Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/9 of 6 January 2021 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey

• (145) Imports from the other countries were very small and made on average at higher prices than imports from Turkey.

• (146) On that basis, the Commission provisionally concluded that the impact of imports from other countries does not attenuate the causal link between dumped Turkish imports and material injury suffered by Union producers.

5.2.2.   Export performance of the Union industry

• (147) The volume and prices of exports of the Union industry to unrelated parties developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 15

Export sales

	2016	2017	2018	IP
Export volume (tonnes)	1 597 262	1 550 220	1 434 739	1 872 411
Index	100	97	90	117
Average price (Euro/tonne)	382	502	554	465
Index	100	132	145	122
Source: Eurofer (volumes) and sampled Union producers (prices)	Source: Eurofer (volumes) and sampled Union producers (prices)	Source: Eurofer (volumes) and sampled Union producers (prices)	Source: Eurofer (volumes) and sampled Union producers (prices)	Source: Eurofer (volumes) and sampled Union producers (prices)

• (148) Union producers increased export volumes by 17 % over the period considered to slightly below 1.9 million tonnes in 2019. Exports are often made under long-term contracts and the investigation revealed that they mostly consist of a lower end product mix than sales in the Union. Nevertheless, in particular in the investigation period the exports by the Union industry could partly compensate for the sales volumes lost on the Union market and helped the Union producers to dilute fixed and other costs.

• (149) Overall, however, the volumes exported by the Union industry represented only ca. 7 % of its sales volume on the Union free market in the investigation period and on that basis, the Commission provisionally concluded that the impact of the export performance of the Union producers on the injury suffered by the Union industry was, if any, marginal.

5.2.3.   Captive consumption

• (150) As shown in table 1 above, captive consumption fell by 7 % during the period considered. This drop took place mainly in the second part of the period considered and was partly due to the fact that one Union producer sold in 2019 a number of lines using the product under investigation to a non-related company ¹⁹. In addition, during the period considered steel consumption in certain downstream sectors fell. The Commission was unable to quantify the fall in each of them.

• (151) On that basis, the Commission provisionally concluded that the role of the captive consumption evolution on the injury suffered by the Union industry, if any, was marginal.

5.2.4.   Evolution of demand

• (152) As shown in table 2, free market consumption at the beginning and the end of the period considered was basically the same.

• (153) On that basis, the Commission provisionally concluded that the evolution of free market consumption could not have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

5.2.5.   Raw material prices

• (154) As explained in section 4.5.3.1, the increase in raw materials prices was by far the main reason of the increase in the cost of production of Union producers over the period considered.

• (155) Per se, an increase in raw material prices is not a source of injury because it is generally accompanied by a subsequent price increase in selling prices. On that basis, the Commission provisionally concluded that the increase of raw material costs as such did not cause injury to the Union industry.

5.2.6.   Other factors

• (156) Some parties mentioned other factors as a source of the injurious situation of the Union industry. A user linked lower profits to the world steel industry performance deterioration in 2019. Another user mentioned “overcapacity in all the products” as a cause, while also stating that the Union producers focus on specialties and that they are hit by weak demand in a sector in crisis, namely in the car sector.

• (157) The two first claims statements remained vague and unsupported. Thus, the Commission provisionally concluded that the world steel industry performance and overcapacities, if at all, did not materially contribute to the injury suffered by Union producers.

• (158) The Commission also found the last statement incorrect as Union producers serve all steel consuming sectors, not only the car sector. At this stage the Commission has no information regarding the size of the different steel consuming sectors in the different years covered by the period considered. However, as shown in section 5.2.4, overall free market consumption remained rather stable during the period considered. Thus it was provisionally concluded that the evolution of demand has not contributed to the injury to the Union industry.

5.3.   Conclusion on causation

• (159) In light of the above considerations, the Commission provisionally established a causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from Turkey. As a result of the Turkish dumping, the Union industry found itself, just after it had started recovering from previous dumping practices ²⁰, again in a situation where it suffered injury due to dumped imports.

