Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2001 of 21 October 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aspartame 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

• (260) 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 a 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 and users.

7.1.   Interest of the Union industry

• (261) As stated in recitals (237) and (238), the Union industry did not suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, during the review investigation period. However, given Chinese imports continued at substantial volumes and the Union industry did not achieve the target profit level identified in the original investigation, the Union industry remained in a fragile situation.

• (262) Should the measures be allowed to lapse, the situation of the Union industry would likely to deteriorate quickly, as explained in recital (252).

• (263) It was therefore, concluded that extending the measures in force against the PRC would be in the interest of the Union industry.

7.2.   Interest of unrelated importers and traders

• (264) As indicated in recital (36), no unrelated importer cooperated during the investigation.

• (265) The previous investigation concluded that in general, importers have quite a wide product portfolio out of which aspartame is only one item.

• (266) As no importer cooperated it is reasonable to assume that, like in the original investigation, aspartame does not represent a major proportion of the importers/traders’ turnover and that there are no factors suggesting that importers/traders would be disproportionally affected if measures were to be maintained.

• (267) On these grounds, the Commission concluded that should measures be maintained, the impact on the economic situation of the importers is likely not to be significant.

7.3.   Interest of users

• (268) Only one user submitted a questionnaire response and cooperated in the investigation.

• (269) This user was buying aspartame from the PRC and it was profitable. It also stated that it would not be in favour of the continuation of the measures. The share of aspartame in its cost of production was below 2 % and therefore the impact of the measures was rather low.

• (270) In view of the above observation that in the absence of measures the Union industry may be forced to cease the production of aspartame and as the import price from the PRC (without anti-dumping duties) is around 30 % lower than the import price from Japan, and therefore in the longer term, the Chinese are also likely to take over the market share from the Japanese exporter, the measures are likely to benefit users in so far as they preserve the production of aspartame in the Union and the choice for users to source aspartame produced by different competing producers.

• (271) On these grounds, the Commission concluded that should the measures be maintained, the impact on the economic situation of these operators is likely not to be significant.

7.4.   Conclusion on Union interest

• (272) 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 aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China.

8. CLAIMS THAT MEASURES BE SUSPENDED/REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM REVIEW

• (273) In their comments following final disclosure, Changmao claimed that due to the uncertainties related to HSWT’s viable future operation and the lack of recurrence of injury caused by the Chinese exports of aspartame, in case the Commission decided to maintain anti-dumping measures in place, it should also simultaneously adopt a decision to suspend the antidumping duties pursuant to Article 14(4) of the basic Regulation. Changmao claimed that the suspension of the duties would allow the Commission sufficient time to evaluate the impact on the Union producer of several factors that cast doubt on the Union producer’s viability and was thus in the Union’s interest.

• (274) The Commission noted that Changmao did not provide any evidence that market conditions had temporarily changed and that injury was unlikely to resume if the measures were suspended, as required by Article 14(4) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the claims regarding the alleged lack of likelihood of recurrence of injury and uncertainties related to HSWT viable future operation were addressed in recitals (254) to (259). Therefore, the claim was rejected.

• (275) Changmao also claimed that if the likelihood of recurrence of injury by imports from the PRC was very small, while the imports from the PRC were important to cover the Union market shortage or to make up for the Union producer’s lower capacity utilization, the Commission should initiate an interim review allowing it to reduce the current levels of antidumping duties or to accept a price undertaking.

• (276) The Commission noted that Changmao did not provide sufficient evidence of lasting change of circumstances as required by Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation for the Commission to assess whether the initiation of an interim review was warranted. Furthermore, as explained in recitals (248) to (259), the absence of measures would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of dumped imports from the PRC at injurious prices and material injury would be likely to recur. Moreover, the investigation did not reveal any shortages of aspartame on the market. The Union industry is not using its full capacity and imports are available from Japan as well as the PRC. It is recalled that despite the measures in force, the market share of the Chinese imports was [7 % – 10 %] in the review investigation period. As concerns price undertakings, the Commission notes that no exporter submitted a price undertaking offer. Therefore, the claims were rejected.

9. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

• (277) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on continuation of dumping, recurrence of injury and Union interest, the anti-dumping measures on aspartame from the PRC should be maintained.

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

• (279) 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 ³⁶. 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.

• (280) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council ³⁷, 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.

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

• (a) it did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) originating in the PRC during the period between 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015 (original investigation period);

• (b) it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation; and

• (c) it has either actually exported the product under review or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the original investigation period.

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, 21 October 2022.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

https://www.tnb.com.my/assets/files/Tariff_Rate_Final_01.Jan.2014.pdf

https://www.tnb.com.my/assets/files/Tariff_Rate_Final_01.Jan.2014.pdf