Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/402 of 9 March 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

Country		2017	2018	2019	Review investigation period
Armenia	Volume (tonnes)	14 164	19 278	18 373	17 257
	Index	100	136	130	122
	Market share (%)	19	27	25	22
	Index	100	140	129	113
	Average price	2 804	2 895	2 730	2 533
	Index	100	103	97	90
Thailand	Volume (tonnes)	28	1 027	2 659	6 820
	Index	100	3 693	9 565	24 534
	Market share (%)	0,04	1,4	4	9
	Index	100	3 793	9 364	22 685
	Average price	2 337	2 544	2 426	2 381
	Index	100	109	104	102
Turkey	Volume (tonnes)	16 221	15 289	17 565	18 103
	Index	100	94	108	112
	Market share (%)	22	21	24	23
	Index	100	97	108	103
	Average price	2 878	2 952	2 828	2 601
	Index	100	103	98	90
Rest of the world	Volume (tonnes)	3 407	2 539	1 968	558
	Index	100	75	58	16
	Market share (%)	5	4	3	1
	Index	100	77	58	15
	Average price	2 751	2 928	2 918	3 117
	Index	100	106	106	113
Total third countries except the PRC	Volume (tonnes)	33 820	38 133	40 564	42 738
	Index	100	113	120	126
	Market share (%)	46	53	55	53
	Index	100	116	119	117
	Average price	2 834	2 910	2 764	2 545
	Index	100	103	98	90
Total third countries except Thailand and the PRC	Volume (tonnes)	33 792	37 106	37 905	35 918
	Index	100	110	112	106
	Market share (%)	46	51	51	45
	Index	100	113	112	98
	Average price	2 834	2 921	2 785	2 576
	Index	100	103	98	91
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (132) During the period considered, imports from other third countries increased by around 9 000 tonnes, i.e. by 26 % which is faster than the progression of the Union consumption which resulted in the market share increase from 46 % to 53 %.

• (133) However, 76 % of this increase (6 792 tonnes) were imports from Thailand that are circumventing the definitive anti-dumping measures in force on imports from China as set out in recital (3) and have therefore to be considered as Chinese imports.

• (134) As shown in table 5, while imports from other third countries except Thailand increased by 6 % during the period considered (2 126 tonnes), at a pace slower than the Union consumption, imports from Thailand increased by several thousand times resulting in an increase of market share from 0 % to 9 %. Other third country imports without Thailand lost market share, in particular between 2019 and the review investigation period, where the increase in market share from Thailand was the most pronounced (+5 percentage points).

• (135) During the review investigation period, price levels of imports from Thailand were found to undercut Union industry sales prices by 3,5 % on average, as explained in recital (129) above, while at the same time import prices from other third countries except Thailand were in line with the Union industry sales prices.

5.4.   Economic situation of the Union industry

5.4.1.   General remarks

• (136) The assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

• (137) As mentioned in recital (11), sampling was used for the assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry.

• (138) For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the replies to the anti-dumping questionnaire by the sampled producers as well as macroeconomic data provided by the non-sampled producers and the Union producers’ association, crosschecked with the data in the review request. The data related to all Union producers. The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers. The data related to the sampled Union producers. Both sets of data were found to be representative of the economic situation of the Union industry.

• (139) The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, magnitude of the dumping margin, and recovery from past dumping.

• (140) The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital.

5.4.2.   Macroeconomic indicators

5.4.2.1.   Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

• (141) The total Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 6

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

	2017	2018	2019	Review investigation period
Production volume (tonnes)	41 387	35 173	36 292	39 460
Index	100	85	88	95
Production capacity (tonnes)	52 900	47 600	48 100	50 750
Index	100	90	91	96
Capacity utilisation (%)	78,2	73,9	75,5	77,8
Index	100	94	96	99
Source: information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers, information provided by the Union producer’s associations.	Source: information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers, information provided by the Union producer’s associations.	Source: information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers, information provided by the Union producer’s associations.	Source: information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers, information provided by the Union producer’s associations.	Source: information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers, information provided by the Union producer’s associations.

