Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/508 of 7 April 2020 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan

(224) Yusco Group’s domestic sales of the like product in the investigation period were made either directly to unrelated customers or indirectly via a related domestic service centre. In both cases, it could be established that some of these sales were eventually destined for export. Yusco Group’s export sales to the Union in the investigation period were made directly to independent customers or indirectly through either a related service centre located in Taiwan or a related trader registered in Hong-Kong but located in Taiwan and the PRC.

(225) In the case of Walsin, the domestic and export sales of the like product in the investigation period were made directly to unrelated customers.

(226) The Commission examined the domestic sales reported by Yusco Group and Walsin. Based on the findings during the on-spot verifications in Taiwan, for the transactions where the destination of goods were sea ports or bonded factories (85) (i.e. 0 % VAT), or for certain other reported domestic sales and based on explanations given on the spot by the exporting producers or YC Inox, the Commission reclassified these domestic sales as export sales. These transactions were therefore excluded from the domestic sales transactions used for the calculation of the normal value.

(227) The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for each investigated exporting producer was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period.

(228) On this basis, the total volume of domestic sales of the product under investigation by Yusco Group and Walsin on the domestic market was found to be representative.

(229) The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union for the investigated exporting producers with representative domestic sales.

(230) The Commission then examined whether the product types sold by the exporting producers on their domestic market compared with product types sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of a product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the identical or comparable product type to the Union.

(231) The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each product type during the investigation period in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

(233) In this case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type during the investigation period.

(235) For those product types with no or insufficient sales in the domestic market, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

(237) For the product types not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the average SG&A expenses and profit of transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market for those types were added. For the product types not sold at all on the domestic market, or where no sales were found in the ordinary course of trade, the weighted average SG&A expenses and profit of all transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market were added.

(238) The exporting producers exported to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related companies.

(239) The export price was, thus, established on the basis of prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(240) The Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the exporting producers on an ex-works basis.

(241) Where justified by the need to ensure a fair comparison, the Commission adjusted the normal value and/or the export price for differences affecting prices and prices comparability, in accordance with to Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

(242) Adjustments were made where appropriate for transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing fees, credit cost, bank charges, commissions and SG&A.

(243) For the exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

(245) The level of cooperation in this case was considered high and no other exporting producers could be identified. Consequently, the Commission considered it representative to set the residual dumping margin at the level of the exporting producer with the highest dumping margin.

(246) The like product was manufactured by five known (groups of) producers in the Union during the investigation period. They constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(247) The total Union production during the investigation period was established at around 4,6 million tonnes, including production for the captive market. The Commission established this figure on the basis of all the available information concerning the Union industry, namely the verified questionnaire reply received from Eurofer, where possible cross-checked with the verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

(248) As indicated in recital (7), three Union producers were selected in the sample, representing over 78 % of total Union production of the like product. They are all vertically-integrated producers.

(249) To establish whether the Union industry suffered injury and to determine consumption and the various economic indicators related to the situation of the Union industry, the Commission examined whether and to what extent the subsequent use of the Union industry’s production of the like product had to be taken into account in the analysis.

(250) The Union industry is vertically integrated and SSHR is regarded as an intermediate material for the production of various value added downstream products, namely cold rolled products. The Commission found that a substantial part of the total Union producers’ production was destined for captive use.

(251) The distinction between captive and free market is most relevant for the injury analysis because products destined for captive use are not exposed to direct competition from imports, as they are sold within the same company or groups of companies on the basis of transfer prices set according to internal price policies thus not directly linked to prices on the free market.

(252) By contrast, production destined for free market sales is in direct competition with imports of the product concerned, and is sold at free market prices.

(253) To provide a picture of the Union industry that is as complete as possible, the Commission requested data for the entire activity of SSHR and verified whether the production was destined for captive use or for the free market.

(254) The Commission examined certain economic indicators relating to the Union industry on the basis of data for the free market only. These indicators are: sales volume and sales prices on the Union market; market share; export volume and prices; and profitability. Where possible and appropriate, the findings of the examination were compared with data for the captive market in order to provide a complete picture of the situation of the Union industry.

(255) However, other economic indicators could meaningfully be examined only by referring to the whole SSHR activity, including the captive use of the Union industry. These are: production; capacity and capacity utilisation; investments; stocks; employment; productivity; and wages. This is because they depend on the whole production activity, whether SSHR is kept for captive use or sold on the free market.

(256) The Commission established Union consumption on the basis of: (a) Eurofer data concerning Union industry’s sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union, whether direct or indirect sales, cross-checked with the sampled Union producers; and (b) imports of the product under investigation into the Union from all third countries as reported in Eurostat.

(258) During the period considered, Union consumption remained stable.

(260) Captive consumption on the Union market remained rather stable with some minor fluctuations over the period considered, and decreased by less than 1 % in the investigation period.

(262) The above table shows that overall consumption followed the same trend as observed in free market consumption and in captive consumption, thus remaining stable over the period considered. Overall consumption was also in line with total Union production (see table 7).

(263) The Commission examined whether imports of SSHR originating in the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.

(265) The margins of dumping established in relation to the imports from each of the three countries concerned are summarised under recitals (91), (218) and (241). They are all above the de minimis threshold laid down in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.

(266) The volume of imports from each of the three countries concerned was not negligible. Imports market shares in comparison with free market consumption in the investigation period were 18,3 % for the PRC, 9,1 % for Indonesia and 3,0 % for Taiwan.

(267) The condition of competition between the dumped imports from each of the three countries concerned, and between them and the Union like product were similar. Indeed, SSHR originating in Indonesia, the PRC and Taiwan competed with each other when imported for sale on the Union market, and with the like product produced by the Union industry, as all of them are sold to similar categories of customers.

(268) In its submission at initiation, STSS claimed that imports from the PRC should not be cumulated in view of their different development in terms of volume and prices. It claimed that imports from the PRC decreased gradually over the period considered while prices increased, particularly in 2017.

