Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2068 of 26 October 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2015/477 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on measures that the European Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 (3) the European Commission imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products (‘CRF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or ‘China’) and the Russian Federation (‘Russia’) (‘the original measures’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2) The anti-dumping duties currently in force for the PRC are 19,7 % on imports from the sampled exporting producers, 20,5 % on the non-sampled cooperating companies and 22,1 % on all other companies, and for Russia range between 18,7 % and 34 % for the sampled exporting producers with a duty rate of 36,1 % for all other companies.

(3) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (4) the European Commission (‘the Commission’) received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(4) The request for review was lodged on 3 May 2021 by the European Steel Association (‘EUROFER’) (‘the applicant’) on behalf of the Union industry of CRF in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The request for review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would likely result in recurrence of dumping and continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(5) Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review the Commission initiated, on 3 August 2021, an expiry review with regard to imports to the Union of CRF originating in the PRC and Russia (‘the countries concerned’) on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (5) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(6) The investigation of a continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021 (‘review investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2017 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(7) In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, all known Union producers, the known producers in the PRC and Russia and the authorities of the PRC and Russia, known importers, users and traders about the initiation of the expiry review and invited them to participate.

(8) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the expiry review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. The Commission received comments from three exporting producers in Russia, the Russian government, one unrelated importer and one user.

(9) In their comments on initiation, the three Russian exporting producers claimed that the applicant had failed to present sufficient and reliable evidence that there was a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping from imports from Russia. In addition, the Russian government, the Russian exporting producers, the unrelated importer and a user claimed there was no causal link between the Union industry’s injury situation and imports of CRF from China and Russia. The reasoning of the different parties was that the injury to the Union industry, if it existed, was caused by other factors than injurious imports from Russia and China due to the negligible imports volumes of CRF from the countries concerned.

(10) However, as also stated in the Notice of Initiation, the applicant alleged that ‘the removal of injury as originally established has been mainly due to the existence of measures and that any recurrence of substantial imports at dumped prices from the countries concerned would likely lead to a recurrence of injury to the Union industry should measures be allowed to lapse’ (6). The purpose of the review investigation was to establish whether the expiry of measures is likely to result in continuation or recurrence of injury caused by dumped imports from the countries concerned. The information provided by the applicant at the initiation stage was sufficient to show that injury caused by dumped imports would recur if dumped imports were to resume at higher volumes. Therefore, the Commission rejected the parties’ claims on causality.

(11) The Russian government claimed that the applicant did not present sufficient evidence of the increased dumping, as stated in Article 5.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, while calculating normal value. Furthermore, it argued that the information provided in the open version of the request for expiry review was not detailed enough and showed no exact figures used for calculating the margin, because transport costs, export costs as well as prices on the Russian CRF market and the calculations themselves had been provided in approximate figures. The Russian government requested the Commission to examine the calculations provided in the request and to provide the evidence that these calculations are trustworthy. Moreover, the Russian government referred to Article 6.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement stating that without an opportunity for a reasonable understanding of the substance of information submitted in confidence, the applicant prevented both the Russian government and the Russian producers, as well as other interested parties from an opportunity to defend their interests in full and asked the Commission and Eurofer to provide more detailed data on dumping margin calculations.

(12) Concerning the claim on the sufficiency of evidence, the request for review acknowledged that Russian exports of the product concerned to the Union decreased sharply in comparison to the investigation period of the original investigation. Therefore, the request assessed the likelihood of recurrence of dumping by reference to export prices to third countries other than the Union. The analysis of the evidence showed that the request contained sufficient evidence of likelihood of recurrence of dumping.

(13) The dumping margin calculated in the request reflected the pricing behaviour of the Russian exporting producers on third country markets and did not necessarily reflect the exact degree of dumping which was calculated in the investigation. However, the applicant provided sufficient evidence in the request on export price and normal value showing likelihood of recurrence of dumping. The applicant also provided a sufficiently detailed description of the methodology used in its dumping calculation to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.

(14) In order to assess the normal value of CRF for the Russian exporting producers, the applicant had collected publicly available and subscription-based information on the domestic selling prices of 1 tonne of CRF by the main exporters on their domestic market for the period of reference. The Commission verified and confirmed the export price with the Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’) database.

(15) Since imports of the product under review from Russia to the Union have been negligible following the imposition of the anti-dumping duties in 2016, the applicant based the export price on several sources of price information on export sales of Russian CRF to any third countries in 2020. These export prices for 1 tonne of CRF were established on the basis of market intelligence on export prices from Russia. The export price was verified and confirmed with the average GTA price of the three main Russian export destinations.

(16) The applicant had thus compared, the average ex-works export price of CRF steel products from Russia with a normal value based on Russian domestic prices.

(17) In its statutory analysis, the Commission took into account only those elements for which evidence was sufficiently adequate and accurate.

(18) Therefore, the claims of the Russian government were rejected.

(19) The Commission considered that the non-confidential version of the request available in the file for inspection by interested parties contained all the essential evidence and non-confidential summaries of the confidential data allowing interested parties to properly exercise their rights of defence. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(20) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(21) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of three Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of the production and sales volumes of the like product. The sample consisted of three Union producers that accounted for more than 30 % of the estimated total volume of production of the like product in the Union and more than 20 % of the estimated total volume of sales.

(22) In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received and the provisional sample was thus confirmed and was considered representative of the Union industry.

(23) 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 Annex to the Notice of Initiation.

(24) No unrelated importer replied to the sampling form. Consequently, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

(25) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in Russia and China to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Chinese and Russian authorities to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(26) At the initiation, the Commission made available a copy of the questionnaires in the file for inspection by interested parties and on DG TRADE’s website.