• (142) Although Union consumption increased by 8 % during the period considered as mentioned in recital (113), production volume of the like product decreased by 15 % from 2017 to 2018, after which it slightly recovered over the rest of the period considered, resulting in a decrease of 5 % during the full period considered. Therefore, the increase of the Union consumption has not benefitted the Union industry.

• (143) The decrease of the production volume is partly due to the Union industry’s restructuring processes undertaken to recover from the injury suffered during the review investigation period of the previous expiry review investigation (1 October 2013 to 30 September 2014), and partly due to the increasing unfair competition that the Union industry faced from circumvented imports of the product under review coming from Thailand. As explained in recital (132), the increase in import volumes from third countries was mainly due to an increase in circumvented AHF from Thailand.

5.4.2.2.   Sales volume and market share

• (144) The Union industry’s sales volume and market share developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 7

Sales volume and market share

	2017	2018	2019	Review investigation period
Total sales volume on the Union market (tonnes)	38 107	31 871	31 550	35 739
Index	100	84	83	94
Market share (%)	51	44	42	45
Index	100	86	82	87
Source: Information provided by the applicant, information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers.	Source: Information provided by the applicant, information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers.	Source: Information provided by the applicant, information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers.	Source: Information provided by the applicant, information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers.	Source: Information provided by the applicant, information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers.

• (145) Sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 6 % during the period considered. It decreased steadily up to 2019 (by 17 %) and recovered partially during the review investigation period, increasing by 11 percentage points. However, this increase was not in line with the increase in Union consumption which resulted overall in a loss of market share of the Union industry from 51 % in 2017 to 45 % in the review investigation period (minus 6 percentage points), while the market share of the circumvented imports from Thailand gained 9 percentage points during the same period.

5.4.2.3.   Growth

• (146) Although Union consumption increased by 8 % during the period considered, the sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 6 %, which resulted in a 13 % market share loss for the Union industry over the period considered. Consequently, there was no growth for the Union industry during the period considered.

5.4.2.4.   Employment and productivity

• (147) Employment and productivity developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 8

Employment and productivity

	2017	2018	2019	Review investigation period
Number of employees (FTE)	394	356	359	378
Index	100	90	91	96
Productivity (unit/employee)	105	99	101	104
Index	100	94	96	99
Source: Information provided by the applicant, information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers.	Source: Information provided by the applicant, information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers.	Source: Information provided by the applicant, information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers.	Source: Information provided by the applicant, information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers.	Source: Information provided by the applicant, information provided by the sampled and non-sampled Union producers.

• (148) The number of employees of the Union industry decreased between 2017 and the review investigation period by 4 %. The productivity of the Union industry’s workforce, measured as output (tonnes) per employee, followed the same trend up to 2019 and recovered in the review investigation period following the production and sales increase, as explained in recitals (142) and (145) above.

• (149) The decrease of the number of employees is due to the decrease of production volume, which is also linked to the decrease of the Union industry’s sales volume.

5.4.2.5.   Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping

• (150) The Commission concluded in recital (89) that dumping from the PRC continued during the review investigation period. The Commission also concluded that there was a strong likelihood of continuation of dumping from the PRC, if the measures lapse.

• (151) Notwithstanding the anti-dumping measures in force since 2009, the Union industry has lost substantial sales volume which is reflected in a loss of market share of 13 % over the period considered. Thus, no full recovery from the past dumping could be established and the Union industry remains highly vulnerable to the injurious effects of any dumped imports in the Union market.

5.4.3.   Microeconomic indicators

5.4.3.1.   Prices and factors affecting prices

• (152) The weighted average unit sales prices of the sampled Union producers to unrelated customers in the Union developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 9

Sales prices in the Union

	2017	2018	2019	Review investigation period
Average unit sales price in the Union on the total market (EUR/tonne)	2 822	2 930	2 810	2 663
Index	100	104	100	94
Unit cost of production (EUR/tonne)	2 645	2 776	2 620	2 574
Index	100	105	99	97
Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (153) The average unit sales price increased between 2017 and 2018 and decreased in 2019 at the same level of 2017, then dropped by 6 % during the review investigation period. While the Union industry managed to keep its sales prices above the unit cost of production during the entire period considered, the price pressure of the increased circumvented imports from Thailand were showing an effect on the Union industry sales prices during the review investigation period, were they dropped to a higher degree than the unit cost.

