Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2390 of 7 December 2022 amending the definitive countervailing duty imposed on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/823 following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council

• (205) This scheme constitutes a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation in the form of a direct grant by the GOT to Turkish exporters. The scheme confers a benefit within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation.

• (206) These grants are contingent upon export performance within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. Some of them are also specific within the meaning of Articles 4(2)(a) and 4(3) of the basic Regulation given that, from the documents provided by the cooperating exporting producer, they appear to be limited to certain industrial sectors, such as aquaculture. The Commission therefore considers that these grants are countervailable and specific.

• (207) The benefit is the amount of revenue received and booked in the review investigation period.

• (208) Following disclosure Gumusdoga disputed the Commission’s decision regarding the countervailability of these three grants.

• (209) For the ‘Aegean Exporters’ Association Support’ (the first grant), Gumusdoga claimed that the scheme is not related with the product under review, as the exports of products under HS Codes 0302, 0303, 0304 to the European Union are not included in the scope of the support.

• (210) The Commission rejected this claim as the support can cover products under other HS codes that are part of the product scope of the current investigation, namely HS codes 0301 and 0305. The company also did not provide sufficient information for the Commission to examine which product groups were covered by the support received during the RIP.

• (211) Gumusdoga also claimed that this first grant is not related to the export sales destined to the Union market.

• (212) The Commission does not dispute that this scheme is not exclusive to the product under review, which is why the benefit that the company received has been taken over the total export turnover of the group and then apportioned to the product under review.

• (213) For the export incentive support (the second grant), Gumusdoga claimed that only one out of eight applications included in the calculation of benefit pertain to the product under review and to the RIP. As a consequence, it requested the Commission to review the calculation of the benefit accordingly and discard the seven applications that do not pertain to the product under review and to the RIP.

• (214) The Commission rejects this claim as the benefit has been taken as the revenue booked in the review investigation period, and has been taken over total export turnover of the group and then apportioned to the product under review.

• (215) Gumusdoga also asked the Commission to disregard the benefit deriving from the ‘Exhibition Support Income’ (the third grant), as this scheme is not sector or company specific nor related to the product under review or the RIP.

• (216) The Commission rejects this claim as it is export contingent and the benefit received during the RIP has been taken over the total export turnover of the group and then apportioned to the product under review.

Table 6

Direct transfer of funds

Company	Subsidy amount
Fishark	0,00  %
Gumusdoga	0,21  %
Ozpekler	0,09  %
Selina Balik	0,08  %

4.8.   Preferential loans

• (217) During the original investigation and expiry review, the Commission found that trout producers were benefitting from preferential loans, including:

• — Low or zero interest Agricultural Loans

• — Low interest export loans by Eximbank directly or via other banks

• (218) The Commission examined preferential lending to the sampled exporting producers during 2020, including agricultural loans, export loans, and other loan schemes, including those organised by the GOT in 2020 as a response to the COVID pandemic.

4.9.   Agricultural loans

4.9.1.   Description and legal basis

• (219) Decree No 2020/2015 provides that Agricultural Credit Cooperatives (‘ACCs’) and T.C. Ziraat Bankasi A.S. (‘Ziraat Bankasi’) can grant low interest loans and business loans to aquaculture sector producers. The trout producers can receive discounts on the applicable interest rates ranging between 10 % and 80 %. The credit upper limit is 10 000 000 TL. The Decree covers 1 January 2020 until 31 December 2022.

• (220) ACCs are private law entities established by agricultural producers (i.e. natural persons or legal entities that are engaged in agricultural production) in Türkiye in order to support their financial business needs.

• (221) Ziraat Bankasi is the Agricultural Bank of the Republic of Türkiye, a fully State-owned bank. During the original investigation, its shares were owned by the Undersecretariat of Treasury. However, since 2018, its capital has been transferred to the Turkish Wealth Fund and as found in the expiry review it remains 100 % owned by the Turkish Wealth Fund ³⁰.

• (222) In accordance with Article 2 of the Law No 6741 on Establishment of Turkey Wealth Fund Management Company and Amendments in Certain Laws, the Turkish Wealth Fund is an institution affiliated to the Presidency ³¹.

