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

• (134) It should be highlighted that the Union industry was already in a fragile state at the beginning of the period considered, due to the huge volumes of low-priced imports from China on the Union market which increased strongly in 2002-2004 and which had reached a very significant market share after the elimination of the import quota for such imports as from 2005. This had caused a major restructuration of the sector which was in its ending phase at the beginning of the period considered.

• (135) Therefore, in view of this development prior to the period considered, the profit achieved in the beginning of the period considered cannot be considered as a normal profit. In the absence of any submission in this regard, it is considered that the normal profit level for another widely used and important consumer product which has been subject to an anti-dumping investigation, leather footwear, can instead provisionally serve as a valid benchmark. That profit level is 6 % ([^E0007]). It is thus 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.

• (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 of net investments went down by 33 %. However, it should be noted that by the end of the period considered 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 the shrinkage of profitability over the whole period considered.

• (137) Between 2008 and the IP, the average wage per employee increased by 2 %. This labour cost increase is significantly below the overall labour cost development in the Union during the period considered, which suggests that the Union industry made efforts to keep labour wages as low as possible.

Cost of production

• (138) Over the period considered the cost of production fell by 10 %.

Table 11

	2008	2009	2010	IP
Cost of production (EUR/tonne)	3 578	3 583	3 514	3 230
Index (2008 = 100)	100	100	98	90

Conclusion on injury

• (139) The investigation has shown that the injury indicators such as production volume, capacity, sales to unrelated customers and employment deteriorated during the period considered.

• (140) In addition, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union producers, such as profitability, investments and return on investments developed negatively during the period considered.

• (141) Overall, not only did the profitability never reach a satisfactory profit level for the sector, but it also deteriorated over the period considered. The continuous decreases in sales prices made by the Union industry entailed that at a point the industry was almost unable to make any profit.

• (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.

• (143) Considering the above, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

CAUSATION 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 industry to a degree sufficient to be considered as material. Furthermore, known factors other than dumped imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those factors was not attributed to dumped imports.

Effect of the dumped imports

• (145) The investigation showed that the Union consumption decreased by 12 % over the period considered. At the same time while the volume of dumped imports from China decreased by about 9 %, their market share increased. Moreover, sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 20 % and market share dropped from 23 % in 2008 to 20,9 % in the IP.

• (146) In the period from 2009 up to the end of the IP, Union consumption increased while the Union industry market share dropped, in contrast to an increase in dumped imports from China which market share increased significantly in that period.

• (147) Prices of dumped imports from China increased in the period considered. Even if in the period considered the 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 Union market. Consequently, the shrinkage of sales prices of the Union industry on the Union market and its profitability can be attributed to the price depression caused onto the Union market by dumped imports from China. The fall of the Union industry’s cost of production and employment level demonstrate the efforts it made to respond to such imports.

• (148) Based on the above it is concluded that the presence of Chinese imports and the increase of the market share of dumped imports from China at prices constantly undercutting those of the Union industry have had a determining role in the material injury suffered by the Union industry, which is reflected in particular in its poor financial situation and in the deterioration of most of the injury indicators.

Effect of other factors

• (149) The other factors which were examined in the context of the causality are: the development of demand on the Union market and its segmentation, the export performance of the Union industry, the imports from other countries of the product under investigation, anti-competitive practices on the Union market, differences in production methods and the second-hand market. Other factors were also analysed.

Imports from third countries other than the country concerned

• (150) The volume of imports from other third countries during the period considered is shown in the table below. The quantity and price trends are based on Eurostat data.

Table 12

	2008	2009	2010	IP
Volume of imports from all other third countries (tonnes)	100 971	81 464	81 602	88 706
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 (tonnes)	36 952	33 275	32 887	40 553
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 the period considered, while the market share of these imports remained rather stable.

• (152) It should be noted that average import prices from other third countries increased by 6 % during the period considered, remaining consistently higher than the average selling price of Chinese export sales (by 68 % during the IP).

• (153) CCCLA observed that imports from Turkey would have increased by 8 % between 2010 and 2011, the import prices from Turkey being allegedly only around 20 % higher than import prices from China.

• (154) With regard to this claim, it is noted that when comparing the situation at the beginning and at the 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 higher (from 37 % to 60 %) than Chinese import prices. Moreover they never represented more than a 5,6 % market share. Thus it is difficult to conclude that the material injury suffered by the Union industry is due to Turkish imports.