(269) While it is true that Chinese imports prices increased over the period considered, they were at levels well below the Union industry’s sales prices throughout the period considered. Chinese import volumes also increased significantly, and their market share was above 16 % throughout the whole period. The investigation has shown that imports from the countries concerned compete with each other in the light of Article 3(4)(b) of the basic Regulation. The import volumes from the PRC decreased from 2017 until the investigation period (see table 5: from index 135 in 2017 to 129 in 2018 to 114 in the investigation period). At the same time, import volumes from Indonesia sharply increased (from index 16 to 42 726 to 106 202). In absolute figures, the volume increase from Indonesia was greater than the decrease from the PRC from 2017 until the investigation period. Import volumes from Taiwan increased steadily from 2017 to 2018 but then fell in the investigation period (from index 137 to 173 to 128). Overall, imports from the countries concerned taken together continuously increased over the period considered (from index 100 in 2016 over 136 in 2017 and 156 in 2018 to 166 in the investigation period).

(270) Therefore, and contrary to the claim by STSS, all criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met and imports from the countries concerned were examined cumulatively for the purposes of injury determination.

(271) The Commission established the volume of imports on the basis of Eurostat data. The market share of imports was established by comparing the volume of imports with the Union free market consumption.

(273) Imports from the countries concerned increased by 66 % over the period considered, reaching over 30 % of the Union free market consumption in the investigation period.

(275) Whereas import prices from the PRC and Taiwan increased by 21 % and 25 % respectively, however, import prices from Indonesia fell significantly by 25 % over the period considered (import prices from the countries concerned increased on average by 18 %).. Despite the overall increase, import prices from the countries concerned remain constantly lower than Union industry prices over the same period (see Table 11).

(277) The price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts. The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers’ turnover during the investigation period. It showed a weighted average undercutting margin of 10,7 % for imports from Indonesia, 9,3 % for imports from the PRC and 4,1 % for imports from Taiwan.

(278) In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

(279) As mentioned in recital (7), sampling was used for the determination of possible injury suffered by the Union industry.

(280) For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of data from the questionnaire reply of Eurofer, which was duly verified, relating to all Union producers. The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the questionnaire replies of the three sampled Union producers, which were duly verified. Both sets of data were found to be representative of the economic situation of the Union industry.

(281) The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, stocks, employment, productivity and magnitude of the dumping margin.

(282) The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments.

(284) The Union industry’s production volume was stable until 2018 then decreased by 3 % in the investigation period. The reported capacity figures refer to actual capacity, which implies that adjustments considered as standard by the industry – for set-up time, maintenance, bottle necks and other normal stoppages – have been taken into account. On this basis, production capacity remained practically stable, with a marginal increase by 1 % over the period considered.

(285) As a result of decreased production and slightly increased capacity, capacity utilisation decreased by 4 % over the period considered, and was constantly below 70 %.

(287) The Union industry’s sales volume on the free market fell by 13 % over the period concerned.

(288) The market share of the Union industry also fell significantly, by nearly 10 percentage points, even though consumption in the Union remained stable over the period considered.

(290) The captive volume of the Union industry (composed of SSHR kept by the Union industry for downstream use) on the Union market remained stable at around 3,6 million tonnes during the period considered.

(291) The Union industry’s captive market share (expressed as a percentage of total Union production) increased slighlty in 2017 then remained stable at around 78 % over the rest of the period.

(292) Therefore, in view of the stable trend of the Union captive market over the period considered, the decline in Union industry’s sales was the result of increased pressure exerted by imports from the countries concerned.

(293) The above figures in respect of production, sales volume and market share, which all show a decreasing trend over the period considered, demonstrate that the Union industry was not able to grow, either in absolute terms or in relation to consumption.

(295) The level of Union industry employment related to the production of SSHR increased marginally by 4 % over the period considered. In view of the slight decrease in production, productivity of the Union industry’s workforce, measured as tonnes per employee produced per year, decreased significantly over the period considered.

(296) All dumping margins were significantly above the de minimis level. The impact of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping on the Union industry was substantial, given the volume and prices of imports from the countries concerned.

(298) Average unit sales prices increased by 17 % over the period considered, which was not sufficient to keep up with the development of cost of production that increased by 20 % over the same period. To a large extent the cost evolution was driven by important raw material price increases, such as for nickel, molybdenum and chromium. Whereas between 2016 and 2018 the Union industry was able to pass on this cost increase in relative terms to its sales prices, in the investigation period it was not able to fully pass on the cost increase, as the increase in cost was greater than the increase in prices.

(300) The average labour costs per employee of the sampled Union producers fell by 4 % until 2018, then increased again in the investigation period, though to a level that is still 1 % below the level in 2016. This shows that Union producers were able to lower labour costs, in spite of the deteriorating market circumstances.

(302) During the period considered the level of closing stocks decreased by 20 %. Most types of the like product are produced by the Union industry based on specific orders of the users. Therefore, stocks are not considered to be an important injury indicator for this industry. This is also confirmed by analysing the evolution of the closing stocks as a percentage of production. As can be seen above, this indicator remained relatively stable over the period considered at around 3 % of the production volume.

(303) The Commission established the profitability of the Union producers by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales.

(304) Overall profitability fell from 7,2 % in 2016 to 3,5 % in the investigation period. This drop coincides with the increase of import volumes from the countries concerned at undercutting prices (see recital (276)). Return on investments followed the same downward trend.

(305) Net cash flow evolved to a large extent in line with profitability and return on investments. It was positive from 2016 to 2018, with the peak in 2017, and turned negative in the investigation period, when profitability was at the lowest point in the period considered.

(306) The level of yearly investments increased over the period considered by 57 %. However, the increased investment levels did not translate into corresponding capacity increases (see table 7). Subsequently, the investments merely aimed at retaining the existing capacities and making due replacements of necessary production assets.

(307) Consumption was stable over the period considered. However, the market share of Union producers decreased from 71,2 % to 61,9 %.

(308) The financial indicators of the sample of Union producers show that the Union industry’s cost of production increased (+ 20 %) slightly more than its average sales price (+ 17 %), which meant that the Union industry could not fully pass on the cost increase. This resulted in a significant fall in profit over the period considered, from 7,2 % in 2016 to 3,5 % in the investigation period. A similar negative development is noted in relation to the other financial indicators, return on investment and cash flow.

