Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2287 of 17 December 2021 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of aluminium converter foil originating in the People’s Republic of China and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2170 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of aluminium converter foil originating in the People’s Republic of China

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), and in particular Article 15 and 24(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 4 December 2020, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-subsidy proceeding with regard to imports of aluminium converter foil (‘ACF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’, ‘PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’) on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 (‘the basic Regulation’). It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (‘the Notice of Initiation’) (2).

(2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 21 October 2020 by six Union producers (‘the complainants’), representing more than 50 % of the total Union production of aluminium converter foil. The complaint contained evidence of subsidisation and of a resulting injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.

(3) Prior to the initiation of the anti-subsidy investigation, the Commission notified the Government of China (‘GOC’) (3) that it had received a properly documented complaint, and invited the GOC for consultations in accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic Regulation. Consultations were held on 30 November 2020. However, no mutually agreed solution could be reached.

(4) On 22 October 2020, the Commission initiated a separate anti-dumping investigation of the same product originating in the PRC (‘the separate anti-dumping investigation’). (4) The injury, causation and Union interest analyses performed in the present anti-subsidy investigation and the separate anti-dumping investigation are mutatis mutandis identical, since the definition of the Union industry, the sampled Union producers, the period considered and the investigation period are the same in both investigations.

(5) The GOC claimed before and after initiation that the investigation should not be initiated because the complaint did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements of Articles 11(2) and 11(3) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (‘SCM Agreement’) and of Article 10(2) of the basic Regulation. According to the GOC, there was insufficient evidence of countervailable subsidies, injury and a causal link between the subsidised imports and the injury. In its submission following initiation, the GOC reiterated that the complaint, with regard to a number of claimed subsidy schemes, did not contain sufficient evidence to meet the evidentiary standard and, regardless of what information might be reasonably available to the complainant, there always needs to be sufficient evidence regarding the existence and nature of a subsidy, material injury and a causal link. The GOC also reiterated this claim after the final disclosure.

(6) In its submission following the initiation and also after the final disclosure, the GOC also claimed that the Commission memorandum on sufficiency of evidence and the anti-subsidy questionnaires went beyond the allegations raised in the complaint and that the Commission had added additional evidence to the complaint to justify the initiation of the investigation. The GOC claimed that by adding such elements the Commission broadened the scope of the investigation. More specifically, the GOC alleged that by adding references to documents such as a 2018 “report on Aluminium”, the “Made in China 2025” strategy, a U.S. DOC determination on aluminium products of 2018, and by adding the Chinese Export & Credit Insurance Corporation (‘Sinosure’) to the list of financial institutions to be investigated or asking information regarding the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (the ‘CBIRC’), the Commission had broadened the scope of the investigation.

(7) The Commission rejected the claim of the GOC concerning sufficiency of evidence. Indeed, the evidence submitted in the complaint constituted the information reasonably available to the complainant at that stage. As shown in the memorandum on sufficiency of evidence, which contains the Commission’s assessment on all the evidence at the disposal of the Commission concerning the PRC, and on the basis of which the Commission initiated the investigation, there was sufficient evidence at initiation stage that the alleged subsidies were countervailable in terms of their existence, amount and nature. The complaint also contained sufficient evidence of the existence of injury to the Union industry, which was caused by the subsidised imports.

(8) The Commission also rejected the claim concerning the scope of the investigation. The memorandum on sufficiency of evidence contains an examination of the elements available to the Commission, including, but not limited to, those brought forward by the complainant. The elements in the complaint were indeed analysed together and corroborated with other facts known by the Commission in accordance with established practice. As mentioned in the Notice of Initiation, in view of Articles 10(2) and 10(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission prepared a memorandum on sufficiency of evidence containing the Commission’s assessment on all the evidence at the disposal of the Commission concerning the PRC and on the basis of which the Commission initiated the investigation. Thus, the scope of the investigation is not narrowed to the evidence and allegations in the complaint, but can be complemented by other information available to the Commission. Furthermore, during the investigation, the Commission may examine all information that is relevant to the alleged subsidies and is not limited to the information contained in the complaint. This applies also to the financial institutions providing preferential financing such as Sinosure and relevant regulatory bodies such as the CBRC.

(9) While the GOC reiterated its claims concerning sufficiency of evidence and the scope of the investigation also after final disclosure, it did not bring forward any new substantial arguments or evidence. Therefore, those claims were rejected.