• (223) Under Article 13(2) of the Decree of the Council of Ministers 2016/9429, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Fund is the President of the Republic. One of the Board Members can be assigned as the Deputy Chairman by the President of the Republic ³².

• (224) As determined in the original investigation ³³, Ziraat Bankasi provides preferential loans to the aquaculture sector, to promote agricultural production and agribusiness. In this regard, the Council of Ministers annually determines the duration, procedures and principles of the programme and the Treasury transfers the remaining amount of the interest payment, corresponding to the discounted interest rate, to Ziraat Bankasi.

• (225) The original investigation therefore determined that Ziraat Bankasi was vested with governmental authority on the basis of Decree 2013/4271, which has been replaced with Decree 2020/2015 on the same basis.

• (226) Therefore, T.C. Ziraat Bankasi A.S. continues to be vested with governmental authority and the Commission continues to consider, as in previous investigations, that it is a public body.

4.9.2.   Findings

• (227) During the RIP, the cooperating sampled exporting producers had outstanding low-interest loans from Ziraat Bankasi.

• (228) Following disclosure, Gumusdoga commented that the Commission should not consider agricultural loans from Ziraat Bankasi as countervailable, as they were linked to the purchase of an insurance policy linked to the production of other products and not the product under review.

• (229) This argument was rejected as the loan was made to the company and there was no evidence that similar loans were generally available to companies in Türkiye. Moreover, the loan was not contingent on production of other products, only to the purchase of an insurance policy on a particular farm.

4.10.   Export credits

4.10.1.   Description and legal basis

• (230) As determined in the original investigation ³⁴ and the expiry review ³⁵, Türkiye İhracat Kredi Bankası A.Ş (‘Eximbank’) was chartered by the GOT on 21 August 1987 by Decree No 87/11914, following the order of Law No 3332 ³⁶ on export credits and is a fully State-owned bank acting as the GOT’s export incentive instrument in Türkiye’s export strategy.

• (231) Eximbank has been mandated by the government to support foreign trade and Turkish contractors/investors operating overseas, in order to increase exports of Turkish businesses and to strengthen their international competitiveness.

• (232) The Commission continues to consider that Eximbank is vested with governmental authority and thus is a public body.

• (233) Law No 3332 as well as Resolution No 2013/4286 ³⁷ on setting up the Eximbank constitute the legal basis for the export credits provided via the Eximbank.

• (234) Eximbank provides financial support (either directly or via agent banks working on a commission basis), such as export contingent pre- or post-shipment export credits and export-oriented investment credits to exporters, with the intention of increasing the competitiveness of Turkish exporters in foreign markets.

• (235) Rediscount credits are also used by Eximbank to provide cash advances to exporters based on the discounting of bills and documents related to export sales ³⁸. The legal basis for these credits are the ‘Implementation Principles and Circular on Export and Foreign Exchange Earning Services Rediscount Credits (Rediscount Programme)’ ³⁹ and Article 45 of the Central Bank Law.

• (236) The 2020 Annual Report of the Central Bank of Türkiye (TCMB) noted that the aim of rediscount credits was ‘to facilitate export companies’ access to credits at favourable costs and to reinforce the CBRT’s reserves.’ ⁴⁰.

• (237) The rediscount credits are funded by the Central Bank of Türkiye, but are channelled through the Turkish financial institutions (public as well as private banks) acting as agents of the TCMB. The interest rates are set by the TCMB, and the agent banks are remunerated via a commission charged to the recipients.

4.10.2.   Findings

• (238) During the RIP, the cooperating sampled exporting producers had outstanding low-interest export credits provided either directly by Eximbank or via other public or private banks acting as agents of Eximbank. The companies also benefited from rediscount credits provided by Eximbank or via other public or private banks.

4.11.   Other loan schemes

4.11.1.   Description and legal basis

• (239) Some sampled exporting producers reported other loans taken out in 2020. The Commission identified three schemes used by the sampled exporting producers, and requested information from the Government of Türkiye on the following:

• — Can Suyu – Life Water

• — Ise Devam – Continue to Business

• — IVME Credit – Movement Credit

• (240) The Can Suyu – Life Water scheme is a general loan programme which is open to all enterprises with the commitment to continue their operations and maintain (and not reduce) the number of Social Security Institution registered employees as of the end of February 2020. The programme is a business continuity loan from the Government of Türkiye to the Kredi Garanti Fonu and the five public banks that hold shares in it.