(309) The Union industry’s sales volume decreased by 13 % and production volume by 3 % over the period considered. The gap is explained by the importance for the Union industry of the captive market, which however did not grow over the period considered. Capacity utilisation was constantly below 70 % and went down by three percentage points over the period considered (66 % in the investigation period).

(310) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded at this stage that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

(311) In accordance with Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports from the countries concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. In accordance with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined whether other known factors could, at the same time, have injured the Union industry. The Commission ensured that any possible injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports from the countries concerned was not attributed to the dumped imports. inter alia, these factors are: imports from third countries, the export performance of the Union industry, increase in costs of production, decrease in Union demand for SSHR in 2018 and the partial reliance by Union producers on captive production.

(312) Prices of imports from all three countries concerned undercut the Union industry’s prices, resulting in undercutting margins of 4,1 % for Taiwan, 9,3 % for the PRC and 10,7 % for Indonesia (9,5 % on average) in the investigation period. The Union industry was therefore unable to account for the increase in cost of production in its Union sales prices, which demonstrates the price pressure exerted by the imports concerned. This situation had a serious impact on Union industry’s profitability, which went down to very low levels in the investigation period.

(314) During the period considered, the market share of imports from third countries declined by 27 % (or by close to 3 percentage points) to 7,7 % in the investigation period. Since during the same period, the countries concerned increased their market share by 66 % (see recital (273) and table 5), the loss of market share by the Union industry is attributed to the steep increase in market share from the countries concerned.

(315) Imports volume from Korea decreased strongly over the period considered, and their market share almost halved, falling to only 2,7 % during the investigation period Average prices of imports from Korea increased by 18 % over the period considered, slightly less than the total of all third countries except the countries concerned (24 %). Imports from South Africa were stable over the period considered but sold at higher prices than the ones from the countries concerned, and they never reached a market share of more than 2,5 %.

(316) The Commission therefore provisionally concluded that imports from other countries have not contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(318) The Union industry was able to increase its export volume by 13 % over the period considered. The additional export sales of around 16 000 tonnes in the investigation period, as compared to the beginning of the period considered, pales compared to the loss of 115 000 tonnes of sales in the Union market during the same period. In addition, Union producers could increase their export unit prices by 14 % over the same period. The export sales of the industry could thus only for a very small part compensate the negative developments both in terms of volumes and prices on the Union market. However, on that basis and contrary to the claim by one interested party, the export performance of the Union industry was positive and could not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(319) Cost of production per tonne of SSHR produced increased by 20 % over the period considered (see table 11). This was mainly due to a strong increase in raw material costs, a factor that has impacted on producers worldwide. In particular, the price of nickel, being the second most important input for several Union producers, increased from less than USD 9 000 in early 2016 to over USD 15 000 in mid-2018 and to still more than USD 12 500 in June 2019. The Union industry was initially also able to pass on this cost increase in its sales prices, however that resulted in an important loss of market share and profitability. In the investigation period, this was not possible anymore due to the price pressure exerted by the dumped imports. As a result, profitability decreased dramatically, that is by 51 % over the period considered.

(320) Several parties claimed that the deterioration affecting the Union industry in the second half of 2018 was in fact due to a decrease in demand; this decrease was, in turn, caused by the imminent imposition of safeguard measures, which resulted in purchases being concentrated in the first half of the year, and to cyclical developments in the global steel market in the second half of the year. Contrary to these claims, the investigation did not reveal any decrease in consumption on the Union market but rather a sharp loss of market share by the Union industry due to a strong increase in imports (see section 4.4.2 and tables 5 and 8). The Commisison was also not able to link the decrease to the safeguard measures. The claim was thus rejected.

(321) Several parties claimed that the Union industry would not, or to a lesser extent, be interested in selling the product concerned on the free market as it would prioritize captive production. Even though the downstream market is important to the Union industry, it is also selling significant volumes of the product concerned on the free market and has still significant spare capacity to produce and thus sell more. In addition, the Union captive market has not grown over the period considered. For these reasons, the claim was rejected.

(322) One interested party claimed that overcapacity in the Union was a cause of injury to the Union industry. However, the investigation confirmed that Union industry’s total production capacity remained stable (+ 1 %) during the period considered, contrary to the PRC and Indonesia, which have been building up significant overcapacities in order to export the output resulting from these excess capacities to the Union, thus taking up market shares from the Union producers. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(323) One interested party claimed that, since the Union industry (and the steel sector globally) performed exceptionally well in 2017, particularly as regards profits, the decrease in 2018 was in fact a natural consequence. However, the investigation provisionally found a significant deterioration in certain injury indicators from the beginning to the end of the period considered, meaning that the starting point was 2016 and not 2017. Indeed, as compared to 2016, profitability halved and both sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market and their market share fell by 13 %. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(324) Two interested parties claimed that the additional costs borne by the Union producers of the like product in order to meet the strict EU standards in terms of environment makes them less competitive on the Union market. On this claim, the Commission considers that the high environmental standards in the Union cannot be considered as a self-inflicting cause of injury. To the contrary, the high environmental EU standards are taken into account in the calculation of the target price. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(325) One interested party claimed that both Union industry prices and the prices of Chinese imports have increased, therefore Chinese imports cannot be a cause of injury. However, the prices of the Chinese imports constantly remained significantly below the average Union industry prices and also undercut the Union prices during the investigation period. In addition, as regards volumes, there was a significant increase in imports from the PRC over the period considered which added to price pressure. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(326) In light of the above consideration, the Commission provisionally established a causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the countries concerned.

(327) The Commission distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports. All other identified factors, in particular imports from third countries, export performance of the Union industry, increase in costs of production, decrease in demand for SSHR in 2018, the partial reliance by Union producers on captive production, overcapacity in the Union as a result of global overcapacity, the exceptionally favourable market circumstances in 2017, the additional environmental costs borne by Union producers and the increase in import prices from the PRC were provisionally not found to attenuate the causal link, even considering their possible combined effect.