• (160) 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.

• (161) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded at this stage that the dumped imports from Turkey caused material injury to the Union industry and that the other factors, considered individually or collectively, did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury.

6. LEVEL OF MEASURES

• (162) 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 in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation.

6.1.   Underselling margin

• (163) The Commission first established the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury suffered by the Union industry in the absence of distortions under 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 International Labour Organisation (‘ILO’) Conventions listed in Annex Ia, and was able to obtain a reasonable profit (‘target profit’).

• (164) 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 concerned, 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. Such profit margin should not be lower than 6 %.

• (165) The complainant considered that a reasonable target profit should range between 10 % and 15 %. The Turkish Steel Exporters’ Association ÇİB deemed that range too high and proposed instead the target profits used by the Commission in the investigations concluded in 2017 for the same product, which were 7 % and 7,9 %. A sampled Union producer considered that the minimum target profit should not be less than the 7,9 % used in a previous investigation.

• (166) The Commission could not establish a profit margin on the basis of any of the years prior to the increase of imports from Turkey, as in those years the Union industry suffered an influx of dumped imports from other origins and therefore none of these years could qualify as a year with a normal competitive situation on the Union market. In view of that, the Commission considered the profitability reached in 2017. In 2017 the level of imports from Turkey was already up by 1 million tonnes as compared to the previous year, however it would increase by another 1 million tonnes in 2018 and 2019. Moreover, in 2017 the Union industry was clearly in a much better situation than in the years before due to the imposition of the anti-dumping duties against imports of HRFS originating in China, Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine and the favourable market circumstances in that year. Therefore, in the absence of any other information, the Commission decided to provisionally use the average profit achieved over the year 2017 as basis for the target profit. That profit was 6,8 %.

• (167) In accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, the Commission assessed a claim made by two sampled Union producers on planned investments which were not implemented during the period considered. Based on the documentary evidence received, which could be reconciled with the companies’ accounting systems, the Commission provisionally accepted these claims and added the corresponding amounts to the profit of those Union producers. The final target profit margins consequently ranged between 6,8 % and 8,0 %.

• (168) In accordance with Article 7(2d) of the basic Regulation, as a final step, 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 the application of the measure pursuant to Article 11(2). Based on the submitted information, which was supported by the companies’ reporting tools and forecasts, the Commission established a cost in a range between EUR 2/tonne and EUR 12/tonne, in addition to the actual cost of compliance with such conventions during the investigation period. This difference was added to the non-injurious price.

• (169) On this basis, the Commission calculated a non-injurious price of the like product for the Union industry by applying the above-mentioned target profit margin (see recital (167)) to the cost of production of the sampled Union producers during the investigation period and then adding the adjustments under Article 7(2d) on a type-by-type basis.

• (170) The Commission then determined the injury elimination level on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the sampled exporting producers in the country concerned on a type-by-type basis, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the weighted average non-injurious price of the like product sold by the sampled Union producers on the free Union market during the investigation period. Any difference resulting from this comparison was expressed as a percentage of the weighted average import CIF value. The result of these calculations is shown in the table below.

Country	Company	Dumping margin	Underselling margin
Turkey	Çolakoğlu Metalurji A.Ş.	7,6 %	19,3 %
Turkey	Erdemir group: — Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari T.A.S. — İskenderun Demir ve Çelik A.Ş.	5,4 %	23,5 %
Turkey	Habaş Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar İstihsal Endüstrisi A.Ş.	4,8 %	20,9 %
Turkey	Ağir Haddecilik A.Ş.	5,9 %	21,2 %
Turkey	Borçelik Çelik Sanayii Ticaret A.Ş.	5,9 %	21,2 %
Turkey	All other companies	7,6 %	23,5 %

6.2.   Examination of the margin adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry

• (171) As explained in the Notice of Initiation, the complainant provided the Commission sufficient evidence that there are raw material distortions in the country concerned regarding the product under investigation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation, this investigation examined the alleged distortions to assess whether, if relevant, a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove injury.