• (155) For the above reasons, it is concluded that imports from other third countries did not materially affect the situation of the Union industry.

Market segments

• (156) A Germany-based association of importers and some of its members submitted that, on the basis of end-customer prices, product qualities and sales channels, the market for the ceramic products under investigation is to be divided into at least the following three segments: premium (high quality, high prices), medium/low (medium/low quality, medium/low prices) and special 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 the low price market segment. The Union industry would target mostly boutique sales rather than places where standard consumers do shopping. Chinese imports, therefore, would not directly compete with the Union production.

• (157) However, the investigation did not confirm the allegations. Firstly, it is noted that the like product does not cover certain items referred to by these parties, such as purely decorative items (see recitals (51) and (52)). Secondly, the investigation showed that currently Union production serves all markets, as do Chinese imports. In fact a relevant part of Chinese imports would fall under the so-called premium or special products segments. A British importer claimed to be 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 products.

• (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 level of the product concerned and the like product. Therefore, any claim regarding certain segments could not be retained.

Consumption and demand

• (159) A European association of importers and retailers and CCCLA pointed at a contraction in demand in the Union. One non-sampled importer stated that demand for porcelain, particularly in the side and ancillary ranges and in the private sector, has fallen sharply and that the remaining demand is extremely diversified. 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 will decrease over next years.

• (160) According to the above-mentioned European association of importers and retailers, contraction in demand would explain the drop in sales and production by Union producers during the period considered.

• (161) CCCLA stated that the complaint showed a substantial fluctuation in the level of consumption within the Union throughout the period considered, in line with general macroeconomic conditions. According to CCCLA, during the period considered injury factors developed in parallel with the fluctuations in demand in the Union and other markets and both sales by Union producers and Chinese imports followed changes in demand.

• (162) A Germany-based association of importers and some of its members submitted that Chinese import figures following the enlargement of the Union in 2004 and the lifting of import quotas for this product as of 1 January 2005 indicate a huge demand for cheaper 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.

• (163) As to these claims, firstly, 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. Any claim regarding certain ranges is therefore not relevant and the analysis should be carried out at the level of the product concerned and the like product.

• (164) Secondly, the allegation that injury factors developed in 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.

• (165) Thirdly, as concluded in section D.2 above, consumption has decreased over the period considered. There was no evidence confirming that Union producers were not 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 various types, including for cheaper tableware. Even if there were fluctuations in the level of consumption within the Union through the period considered which may have contributed to the Union industry’s poor performance at some stage, 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.

• (166) The claims were therefore rejected.

Exports by Union industry

• (167) According to data from Eurostat (export volume) and the sampled Union producers (average export price), exports by the Union industry developed as follows during the period considered:

Table 13

	2008	2009	2010	IP
Volume of exports (tonnes)	90 968	73 502	83 091	88 105
Index (2008 = 100)	100	81	91	97
Average export price (EUR/tonne)	3 136	2 983	3 462	3 125
Index (2008 = 100)	100	95	110	100

• (168) In the complaint, exports by Union producers increased substantially between 2009 and 2011, CCCLA observed. This party submitted that injury factors developed negatively when the export performance of Union producers decreased. Therefore, the injury would have been caused by the unfavourable development of the export sales of the EU industry.

• (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 performance, if any, does not have any impact on most of the indicators analysed above, such as sales volume, market share and prices. Secondly, exports by the Union industry can be interpreted as a way to compensate decreasing sales on the Union market, i.e. where injury is being suffered. Thirdly, as the above table shows, overall exports from the Union decreased by 3 %. Lastly, the exports prices of the cooperating sampled producers sales remained stable over the period considered.

• (170) The claim was therefore rejected and it is concluded that the export performance of the Union industry did not cause any material injury.

Elimination of the import quotas

• (171) Until 1 January 2005, for the Members States that were members of the Union at the time the products originating in China and falling within the CN codes referred to in recital (56) were subject to quantitative quotas of which altogether amounted to 84 473 tonnes in 2000 and which were gradually increased to 147 744 tonnes in 2004. Available statistical data indicate that in 2004 imports of the product concerned by the 27 countries that are now Member States amounted to 173 809 tonnes. One year later, once the quotas lifted, those imports went up to 530 294 tonnes. Since then, Chinese imports have never been less than 449 000 tonnes per year.