(328) To determine the level of the measures, the Commission examined whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove the injury caused by dumped imports to the Union industry.

(329) In the present case, the complainants claimed the existence of raw material distortions within the meaning of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation with regard to two of the countries under investigation, namely Indonesia and the PRC. The assessment concerning these countries is included in section 6.2 below.

(330) The Commission first established the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury suffered by the Union industry in the absence of distortions in the sense of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation. In this case, the injury would be eliminated if the Union industry was able to cover its costs of production, including those costs resulting from Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and protocols thereunder, to which the Union is a party, and of ILO Conventions listed in Annex Ia of the basic Regulation, and to obtain a reasonable profit (‘target profit’).

(331) In accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, for establishing the target profit, the Commission took into account the following factors: the level of profitability before the increase of imports from the country under investigation, the level of profitability needed to cover full costs and investments, research and development (R&D) and innovation, and the level of profitability to be expected under normal conditions of competition. The Union industry claimed that 2017 was a suitable year for establishing a target profit. The Commission considers that 2017 was an exceptionally good year for the industry and that the profit achieved by the sampled Union producers in that year (10,2 %) is thus likely to be tainted if used as a target profit. Moreover, the market share of imports in 2017 was already 29,1 %. By contrast, in 2016 the market share of imports was considerably lower than in 2017 (21,5 %). In the absence of any other information, the Commission decided to provisionally use the average profit achieved over the years 2016 and 2017 as target profit. That profit is 8,7 %.

(332) In accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, the Commission assessed a claim made by one Union producer on planned investments which were not implemented during the period considered. Based on the documentary evidence received, the Commission provisionally accepted that claim and added the corresponding amount to the non-injurious price of that Union producer.

(333) In accordance with Article 7(2d) of the basic Regulation, the Commission assessed the future costs resulting from Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and protocols thereunder, to which the Union is a party, that the Union industry will incur during the period of application of the measure pursuant to Article 11(2). Based on the evidence available, the Commission established an additional cost in a range between EUR 1,5 and 6 per tonne, which was added to the non-injurious price.

(334) On this basis, the Commission calculated a non-injurious price of the like product for the Union industry by adding the above-mentioned profit margin of 8,7 % and the adjustments under Article 7(2c) and 7(2d) to the cost of production of the sampled Union producers during the investigation period.

(335) The Commission then determined the injury elimination level on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price, as established for the verified cooperating exporting producers in the countries concerned on a type-by-type basis, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the weighted average non-injurious prices of the same product types sold by the sampled Union producers on the Union free market during the investigation period. Any difference resulting from this comparison was expressed as a percentage of the weighted average import CIF value.

(338) Since the underselling margin calculated for the Indonesian and the Chinese exporting producers was lower than the dumping margin, the Commission assessed whether there are distortions on raw materials with regard to the product concerned, pursuant to Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation.

(339) The complainant provided sufficient evidence in the complaint that there are raw material distortions within the meaning of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation with regard to the product concerned in Indonesia and the PRC. Thus, as announced in the Notice of Initiation, when assessing the appropriate level of measures in relation to Indonesia and the PRC, the Commission examined the alleged distortions and any other distortions in Indonesia and the PRC covered by Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation.

(340) The raw materials claimed to be affected by such distortions were nickel (ferronickel, nickel pig iron, nickel ore, scrap nickel), coal, and stainless steel scrap in Indonesia and stainless steel scrap, chromium, coking coal, ferrochromium, ferrosilicon, crude (stainless) steel, and vanadium in the PRC.

(341) Out of these raw materials, the Commission identified the main raw materials used in the production of the product concerned by each of the sampled exporting producers. The Commission considered as main raw materials those which represent at least 17 % of the cost of production of the product concerned.

(342) With regard to Indonesia, the investigation confirmed that distortions within the meaning of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation existed on raw materials during the investigation period in the form of an export ban (90) on nickel ore with a nickel content of 1,7 % and more, an export tax (91) of 10 % on nickel ore with a nickel content of less than 1,7 %, a licensing requirement (92) and a de facto export quota (93) on nickel ore with the latter nickel content, and a de facto licensing requirement (94) on ferronickel and nickel pig iron.

(343) The investigation, further, established that nickel ore represented more than 17 % of the total costs of production of the product under investigation.

(344) Finally, the investigation concluded that the price paid for nickel ore was significantly lower (by more than 30 %) than the price in the representative international market, in line with Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation.

(345) In this respect, the Commission compared the purchase price of the Indonesian exporting producers to the FOB price of nickel ore with a nickel content of 1,8 % in the Philippines (95). The Commission considered the price in the Philippines suitable as the Philippines, similarly to Indonesia, belong to the countries with the world’s highest reserves of nickel ore (96). Moreover, the nickel content of the nickel ore in this representative international market was very similar to the average nickel content of nickel ore purchased by the Indonesian exporting producers. Finally, the Commission considered that the transport costs between the supplier and the port included in the FOB price reflected the transport costs incurred by the Indonesian exporting producers.

(346) Therefore, the requisite under Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation, namely the existence of distortion(s) on a raw material accounting for more than 17 % of the cost of production of the product concerned, was met with regard to Indonesia.

(347) With regard to the PRC, the investigation confirmed that distortions within the meaning of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation existed on raw materials during the investigation period in the form of an export tax on stainless steel scrap, ferrosilicon, nickel pig iron and ferrochromium; and a licensing requirement on ferrosilicon, vanadium, ferronickel and ferrochromium. The Commission based this finding on the data available in the OECD database (97) and on the relevant legislation applicable in the PRC.

(348) The investigation further established that, for each of the sampled companies, at least one of the above main raw materials represented more than 17 % of their total cost of production of the product under investigation (98).

(349) The investigation concluded that the price paid by the two sampled Chinese exporting producers in the PRC for these main raw materials was significantly lower than the price in the representative international market used for each respective raw material, for which the same sources were used as for the construction of the normal value in accordance with Article 2 (6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(350) Therefore, the requisite under Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation, namely the existence of distortion(s) on a raw material accounting for more than 17 % of the cost of production of the product concerned, were met with regard to the PRC.