(10) In its submission following initiation, the GOC alleged that the complainant used Chinese laws selectively and misinterpreted their connection with respect to the ACF industry. The GOC stated that policy documents, such as the 10-13th Five Year Plans, the Catalogue for the Guidance of Industrial Structure Adjustment (2005) and the Nonferrous Metal Development Plan (2016-2020) are just guidance documents that are not binding. The GOC also stated that the Five Year Plans do not specifically refer to ACF.

(11) The Commission noted that the GOC does not dispute the existence of such plans, programmes, or recommendations but only the extent to which they are binding for the ACF industry. The Commission further observed that the complainant provided evidence indicating that non-ferrous metals industries, of which the aluminium industry is part, are mentioned in several government documents. The GOC failed to produce any evidence showing that those documents would not be applicable to the product concerned.

(12) The GOC also stated that State-owned enterprises (‘SOEs’), State-owned banks (‘SOBs’) or Sinosure cannot be qualified as public bodies and that the complainant unjustifiably relied on formal indicia of control such as the GOCs ownership and alleged power to appoint or nominate management officials to draw an unwarranted conclusion that all SOEs/SOBs acted as public bodies. The GOC also claimed that the complainant relied on previous cases of the Commission or the Department of Commerce of the USA in evaluating the nature of functions that the banks performed and the nature and scope of the governmental authority vested in them. The GOC also claimed that past findings of the Commission for unrelated industries could not constitute sufficient evidence in the complaint and they also do not substantiate that State-owned banks and Sinosure acted as public bodies in the current investigation.

(13) The Commission noted that this claim of the GOC is connected to the claim already mentioned above, and that the complaint, among others, mentioned the Bank Law in China, which the GOC does not dispute is Chinese legislation. The Commission highlights that recent EU anti-subsidy investigations related to the same subsidy programmes as those alleged in the complaint, that had also examined the whether SOEs/SOBs acted as public bodies, had concluded that this was the case (5). The fact that these investigations covered industries unrelated to the ACF industry does not invalidate the qualification of the above institutions as public bodies. Moreover, evidence of government ownership may be considered to amount to evidence “tending to prove or indicating” that an entity is a public body capable of conferring a financial contribution. (6)

(14) In its submission following initiation, the GOC furthermore submitted that substantial changes and reforms had occurred in the financial sector in recent years, and that the complaint could thus not rely on any pre-existing situation. However, the Commission noted that the complainant also provided additional evidence in the complaint of the continued existence of the subsidy programmes. The Commission further recalls that the GOC failed to provide evidence rebutting the continuation of the relevant programmes. Thus, at the stage of initiation, the evidence available tended to show that there was no relevant change in the subsidy programmes at issue.

(15) In the same submission the GOC also claimed that some of the guidance documents including The Temporary Provisions on Promoting Industrial Structure Adjustment (Decision No 40 2005 of the State Council) (‘Decision No 40’) with reference to the “Eleventh Five-year Plans” are outdated and no longer applicable during IP.

(16) Decision No 40, Chapter III refers to ‘Catalogue for the Guidance of Industrial Structure Adjustment’ which is composed of three kinds of contents, namely encouraged project contents, limited projects content and eliminated projects content.

(17) To the Commission’s knowledge, the latest amendment of the Guiding Catalogue for Industry Restructuring was approved by Decree of the National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China No 29 of 27 August 2019 and entered into force on 1 January 2020 (7). This new ‘Guiding Catalogue for Industry Restructuring (2019 Version)’ was adopted and entered into effect during the investigation period. Therefore, ‘The Guiding Catalogue for Industry Restructuring’ referred to in Decision No 40 was applicable during the investigation period.

(18) After final disclosure the GOC reiterated its claim that the Commission had misinterpreted the role of the Chinese Government’s plans and projects and maintained that these are purely guidance documents and not legally binding. It also disagreed with relying on facts established in previous investigations, as well as with the use of references from the 2017 Commission staff working document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations (8), which the GOC considers to be inaccurate and not objective, as it was written specifically to facilitate the initiation of trade defence investigations. The GOC furthermore objected to the Commission’s view that the laws, regulations and Government plans can reasonably be assumed to remain applicable unless it is demonstrated that they are repealed or replaced.

(19) First, the Commission noted that the GOC did not bring forward any new substantial arguments or evidence concerning the general role of the Chinese Government’s plans and projects, and their binding nature.