• (172) As concerns the role of the import quotas in the injury observed during the period considered it should first be noted that, given that the quotas were gradually increased and removed 3 years before the beginning of the period considered and 6 years before the beginning of the IP, there had already been a severe restructuring in the Union market as from 2002 to account for these changed market circumstances. This is also corroborated by information submitted by the complainant on closures and insolvencies of European ceramic tableware producers. As a result, the Union industry had been, by the beginning of the period considered, converted into a downsized and performing sector.

• (173) Consequently, one might argue that the effects of the ending of the import quotas for the product concerned in 2005 may have negatively affected the health state of the Union industry before the beginning of the period considered. But even if this is the case, it is still the dumped imports which have caused the injury in the IP. Therefore, the elimination of the import quota as 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.

Anti-competitive practices on the Union market

• (174) Several parties alleged that injury is caused by anti-competitive practices on the Union market and it was also stated that this anti-dumping proceeding was launched to recuperate losses produced by fines for illegal cartels. CCCLA stated that the presence of collusive practices on the Union market may render the injury data (namely sales prices, sales volumes, market share and profits) both in the complaint and collected throughout the investigation unreliable given that they do not represent a situation that reflects the normal operation of the market.

• (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, Austria, Italy, France, Kingdom of Belgium (Belgium) and the Kingdom of Netherlands (Netherlands) ([^E0008]). The practices in question took place before the period considered and concerned other products. In addition, the only undertaking concerned which was also active in the ceramic tableware and kitchenware sector during the period considered filed an action for the annulment of that fine with the General Court of the European Union. This action remains pending. On the other hand, the German authorities launched a cartel investigation on some German tableware producers in February 2011. The outcomes of the investigation have not been made public by German authorities yet, so no conclusions can be drawn on this point. Moreover, that investigation concerns only one Member State, while the Union industry is quite widespread. The claims were therefore rejected.

• (176) As to the reference made by some parties to the fact that some manufacturers in the Union changed their activities and became also traders of China-origin products, this is a business option which cannot be labelled as being anti-competitive.

Production methods

• (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 methods are by far less efficient than Chinese ones – Union production methods are fully automatic which would entail high re-setting costs when runs are short, expensive mould making, more costly raw materials and, due to a two-firing process, higher energy costs. Moreover, unlike Union producers, Chinese manufacturers would work on the basis of orders, bear less 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 production methods for instance as regards longer runs.

• (178) The investigation showed the existence of relevant technology transfer worldwide. It could not establish a link 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 between dumped imports from the country concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

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 other forms of second-hand markets. For this party, second-hand tableware and kitchenware serve a significant part of current demand and are in direct competition with newly-manufactured tableware and kitchenware. The non-sampled importer provided supporting documentation on web auction values for several product lines of well-known German porcelain manufacturers.

• (180) However, no reasonable basis could be found for extrapolating the volumes and prices from a German speaking platform on very specific collections of three German companies to other Union countries or other product ranges. It was, therefore, impossible to quantify this market and the investigation could not establish that second-hand sales were significant enough to have an impact such as to break the causal link between dumped imports from the country concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

Economic crisis

• (181) According to CCCLA, the alleged injury is caused by the impact of the financial crisis, economic recession and 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 (such as losses on equity or on sovereign bonds) and non-operating expenses linked to the financial crisis.

• (182) The economic crisis may explain contraction in consumption during parts of the period considered. However, it is noteworthy that in a situation of decreasing consumption in the period considered and in a situation of increasing consumption in the period between 2009 and the IP, the performances of the low-priced dumped imports contrast with those of the Union industry.

• (183) The investigation clearly shows that the dumped imports 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 throughout the period considered whereas the Chinese dumped imports gained more market share.

• (184) Therefore, although the economic crisis may have contributed to the Union industry’s poor performance, 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.

Other factors

• (185) An association pointed at other factors that, in its view, would break the causal link. This party referred to intra-Union competition (on the basis that prices within the Union differ considerably) and to the Union safety and health requirements, which are becoming more stringent, thus causing increased production costs. Other factors cited included counterfeiting by some Chinese manufacturers and the existence of non-tariff barriers in a number of non-EU markets, which would hinder exports by Union manufacturers.