• (172) However, as the margins adequate to remove injury are higher than the dumping margins, the Commission considered that, at this stage, it was not necessary to address this aspect.

6.3.   Conclusion

• (173) Following the above assessment the Commission concluded that it is appropriate to determine the amount of provisional duties in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation. As a consequence, provisional anti-dumping duties should be set as below:

Country	Company	Provisional anti-dumping duty
Turkey	Çolakoğlu Metalurji A.Ş.	7,6 %
Turkey	Erdemir group: — Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari T.A.S. - İskenderun Demir ve Çelik A.Ş.	5,4 %
Turkey	Habaş Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar İstihsal Endüstrisi A.Ş.	4,8 %
Turkey	Ağir Haddecilik A.Ş.	5,9 %
Turkey	Borçelik Çelik Sanayii Ticaret A.Ş.	5,9 %
Turkey	All other companies	7,6 %

7. UNION INTEREST

• (174) The Commission examined whether, despite the determination of injurious dumping, the imposition of measures would not be against the Union interest in accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, users and consumers.

7.1.   Interest of the Union industry

• (175) The Union industry is composed of more than 20 producers in 16 Member States and employs 39 178 people (see section 4.5.2.4). An overwhelming majority of Union producers supported the complaint. No producer opposed the initiation of the investigation.

• (176) As concluded in sections 4.5.4 and 5.3, the situation of the whole Union industry deteriorated as a result of dumped imports from Turkey. Injury was particularly material when it comes to the profitability of the sampled Union producers, which made significant losses during the investigation period.

• (177) Anti-dumping measures against imports from Turkey are expected to restore fair trade conditions on the Union market and enable the Union industry to obtain sustainable profitability levels for such a capital intensive industry. As a result, Union producers are expected to recover from the injurious situation, further invest and reach their different commitments, including social and environmental ones.

• (178) The non-imposition of measures would mean heavier losses within the Union industry, endanger its viability and probably lead to the closure production facilities and dismissals.

• (179) The Commission therefore concludes that the imposition of provisional measures would be in the interest of the Union industry.

7.2.   Interest of unrelated importers

• (180) Although the Commission reached out to more than 20 potential importers of the product under investigation and relevant associations upon initiation, eventually only one unrelated importer submitted a questionnaire reply and co-operated during the investigation. That party, Network Steel S.L, employs less than 20 people. Its turnover related to HRFS ranged between 50 and 80 million EUR in 2019. It accounted, during the investigation period, for 3,5 % to 5,2 % of imports of HRFS from Turkey. Network Steel S.L is against the imposition of measures on the grounds that, in the Union, HRFS is already heavily affected by the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties in force against China, and the anti-dumping duties against Brazil, Ukraine, Russia and Iran. It claimed that since the introduction of steel safeguard measures, due to the insufficient quotas and the deposit requirement when a quota reaches critical status, Union importers have to do with a reduced number of suppliers and constantly face the risk of shortage of supply, which makes their business activity more unpredictable and challenging.

• (181) Given the significance of Turkish imports in the HRFS activities of Network Steel S.L., the Commission considered that the imposition of low anti-dumping measures might have an impact, although very limited, on its results should the party keep its current suppliers mix. As to the party’s allegations of shortage of HRFS, they are contradicted by the numerous supply sources of HRFS (both in the Union and outside the Union, as further developed in section 7.3 below) and thus rejected.

• (182) In view of the minor share of imports represented by this sole cooperating unrelated importer, it is inappropriate to extend the findings with regard to Network Steel S.L. to unrelated importers of HRFS as a whole. Nevertheless, in the abstract, the anti-dumping measures at the level established might negatively affect some unrelated importers. However such impact should not be significant overall and will highly depend on the importers’ business model, the variety of their sources of supplies and the extent to which increased costs are passed on to their customers. Thus any negative impact of measures on unrelated importers as a whole is expected to be limited and not to outweigh the positive effect of measures on Union HRFS producers.