(351) Having concluded that there are raw material distortions as provided for by Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation in the case of the PRC and Indonesia, the Commission examined whether it could clearly conclude that it was in the Union interest to determine the amount of provisional duties in accordance with Article 7(2b) of the basic Regulation. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all pertinent information to this investigation, including the spare capacities in the exporting countries, competition for raw materials and the effect on supply chains for Union companies in accordance with Article 7(2b) of the basic Regulation. In order to conduct this assessment, the Commission inserted specific questions in the questionnaires to all interested parties. The complainant and the sampled Union producers provided response to those questions.

(352) On the basis of information provided by Eurofer, spare capacity in the PRC was estimated at 26,4 million tonnes in 2019 (99), and spare capacity of the total stainless steel sector in Indonesia was estimated at 4 million tonnes in 2019. (100)

(353) According to the GOI questionnaire however, spare capacity in Indonesia is currently at 2,1 million tonnes. By contrast, the Union free market had a size of 1,2 million tonnes. In relative terms, spare capacities in the exporting countries are therefore of an enormous magnitude.

(354) As regards competition for raw materials, the GOC provided no meaningful information on the market for the distorted raw materials in the PRC, as set out in recital (347). The complainant stated that by artificially increasing or decreasing the level of raw materials supply, or simply by centrally setting the prices, the GOC can steer the prices upwards or downwards. As set out in Section 6.2.2 above, the Chinese raw materials market was considered to be distorted.

(355) With regard to Indonesia, the investigation found that Indonesia has one of the biggest nickel ore mining sectors in the world. Therefore, by having export restrictions on nickel ore brings, the GOI brings prices artificially down on the domestic Indonesian market.

(356) Both countries have export restrictions on nickel containing inputs, which is also the second most important input of the Union producers, as set out in recital (319).

(357) All these issues create a comparative disadvantage for the Union industry compared to the exporting producers in the countries concerned. The Commission deems that this situation is unlikely to change in the near future. With regard to Indonesia, the situation even worsened recently. Measures allowing for exports of nickel ore with a nickel content below 1,7 % were supposed to last until January 2022. The GOI, however, decided to expedite their termination. All exports of nickel ore were prohibited as of January 2020 (101). There is no evidence that the GOI would reverse its policy in the near future.

(358) In the lack of full cooperation from importers, the Commission provisionally established that the main effect on supply chains will be felt at the level of users. The possible effect on supply chains for Union companies, stipulated under Article 7(2b) of the basic Regulation, was, in view of the important difference between the dumping and injury margins for exporting countries, assessed in the context of the Union interest test pursuant to Article 21 of the basic Regulation.

(359) As concluded in recital (373) below, that analysis resulted in the determination that, in view of the effect of measures at the level of the dumping margin, it is not in accordance with the Union interest to apply Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation.

(360) In view of the analysis set out above, the Commission concluded that, in accordance with Artile 7(2a) of the basic Regulation, it is not in the interest of the Union to set the level of the measures at the level of dumping in view of the disproportionally negative effect this is likely to have on supply chains for Union companies.

(361) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether it could clearly conclude that it was not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this case, despite the determination of injurious dumping. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users.

(362) The Union industry is located in several Member States and it employs directly 2 372 employees in relation to the product under investigation. None of the Union producers opposed the initiation of the investigation. As shown in section 4 above when analysing the injury indicators, the whole Union industry experienced a deterioration of its situation and was negatively affected by the dumped imports.

(363) It is expected that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties will restore fair trading conditions on the Union market, end the price depression and enable the Union industry to recover. This would result in an improvement of the Union industry’s profitability towards levels considered necessary for this capital intensive industry. The Union industry has suffered material injury caused by imports at dumped prices from the countries concerned. It is recalled that a number of key injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. In particular, market share and sales volume, as well as indicators pertaining to the financial performance of the sampled Union producers, such as profitability and return on investment, were seriously affected. It is therefore important to restore prices to non-dumped or at least non-injurious level in order to allow all producers to operate on the Union market under fair trading conditions. In the absence of measures, a further deterioration of the Union industry’s economic situation is very likely. A bad performance on the SSHR segment would impact the downstream segments of Union producers, and in particular their captive production. Union producers heavily rely on the business model of a combination of free market sales and captive production. A deterioration of the free market segment could likewise put at risk the captive production segment, which represents bigger production volumes and employment figures than the former.

(364) It is therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would be in the interest of the Union industry as it would allow it to recover from the effects of injurious dumping found.

(365) Two parties made themselves known as unrelated importers and replied to the relevant questionnaire. However, the reply of one of them was not further followed up as the importer turned out to be operating from outside the Union.

(366) The second party turned out not be a genuine importer but a service centre for various operations. Therefore, there was no cooperation from genuine importers. According to the cooperating service center operator, increasing the price of the products concerned results in higher cost of manufacturing for European users of the products, causing injury to these users. More specifically, the party made a product exclusion request which is addressed under Section 2.3 along with other such claims.

(367) On that basis, at this stage there is no indication that measures would be against the interest of importers.

(368) Two users cooperated with the investigation.

(369) One of the users which submitted a questionnaire reply was a producer of stainless steel tubes. With regard to that user, the Commission found that in view of its purchasing and importing volumes, its total profit and its profit derived from output products that involve the product concerned as an input, the imposition of measures would not unduly harm it.

(370) The second cooperating user is a producer of stainless steel products which competes with the Union industry on several of its key downstream markets. It purchases significant volumes of SSHR from the Union industry as well as from producers outside the Union, including in the countries concerned. That user has raised concerns on the security of supply and purchase prices following any imposition of duties. It is the only large independent user of the product concerned in the Union. Without integrated steel production, it fully depends on coils supplies from other parties to manufacture its downstream products. The party claimed that the Union industry is not interested in selling additional large volumes of SSHR to it, and in particular one product type (black coils), at competitive prices, since the Union producers would prefer to keep them for their own captive use. This claim is rebutted by the fact that the Union industry had spare capacities throughout the period considered that exceeded the total demand of that user at least fourfold. Moreover, as the complainant has submitted, several Union producers are ready to supply black coils as communicated on the producers’ websites. Finally, given the user’s already established supply chains and contacts with third country producers, it is also reasonable to expect that it will be able also to diversify its supply by purchasing more from third countries.