• (186) As regards the inter-Union competition argumentation, the investigation did not show any link between injury, the location of Union producers and prices in that Member State. As to the Union safety and health requirements, it is noted that they are applicable to Union-made and imported products, thus impact prices of all operators. Given that no information to substantiate the counterfeiting claim was submitted, the effects of that claim could not be analysed. The claim regarding the existence of non-tariff barriers in a number of non-EU markets could not be retained: such barriers could prevent Union producers from exploiting their export potential, however it has no impact on decreasing sales on the Union market, i.e. where injury is being suffered.

• (187) CCCLA pointed at other factors namely shortages of skilled labour on the Union market and self-inflicted injury, on the basis that some Union manufacturers 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 not cause any injury to the Union industry and should rather be interpreted as a way to compensate decreasing sales on the Union market. As regards any shortage of skilled labour in the ceramic tableware and kitchenware sector in the Union, no interested parties located in the Union claimed to be concerned.

• (188) An importer invited the institutions to analyse the impact of other types of tableware and kitchenware, such as plastic, aluminium, melamine and glass. However, no information was submitted to substantiate the claim. The investigation could not establish any finding about this issue.

• (189) Some parties link the injury suffered by the Union industry to the situation of the Union industry before the period considered. In this respect, several importers alleged that the deterioration of the Union industry started already in the period 1975-2002. However, the 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 which took place long before the period considered: the state aid received by the German porcelain industry and which, according to a non-sampled importer, would prove that the Union industry did not increase its efficiency ([^E0009]).

• (190) The examination of the other known factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry revealed that 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.

Conclusion on causation

• (191) Based on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious 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 meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.

UNION INTEREST Preliminary remarks

• (192) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation it was examined whether, despite the provisional 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 was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users of the product concerned.

Interest of the Union industry

• (193) The Union industry consists of more than 200 producers, with factories located in different Member States of the Union, directly employing more than 25 000 people in the IP in the production and sale of the like product.

• (194) The investigation established that the Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned during the investigation period. In particular, injury indicators relating to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as 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 measures, it is considered that the efforts already made in the sector will not be sufficient to allow the recovery of the Union industry’s financial situation which might deteriorate further.

• (195) The findings of the current investigation are not put into question by the fact that certain Union producers are doing better than others or by the situation of the Union industry before the period considered.

• (196) It is expected that the imposition of measures will restore effective and fair trading conditions on the Union market. That would, in its turn, have a further positive impact on its economic situation and profitability.

• (197) Some importers claimed that if measures are imposed the product concerned will be replaced by other types of products (than Union-made ceramic tableware and kitchenware), such as textiles (e.g. for gift-oriented items) or plastic tableware, thus benefiting non-ceramic sectors. However, the investigation could not confirm that such substitution would be significant.

• (198) It was therefore concluded that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China would be in the interest of the Union industry.

Interest of unrelated importers

• (199) As mentioned in recital 4 above, in view of the apparent high number of unrelated importers sampling was applied.

• (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 resale of ceramic tableware and kitchenware. They were active in different kinds of products, ranging from gift porcelain items through branded earthenware to simple tableware for households. Their level of cooperation varied. For instance, the two largest importers in the sample, which also have major retail activities, did not provide full profitability data and the margin between purchase and resale prices to unrelated customers and one of them even denied access to its accounts. These parties only provided transfer purchase prices and/or transfer sales prices. Therefore, although repeatedly 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.

• (201) In the same vein, the data provided by the two sampled importers/retailers, as it was deficient in many aspects, did not enable an estimation of the gross and net margin of profit of retailers of the product concerned. Therefore, on the basis of the cooperation of the importers in the sample, no determination could be made as regards the ability of the EU supply chain to absorb the proposed anti-dumping duty and, consequently, the impact of such duty on the retail price and, thus, consumers.