7.3.   Interest of users

• (183) Certain Union users are competing with, inter alia, the related companies of the Union producers on the downstream markets of the product under investigation. They use the product under investigation as a raw material for the manufacture of downstream products such as cold-rolled flat, coated steel, hollow sections, welded tubes and profiles in different qualities, and also use it as industrial output for a variety of applications, including construction, shipbuilding, gas containers and pressure vessels.

• (184) Four users related to Network Steel S.L. located in Portugal and Spain came forward and opposed the imposition of measures. As the body of these users’ questionnaire replies is common to the one of Network Steel S.L., their claims have been dealt with in section 7.2 above.

• (185) The Consortium of Union users and importers of HRFS (‘the Consortium’) ²¹, an ‘ad-hoc’ organisation formed for the purpose of defending the interest of certain users in this proceeding, submitted comments opposing to the imposition of duties arguing they would be detrimental to the interest of Union users ²². In addition, two Union users (Marcegaglia Carbon Steel S.P.A. and San Paolo Lamiere S.P.A.) provided individual questionnaire replies. The arguments provided in these questionnaire replies were included in the submission made by the Consortium and they are therefore assessed jointly.

• (186) First, the Consortium noted that save for a few exceptions, the major sources of supply of HRFS to the Union in recent years are currently subject to anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties ²³. Against this background, the Consortium argued that Union users had no choice but to source HRFS from the remaining supplying third countries which were not affected by trade defence measures. Amongst them, Turkey was seen, allegedly, as the only exporting country capable to meet the demand of Union users. The Consortium claimed that imports from Turkey had simply filled the vacuum left by the main exporting countries caught by trade defence measures, and thus that the imposition of measures would inevitably close the Union market to the only stable and reliable source of supply currently available to Union users. The Consortium concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would lead to a shortage of supply of HRFS in the Union and that it would thus be against the interest of Union independent users of HRFS.

• (187) In the first place, the objective of anti-dumping and countervailing duties is to restore a level playing field in the Union market, in this case, of HRFS. The Commission imposed measures on five countries as it had established that these countries were engaging in unfair trade practices and hence, causing or threatening to cause injury to the Union industry. The imposition of measures was deemed to be in the overall Union interest.

• (188) The Commission further observed that the information available in the file shows that the choices to buy HRFS outside the Union are not limited to Turkey. First, there are several countries that have consistently supplied to the Union market in the last years and that could increase further their presence in the Union market ²⁴. Moreover, the Commission noted that there is production of HRFS in numerous countries worldwide, in addition to those currently supplying the Union market. In principle, these countries could have sufficient capacity available to, if the demand exists, enter the Union market, as it was already the case in the past, as acknowledged by an independent Union user in its questionnaire reply ²⁵. The Commission also observed that the composition of the import mix in terms of origins has continuously evolved throughout the last years, adapting to the different needs and circumstances prevailing in the Union market, including regulatory actions such as the imposition of trade defence measures.

• (189) In this respect the Commission assessed the evolution of imports of HRFS into the Union by origin starting in a period prior to the surge of dumped imports (years 2013-2014) that lead to the adoption of anti-dumping measures, in 2016 ²⁶ and 2017 respectively. The analysis showed that there have been consistently, on average, around ten exporting countries supplying most of HRFS to the Union market. The distribution of imports amongst them, including origins and share of imports, however varied throughout the years. In fact, in 2018 and despite the anti-dumping measures in place against five countries, imports increased by 18 % when compared to 2017, and were only slightly below 2016 levels, a year where there were nevertheless significant volumes of dumped imports entering the Union market, as established by the respective investigations at the time ²⁷.