(371) Provided that all relevant factors (in particular sources, volumes and prices before duties of purchases and turnover achieved on downstream products) would remain unchanged as compared to the investigation period, the Commission established that the overall annual profit of that user would be seriously affected in a negative way if duties were imposed on imports from the PRC and Indonesia pursuant to Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation.

(372) If, under the same assumption as in recital (369), duties were imposed on imports from the PRC and Indonesia pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the overall annual profit would also be affected but to a much lesser extent.

(373) The above scenarios are based on static assumptions (i.e. all relevant factors remain unchanged except that duties will be imposed and hence to be factored in). In fact, they are worst case scenarios as, as explained below, in case duties are imposed the other underlying factors are likely to change.

(374) In the first place, sourcing patterns and purchase prices will not remain the same. If prices of imports from in particular the PRC and Indonesia will be made subject to an upwards correction, imports from other sources of supply are likely to resume in larger volumes. In particular, we note that imports from South Korea were at high levels up to and including 2016, when they amounted to 65 000 tonnes. In view of market developments since then, these imports have lost important market shares over the years (see table 15) but it can be expected that after the imposition of measures exporting producers from Korea but also from other producing countries like South Africa will again increasingly focus on the Union market as they will be in a better position to compete, to the benefit of the users. Also, it is expected that due to the relief offered by the measures the Union industry will be in a position to sell more volumes to the users at competitive prices. The Union industry simply cannot afford to lose important market shares in the Union as this investigation testified. As regards the second user mentioned above, owing to its size and importance as a customer of the Union industry, it may have some leverage that is likely to increase in case it buys even larger volumes from the Union industry.

(375) It is also to be noted that it is foreseen that in July 2021, the currently applicable steel safeguard measures which also concern the product conerned will expire. This means that from July 2021, users will have increased access to alternative sources as the quota restrictions which have been in place since 19 July 2018 will be lifted.

(376) It is therefore expected that the users as a whole are likely to be affected negatively by the imposition of duties, but that the impact of the duty at the established levels for the PRC and Indonesia pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation is not as such as to be disproportionate, as it is expected that the user industry will then be able to adapt to the new situation. Indeed, if the level of duties were to be set pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, all of the cooperating users are expected to remain profitable.

(377) However, if duties were to be imposed pursuant to Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission established that the possible impact of measures against the PRC and Indonesia at the level of the dumping margin would be disproportionate in view of the possible strong negative effects on supply chains for certain Union companies and in particular on users. Indeed, the Commission found that in such a scenario the user industry, and in particular users which purchased significant volumes from the PRC and/or Indonesia in the investigation period, might be unduly affected and could become as a result loss making.

(378) On the basis of the above, and under the condition that duties are to be imposed pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission provisionally concluded that there were no compelling reasons that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in the countries concerned at this stage of the investigation.

(379) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed imports of flat-rolled products of stainless steel, whether or not in coils (including products cut-to-length and narrow strip), not further worked than hot-rolled originating in Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan, to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.

(380) Provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed in accordance with the lesser duty rule in Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation. The Commission compared the injury margins and the dumping margins. The amount of the duties was set at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins.

(382) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the provisional findings of this investigation. Therefore, they reflected the situation found during this investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates are exclusively applicable to imports of the product concerned originating in the countries concerned and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of product concerned produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’. They should not be subject to any of the individual anti-dumping duty rates.

(383) A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission (102). The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a notice informing about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(384) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the proper application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The companies with individual anti-dumping duties must present a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this regulation. Imports not accompanied by that invoice should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(385) While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rates of anti-dumping duty to imports, it is not the only element to be taken into account by the customs authorities. Indeed, even if presented with an invoice meeting all the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation, the customs authorities of Member States should carry out their usual checks and may, like in all other cases, require additional documents (shipping documents, etc.) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration and ensure that the subsequent application of the rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

(386) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume, in particular after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances, an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated, provided the conditions for so doing are met. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

(387) To ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duties, the anti-dumping duty for all other companies should apply not only to the non-cooperating exporting producers in this investigation, but to the producers which did not have exports to the Union during the investigation period.

(388) As mentioned in recital (3), the Commission made imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils subject to registration. Registration took place with a view to possibly collecting duties retroactively under Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation. Registration was thus ongoing during the pre-disclosure phase.

(389) In view of the findings at provisional stage, the registration of imports should cease/be discontinued.

(390) No decision on a possible retroactive application of anti-dumping measures has been taken at this stage of the proceeding. Such a decision will be taken at definitive stage.

(391) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, the Commission informed interested parties about the planned imposition of provisional duties. This information was also made available to the general public via DG TRADE’s website. Interested parties were given three working days to provide comments on the accuracy of the calculations specifically disclosed to them.

(392) Two exporting producers in the PRC, two exporting producers in Indonesia and three producers and one independent service centre in Taiwan submitted their comments. The Commission took into account comments that were considered of a clerical nature and in necessary, corrected the margins accordingly.

(393) In the interests of sound administration, the Commission will invite the interested parties to submit written comments and/or to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings within a fixed deadline.

(394) The findings concerning the imposition of provisional duties are provisional and may be amended at the definitive stage of the investigation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

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 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, 7 April 2020.

For the Commission The President Ursula VON DER LEYEN

(1) OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2) Notice of Initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Indonesia (OJ C 269 I, 12.8.2019. p. 1).

(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/104 of 23 January 2020 making imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Indonesia subject to registration (OJ L 19, 24.1.2020, p. 5).

(4) See section 3.2 of the Regulation.