• (241) The Ise Devam – Continue to Business scheme is another general loan programme linked to the ongoing operations in the same way as the Can Suyu – Life Water scheme. The programme is a business continuity loan from the Government of Türkiye to the Kredi Garanti Fonu and the five public banks that hold shares in it.

• (242) The IVME Credit – Movement Credit scheme is a more specific scheme for certain sectors of the economy. The scheme was announced as part of the IVME (Acceleration) Financing Package on 23 May 2019 by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance, together with three public banks, Ziraat Bankasi, Halkbank and Vakifbank ⁴¹. The Acceleration Financing Package in turn is part of the GOT’s long term economic policy for the country, set out in the New Economy Programme (‘Yeni Ekonomi Programi’).

• (243) The official announcement states that the programme is for ‘supporting sectors which have high import dependency; foreign trade deficit; high contribution rate to employment and high exports or currency earnings’. According to the inaugural speech of the Minister of Treasury and Finance, the ‘financing package adopts a product-oriented financing approach. Not only by evaluating on a sector-by-sector basis, but also by financing products with the potential to make a positive contribution to the foreign trade deficit. In this way, it will be aimed to increase the competitiveness of the relevant products in international markets and thus the export potential of strategic products will be revealed ⁴².’.

• (244) The main activities to be supported are ‘manufacturing of raw materials and intermediate goods; machinery production and agriculture’. In the area of raw materials and imported goods, 4 main sectors were identified: chemical/medical (pharmaceutical) products, plastic and rubber products; artificial and synthetic yarns; and the paper and cardboard sectors ⁴³.

• (245) In the area of machinery production, a list of machine manufacturers within certain NACE codes has been established. The financing package includes loans provided to domestic machine manufacturers on the NACE code list that invest in new production or capacity increases, as well loans to domestic buyers investing in new machines produced by the same manufacturers. The package targets the following sectors:

• — Electrical Machinery and Components, Computer, Electronics, Optical

• — Motor Vehicle Parts and Parts

• — Engine and Components

• — General Industrial Machinery and Components

• — Electrical Equipment ⁴⁴

• (246) Agriculture includes ‘livestock and feed crop production’ and these loans were granted to one sampled exporting producer during the RIP for aquaculture. The loan conditions are clearly preferential in terms of the interest rate offered.

4.11.2.   Findings

• (247) For the two general loan schemes Can Suyu – Life Water and Ise Devam – Continue to Business based on the level of employment in companies in February 2020, the Commission finds no evidence that these loan schemes are specific, or countervailable.

• (248) However, for the IVME credit scheme, the Commission has found evidence that it is limited to specific sectors and specific activities (as set out above), and that the loan package is connected to the public banks Ziraat Bank, Halkbank and Vakifbank.

• (249) The Commission found that the sampled companies were only using IVME credit loans provided by Ziraat Bank and Halkbank. The Commission therefore has not investigated the status of Vakifbank in this investigation.

• (250) The Commission has confirmed in Section 4.5.1 above that Ziraat Bank is a public body and vested with governmental authority.

• (251) The Commission considered Türkiye Halk Bankası A.Ş (‘Halkbank’) as a public body vested with government authority based on public information and also on the information that the bank itself provided as part of the reply to the government questionnaire which included copies of the 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports.

• (252) Halkbank was established by the GOT in 1933. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who stated, ‘It is extremely essential to create an organization that will provide small business owners and large industrial enterprises with the loans they so desperately need, easily obtainable and inexpensively priced and to lower the cost of credit under normal circumstances’ paved the way for the inception of Halkbank.

• (253) Halkbank is 77,9 % owned by the government through the Turkish Wealth Fund ⁴⁵. The Commission noted that all of the Members of the governing body of the Bank are or were Government officials or have served on other public bodies ⁴⁶.

• (254) For example, the Commission noted the presence on the Board of Maksut Serim, who in 2020 was a Senior Adviser to the President of the Republic of Türkiye, having been Chief Adviser to the Prime Minister of the Republic of Türkiye from 2003 to 2016.