• (190) The availability and diversification of HRFS from different origins is further supported by the information supplied by certain users in their questionnaire reply. This information showed that they are able to substantially increase the purchases, in relevant volumes, from different origins from one year to the next, including from countries subject to anti-dumping measures, as well as to add new origins to their sources of supply ²⁸. The questionnaire replies received from users also show a wide variety of sources of supply, including (mainly) the Union industry. Therefore this information confirms that the Union users are able to adapt to the circumstances in the market, and can adjust swiftly the sources of supply where necessary. Moreover, the Commission notes that there is no information in the file which would indicate that even if the volume of Turkish imports would substantially decrease as a result of anti-dumping measures, other exporting countries would be unable to fill their place in the market.

• (191) In addition to the sufficient availability of import sources, the Commission established in this investigation the existence of sizeable spare capacities amongst Union producers, which would be able to increase their volume of sales to independent users in the Union.

• (192) Lastly, the Commission also noted that as such, the imposition of anti-dumping measures does not mean that imports from the origin concerned will cease, or even that they will decrease in a meaningful way, but simply that they would be imported at fair prices. As acknowledged by the Consortium, the imposition of anti-dumping measures did not prevent Russian imports from entering the Union market in relevant amounts (it was the second largest exporting country in the investigation period), and imports from Brazil and Ukraine continued entering the Union market, albeit in smaller quantities. In view of the levels of dumping found, and the resulting level of anti-dumping duties, there is no reason to assume that imports from Turkey will stop once anti-dumping measures have been imposed.

• (193) In view of the above elements, the Commission therefore rejected the claims related to the alleged lack of alternative sources of supply available to Union users and importers and the related risk of shortage of supply if measures are imposed.

• (194) The Consortium further argued that the imposition of anti-dumping duties against imports from Turkey, “even a very low duty”, would disproportionately affect Union users, whose viability would in some cases be at risk, as they could not absorb the cost increase caused by the measures and continue to be competitive in the downstream market. An anti-dumping duty, the Consortium claimed, would have a direct and significant impact on the users’ costs and these costs increases cannot be passed on to the downstream industries.

• (195) The Commission first noted that users in major downstream markets, such as the automotive industry, industrial appliances or the construction sector did not come forward. In this regard, the Commission pointed to a submission made by the complainant whereby it was argued that anti-dumping duties would have a very low impact on downstream markets and on consumer products such as washing machines. However, the information available in the file, in particular in the questionnaire replies from users, shows that purchases from Turkey consistently represent a relatively modest share (7 % – 14 %) of these users’ total purchases in the investigation period. Given the rather low level of duty proposed, the alternative sources of supply available, and the rather low weight of Turkish imports in the users’ HRFS business segment, the impact of the measures on these users, if any, would be very limited. For users that came forward, overall measures would entail a cost increase ranging from less than 1 % up to 2,5 % for the most affected users for their relevant activities if they would keep the same sourcing pattern. Moreover, there is no evidence on the file indicating that users would be unable to pass on a potential limited price increase. In the same vein, nothing on file supports that EU users’ competitiveness vis-à-vis downstream imports from third countries would suffer.

• (196) The Consortium also argued that in 2019, 22 % of total HRFS imports were subject to trade defence measures and that if Turkey’s imports (representing 38 % of HRFS imports in 2019) were made subject to measures, 60 % of total HRFS imports in the Union would be under measures. The Consortium thus claimed that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would make Union users fully dependent on the Union producers’ supplies, thus further strengthening the position of the Union industry in the HRFS market.

• (197) The Commission considered that the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty would in itself not prevent the Union users from continuing purchasing from Turkey, although at price levels offsetting the dumping margins established by the investigation. The Commission recalled that there is a clear and recent example in the HRFS market in the Union, showing that the imposition of anti-dumping duties does not in itself prevent imports from entering the Union market in relevant volumes, as noted by the Consortium itself when referring to Russia’s import volumes despite the anti-dumping measures in place. This fact is evident also from the Consortium’s submission where it acknowledged that imports subject to anti-dumping measures accounted for no less than 22 % of total imports of HRFS in 2019. In any event, Union users would continue having the possibility to diversify their sources of supply among several exporting countries as explained above. The Commission thus rejected the claim that the imposition of the anti-dumping measures would make Union users fully dependent on Union producers’ supplies, or that it would prevent them from importing from Turkey in relevant amounts, as unfounded.