(5) Available at https://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/case_details.cfm?id=2411

(6) Available at https://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/case_details.cfm?id=2411

(7) This consortium is a group of 20 distributors and users, representing altogether approximately 500 000 tonnes of Union consumption and collectively employing ca. 30 000 people in the Union.

(8) Unless otherwise provided, the information on IMIP was sourced from: IMIP. 2017 Annual Report, available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584e20fe197aea0e29105534/t/5c986900eb393132e86a5f1a/1553492333714/IMIP+2017+Annual+Report.pdf (last viewed 3 March 2020).

(9) WTO Panel Report, United States – Anti-dumping measures on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea (WT/DS488/15), para. 7.198.

(10) Article 1.2(a) of Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.

(11) Article 11 of Regulation of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources No 7/2017 concerning procedures for determining the benchmark prices for sales of metal minerals and coal.

(12) Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, 20 December 2017, SWD(2017) 483 final/2.

(13) Report – Chapter 2, p. 6–7.

(14) Report – Chapter 2, p. 10.

(15) Available at http://www.fdi.gov.cn/1800000121_39_4866_0_7.html (last viewed 2 March 2020).

(16) Report – Chapter 2, p. 20–21.

(17) Report – Chapter 3, p. 41, 73–74.

(18) Report – Chapter 6, p. 120–121.

(19) Report – Chapter 6, p. 122–135.

(20) Report – Chapter 7, p. 167–168.

(21) Report – Chapter 8, p. 169–170, 200–201.

(22) Report – Chapter 2, p. 15–16, Report – Chapter 4, p. 50, p. 84, Report – Chapter 5, p. 108–109.

(23) Report – Chapter 3, p. 22–24 and Chapter 5, p. 97–108.

(24) Report – Chapter 5, p. 104–109.

(25) Report – Chapter 14, p. 358: 51 % private and 49 % SOEs in terms of production and 44 % SOEs and 56 % private companies in terms of capacity.

(26) Available at www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2016-02/04/content_5039353.htm (last viewed 2 March 2020), https://policycn.com/policy_ticker/higher-expectations-for-large-scale-steel-enterprise/?iframe=1&secret=c8uthafuthefra4e

(last viewed 2 March 2020), and www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-04/23/c_138001574.htm (last viewed 2 March 2020).

(27) Available at http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-04/23/c_138001574.htm (last viewed 2 March 2020) and http://www.jjckb.cn/2019-04/23/c_137999653.htm (last viewed 2 March 2020).

(28) As was the case of the merger between the private company Rizhao and the SOE Shandong Iron and Steel in 2009. See Beijing steel report, p. 58, and the acquired majority stake of China Baowu Steel Group in Magang Steel in June 2019, see https://www.ft.com/content/a7c93fae-85bc-11e9-a028-86cea8523dc2 (last viewed 2 March 2020).

(29) See Reuters, ‘China’s Baosteel’s takeover of Wuhan to create world’s No 2 steelmaker’ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-baosteel-mergers-idUSKCN11Q0U3 (last viewed 10 March 2020).

(30) Annex 29 of the complaint.

(31) The World Nickel Factbook 2018 http://insg.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/publist_The-World-Nickel-Factbook-2018.pdf (last viewed 3 March 2020).

(32) ‘Analysis of Market-Distortions in the Chinese Non-Ferrous Metals Industry’ © THINK!DESK China Research & Consulting – pages 136–138

https://eurometaux.eu/media/1624/study_-analysis-of-market-distortions-in-china.pdf (last viewed 2 March 2020).

(33) Report – Chapter 5, p. 100–101.

(34) Report – Chapter 2, p. 26

(35) Report – Chapter 2, p. 31232.

(36) Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies-idUSKCN1B40JU (last viewed 2 March 2020).

(37) The full text of the plan is available on the MIIT website:

http://www.miit.gov.cn/n1146295/n1652858/n1652930/n3757016/c5353943/content.html (last viewed 2 March 2020).

(38) TISCO, ‘Company profile’, http://en.tisco.com.cn/CompanyProfile/20151027095855836705.html (last viewed 2 March 2020).

(39) Baowu, ‘Company profile’, http://www.baowugroup.com/en/contents/5273/102759.html (last viewed 2 March 2020).

(40) See Complaint. page 19, quoting MCI, ‘Gao Jianbing appointed as the President of TISCO’, 12 October 2018, https://metals-consulting.com/gao-jianbing-appointed-as-deputy-party-secretary-deputy-chairman-of-the-board-and-the-president-of-tisco/ (last viewed 10 March 2020).

(41) Report – Chapters 14.1 to 14.3.

(42) Report – Chapter 4, p. 41–42 and 83.

(43) Report, Part III, Chapter 14, p. 346 ff.

(44) Introduction to The Plan for Adjusting and Upgrading the Steel Industry.

(45) Report, Chapter 14, p. 347.

(46) The 13th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China (2016–2020), available at https://en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease_8232/201612/P020191101481868235378.pdf (last viewed 2 March 2020).

(47) Report – Chapter 14, p. 349.

(48) Report – Chapter 14, p. 352.

(49) Catalogue for Guiding Industry Restructuring (2011 Version) (2013 Amendment) issued by Order No 9 of the National Development and Reform Commission on 27 March 2011, and amended in accordance with the Decision of the National Development and Reform Commission on Amending the Relevant Clauses of the Catalogue for Guiding Industry Restructuring (2011 Version) issued by Order No 21 of the National Development and Reform Commission on 16 February 2013.

(50) Report – Chapter 14, pp. 375–376.

(51) Report – Chapter 6, p. 138–149.

(52) Report – Chapter 9, p. 216.

(53) Report – Chapter 9, p. 213–215.

(54) Report – Chapter 9, p. 209–211.

(55) Report – Chapter 13, p. 332–337.

(56) Report – Chapter 13, p. 336.

(57) Report – Chapter 13, p. 337–341.

(58) Report – Chapter 6, p. 114–117.

(59) Report – Chapter 6, p. 119.

(60) Report – Chapter 6, p. 120.

(61) Report – Chapter 6, p. 121–122, 126–128, 133–135.