5.4.3.2.   Labour costs

• (154) The average labour costs of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 10

Average labour costs per employee

	2017	2018	2019	Review investigation period
Average labour costs per employee (EUR)	19 444	19 827	20 487	22 184
Index	100	102	105	114
Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (155) The average labour cost progressively increased over the period considered. Overall, the average labour cost per employee increased by 14 %. This trend was mostly influenced by the restructuring process on the Union industry, as some producers invested in creating sales structures in different Member States.

5.4.3.3.   Inventories

• (156) Stock levels of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 11

Inventories

	2017	2018	2019	Review investigation period
Closing stocks (tonnes)	978	940	1 693	1 425
Index	100	96	173	146
Closing stocks as a percentage of production	2,4	2,7	4,7	3,6
Index	100	113	197	153
Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (157) Inventories cannot be considered as a relevant injury indicator in this sector, as production and sales are mainly based on orders and, accordingly, producers tend to hold limited stocks. Therefore, the trends on inventories are given for information only.

• (158) Overall, inventories increased during the period considered by 46 %. Initially they decreased by 4 % from 2017 to 2018 before progressively increasing in 2019 and the review investigation period.

5.4.3.4.   Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital

• (159) Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 12

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments

	2017	2018	2019	Review investigation period
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)	8,2	7,4	6,8	3,4
Index	100	90	83	41
Cash flow (EUR)	10 768 045	10 888 351	8 682 415	10 199 898
Index	100	101	81	95
Investments (EUR)	1 141 165	4 327 224	1 119 149	1 665 356
Index	100	379	98	146
Return on investments (%)	10	7	5	1
Index	100	74	55	15
Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (160) The Commission established the profitability of the sampled 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.

• (161) After the previous expiry review investigation mentioned in recital (1), where the anti-dumping measures were imposed, the situation of the Union industry improved and its profit margin reached 8,2 % in 2017. However, the situation deteriorated subsequently and profit margins declined as from 2018 reaching only 3,4 % in the review investigation period, corresponding to a decrease of 59 % over the period considered.

• (162) This was mainly due to the price pressure exerted by the circumvented imports from Thailand which entered into the Union undercutting those of the Union industry and exerting a significant price pressure that forced the Union industry to reduce their prices levels, as explained above in recital (153).

• (163) The net cash flow is the Union industry’s ability to self-finance their activities. Given that the Union industry is still profitable, despite the decreasing trend, the cash flow remained overall relatively stable over the period considered.

• (164) Investments increased by 46 % in the period considered, which is mainly due to the efforts made by the Union industry to rationalize its production and increase efficiency and productivity to face the increasing low priced imports. However, in the same period, the return on investments, which is expressed as the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments dropped from 10 % to 1 % and therefore followed the same trend as the profitability.

• (165) The decreasing profitability and return on investment made it increasingly difficult for the sampled Union producers to raise capital for investment. With returns on investments falling so quickly, the sampled producers’ ability to raise capital in the future is in even greater jeopardy.

5.4.4.   Conclusion on injury

• (166) The evolution of the micro and macro indicators during the period considered showed that the financial situation for the Union industry deteriorated. Overall, the trends of the main economic indicators worsened over the period considered.

• (167) In particular, production, sales volumes and market shares decreased, as well as sales prices which had a negative effect on employment and productivity as well as on profitability. The increased price pressure from the circumvented imports coming from Thailand in particular did not allow the Union industry to align its sales prices with the development of its production costs with negative effects on its profitability which saw a decrease of almost 60 % over the period considered. Finally, the rapidly decreasing returns on investments has a negative impact on the Union industry’s ability to raise capital and investments.

• (168) On the other hand, despite the declining trends, the Union industry still managed to maintain large sales volume and considerable market share. Likewise, despite the negative trend, profitability remained positive throughout the period considered. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the Union industry did not suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation during the review investigation period, but was in a fragile situation.

• (169) Therefore, the Commission further examined the likelihood of recurrence of injury if the measures lapse.

6. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY

• (170) The Commission concluded in recital (168) that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the review investigation period, but was in a fragile situation. Therefore, the Commission assessed, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury originally caused by the dumped imports from the PRC if the measures were allowed to lapse.