• (202) However, firstly, as concerns importers, the vast majority of the importers which replied to the importers’ sampling questions reported a gross margin between purchase and resale price ranging between 50 % and 200 %. The verified figures of the pure importers in the sample confirm that such gross margins are representative. Secondly, publicly available documentation would suggest that the supply chain in the Union (i.e. 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 publication ([^E0010]), a Chinese ceramic mug which is purchased by EU distributors for USD 0.70 would retail, in the EU, for USD 3.50 — with a mark-up of more than 150 % for the distributor/retailer. In such scenario, the anti-dumping duties as proposed would result for most imports in an extra charge of EUR 0,16 (and of EUR 0,36 for non-cooperating producers) for the EU supply chain which would have, overall, a gross margin of EUR 2.08 on this particular product. Moreover, the 2009 CBI market survey on ‘tableware, kitchenware and other household markets’ referred to in recital 112 above reports EU border CIF – consumer prices ratios ranging between 2,6 and 5,3 ([^E0011]). Finally, the sampled importers/retailers never indicated that they will exclude the ceramic tableware and kitchenware from their imports or sales if anti-dumping duties were imposed.

• (203) Taking account of the above, and in the absence of any other reliable information obtained in this investigation so far, it is provisionally considered that the distribution chain in general, including importers, is likely to be able to take in the increase in CIF prices at the proposed levels without any major problem and that consumers are unlikely to experience any price increases. However, interested parties are, again, explicitly invited to submit additional, comprehensive and verifiable data on this issue which would enable to further analyse the impact of measures on the supply chain and, eventually, consumers in the next stage of this proceeding.

• (204) Submissions on Union interest were received from more than 20 non-sampled importers, mostly small enterprises, an association of European and International commerce, a Swedish association of importers and retailers, a Dutch association of importers from the Far East and a Germany-based association and network of importers. A common concern of the importers was that measures would entail import price increases, a (partial) shrinkage of their business and thus a negative impact on them in general in terms of margins and profitability, inter alia. These arguments could not be retained on the basis of the conclusions reached in the next recital and in recital 202.

• (205) Several importers submitted that more jobs would be lost with importers if measures are imposed than jobs would be saved with Union producers. However, this is contradicted by other representations of importers where they submitted that they might replace ceramic items by non-ceramic ones (like textiles for gifts) or that they would be willing to procure more within the Union.

• (206) The Swedish association deemed that measures would have a negative economic impact upon importers in terms of significant re-sourcing and administration costs should the latter have to find alternatives to Chinese imports. An association of European and International commerce pinpointed that changing suppliers is difficult because importers would have heavily invested in them. However, this does not seem to be a main concern of some importers which prefer the possibility of being able to switch sources of supply. Moreover, the fact that the products offered and Union consumption changes with fashion suggests that the occurrence of costs to develop new products (from new suppliers) is inherent to this sector.

• (207) Several non-sampled importers claimed that Union factories are not interested in manufacturing somebody else’s branded products. However, this was contradicted by the outcome of the investigation as regards sampled Union producers (which showed that they produced 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.

• (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 concern amongst importers. It should be noted that the importer concerned had legal disputes with some German manufacturers and that part of its collection would be in direct competition with that of Union manufacturers.

• (209) Certain importers claimed that they cannot procure from Union manufacturers because of their higher costs, lack of capacity for craft items, inability to offer small production runs, inflexibility, lack of an adequate organisation to duly serve big retailers offering many products; and/or the inexistence of some production processes, qualities, types of decoration or shapes. These parties claimed that the problems were particularly important as regards crafts and promotion-oriented items (e.g. pottery), certain branded products sold under license, the manufacturing of certain registered utility models and special side or catering items (e.g. large-volume porcelain items). Some claimed to have no alternative but importing from China. Yet the investigation established 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 producers offer a wide variety of products and have the production capacity to sell more on the Union market.

• (210) In sum, it can be concluded that the imposition of measures may indeed have a possible negative effect on the financial situation of certain importers. On average however, this negative effect is not expected to have a significant financial impact on the overall situation of the importers. In general it is expected that they are able to (partially) support the price increases and/or (partially) pass on the duty to their customers (i.e. wholesalers, distributors, retailers), all the more so because the duties affect the major source in the market. For 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 what extent they would be able to take in a purchase price increase by the proposed duty levels but, as explained in recitals 202-203, the information collected so far does not suggest that they would not be in a position to do so.

• (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.