• (255) The Commission also noted the presence on the Board of Sezai Uçarmak, who in 2020 was Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Trade.

• (256) The Commission further noted that the Articles of Association of Halkbank clearly state the specific objective of the Bank a provider of cheap access to financing to SMEs, tradesmen and artisans (Article 4(4)) with the involvement of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Türkiye.

• (257) Article 4(5) deals with the possibility of less than 50 % of the shares of the Bank being publicly held: ‘In case the percentage of publicly held shares of the Bank falls below 50 %, activities of the Bank regarding the offering of credit facilities to tradesmen and merchants as well as small and medium sized industrial enterprises shall continue in accordance with the methods and principles that shall be determined by the Council of Ministers’. ⁴⁷.

• (258) The bank was set up by the Government of Türkiye and has as its priority the needs of small and medium size enterprises (‘SMEs’), tradesmen and artisans.

• (259) As Halkbank says itself, ‘Since Halkbank’s priority has always been providing this target audience with loans offered under the most favourable conditions, the bank deserves the distinguished place it has acquired in the hearts of the tradesmen, artisans, and SMEs.’ ⁴⁸. In their 2020 and 2021 Annual Reports, Halkbank also refer on several occasions to their role as a public policy bank carrying out the priorities of the government.

• (260) According to the official Mission statement of Halkbank in its Annual reports, the bank’s role is to ‘support Turkey’s development and growth within an awareness for social responsibility; and to be a people’s bank that creates large value-added for all stakeholders’.

• (261) This mission is carried out in practice as follows: ‘As we channelled our resources to the priorities of Turkey’s economy as part of our mission of “We are the People First, and Then a Bank,” we focused on conducting our business within an approach that respects people, society and the environment’.

• (262) For example on page 52 of the 2021 Report ‘the Bank … extended TRY 12,1 billion in Ministry of Treasury and Finance interest-subsidized loans to 500 thousand tradesmen and artisans. Further, Halkbank continued to defer loan payments of tradesmen and artisans whose businesses suffered pandemic-driven losses pursuant to a Presidential Decree.’ ⁴⁹.

• (263) In relation to the IVME loans more specifically, General Manager Osman Arslan praised ‘the harmony and strong coordination between the institutions related to economic management to bring about successful results’, adding that ‘With our determination to achieve the targets in the New Economy Program, we will spend this year intensively in the field and make great efforts to offer the most appropriate solutions to the demands of our customers. Our loan disbursements in our innovative products such as Acceleration Financing Package, Employment-Oriented Business Loan, Economy Value Loan, Campaign Housing Loan, Campaign Consumer Loan, TLREF Indexed Loan and Domestic Production Vehicle Loan reached TL 30 billion in 2019 ⁵⁰’.

• (264) The conditions of the IVME credit involve a grace period, as well as a preferential rate which is established as a percentage surcharge (1-3 %, based on the loan duration) to the low risk state domestic debt securities (DIBS).

• (265) The interest rate for IVME loans is set out in the government’s instructions to the banks, and is set regardless of the capital cost structure of the bank, the circumstances of the borrower, or their credit worthiness. The banks are therefore considered to be acting on behalf of the government and carrying out the government’s instructions.

• (266) The Commission therefore considered that the IVME credit scheme is countervailable.

4.12.   Loans – Conclusion

• (267) As confirmed in the original investigation ⁵¹ and the expiry review ⁵². preferential financing is considered a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(i) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation.

• (268) On the basis of the findings of the current investigation, the Commission concluded that the preferential financing schemes confer benefits to the recipients, as such financing is granted below market rates, namely under conditions which do not reflect market conditions for financing with a comparable maturity.

• (269) These preferential financing schemes are specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation as far as the agricultural loans are concerned, as the granting authorities or the legislation pursuant to which the granting authorities operate explicitly limit access to certain enterprises.

• (270) The export-related credits are specific within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation, as they are contingent upon export performance.

• (271) Following disclosure, the GOT and Gumusdoga disputed the countervailing of the benefit calculated for export related credits, contingent on export performance, where the loan was provided by a private bank.

• (272) This argument was also made in the context of the previous expiry review, in recital (87) and the Commission rejected this claim in recitals (88) and (89) ⁵³.