(27) No Chinese exporting producers provided the requested information and/or agreed to be included in the sample. The Commission informed the Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the European Union about its intention to apply facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. No comments were received.

(28) Therefore, since there was no cooperation from the Chinese producers, the findings with regard to the imports from the PRC were made on the basis of the facts available pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, in particular using trade statistics on imports and exports (Eurostat, the Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’) (7) and OECD (8)).

(29) Three Russian exporting producers, namely PJSC Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works (MMK) and its related companies (MMK Group), PJSG Novolipetsk Steel (NLMK) and its related companies (NLMK Group) and PJSC Severstal (Severstal) and its related companies (SEVERSTAL Group), provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. However, on 6 September 2021, these three exporting producers informed the Commission that they had decided not to submit individual anti-dumping questionnaire replies but would cooperate with the Commission on all other aspects of the expiry review, such as comments on the review request, likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury and Union interest. Subsequently, on 13 September 2021, the three Russian exporting producers submitted comments on the request for expiry review, the alleged continuation and likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping and Union interest. They invited the Commission to conduct selective verification of relevant company-specific data, such as production, capacity and capacity utilisation submitted together with the comments.

(30) Following this communication, on 21 September and 19 November 2021 the Commission informed the afore-mentioned exporting producers that it considered them as non-cooperating parties and informed them about its intention to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation and make use of facts available to determine its findings in the investigation. The Commission also informed the authorities of Russia about its intention to apply facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(31) On 30 September and 29 November 2021, the Commission received comments from the three Russian exporting producers regarding the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation. They disagreed with the Commission’s assessment of their cooperation status and reiterated their intention to cooperate on other aspects of the review such as continuation or recurrence of injury, likelihood of further injurious dumping and Union interest. They invited again the Commission to verify the data on production, capacity and capacity utilisation they had submitted.

(32) In this respect, the Russian exporting producers did not submit the requested necessary information in their questionnaire replies. The Commission considered that the Russian exporting producers provided only fragmented information limited to production, capacity and production volume, without supporting evidence. Consequently, since the exporting producers did not provide sufficient and reliable information for the Commission to arrive at a reasonable accurate finding, the Commission used the information available on the file as explained in recital 30. In any event, the Commission used the information provided by the three Russian producers to the extent possible in this regard.

(33) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in the PRC within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’).

(34) The Commission also sent questionnaires to the sampled Union producers. The same questionnaires had also been made available online (9) on the day of initiation. In addition, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the Union producers association, EUROFER.

(35) Questionnaire replies were received from the three sampled Union producers and EUROFER.

(36) The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and of the Union interest. Due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent measures taken to deal with the outbreak (‘the COVID-19 Notice’) (10), the Commission was unable to carry out verification visits at the premises of the sampled companies. Instead, the Commission performed Remote cross-checks (‘RCCs’) of the information provided by the following companies via videoconference:

— Voestalpine Stahl GmbH, Austria

— ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG, Germany

— ArcelorMittal Belgium, Belgium

(37) On 19 August 2022, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to maintain the anti-dumping duties in force regarding imports from the PRC and Russia. All parties were granted the opportunity to make comments on the disclosure.

(38) The comments made by interested parties were considered by the Commission and taken into account, where appropriate. The parties who so requested were granted a hearing.

(39) The product under review is the same as in in the original investigation namely flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, or other alloy steel but excluding of stainless steel, of all widths, cold-rolled (cold-reduced), not clad, plated or coated and not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), currently falling under CN codes ex 7209 15 00 (TARIC code 7209150090), 7209 16 90, 7209 17 90, 7209 18 91, ex 7209 18 99 (TARIC code 7209189990), ex 7209 25 00 (TARIC code 7209250090), 7209 26 90, 7209 27 90, 7209 28 90, 7211 23 30, ex 7211 23 80 (TARIC codes 7211238019, 7211238095 and 7211238099), ex 7211 29 00 (TARIC codes 7211290019 and 7211290099), 7225 50 80 and 7226 92 00 (‘the product under review’).

(41) Cold-rolled flat steel products are produced from hot-rolled coils. The cold-rolling process is defined by passing a sheet or strip that has previously been hot rolled and pickled – through cold rolls, i.e. below the softening temperature of the metal. Cold-rolled flat steel products are manufactured to meet certain specifications or proprietary end-user specifications. They can be delivered in various forms: in coils (oiled or not oiled), in cut lengths (sheet) or narrow strips. Cold-rolled flat steel products are an industrial input purchased by end-users for a variety of applications, mainly in manufacturing (general industry, packaging, automotive, etc.) but also in construction.

(42) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the PRC and Russia.

(44) These products are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(45) During the review investigation period, imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products from China continued, albeit at lower levels than in the investigation period of the original investigation (i.e. from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015). According to Eurostat data, imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products from China accounted for less than 1 % of the Union market in the review investigation period compared to 10,3 % (11) market share during the original investigation. In absolute terms, China exported about 32 000 tonnes to the Union during the review investigation period, which is a significant decrease compared to about 732 000 tonnes (12) that it exported to the Union during the investigation period of the original investigation.

(46) During the original investigation, the Commission found that exports of the product concerned from China were dumped at a significant level on the Union market. The dumping margins of the cooperating Chinese exporters ranged from 52,7 % to 59,2 %. Due to the application of the lesser duty rule, the anti-dumping duties imposed on Chinese imports were set at a much lower level, ranging from 19,7 % to 22,1 %.