Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the ‘basic Regulation’) and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

(1) On 20 October 2007 the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (2). On 4 July 2008, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 642/2008 (3) (the ‘provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in the PRC.

(2) The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 6 September 2007 by the Spanish National Federation of Associations of Processed Fruit and Vegetables (FNACV) (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing 100 % of the total Community production of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins etc.). The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the product concerned and of material injury resulting there from, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.

(3) As set out in recital 12 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007 (IP). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 October 2002 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).

(4) On 9 November 2007, the Commission made imports of the same product originating in the PRC subject to registration by Regulation (EC) No 1295/2007 (4).

(5) It is recalled that safeguard measures were in force against the same product until 8 November 2007. The Commission imposed provisional safeguard measures against imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) by Regulation (EC) No 1964/2003 (5). Definitive safeguard measures followed by Regulation (EC) No 658/2004 (the ‘safeguard Regulation’) (6). Both the provisional and definitive safeguard measures consisted of a tariff rate quota i.e. a duty was only due once the volume of duty free imports had been exhausted.

(6) Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC; several interested parties submitted comments in writing. The parties who so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard.

(8) All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

(9) Some importers proposed a joint meeting of all interested parties, pursuant to Article 6(6) of the basic Regulation; however the request was refused by one of them.

(10) The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.

(11) Two unrelated EC importers argued that certain types of mandarins should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned either because of their sweetness level or because of their packing when exported. In this respect, it is noted that these claims were not accompanied with any type of verifiable information and data proving that these types have characteristics that differentiate them from the product concerned. It is also noted that differences in packing cannot be considered as a critical element when defining product concerned, especially when formats of packing were already taken into account when defining the product concerned as set out in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation. These arguments are therefore rejected.

(12) Two unrelated EC importers disputed that the Chinese exporting producers selected for the sample represented 60 % of the total exports to the Community. Nevertheless, they were not able to provide any verifiable information that could undermine the accuracy of the sampling information submitted by the cooperating Chinese exporting producers and largely confirmed in the course of the further investigation. This argument is therefore rejected.

(13) Three Chinese cooperating exporting producers submitted representations claimed that their related companies were exporting producers of the product concerned and should therefore be included in the Annex of cooperating exporting producers. These claims were considered warranted and it was decided to revise the relevant Annex accordingly. One unrelated EC importer argued that exports made to the EC through traders should automatically be allowed to benefit from the measures applicable to the Chinese exporting producers. In this respect, it is noted that anti-dumping measures are imposed on products manufactured by exporting producers in the country under investigation that are exported to the EC (irrespective of which company trades them) and not to business entities engaged only in trading activities. The claim was therefore rejected.

(14) Following the imposition of provisional measures, no comments were submitted by the Chinese cooperating exporting producer with respect to the MET findings. In the absence of any relevant comments, recitals 29 to 33 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(15) In the absence of any relevant comments, recitals 34 to 37 of the provisional Regulation concerning individual treatment are hereby confirmed.

(16) It is recalled that the normal value determination was based on the data provided by the Community Industry. This data was verified at the premises of the cooperating Community producers.

(17) Following the imposition of provisional measures, all three Chinese sampled cooperating exporting producers and two unrelated EC importers questioned the use of Community Industry prices for the calculation of normal value. It was submitted that normal value should have been calculated on the basis of the PRC production costs account taken of any appropriate adjustments relating to the differences between the EC and the PRC markets. In this respect it is noted that the use of information from a non-market economy country and in particular from companies which have not been granted MET would be contrary to the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. This argument is therefore rejected. It was also argued that data on prices from all other importing countries or relevant published information could have been used as a reasonable solution account taken of the lack of analogue country cooperation. However, such general information, in contrast to the data used by the Commission, could not have been verified and cross checked with regard to their accuracy in line with the provisions of Article 6(8) of the basic Regulation. This argument is therefore rejected. No other argument was submitted that could cast doubt on the fact that the methodology used by the Commission is in line with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation and, in particular, the fact that it constitutes in this particular case the only remaining reasonable basis for calculation of normal value.