• (273) The Commission analysed the documentation provided by the company carefully for any evidence that these loans had been provided by private bank without any interference by the Eximbank or other public bodies, given that the company had borrowed these funds for the export of the product under review at rates well below those published for loans in Euros by the TCMB.

• (274) The documentation that the company provided did not include a loan agreement from the bank concerned or any evidence to show that the bank concerned had offered the company a particular interest rate for a particular reason.

• (275) No evidence was therefore found to show that these loans were provided on a market basis and the argument was rejected.

• (276) Moreover, the company Gumusdoga argued that the Commission was inconsistent in the methodology used to calculate the benefit on export related loans as some were not included in the calculation of the total benefit.

• (277) The Commission rejected this claim. The only reason for which certain export contingent loans issued by private banks were not included in the calculation of the total benefit is because those loans were issued in Turkish Lira.

• (278) Gumusdoga claimed that, due to its high creditworthiness, it is able to receive favourably low interest rates for its export contingent loans issued by private banks and therefore the Commission should not include the benefit derived from such loans to its calculations.

• (279) The Commission rejected this argument, as the benchmark interest rates used for the calculation of the benefit correspond to the average interest rate of all Turkish loans provided in a certain period of time and in a certain currency. This average included all types of creditworthiness.

• (280) This claim from Gumusdoga, that some export contingent loans were set at low interest rates due to their own specific conditions, was also made in the expiry review and rejected for the same reasons as above. Gumusdoga was unable to show that they received any export contingent loan at a low interest rate based on their credit rating, or based on negotiations with a bank.

• (281) The Commission considered that there is no link between the countervailability of a loan and the level of creditworthiness of a company. The benchmark interest rates were only used to determine the amount of the benefit deriving from the loans and not to determine whether a loan could be considered countervailable or not.

• (282) All the preferential financing schemes are therefore considered as countervailable subsidies.

4.12.1.   Calculation of the subsidy amount

• (283) In line with Article 6(b) of the basic Regulation, the benefit on preferential financing was calculated as the difference between the amount of interest paid and the amount that would be paid for a comparable commercial loan. As a benchmark, the Commission again applied the weighted average interest rate of commercial loans on the Turkish domestic market, based on data sourced from the TCMB ⁵⁴. This is the same benchmark used in the original investigation, and all previous reviews. The Commission allocated the benefit related to the export credits on the export sales while the agricultural loans were allocated on the total sales.

• (284) Following disclosure Gumusdoga queried the methodology used for the attribution of benefit for export contingent loans. In the disclosure, the Commission allocated benefit as follows:

• (a) Export contingent loans reported as ‘not related to the product under review’ had no benefit allocated to the product under review.

• (b) Export contingent loans where there was no such report had all their benefit allocated to the export turnover of the product under review.

• (285) After disclosure Gumusdoga stated that all the loans coming under the heading (b) should in fact be allocated to total export turnover, as all these loans also were contingent on the export of other products. This claim relates to the same claim made by the same exporting producer in the expiry review Regulation ⁵⁵, recital (92).

• (286) In the expiry review the Commission was able to allocate the benefit from some export contingent loans to total export turnover, where there was evidence supporting doing so ⁵⁶. Given that some of these loans continued to be current in this review, the Commission was able to come to the same conclusion.

• (287) For those loans that were not examined in the expiry review, the Commission analysed the documentation that Gumusdoga provided with their questionnaire reply and subsequent submissions.

• (288) Where that documentation showed that the loan was contingent on the export of all products, the benefit was allocated over total export turnover of the group. Otherwise the benefit remained allocated over the export turnover of the product under review. Documentation provided by Gumusdoga after disclosure that could not be verified was not taken into account.

• (289) Following disclosure two sampled exporting producers noted clerical errors in the calculation of benefit, and these were corrected. The Commission also ensured that because the benchmark rate was published every Friday, the benchmark rate would apply for loans starting in the subsequent week, as was also applied in the expiry review Regulation, recital (93).