Interest of other economic sectors

• (212) Several importers alleged that the imposition of any measures will probably negatively affect importers’ business partners, ranging from finishing and decorating 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 alleged that the gift items sector, the advertising industry, the hotel and catering industries, group catering and commercial consumers in general would also be directly affected by a shortage of products. This would lead to an increase in price competition within a short period at the level of large discounts outlets. Institutions which usually struggle with their budgets, such as care establishments, would suffer as well. Moreover, some parties claimed that anti-dumping measures would entail a shortage of raw material for artistic and creative work such as by porcelain painters or craft workshops.

• (213) All these claims have been found to be unwarranted. On the one hand, the statements of these importers seem to contradict those points in their representations where 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 businesses’ to the Union industry will benefit from the imposition of measures. On the other hand, the investigation could not conclude that there will be a shortage of products if imports from China would compete at non-dumped prices. Measures are designed and expected to create a level playing field for all the suppliers of ceramic tableware and kitchenware – and not to unduly limit imports from the country concerned. As regards the suggested increase in price competition, this could be also seen as a positive effect for instance by those institutions which usually struggle with their budgets, such as care establishments.

• (214) The Swedish association deemed that measures would have a negative economic impact upon wholesale and retail sectors in Sweden. It estimated a decrease of 2-3 % in employment (more for young people) and of 20 % in imports. However, the suggested impact seems to be overstated. In this respect is noteworthy that none of the importers that are at the same time retailers and which made representations in the context of the investigation indicated that the whole product will be excluded from their product range if anti-dumping duties were imposed. The job projections made by one of them in the event of imposition of measures are basically the same as in the case where no measures are imposed.

• (215) CCCLA pointed to a Danish study according to which for each euro Union producers gain from trade protection, user companies in the Union must pay up to more than 60 times as much. Yet this statement is very general, it does not specifically related to this investigation and there is no evidence that shows that this would indeed be the impact in this investigation.

• (216) A provider of special retailer promotion actions to major retailers across the world claimed that its business 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 would destroy its ability to sell at promotion prices in the future. It must be recognised that anti-dumping duties may negatively affect this type of business. However, the purpose of the duties is not to exclude the Chinese merchandise from the market. Moreover over the past three years, Union producers covered 33 % of what this party labelled as volatile demand.

• (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 imposition of provisional measures on imports of the product concerned cannot be outweighed by its potentially negative effect on some other economic sectors.

Interest of consumers (households)

• (218) No parties directly representing the interests of end-buyers such as associations of consumers made any representations.

• (219) However, in view of the publicly available data, as mentioned under recital (202) above, it is provisionally concluded that measures at the proposed duty level will be taken in by the supply chain and, therefore, not result in higher prices for consumers at retail level.

• (220) According to CCCLA and several parties representing the interests of importers and retailers, if anti-dumping duties are imposed, EU consumers will suffer the most. In the Union, low income consumers would represent the highest share of the consumers and will be confronted to a more limited choice and higher prices for no additional value and this at a time of a fragile EU economy. Allegedly, this product has psychological price-limits above which consumers would not buy. Certain types of the product would disappear from the market or be replaced by other materials such as plastic, melamine, metal or wood. In general these options would be more environmentally unfriendly products. It 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 claimed that customers do their shopping in their close neighbourhood but that Union producers are unable and unwilling to serve low cost products at local supply facilities. The fact that German producers can offer bigger standard volumes for a cheap price will not satisfy the Union market, which requires variety in line 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 also claimed that if the product is not affordable, new generations will not get the culture for this product.

• (221) As regards claims linked to a more limited choice, it is noted that the investigation revealed that the Union industry is offering a very wide range of products aimed at various markets segments and distribution channels. Measures are expected to help the Union industry exploit its full potential and further enrich the market with its products. In addition, none of the 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.

• (222) As to the claims on higher prices, the investigation aims at creating a level playing field and not at excluding Chinese merchandise from the Union market. No price-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 expected that they are able to transfer the price increases to their customers in the short term. More importantly, given the level of the measures and the significant difference between the import price and the resale price it is unlikely that users and consumers will pay substantially higher prices – the duty is calculated based on the CIF import price and the retail prices is a multiple of the import price. Thus, the duty will most likely be taken up by the supply chain from the importer 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 tableware and kitchenware. It is further noted that the investigation revealed that Union industry can offer competitive prices.

• (223) It could not be concluded that measures would have a significant impact on materials used for kitchenware and tableware either. The type of material is not always the main driver when choosing for instance a ceramic gift-oriented item. However it is clear that interchangeability 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 foodstuffs. It is noteworthy as well that a well-established importer which is also a retailer also thinks that people will continue to eat from ceramic plates rather than from plates made of other types of materials — and its expansion plans are tailored accordingly.

• (224) The claims regarding supply problems cannot be accepted because, on the one hand, the fact of creating a level playing field with fair prices is not tantamount to fully removing imports from China. On the contrary, all world players are expected to benefit from a fairer trade situation. On the other hand, it was found that the fact 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 performance of the Union industry and the fact that it was not working at full capacity during the period considered suggest that Union manufacturers could 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.

• (225) Both a Danish study mentioned by CCCLA and a Swedish piece of research referred to by a Swedish association suggest that anti-dumping measures in general have a costly impact on consumers. Yet these statements are very general, they do not specifically related to this investigation and there is no evidence that shows that this would indeed be the impact in this investigation.

• (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.

Conclusion on Union interest

• (227) In view of the above, it was provisionally concluded that, overall, based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China.

• (228) This conclusion cannot be outweighed by the considerations put forward by several parties, namely that anti-dumping duties in general are a trade-off to their efforts 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 achieving open and fair trade via the defence of Union production against international trade distortions such as dumping, by applying trade defence instruments in compliance with EU law and WTO rules.

• (229) Notwithstanding the above, this preliminary assessment may require further careful analysis following comments of interested parties.

PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES Injury elimination level

• (230) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.

• (231) For the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins found and the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Union industry.

• (232) When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. As explained in recital (135) above, a profit 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.

• (233) On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by deducting the actual profit from the ex-works price and adding to the thus calculated break-even sales price of the Union industry the above-mentioned profit margin of 6 %.

• (234) The necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC, 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. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average total CIF import value.

Provisional measures

• (235) In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.

• (236) On the basis of the above, the anti-dumping duty rates have been established, in this case, at the level of the dumping margins.

• (237) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively 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 any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

• (238) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission ([^E0012]) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

• (239) In order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.

• (240) A party requested measures, if any, to be imposed in the form of a minimum price. The party stated that ad valorem duties would particularly hit customers who buy high quality and/or high weight imported products. However, the investigation revealed that no other form of measures would have been more suitable, account taken of the range of items falling within the product scope.

• (241) On the basis of the above, the dumping and injury margins established and the provisional duty rates are as follows:

Company	Dumping margin	Injury margin	Provisional duty rate
Hunan Hualian China Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Hualian Ebillion Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Liling Hongguanyao China Industry Co., Ltd and Hunan Hualian Yuxiang China Industry Co., Ltd	26,8 %	45,3 %	26,8 %
Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co., Ltd and Guangxi Sanhuan Lucky Xinda Import & Export Co., Ltd	31,2 %	85,3 %	31,2 %
CHL International Ltd and CHL Porcelain Industries Ltd	30,0 %	109,3 %	30,0 %
Shandong Zibo Niceton-Marck Huaguang Ceramics Limited; Zibo Huatong Ceramics Co., Ltd; Shandong Silver phoenix Co., Ltd; Niceton Ceramics (Linyi) Co., Ltd and Linyi Jingshi Ceramics Co., Ltd	17,6 %	76,0 %	17,6 %
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 %

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

Company	Duty	TARIC additional code
Hunan Hualian China Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Hualian Ebillion Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Liling Hongguanyao China Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Hualian Yuxiang China Industry Co., Ltd	26,8 %	B349
Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co., Ltd	31,2 %	B350
CHL Porcelain Industries Ltd	30,0 %	B351
Shandong Zibo Niceton-Marck Huaguang Ceramics Limited; Zibo Huatong Ceramics Co., Ltd; Shandong Silver Phoenix Co., Ltd; Niceton Ceramics (Linyi) Co., Ltd Linyi Jingshi Ceramics Co., Ltd	17,6 %	B352
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

Article 2

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.

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 An 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 Baodayi 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.

• (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 Ceramics Manufacturing 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 Huazhong 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

• (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 Co., 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) Raoping Xinfeng Yangda Colour Porcelain FTY

• (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) Guangdong Shunqiang Ceramics 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 Co. 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

• (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 Kennex 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

• (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 Group Corporation

• (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

• (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. Hunan China

• (258)Kilncraft Ceramics Ltd