• (198) At provisional stage, the Commission therefore concluded that the effects of a potential imposition of duties on users do not outweigh the positive effects of measures on the Union industry. Indeed, the above analysis rather shows that the imposition of duties would at most have a minor impact, if any impact at all, on users of HRFS.

7.4.   Other factors

• (199) Several parties raised competitiveness and competition-related issues. Some parties feared an (enhanced) oligopoly in the Union indicated while others complained that Union producers place independent steel service centres and users in a less competitive situation than related ones.

• (200) The Commission found the oligopoly claim unjustified in light of the number of steel producing mills and groups in the Union. Union producers show healthy competition amongst them and will continue competing with imports from third countries, which will not stop. As to the second claim, the complainants contested it on the grounds that their transactions with related steel service centres are at arm’s length. The Commission deemed the claim unfounded namely to the extent the Union industry supplies significant quantities to the independent steel service centres and users that provided questionnaire replies.

7.5.   Conclusion on Union interest

• (201) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that no Union interest elements preclude from imposing provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey at this stage of the investigation.

8. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

• (202) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.

• (203) Provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey, in accordance with the lesser duty rule in Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation. The Commission compared the underselling margins and the dumping margins (recital (170) above). The amount of the duties was set at the level of the dumping margins.

• (204) On the basis of the above, the provisional anti-dumping duty rates, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, should be as follows:

Country	Company	Provisional anti-dumping duty
Turkey	Çolakoğlu Metalurji A.Ş.	7,6 %
Turkey	Erdemir group: — Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari T.A.S. - İskenderun Demir ve Çelik A.Ş.	5,4 %
Turkey	Habaş Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar İstihsal Endüstrisi A.Ş.	4,8 %
Turkey	Ağir Haddecilik A.Ş.	5,9 %
Turkey	Borçelik Çelik Sanayii Ticaret A.Ş.	5,9 %
Turkey	All other companies	7,6 %

• (205) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the 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 country 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.

• (206) 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. 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.

• (207) To minimise the risks of any potential circumvention due to the differences in duty rates provisionally established, special measures are needed to ensure the 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 provisionally established anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’.

• (208) While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the provisionally established 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 must 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 lower rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

• (209) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume 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 and provided the conditions are met an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. 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.

• (210) To ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duties, the provisionally established 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.

9. REGISTRATION

• (211) As mentioned in recital (4), the Commission made imports of HRFS subject to registration. Registration took place with a view to possibly collecting duties retroactively under Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation.

• (212) In view of the findings at provisional stage, the registration of imports should be discontinued.

• (213) 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.

10. INFORMATION AT PROVISIONAL STAGE

• (214) 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.

• (215) Comments regarding the dumping calculations were received from two exporting producers. None of the comments were considered to be of a clerical nature.

• (216) Comments regarding the injury calculations were received from one sampled Union producer. One comment concerned a clerical error in the computation of the target price of that sampled producer. The error was corrected, however, the correction did not result in a change in the injury margins.

11. FINAL PROVISIONS

• (217) 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.

• (218) 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

The following products are excluded:

• (i) products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel;

• (ii) products of tool steel and high-speed steel;

• (iii) products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more; and

• (iv) products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.

Country	Company	Provisional anti-dumping duty	TARIC additional code
Turkey	Çolakoğlu Metalurji A.Ş.	7,6 %	C602
Turkey	Erdemir group: — Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari T.A.S. - İskenderun Demir ve Çelik A.Ş.	5,4 %	C603
Turkey	Habaş Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar İstihsal Endüstrisi A.Ş.	4,8 %	C604
Turkey	Ağir Haddecilik A.Ş.	5,9 %	C605
Turkey	Borçelik Çelik Sanayii Ticaret A.Ş.	5,9 %	C606
Turkey	All other companies	7,6 %	C999

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4

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, 6 January 2021.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN