics Fty.
(39) Chaozhou Fengxi Canhui Ceramics Manufactory
(40) Chaozhou Fengxi Dongtian Porcelain Fty. No 2
(41) Chaozhou Fengxi Fenger Ceramics Craft Fty.

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/57
(42) Chaozhou Fengxi Hongrong Color Porcelain Fty.
(43) Chaozhou Fengxi Shengshui Porcelain Art Factory
(44) Chaozhou Fengxi Zone Jinbaichuan Porcelain Crafts Factory
(45) Chaozhou Fromone Ceramic Co., Ltd
(46) Chaozhou Genol Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd
(47) Chaozhou Good Concept Ceramics Co., Ltd
(48) Chaozhou Grand Collection Tableware Co. Ltd
(49) Chaozhou Guangjia Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd
(50) Chaozhou Guidu Ceramics Co., Ltd
(51) Chaozhou Haihong Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(52) Chaozhou Hengchuang Porcelain Co., Ltd
(53) Chaozhou Henglibao Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd
(54) Chaozhou Hongbo Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd
(55) Chaozhou Hongjia Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(56) Chaozhou Hongye Ceramics Manufactory Co., Ltd
(57) Chaozhou Hongye Porcelain Development Co., Ltd
(58) Chaozhou Hongyue Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd
(59) Chaozhou Hongzhan Ceramic Manufacture Co., Ltd
(60) Chaozhou Hua Da Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(61) Chaozhou Huabo Ceramic Co., Ltd
(62) Chaozhou Huade Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd
(63) Chaozhou Huashan Industrial Co., Ltd
(64) Chaozhou Huayu Ceramics Co., Ltd
(65) Chaozhou Huazong Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd
(66) Chaozhou Huifeng Ceramics Craft Making Co., Ltd
(67) Chaozhou J&M Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd
(68) Chaozhou Jencymic Co., Ltd
(69) Chaozhou Jiahua Ceramics Co., Ltd
(70) Chaozhou Jiahuabao Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd
(71) Chaozhou JiaHui Ceramic Factory
(72) Chaozhou Jiaye Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(73) Chaozhou Jiayi Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(74) Chaozhou Jiayu Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(75) Chaozhou Jin Jia Da Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd
(76) Chaozhou Jingfeng Ceramics Craft Co., Ltd
(77) Chaozhou Jinqiangyi Ceramics Co., Ltd
(78) Chaozhou Jinyuanli Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd
(79) Chaozhou Kaibo Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(80) Chaozhou Kedali Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd
(81) Chaozhou King’s Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd
(82) Chaozhou Kingwave Porcelain & Pigment Co., Ltd
(83) Chaozhou Lemontree Tableware Co., Ltd
(84) Chaozhou Lianfeng Porcelain Co., Ltd
(85) Chaozhou Lianjun Ceramics Co., Ltd

---

L 318/58
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
(86) Chaozhou Lianyu Ceramics Co., Ltd
(87) ChaoZhou Lianyuan Ceramic Making Co., Ltd
(88) Chaozhou Lisheng Ceramics Co., Ltd
(89) Chaozhou Loving Home Porcelain Co., Ltd
(90) Chaozhou Maocheng Industry Dve. Co., Ltd
(91) Chaozhou MBB Porcelain Factory
(92) Chaozhou Mingyu Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd
(93) Chaozhou New Power Ltd
(94) Chaozhou Ohga Porcelain Co.,Ltd
(95) Chaozhou Oubo Ceramics Co., Ltd
(96) Chaozhou Pengfa Ceramics Manufactory Co., Ltd
(97) Chaozhou Pengxing Ceramics Co., Ltd
(98) Chaozhou Qingfa Ceramics Co., Ltd
(99) Chaozhou Raoping Xinfeng Yangda Porcelain Factory
(100) Chaozhou Ronghua Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(101) Chaozhou Ronglibao Porcelain Co., Ltd
(102) Chaozhou Rui Cheng Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd
(103) Chaozhou Rui Xiang Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd
(104) Chaozhou Ruilong Ceramics Co., Ltd
(105) Chaozhou Sanhua Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd
(106) Chaozhou Sanming Industrial Co., Ltd
(107) Chaozhou Santai Porcelain Co., Ltd
(108) Chaozhou Shunqiang Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(109) Chaozhou Shuntai Ceramic Manufactory Co., Ltd
(110) Chaozhou Songfa Ceramics Co.,Ltd
(111) Chaozhou Sundisk Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(112) Chaozhou Teemjade Ceramics Co., Ltd
(113) Chaozhou Thyme Ceramics Co., Ltd
(114) Chaozhou Tongxing Huajiang Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(115) Chaozhou Totye Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd
(116) Chaozhou Trend Art & Crafts Co., Ltd
(117) Chaozhou Uncommon Craft Industrial Co., Ltd
(118) Chaozhou Weida Ceramic Making Co., Ltd
(119) Chaozhou Weigao Ceramic Craft Co., Ltd
(120) Chaozhou Wingoal Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd
(121) Chaozhou Wood House Porcelain Co., Ltd
(122) Chaozhou Xiangye Ceramics Craft Making Co., Ltd
(123) Chaozhou Xin Weicheng CP., Ltd
(124) Chaozhou Xincheng Ceramics Co., Ltd
(125) Chaozhou Xinde Ceramics Craft Factory
(126) Chaozhou Xingguang Ceramics Co., Ltd
(127) Chaozhou Xinhui Porcelain Co., Ltd
(128) Chaozhou Xinkai Porcelain Co., Ltd
(129) Chaozhou Xinlong Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/59
(130) Chaozhou Xinyu Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd
(131) Chaozhou Xinyue Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd
(132) Chaozhou Yangguang Ceramics Co., Ltd
(133) Chaozhou Yaran Ceramics Craft Making Co., Ltd
(134) Chaozhou Yinhe Ceramics Co., Ltd
(135) Chaozhou Yongsheng Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(136) Chaozhou Yongxuan Domestic Ceramics Manufactory Co., Ltd
(137) Chaozhou Yu Ri Ceramics Making Co., Ltd
(138) Chaozhou Yuefeng Ceramics Ind. Co., Ltd
(139) Chaozhou Yufeng Ceramics Making Factory
(140) Chaozhou Zhongxia Porcelain Factory Co., Ltd
(141) Chaozhou Zhongye Ceramics Co., Ltd
(142) Dabu Yongxingxiang Ceramics Co., Ltd
(143) Dapu Fuda Ceramics Co., Ltd
(144) Dapu Taoyuan Porcelain Factory
(145) Dasheng Ceramics Co., Ltd Dehua
(146) De Hua Hongshun Ceramic Co., Ltd
(147) Dehua Hongsheng Ceramic Co., Ltd
(148) Dehua Jianyi Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd
(149) Dehua Kaiyuan Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd
(150) Dehua Ruyuan Gifts Co., Ltd
(151) Dehua Xinmei Ceramics Co., Ltd
(152) Dongguan Kenney Ceramic Ltd
(153) Dongguan Shilong Kyocera Co., Ltd
(154) Dongguan Yongfuda Ceramics Co., Ltd
(155) Evershine Fine China Co., Ltd
(156) Excellent Porcelain Co., Ltd
(157) Fair-Link Limited (Xiamen)
(158) Far East (Boluo) Ceramics Factory Co., Ltd
(159) Far East (chaozhou) Ceramics Factory Co., Ltd
(160) Fengfeng Mining District Yuhang Ceramic Co. Ltd (Yuhang)
(161) Foshan Metart Company Limited
(162) Fujian De Hua Jiashun Art&Crafts Co., Ltd
(163) Fujian Dehua Chengyi Ceramics Co., Ltd
(164) Fujian Dehua Five Continents Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(165) Fujian Dehua Fujue Ceramics Co., Ltd
(166) Fujian Dehua Full Win Crafts Co., Ltd
(167) Fujian Dehua Fusheng Ceramics Co., Ltd
(168) Fujian Dehua Gentle Porcelain Co., Ltd
(169) Fujian Dehua Guanhong Ceramic Co., Ltd
(170) Fujian Dehua Guanjie Ceramics Co., Ltd
(171) Fujian Dehua Hiap Huat Koyo Toki Co., Ltd
(172) Fujian Dehua Hongda Ceramics Co., Ltd
(173) Fujian Dehua Hongsheng Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd

---

L 318/60
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
(174) Fujian Dehua Hongyu Ceramic Co., Ltd
(175) Fujian Dehua Huachen Ceramics Co., Ltd
(176) Fujian Dehua Huaxia Ceramics Co., Ltd
(177) Fujian Dehua Huilong Ceramic Co., Ltd
(178) Fujian Dehua Jingyi Ceramics Co., Ltd
(179) Fujian Dehua Jinhua Porcelain Co., Ltd
(180) Fujian Dehua Jinzhu Ceramics Co., Ltd
(181) Fujian Dehua Lianda Ceramic Co., Ltd
(182) Fujian Dehua Myinghua Ceramics Co., Ltd
(183) Fujian Dehua Pengxin Ceramics Co., Ltd
(184) Fujian Dehua Rongxin Ceramic Co., Ltd
(185) Fujian Dehua Shisheng Ceramics Co., Ltd
(186) Fujian Dehua Will Ceramic Co., Ltd
(187) Fujian Dehua Xianda Ceramic Factory
(188) Fujian Dehua Xianghui Ceramic Co., Ltd
(189) Fujian Dehua Xingye Ceramic Co., Ltd
(190) Fujian Dehua Yonghuang Ceramic Co., Ltd
(191) Fujian Dehua Yousheng Ceramics Co., Ltd
(192) Fujian Dehua You-Young Crafts Co., Ltd
(193) Fujian Dehua Zhenfeng Ceramics Co., Ltd
(194) Fujian Dehua Zhennan Ceramics Co., Ltd
(195) Fujian Jackson Arts and Crafts Co., Ltd
(196) Fujian Jiamei Group Corporation
(197) Fujian Profit Corp
(198) Fujian Province Dehua County Beatrot Ceramic Co., Ltd
(199) Fujian Province Yongchun County Foreign Processing and Assembling Corporation
(200) Fujian Quanzhou Longpeng Group Co., Ltd
(201) Fujian Quanzhou Shunmei Group Co., Ltd
(202) Fung Lin Wah Group
(203) Ganzhou Koin Structure Ceramics Co., Ltd
(204) Global Housewares Factory
(205) Guangdong Baofeng Ceramic Technology Development Co., Ltd
(206) Guangdong Bening Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd
(207) Guangdong Daye Porcelain Co., Ltd
(208) Guangdong Dongbao Group Co., Ltd
(209) Guangdong Huaxing Ceramics Co., Ltd
(210) Guangdong Quanfu Ceramics Ind. Co., Ltd
(211) Guangdong Shunxiang Porcelain Co., Ltd
(212) Guangdong Sitong Group Co., Ltd
(213) Guangdong Songfa Ceramics Co.,Ltd
(214) Guangdong Yutai Porcelain Co., Ltd
(215) Guangxi Beiliu City Ming Chao Porcelain Co., Ltd
(216) Guangxi Beiliu Guixin Porcelain Co., Ltd
(217) Guangxi Beiliu Huasheng Porcelain Ltd

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/61
(218) Guangxi Beiliu Newcentury Ceramic Llc.
(219) Guangxi Beiliu Qinglang Porcelain Trade Co., Ltd
(220) Guangxi Beiliu Rili Porcelain Co.,Ltd
(221) Guangxi Beiliu Xiongfa Ceramics Co., Ltd
(222) Guangxi Beiliu Yujie Porcelain Co., Ltd
(223) Guangxi Beiliu Zhongli Ceramics Co., Ltd
(224) Guangxi Nanshan Porcelain Co., Ltd
(225) Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd
(226) Guangxi Yulin Rongxing Ceramics Co., Ltd
(227) Guangzhou Chaintime Porcelain Co., Ltd
(228) Guangzhou Xiongji Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd
(229) Haofa Ceramics Co., Ltd of Dehua Fujian
(230) Hebei Dersun Ceramic Co., Ltd
(231) Hebei Great Wall Ceramic Co., Ltd
(232) Hunan Baihua Ceramics Co., Ltd
(233) Hunan Eka Ceramics Co., Ltd
(234) Hunan Fungdeli Ceramics Co., Ltd
(235) Hunan Gaofeng Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(236) Hunan Greture Co., Ltd
(237) Hunan Huawei China Industry Co., Ltd
(238) Hunan Huayun Ceramics Factory Co., Ltd
(239) Hunan Liling Tianxin China Industry Ltd
(240) Hunan Provincial Liling Chuhua Ceramic Industrial Co., Ltd
(241) Hunan Quanxiang Ceramics Corp. Ltd
(242) Hunan Taisun Ceramics Co., Ltd
(243) Hunan Victor Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd
(244) Hunan Wing Star Ceramic Co., Ltd
(245) Hunan Xianfeng Ceramic Industry Co.,Ltd
(246) Jiangsu Gaochun Ceramics Co., Ltd
(247) Jiangsu Yixing Fine Pottery Corp., Ltd
(248) Jiangxi Global Ceramic Co., Ltd
(249) Jiangxi Kangshu Porcelain Co.,Ltd
(250) Jingdezhen F&B Porcelain Co., Ltd
(251) Jingdezhen Yuanjing Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd
(252) Jiyuan Jukang Xingxing Ceramics Co., Ltd
(253) Joyye Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd
(254) Junior Star Ent’s Co., Ltd
(255) K&T Ceramics International Co., Ltd
(256) Kam Lee (Xing Guo) Metal and Plastic Fty. Co., Ltd
(257) Karpery Industrial Co., Ltd
(258) Kilncraft Ceramics Ltd
(259) Lian Jiang Golden Faith Porcelain Co., Ltd
(260) Liling Esion Homeware Co., Ltd
(261) Liling Gaopeng Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd

---

L 318/62
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
(262) Liling GuanQian Ceramic Manufacture Co., Ltd
(263) Liling Huahui Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(264) Liling Huawang Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(265) Liling Kaiwei Ceramic Co., Ltd
(266) Liling Liangsheng Ceramic Manufacture Co., Ltd
(267) Liling Minghui Ceramic Factory
(268) Liling Only Co., Ltd
(269) Liling Quanhu Industries General Company
(270) Liling Rongxiang Ceramic Co., Ltd
(271) Liling Ruixiang Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd
(272) Liling Santang Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(273) Liling Shenghua Industrial Co., Ltd
(274) Liling Swan Household Co., Ltd
(275) Liling Tengrui Industrial and Trading Co.,Ltd
(276) Liling United Ceramic-Ware Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(277) Liling Yihong Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd
(278) Liling Yonghe Porcelain Factory
(279) Liling Yucha Ceramics Co., Ltd
(280) Linyi Jinli Ceramics Co., Ltd
(281) Linyi Pengcheng Industry Co., Ltd
(282) Linyi Wanqiang Ceramics Co., Ltd
(283) Linyi Zhaogang Ceramics Co., Ltd
(284) Liveon Industrial Co., Ltd
(285) Long Da Bone China Co., Ltd
(286) Meizhou Gaoyu Ceramics Co., Ltd
(287) Meizhou Lianshunchang Trading Co., Ltd
(288) Meizhou Xinma Ceramics Co., Ltd
(289) Meizhou Yuanfeng Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd
(290) Meizhou Zhong Guang Industrial Co., Ltd
(291) Miracle Dynasty Fine Bone China (Shanghai) Co., Ltd
(292) Photo USA Electronic Graphic Inc.
(293) Quanzhou Allen Light Industry Co., Ltd
(294) Quanzhou Chuangli Craft Co., Ltd
(295) Quanzhou Dehua Fangsheng Arts Co., Ltd
(296) Quanzhou Haofu Gifts Co., Ltd
(297) Quanzhou Hongsheng Group Corporation
(298) Quanzhou Jianwen Craft Co., Ltd
(299) Quanzhou Kunda Gifts Co., Ltd
(300) Quanzhou Yongchun Shengyi Ceramics Co., Ltd
(301) Raoping Bright Future Porcelain Factory (RBF)
(302) Raoping Sanrao Yicheng Porcelain Factory
(303) Raoping Sanyi Industrial Co., Ltd
(304) Raylon Enterprise Co., Ltd
(305) Rong Lin Wah Industrial (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/63
(306) Shandong Futai Ceramics Co., Ltd
(307) Shandong Gaode Hongye Ceramics Co., Ltd
(308) Shandong Kunlun Ceramic Co., Ltd
(309) Shandong Zhaoding Porcelain Co., Ltd
(310) Shantou Ceramics Industry Supply & Marketing Corp.
(311) Shantou Jinyuan Huajing Economic Trading Co., Ltd
(312) Sheng Hua Ceramics Co., Ltd
(313) Shenzhen Baoshengfeng Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd
(314) Shenzhen Bright Future Industry Co., Ltd (SBF)
(315) Shenzhen Donglin Industry Co., Ltd
(316) Shenzhen Ever Nice Industry Co., Ltd
(317) Shenzhen Evergrows Trading Co., Ltd
(318) Shenzhen Fuliyuan Porcelain Co., Ltd
(319) Shenzhen Fuxingjiayun Ceramics Co., Ltd
(320) Shenzhen Gottawa Industrial Ltd
(321) Shenzhen Hiker Housewares Ltd
(322) Shenzhen Senyi Porcelain Industry Co. Ltd
(323) Shenzhen Tao Hui Industrial Co., Ltd
(324) Shenzhen Topchoice Industries Limited
(325) Shenzhen Trueland Industrial Co., Ltd
(326) Shenzhen Universal Industrial Co., Ltd
(327) Shenzhen Zhan Peng Xiang Industrial Co., Ltd
(328) Shijiazhuang Kuangqu Huakang Porcelain Co., Ltd
(329) Shun Sheng Da Group Co., Ltd Quanzhou Fujian
(330) Stechcol Ceramic Crafts Development (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd
(331) Tangshan Beifangcidu Ceramic Group Co., Ltd
(332) Tangshan Boyu Osseous Ceramic Co., Ltd
(333) Tangshan Daxin Ceramics Co., Ltd
(334) Tangshan Golden Ceramic Co., Ltd
(335) Tangshan Haigelei Fine Bone Porcelain Co., Ltd
(336) Tangshan Hengrui Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd
(337) Tangshan Huamei Porcelain Co., Ltd
(338) Tangshan Huaxincheng Ceramic Products Co., Ltd
(339) Tangshan Huyuan Bone China Co., Ltd
(340) Tangshan Imperial-Hero Ceramics Co., Ltd
(341) Tangshan Jinfangyuan Bone China Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(342) Tangshan Keyhandle Ceramic Co., Ltd
(343) Tangshan Longchang Ceramics Co., Ltd
(344) Tangshan Masterwell Ceramic Co., Ltd
(345) Tangshan Redrose Porcelain Products Co., Ltd
(346) Tangshan Shiyu Commerce Co., Ltd
(347) Tangshan Xueyan Industrial Co., Ltd
(348) Tangshan Yida Industrial Corp.
(349) Tao Yuan Porcelain Factory

---

L 318/64
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.11.2012
(350) Teammann Co., Ltd
(351) The China & Hong Kong Resources Co., Ltd
(352) The Great Wall Group Holding Co., Ltd
(353) Tienshan (Handan) Tableware Co., Ltd (Tienshan)
(354) Topking Industry (China) Ltd
(355) Tschinawares Co., Ltd
(356) Weijian Ceramic Industrial Co., Ltd
(357) Weiye Ceramics Co., Ltd
(358) Winpat Industrial Co., Ltd
(359) Xiamen Acrobat Splendor Ceramics Co., Ltd
(360) Xiamen Johnchina Fine Polishing Tech Co., Ltd
(361) Xiangqiang Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(362) Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd
(363) Xin Xing Xian XinJiang Pottery Co., Ltd
(364) Xinhua County Huayang Porcelain Co., Ltd
(365) Xuchang Jianxing Porcelain Products Co., Ltd
(366) Yangjiang Shi Ba Zi Kitchen Ware Manufacturing Co., Ltd
(367) Yanling Hongyi Import N Export Trade Co., Ltd
(368) Ying-Hai (Shenzhen) Industry Dev. Co., Ltd
(369) Yiyang Red Star Ceramics Ltd
(370) Yong Feng Yuan Industry Co., Ltd (Yong Feng Yuan Industry)
(371) Yongchun Dahui Crafts Co., Ltd
(372) Youzhou City Kongjia Porcelain Co., Ltd
(373) Yu Yuan Ceramics Co., Ltd
(374) Yuzhou Huixiang Ceramics Co., Ltd
(375) Yuzhou Ruilong Ceramics Co., Ltd
(376) Zhangjiakou Xuanhua Yici Ceramics Co., Ltd (Xuanhua Yici)
(377) Zhejiang Nansong Ceramics Co., Ltd
(378) Zhuhai Luckyman Electronic Co., Ltd
(379) Zibo Boshan Shantou Ceramic Factory
(380) Zibo CAC Chinaware Co., Ltd
(381) Zibo Fortune Light Industrial Products Co., Ltd
(382) Zibo Fuxin Porcelain Co., Ltd
(383) Zibo GaoDe Ceramic Technology & Development Co., Ltd
(384) Zibo Hongda Ceramics Co., Ltd
(385) Zibo Jinxin Light Industrial Products Co., Ltd
(386) Zibo Kunyang Ceramic Corporation Limited

---

EN
15.11.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
318/65
ANNEX II
A declaration signed by an official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice, in the following format, must appear on
the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3):
(1) The name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice.
(2) The following declaration: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of ceramic tableware and kitchenware sold for
export to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC
additional code) in (country concerned). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and
correct.’
(3) Date and signature.

---

Document Outline

• �

---