• (171) In order to establish whether there is likelihood of recurrence of injury originally caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned, the Commission considered the following elements: (i) production volume and spare capacity in the PRC and attractiveness of the Union market; (ii) likely price levels of imports from the PRC and their impact on the Union industry’s situation, should the measures allowed to lapse; and (iii) the existence of circumvention practices.

6.1.   Production volume and spare capacity in the PRC – attractiveness of the Union market

• (172) As set out in recital (91), the production capacity in the PRC substantially exceeds the production volumes and internal demand on the Chinese domestic market. Given in addition the conclusions on the attractiveness of the Union market as described in recitals (102) to (105), such spare capacity will very likely largely be used for exports to the Union market, if measures were allowed to lapse.

6.2.   Likely price levels of imports from the PRC and their impact on the Union industry’s situation should the measures lapse

• (173) In order to assess the impact of future imports on the situation of the Union industry, the Commission considered that price levels of the Chinese exports without anti-dumping duties would be a reasonable indicator of future price levels to the Union market. On this basis, as set out in recitals (127) and (128) respectively, the average undercutting margin for the product under review was found to be 4,2 % for all import regimes, and 7,2 %, under the inward processing regime, the latter, subject to no duties, is considered the best indicator of the likely price levels in the absence of anti-dumping measures.

• (174) Moreover, as explained in recital (120), almost all the imports from the PRC into the Union were made under the inward processing regime. Therefore, it can be concluded that the anti-dumping measures were effective in preventing dumped imports from the PRC from entering the Union market and that they will most likely resume if the measures will expire.

• (175) The product under review is a commodity product, and therefore the market is price sensitive. A surge in imports at low prices would force the Union industry to further reduce their prices as it has already been done in order to compete with the circumvented imports from Thailand, as explained above in recitals (133) and (135).

• (176) Considering the above, and if confronted with an increase of low priced imports from the PRC, the Union producers, in an attempt to keep sales volumes and market shares, would reduce their prices by 4,2 % (at the level of the undercutting), this would have an impact on the industry’s overall profitability, which would decrease from 3,4 % in the review investigation period to -1 % and therefore turn negative in short term.

• (177) On the other hand, if the Union industry keeps its current price levels, and considering AHF is a commodity product, this would have an almost immediate negative impact on its sales and production volume as well as market share. Moreover, a decrease in production volume would result in an increase of the unit costs of production due to the reduced economy of scales. This would further deteriorate the Union industry’s profitability and turn into losses in short term.

• (178) With a loss of profitability, the Union industry would not be able to carry out necessary investments. Ultimately, this would also lead to loss of employment and risk of closure of production lines.

6.3.   Existence of circumvention practices

• (179) As set out in recital (104), the Chinese exporters have a history of dumping practices towards the Union market. Currently, as mentioned in recitals (2) and (3), two anti-circumvention measures are in place, one against imports of a slightly modified product from China and a second, more recent, for imports coming from Thailand were Chinese exporting producers set up assembly operations.

• (180) As indicated in recitals (153) and (162), circumvention practices from Thailand were the main cause for the Union industry’s losses in sales volume and marked share during the period considered. The existence of these circumvention practices show that circumvented imports that enter the Union market without anti-dumping duties have significant negative effect on the Union industry’s situation, that materialise quickly due to the price sensitivity of the market.

6.4.   Conclusion

• (181) In view of the above, the Commission concluded that the expiry of the measures would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of dumped imports from the PRC at prices undercutting the Union industry prices, and therefore further aggravate the already fragile economic situation of the Union industry. It is highly likely that this would lead to a recurrence of material injury and as a consequence, the viability of the Union industry would be at serious risk.

7. UNION INTEREST

• (182) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, distributors and users.

• (183) All interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation.

7.1.   Interest of the Union industry

• (184) The Union industry is composed of around eight companies and employed around 1 000 workers directly with many more relying on it indirectly. As mentioned in recital (11), the Commission selected a sample of Union producers. The sample consisted of 3 Union producers that provided a reply to the questionnaire. The sample was considered representative for the Union industry.

• (185) As set out above, the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the period considered but it is in a fragile situation, as confirmed by the negative trends of the injury indicators. Removing the anti-dumping duties would lead to a likely recurrence of material injury which would be translated in a loss of sales and production volume, as well as market share leading to a loss of profitability and employment.