(20) Second, concerning the use of information contained in the China Report, the fact that the document was issued bearing in mind its potential use in trade defence investigations does not render the objective evidence contained therein incorrect or impartial as such, as claimed by the GOC. The Commission also notes that it only referred twice to this document in the current investigation, once as a general introduction to the system of five-year plans, and once in the context of establishing a link between planning documents and encouraged sectors. These references were used in combination with and corroborated by other references, including documents issued by the GOC itself.

(21) Third, the Commission maintains that established laws, regulations and Government plans can reasonably be assumed to remain applicable until it is demonstrated that they are repealed or replaced. Indeed, as part of the investigation the Commission sent to the GOC a list of reference documents concerning the general legal framework, rules and procedures applicable in the PRC, as well as some specific documents concerning the industry concerned. The GOC was requested to review the completeness and validity of these documents and to update or complement them wherever applicable. After receiving a substantiated reply and updated reference documents from the GOC, the Commission considered it could reasonably assume that those documents that were not repealed or replaced were still applicable.

(22) Therefore, the claims of the GOC in this respect were rejected.

(23) Following initiation, the GOC further argued that the complainant did not establish the conditions for applying an out-of-country benchmark for land use rights (‘LUR’). The Commission found, however, that the allegations contained in the complaint are supported by recent EU anti-subsidy investigations concluding on those matters the need for external benchmarks adjusted to the prevailing conditions in the PRC (9).

(24) Furthermore, the GOC claimed that various subsidy schemes alleged by the complainant could not be considered a subsidy as the complaint did not provide for detailed evidence concerning the existence, amount and nature of these subsidies, or the direct relationship between the subsidy and the product concerned. The GOC further claimed, in relation to various subsidies, that the complainant failed to provide evidence of benefit and specificity.

(25) The Commission is of the view that the complainant provided sufficient evidence of the existence, amount, nature, benefit and specificity as was reasonably available to it. Furthermore, the Commission highlights that recent EU anti-subsidy investigations related to the same subsidy programmes alleged in the complaint had also examined benefit and specificity of the same programmes and had concluded differently on these matters9. In any event, the Commission examined the evidence in the complaint and provided its own assessment of all relevant elements in the memorandum of sufficiency of evidence, which was put on the open file upon initiation. The GOC reiterated its comments following initiation, but did not provide any further evidence.

(26) Therefore, the Commission concluded that there was sufficient evidence provided in the complaint tending to show the existence of the alleged subsidisation by the GOC.

(27) In its submission following initiation the GOC indicated that the tax scheme providing VAT rebates on domestically produced equipment had been terminated. The Commission took note of this comment, but highlighted the tax schemes relating to VAT rebates, or import tariff and VAT exemptions on imported equipment, could still procure ongoing benefits such as depreciation over the lifespan of the relevant equipment, possibly covering the investigation period.

(28) Following initiation, the GOC also argued that the complainants incorrectly set aside the fact that the ACF industry in the Union benefits from several direct and indirect subsidies, support and incentives in various forms from the EU and Member State authorities and that the Commission should not apply double standards. After final disclosure the GOC also reiterated this claim.

(29) This claim concerning subsidies in the EU had no weight on the Commission’s assessment underlying the initiation of this case, as they do not fall within the factors considered for this purpose.

(30) The Union industry did not submit a request for registration of imports pursuant to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation.

(31) On 6 August 2021, in accordance with Article 29a(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission informed the interested parties of its intention not to impose provisional countervailing measures and to continue the investigation. Since no provisional countervailing measures were imposed, the Commission did not register imports under Article 24(5a) of the basic Regulation. The Commission continued seeking and checking all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.

(32) The investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2017 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(33) Both the current anti-subsidy investigation and the separate anti-dumping investigation mentioned in recital (4) have the same investigation period and the same period considered.

(34) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, the GOC, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers, known importers and users about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.

(35) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(36) Several parties requested a hearing with the Commission services. Parties who made a request within the stipulated deadlines were granted an opportunity to be heard. Xiamen Xiashun Aluminium Foil Co. Ltd. requested an intervention from the Hearing Officer, and a hearing with the Hearing Officer took place on 8 April 2021.

(37) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of the volume of production and sales of the like product in the Union during the investigation period. The sample consisted of three Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for more than 50 % of the estimated total production and 40 % of the estimated total Union sales volume of the like product. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received and therefore the sample was confirmed.

(38) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(39) Two unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Given the small number of replies, sampling of unrelated importers was not necessary.