(18) In the absence of any other comments, recitals 38 to 45 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(19) Following the imposition of provisional measures, one Chinese sampled cooperating exporting producer submitted that its export price should be adjusted in order to take into account certain cost elements (in particular ocean freight). In this respect it is noted that this issue was dealt with during the on-the-spot verification both with regard to this company as well with regard to the other companies in the sample. On that occasion, each company submitted information with regard to the costs in question. The amount claimed now by the company is considerably higher than the amount originally reported. It is noted that this new claim is based simply on a declaration by a freight forwarder and does not reflect data relating to a real transaction. None of the other sampled exporting producers questioned the figures used with respect to ocean freight. Moreover, given the late submission, this claim can not be verified. In particular, the adjustment requested does not relate to any data already on the file. Following this claim the Commission has nevertheless reviewed the amount of the cost in question account taken of the importance of this particular cost to the EC export transactions reported by the company. As a consequence, the Commission came to the conclusion that it is more appropriate to use the average ocean freight cost verified on-the-spot for all the sampled Chinese companies. Consequently, the company’s export price was adjusted accordingly.

(20) One other Chinese sampled cooperating exporting producer highlighted two computation errors on the calculation of its export price related to its submitted export listings. The claim was considered warranted and the producer’s relevant export price was revised accordingly.

(21) In the absence of any other comments in this respect, recital 46 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

(22) In the absence of any comments in this respect, recitals 47 and 48 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(24) In the absence of substantiated comments, the findings set out in recitals 52 to 54 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

(25) One of the exporting parties argued that there is a discrepancy between the level of the consumption set out in the safeguard Regulation No 658/2004 and the level set in the provisional Regulation. It is underlined that the difference in the level of consumption was basically due to the different product scope in the current investigation and to the different number of Member States in those two investigations. No further and substantiated information was received in this respect. The findings set out in recitals 55 to 57 of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed. As a corollary, the subsequent parts of the analysis which draw on consumption are also confirmed in this respect.

(26) In respect of the market share some interested parties opposed the Commission statement set out in recital 58 that indicated an increase of the market share of the dumped imports. They argued that contrary to the Commission findings the market share of imports from China decreased. The evaluation of imports from the PRC in volume and market share was verified. As set out in recital 58 of the provisional Regulation there was only one year where the market share of the Chinese imports decreased. For the rest of the period examined the market share of imports from China remained consistently high. Therefore the findings presented at the provisional stage are confirmed.

(27) Some parties argued that post-IP volumes should also be examined to assess whether Chinese imports are increasing. It is to be noted that trends on imports from China were evaluated for the period 2002/2003 to 2006/2007 and a clear increase was observed. In accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, post-IP events are not taken into account, except in exceptional circumstances. In any event, as stated below in recital 48 the level of imports post-IP was examined and was found to be significant.

(28) Three cooperating exporting producers contested the Commission’s findings on undercutting. One contested the methodology used to calculate undercutting and requested an adjustment to reflect costs borne by traders for their indirect sales. Where justified, calculations were adapted. The revised comparison showed that, during the IP, imports of the product concerned were sold in the Community at prices which undercut the Community industry’s prices by a range of 18,4 % to 35,2 % based on the data submitted by the sampled cooperating exporting producers.

(29) Two importers and the importers’ association contested the duration of the packing season indicated in recital 79 of the provisional Regulation. They argued that the packing season in Spain lasts only three months instead of four to five as indicated in the provisional Regulation. However this allegation is linked to the crop (variable by nature) and to the quantity produced and in any case has no impact on the injury factors as analysed by the Commission services.

(30) In the absence of any other substantiated information or argument concerning the situation of the Community industry, recitals 63 to 86 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(31) Following disclosure of the provisional Regulation, some importers and some exporting producers claimed, with reference to recitals 83 to 86 of the provisional Regulation, that data used by the Commission to establish the injury level was neither correct nor objectively evaluated. They argued that almost all injury-related indicators showed positive trends and that therefore no evidence of injury can be found.

(32) In this regard, it is noted that even if some indicators show small improvements, the situation of the Community industry has to be evaluated as a whole and in consideration of the fact that safeguard measures were in place until the end of the investigation period. This matter was explored at length in recitals 51 to 86 of the provisional Regulation. The deep restructuring process which these measures allowed for, resulting in a large reduction in production and capacity, would have under normal circumstances led to a significant improvement in the Community producers’ overall situation, including production, capacity utilisation, sales, and price/cost differentials. Instead, volume indicators have remained weak, stocks have increased substantially and financial indicators have continued to be in the red – some even worsening.

(33) On this basis, it is considered that the conclusions regarding the material injury suffered by the Community industry as set out in the provisional Regulation are not altered. In the absence of any other substantiated information or arguments, they are therefore definitively confirmed.

(34) Some parties argued that the volume of the Chinese imports had been stable since 1982 and that therefore they could not have caused injury as explained in the provisional Regulation (see recital 58). Indeed, as explained above in recital 26, imports from China during the period examined have increased significantly to the detriment of the EU industry market share. Moreover, the argument refers to the trend in imports that exceed well above the period in question therefore the argument is rejected.

(35) As mentioned in recital 28 above, it is definitively concluded that during the IP, the prices of imports from the sampled Chinese exporting producers undercut the average Community industry prices by percentages ranging from 18,4 % to 35,2 %. The revision of the undercutting margin leaves unaffected the conclusions on the effect of the dumped imports set out in recitals 100 and 101 of the provisional Regulation.

(36) After the imposition of the provisional duties some importers further argued the negative influence of the exchange rate on the price level. They argued that the exchange rate level is the main factor that caused injury. Nevertheless, the Commission’s assessment refers merely to a difference between price levels with no requirement to analyse the factors affecting the level of those prices. As a consequence a clear causal link between the high dumping level and the injury suffered by the Community industry was found and therefore recital 95 of the provisional Regulation can be confirmed.

(37) Some interested parties argued that injury is not caused by dumped imports but rather by the scarce supply of fresh fruit i.e. the raw material for canned mandarins.

(38) However, official data from the Spanish Ministry for Agriculture confirm that the quantity available for the canning industry is more than sufficient to cover all the production capacity of the Spanish producers.

(39) Producers compete to a certain extent for fresh fruit with the direct fresh produce consumer market. However, this competition does not break the causal link. A clear, significant reason for the Community industry’s relatively low production, sales and market share is rather to the pressure of the massive imports from China at very low prices. In this situation, and considering that the market price is dictated by the imports covering more than 70 % of the market, which engage in price undercutting, suppression and depression, it would be uneconomic to produce more without reasonable expectations for selling the product at prices allowing for a normal profit. Therefore the Spanish industry could reasonably provide significantly higher quantities under the condition that the market price would not penalise their economic results.

(40) Another fact confirming this analysis is the consistent existence of a significant amount of stocks by Community producers, underlining that the Community industry’s injurious situation occurred not because of insufficient production, but due to production that cannot be sold due to the pressure of Chinese imports.

(41) As an agricultural product, the price of the raw material is subject to seasonal fluctuations due to its agricultural nature. Nevertheless, in the five-year period analysed, which included harvests with lower and higher prices, the Commission observes that injury (e.g. in the form of financial losses) occurs irrespectively of these fluctuations and therefore the economic results of the Community industry are not directly correlated to such seasonal fluctuations.

(42) Some parties claimed that the Chinese product was of a higher quality than the Community production. However, any price differences resulting therefrom were not sufficiently substantiated, and there is no evidence that the alleged consumer preference for Chinese products would be so intense as to be the cause of the deteriorated situation for the Community industry. In any case such alleged price differences would favour the Chinese product, increasing the undercutting/underselling level. In the absence of any further new and substantiated information or argument, recital 99 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

(43) Some parties argued that extraordinary cost increases by some producers were at the root of the injury. These allegations were not sufficiently substantiated. The Commission analysis did not detect any such events which could reverse the assessment of causation or affect the calculation of the injury elimination level.