• (290) The subsidy amounts calculated for the sampled exporting producers regarding preferential lending are as follows:

Table 7

Financing

Company	Subsidy amount
Fishark	0,00  %
Gumusdoga	0,49  %
Ozpekler	0,36  %
Selina Balik	0,19  %

4.13.   Final amount of countervailable subsidies

• (291) The Commission found that the aggregated amount of countervailable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation were as follows:

Table 8

Total subsidy found

Company	Subsidy amount
Fishark	3,47  %
Gumusdoga	4,46  %
Ozpekler	3,19  %
Selina Balik	2,81  %

5. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES

• (292) The investigation confirmed the significant changes of the structure and the terms of implementation of the direct subsidies granted by the GOT to producers of trout as compared to the original investigation. In particular, as already established in the previous reviews mentioned in recitals (2) and (3), the GOT introduced a legislative change by Decree No 2016/8791 ⁵⁷ regarding the agricultural supports to be provided in 2016. Communiqué No 2016/33 ⁵⁸ regarding aquaculture support detailed the conditions for the subsidies to be granted.

• (293) In essence, and in contrast to the original investigation, in the case where a trout producer had more than one production licence (or ‘fish farming unit’) in the same potential zone in the sea, as defined by the Ministry, in the same reservoir (dam), or in the same reservoirs located in the same regions, which belonged to the same person or the same enterprise/company, those licences or fish farming units were regarded as one single licence or unit belonging to that company, and the direct subsidy was to be paid according to that interpretation.

• (294) This legislative change was maintained in the decrees of the following years and also in Decree 3190 for the RIP mentioned in recital (57). This suggests that the change in the structure and the implementation of the direct subsidies granted by the GOT has remained in place for several years and there is no indication that the GOT intends to make further changes.

• (295) In addition, an amendment in 2019 ⁵⁹ in the direct subsidy scheme limited the eligible quantity for direct subsidies to 350MT, i.e. lowered the cap in comparison to the original investigation period. The same cap was maintained in 2020 by Decree 3190. As mentioned above, the investigation did not show any indication that this practice would not continue.

• (296) The investigation also revealed as set out in recitals (57) to (72), that the GOT was increasingly subsidising trout farmers by splitting the support rates. Companies farming trout of all sizes under the same farming licence received benefits under both the ‘trout’ and ‘over kilogram trout’ subsidy rates.

• (297) The GOT’s move from subsidising all trout at one rate of subsidy to subsidising both all trout and ‘over kilogram trout’ is considered to be of a lasting nature. The trend has been increasing rapidly during the last years, and the GOT gave no indication that this would not continue. This increase in benefits through the disbursements made under the ‘over kilogram trout’ support rates partly compensated for the decrease in benefits received for ‘trout’. Overall, trout farmers continue receiving direct support from the GOT.

• (298) The Commission noted that the overall level of subsidy of the product under review in Turkish Lira per kilogram of exports to the EU had not dropped to the same extent as the countervailing duties calculated during the RIP. This is due to the drop in the value of the Turkish Lira against the Euro since the original investigation, and that the duty is calculated based on the subsidy in Turkish Lira per kilogram divided by the CIF value in Turkish Lira.

• (299) However, the Commission also noted that in parallel with the drop in the value of the Turkish Lira against the Euro, Türkiye also had periods of high inflation. Therefore, the value of the Turkish Lira in the country has also fallen, and the subsidy amounts paid out, which have remained constant in Turkish Lira, have dropped in real terms. The Commission therefore considered the reduction of the countervailing duty from the original investigation as a lasting change of circumstances.

• (300) In their submission of 11 November 2021, the DAO commented that there are constant and regular changes in the subsidy schemes in Türkiye and therefore any change in the subsidy amounts cannot be considered as lasting. Exports of trout from Türkiye still undercut the Union industry prices and still cause material injury to the Union industry. Therefore, the current review should be terminated and the level of the measures in force be maintained.

• (301) The DAO’s arguments did not take into consideration the significant changes in the structure and implementation of the direct subsidy schemes as established during this investigation. The possible yearly variations in the subsidy rates did not have an impact on the conclusions that circumstances in the original investigation were substantially different and that the changes made were of a lasting nature. The arguments of DAO in this respect were therefore rejected.

• (302) The Commission therefore considered that there has been a change of circumstances and that these changes are lasting. The Commission received no comments on this after disclosure.

6. COUNTERVAILING MEASURES

• (303) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission the anti-subsidy measures on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in the Republic of Türkiye should be amended to take account of the changed circumstances.

• (304) The anti-subsidy measures have been calculated as a percentage of the CIF value of the exports of the product under review to the European Union during the review investigation period.

• (305) Following additional disclosure, Gumusdoga asked the Commission to revise the calculation of the total turnover of the group of companies investigated to include turnover to related companies – outside this group of five companies having a direct link to their activities as regards the product under review – but which were part of the Gumusdoga group.

• (306) This request was accepted and the turnover to the companies concerned was added to the total turnover of the group.

• (307) Following disclosure, the three sampled exporting producers claimed that the Commission had incorrectly calculated the CIF value of the export sales of the product under review to the Union. They claimed that the Commission should consider the DAP invoice values as the CIF value of those sales, and claimed that the Commission had done so in previous investigations.

• (308) The Commission rejected these requests. The CIF value of the sales made to the Union was used (as set out in recital (297) above) to determine the percentage by which the import price should be increased to eliminate the effect of the subsidisation. This requires the CIF value since this is the value declared to Custom authorities on importation into the EU.

• (309) As is the Commission’s standard practice, where this CIF value has not been reported, or where the delivery is at the CIF Union border, the invoice value is the basis for the determination of the CIF value. Where the invoice value includes costs after importation (for instance for sales on DAP and DDP basis) the Commission estimated the CIF value of those transactions using the evidence available. For the DDP sales and some DAP sales the CIF value was known, and was reported separately in the questionnaire replies, and was therefore used. All CIF values used have been included in the information submitted by the parties and were verified during RCC.

• (310) Given the high level of cooperation in this investigation, the Commission considered it appropriate to set the countrywide duty at the level of the highest individual duty of the sampled exporting producers.

• (311) The individual company countervailing duty rates specified in this Regulation are exclusively applicable to imports of the product under review originating in Türkiye and produced by the named legal entities.

• (312) 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 countervailing duty rates.

• (313) A company may request the application of these individual countervailing 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. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

• (314) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council ⁶⁰, 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.

• (315) The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 25(1) of the basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

ex 0301 91 90, ex 0302 11 80, ex 0303 14 90, ex 0304 42 90, ex 0304 82 90, ex 0305 43 00 and ex 1604 19 10 (TARIC codes 0301919011, 0302118011, 0303149011, 0304429010, 0304829010, 0305430011 and 1604191011) and originating in Türkiye.

Company	Countervailing duty (%)	TARIC additional code
Fishark Su Ürünleri Üretim ve Sanayi Ticaret A.Ş.	3,4	B985
Gümüşdoga Su Ürünleri Üretim Ihracat Ithalat AŞ	4,4	B964
Özpekler İnşaat Taahhüd Dayanıklı Tüketim Malları Su Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi	3,1	B966
Companies listed in the Annex	4,0
Selina Balık İşleme Tesisi İthalat İhracat Ticaret Anonim Şirketi	2,8	C889
All other companies	4,4	B999

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, 7 December 2022.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

ANNEX

Cooperating Turkish exporting producers not sampled:

Name	TARIC additional code
Abalıoğlu Balık ve Gıda Ürünleri A.Ş.	B968
Alima Su Ürünleri ve Gıda Sanayi Ticaret A.Ş.	B974
Bağcı Balık Gıda ve Enerji Üretimi San ve Tic. A.Ş.	B977
Baypa Bayhan Su Urunleri San. Ve Tic. A.S.	C890
Ertug Balik Uretim Tesisi A.S. and More Su Urunleri A.S.	C891
Kemal Balıkçılık Ihracat Ltd Şti.	B981
Kılıç Deniz Ürünleri Üretimi İhracat İthalat ve Ticaret A.Ş.	B965
Lazsom Su Urunleri Gida Uretim Pazarlama Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi	C892
Liman Entegre Balıkçılık San ve Tic. Ltd Şti.	B982
Ömer Yavuz Balikcilik Su Ürünleri San. Tic. Ltd Sti.	B984
Premier Kultur Balikciligi Yatirim Ve Pazarlama A.S	C893
Uluturhan Balikçilik Turizm Ticaret Limited Şirketi	C894
Yavuzlar Otomotiv Balikcilik San. Tic. Ltd Sti.	C895