(62) See IMF Working Paper ‘Resolving China’s Corporate Debt Problem’, by Wojciech Maliszewski, Serkan Arslanalp, John Caparusso, José Garrido, Si Guo, Joong Shik Kang, W. Raphael Lam, T. Daniel Law, Wei Liao, Nadia Rendak, Philippe Wingender, Jiangyan, October 2016, WP/16/203.

(63) Report – Chapter 6, p. 121–122, 126–128, 133–135.

(64) World Bank Open Data – Upper Middle Income, available at https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/upper-middle-income (last viewed 2 March 2020).

(65) For example see https://www.jornalcontabil.com.br/quanto-custa-um-funcionario-aprenda-a-calcular/ or https://establishbrazil.com/articles/whats-real-cost-employee (last viewed 3 March 2020).

(66) As explained in recital (190), the London Metal Exchange was used as the basis for this undistorted value, corrected for the nickel content of the raw material. As the nickel content varied between the sampled companies, the exact undistorted value is given in the company-specific disclosure.

(67) Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 33).

(68) Brazilian imports are reported at FOB level in GTA.

(69) Due to export restrictions or negligible quantities imported.

(70) Exports to the PRC were excluded. https://connect.ihs.com/home (last viewed 3 March 2020).

(71) Exports to the PRC were excluded. https://connect.ihs.com/home (last viewed 3 March 2020).

(72) South Korea is the third largest exporter of SS slabs – after Indonesia (the country under investigation) and second exporter being the UK. Exports to the PRC were excluded. The remaining exporting countries accounted for substantially smaller volumes.

(73) On FOB basis.

(74) These materials were listed for each company in their respective specific disclosures. Additionally, one of the energy factors, i.e. steam, for all the companies, was treated in the same way.

(75) Available at https://www.ilo.org/ilostat/faces/oracle/webcenter/portalapp/pagehierarchy/Page21.jspx?_afrLoop=518377340582818&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=o8k2wnnrz_1#!%40%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Do8k2wnnrz_1%26_afrLoop%3D518377340582818%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Do8k2wnnrz_54 (last viewed 28 February 2020).

(76) Available at https://establishbrazil.com/articles/whats-real-cost-employee (last viewed 28 February 2020).

(77) Available at http://www.edp.com.br/distribuicao-es/saiba-mais/informativos/tarifas-aplicadas-a-clientes-atendidos-em-alta-e-media-tensao-(grupo-a) (last viewed 4 February 2020).

(78) Available at http://www.aneel.gov.br/a-aneel (last viewed 4 February 2020).

(79) Available at http://www.aneel.gov.br/bandeiras-tarifarias (last viewed 4 February 2020).

(80) Available at http://www.edp.com.br/distribuicao-es/saiba-mais/informativos/bandeira-tarifaria (last viewed 4 February 2020).

(81) http://site.sabesp.com.br/site/interna/Default.aspx?secaoId=183 (last viewed 28 February 2020).

(82) For example the Metropolitan area http://site.sabesp.com.br/site/uploads/file/asabesp_doctos/comunicado_06_2018.pdf

http://site.sabesp.com.br/site/uploads/file/asabesp_doctos/Comunicado%205-19.pdf

(last viewed 28 February 2020).

(83) https://www.comgas.com.br/tarifas/historico-de-tarifas/2018-2/ (last viewed 4 February 2020).

(84) The margin applies to all other Chinese producers of the product under investigation of the TISCO group as listed in the operative part of the Regulation.

(85) Article 6-1 of the Taiwanese law called ‘Value-added and Non-value-added Business Tax Act’ defines a bonded factory as an entity operating in an export processing zone.

(86) The precise market share was 0,0086 % in 2016.

(87) The precise market share was 0,0014 % in 2017.

(88) Considering the precise market share in 2017 (see footnote 2 above), the index is at 16 in that year.

(89) The vast majority of sales were sales made directly to independent end-customers. Sales to wholesalers represented [1 to 5 %] of the total sales of the countries concerned (whereas the rest were made to end-users). [95 to 100 %] of the sales made by the Chinese, Indonesian, and Taiwanese exporting producers were made directly into the Union (the rest being made via related importers). The sampled Union producers also sell predominantly directly to independent end-customers, including re-rollers and tube-makers, representing [80 to 85 %] of their total sales in the Union. Whereas [10 to 15 %] of their total sales in the Union are to wholesalers.

(90) Article 4 and Annex IV of Regulation of the Minister of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia No 1/M-DAG/PER/1/2017.

(91) Articles 2, 12 and 14, and Annexes I(G) and II(G) of Regulation of the Minister of Finance of the Repulic of Indonesia No 13/PMK.010/2017.

(92) Article 7(3) and Annex III of Regulation of the Minister of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia No 1/M-DAG/PER/1/2017.

(93) Article 4 and Annex III of Regulation of the Minister of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia No 1/M-DAG/PER/1/2017.

(94) Article 7(1) and Annex I of Regulation of the Minister of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia No 1/M-DAG/PER/1/2017.

(95) As reported by FerroAlloyNet, available at: https://www.ferroalloynet.com/ (last viewed 10 March 2020).

(96) International Nickel Study Group. The World Nickel Factbook 2018, p. 7 available at https://insg.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/publist_The-World-Nickel-Factbook-2018.pdf (last viewed 10 March 2020).

(97) OECD Inventory on export restrictions on Industrial Raw Materials available at https://qdd.oecd.org/subject.aspx?Subject=ExportRestrictions_IndustrialRawMaterials (last viewed 6 March 2020).

(98) As the exact quantity of production materials is considered business confidential, those raw materials that constitute more than 17 % of the cost of production of the product concerned and the undistorted price of the raw materials as established in representative international markets are provided to the sampled Chinese companies in an individual specific disclosure.

(99) Non-confidential version of the complaint, page 66, para. 336.

(100) Non-condidential version of the complaint, page 69, para. 352.

(101) Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-nickel/indonesian-nickel-miners-agree-to-stop-ore-exports-immediately-investment-chief-idUSKBN1X7106 (last viewed 11 March 2020).

(102) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H, Rue de la Loi 170, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.