• (186) On the other hand, the Union industry has proven to be a viable industry. After the last expiry review it managed improving its situation under fair conditions on the Union market, making investments and reaching a fair profitability. The continuation of the measures would prevent low priced imports from the PRC to flood the Union market and therefore allow the Union industry to maintain sustainable price levels and increase its profitability to reach levels necessary for future investments.

• (187) On this basis, the Commission thus concluded that the maintenance of the anti-dumping measures is in the interest of the Union industry.

7.2.   Interest of unrelated importers, traders and users

• (188) The Commission contacted all known unrelated importers, traders and users. Only one importer, Cellofix, provided comments but did not submit a reply to the questionnaire.

• (189) Cellofix opposed the renewal of the measures in force claiming that: (i) it would not result in a recurrence of injury for the Union industry and, (ii) it would not be in the interest of the Union.

• (190) As regards the first point, Cellofix argued that the current measures have been in force for a period of over eleven years during which it claimed the Union industry had recovered from any injury suffered. This would also be evidenced by the industry’s growth.

• (191) The Commission disagrees with this claim. As set out in section 5.4, the investigation established a general downward trend of the Union industry’s economic and financial indicators and showed that the Union industry was in a fragile situation during the review investigation period. As set out in recital (146), the Commission did also not find that there was a growth of the Union industry. It is recalled that on the basis of these developments the Commission concluded that the expiry of the measures would likely lead to a recurrence of material injury. The arguments of the importer in this respect were therefore rejected.

• (192) As regards the second point that the renewal of the measures will not be in the Union interest, the importer claimed that, following the adoption of the definitive anti-dumping measures in 2009, it has struggled to buy AHF from the Union industry due to their lack of production capacity but also due to the pressure exerted by its large competitors on the Union producers, in order to limit the supply to Cellofix.

• (193) Concerning the alleged lack of production capacity, the investigation has shown that the Union industry had about 10 000 tonnes of spare capacity available which does not suggest any problems of the Union industry to supply the Union market. Regarding the alleged pressure on the Union industry to limit supply of AHF, the company did not provide any evidence to support this claim. These claims were therefore dismissed.

• (194) Given the non-cooperation of any other importers, traders or users, no information was available on the impact of the duties on these parties. The original investigation revealed, however, that any impact on other interested parties was not as such that measures had to be considered to be against the Union interest and likewise, the previous expiry review investigation established that the maintenance of the measures would not have a significant negative impact on the situation these parties.

• (195) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the maintenance of the anti-dumping measures in force would not have any significant adverse effects on importers, traders or users.

7.3.   Conclusion on Union interest

• (196) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons of the Union interest against the maintenance of the existing measures on imports of the product under review originating in the PRC.

8. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

• (197) Based on the conclusions reached by the Commission concerning the continuation of dumping from the PRC, the recurrence of injury caused by dumped imports from the PRC, and the Union interest, the Commission finds that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the PRC should be maintained.

• (198) To minimize the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in duty rates, 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 anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’.

• (199) 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 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.

• (200) 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 rates and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

• (201) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are exclusively applicable to imports of the product under review originating in the PRC and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product under review 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.

• (202) 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 ⁶⁰. 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 regulation about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

• (203) All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. No comments were received.

• (204) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 ⁶¹, when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.

• (205) The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Country	Company	Anti-dumping duty	TARIC additional code
PRC	Alcoa (Shanghai) Aluminium Products Co., Ltd and Alcoa (Bohai) Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd	6,4  %	A944
PRC	Shandong Loften Aluminium Foil Co., Ltd	20,3  %	A945
PRC	Zhenjiang Dingsheng Aluminium Co., Ltd	24,2  %	A946
PRC	All other companies	30,0  %	A999

Company name	TARIC additional code
Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., Ltd	C198
Luoyang Wanji Aluminium Processing Co., Ltd	C199
Xiamen Xiashun Aluminium Foil Co., Ltd	C200
Yantai Donghai Aluminum Foil Co., Ltd	C201

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 March 2022.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

https://en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease_8232/201612/P020191101481868235378.pdf (last viewed 6 May 2021).