Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/100 of 11 January 2023 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel refillable kegs originating in the People’s Republic of China

• (124) As explained in paragraphs 193 to 203 of the complaint, the above methodology consisted of three main elements. First, the Complainant added up the quantities of kegs sought in all the bidding processes (referred to in the complaint as ‘tenders’) organised by five major users, i.e., the big brewery groups present on the Union market, namely: AB InBev, Asahi CEE, Carlsberg, Heineken, and Molson Coors (‘the major users’). Second, the Complainant deducted their own sales that they made pursuant to the bids they placed on those tenders, operating under the assumption that the remainder of the total lot requested in each tender was won and supplied by the producers from China. Finally, the Complainant added the quantities imported by importers/resellers, estimated based on their market knowledge.

• (125) The investigation has shown that the quantities of kegs which the major users effectively purchased following a tender rarely correspond to the quantities initially sought via that tender. While the proportions vary from tender to tender and between the major users, on average, the major users purchased less than 60 % of the quantities originally sought through the tenders over the period considered. This is due to the particular way this market operates, in particular linked to the modalities and follow-up of the tenders by the users, as explained below in Section 5.1, whereby, notably, the users were not under any contractual obligation to purchase the quantities actually tendered.

• (126) The Commission therefore sought to verify whether such estimate of imports of the product concerned into the Union by the Complaint was accurate and, in case it was not, to estimate the imports quantities in a more accurate manner. For that purpose, it requested data of all shipments under the two CN codes from customs authorities of six EU Member States (‘MS’) with the highest imports of the above two CN codes over the period considered, either from China, or from the whole world: Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland. Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands were among top five countries with biggest imports in both categories, while Poland was among top five MS with the biggest volume of imports from China, and Czechia with the biggest volume when looking at imports from the rest of the world. These six Member States together represented 73 % of EU imports from China and 66 % of worldwide imports over the period considered.

• (127) The Commission analysed the received data and, based on the description of each shipment, it calculated a lower and an upper figure of what could reasonably be considered as imports of the product concerned into the six Member States. In particular, the shipments which were described as ‘(beer) kegs’ were aggregated to form the lower figure, while the ones that had a description consistent with kegs characteristics, were aggregated to form the upper one. In that context, shipments which were described as something else, such as feedthroughs, buckets, gas tanks, boilers, cans, tin boxes, etc., or were incompatible with kegs characteristics, were discarded. In most cases, the customs authorities would not register the units (number of kegs) in each shipment, but only the weight of such shipment. In those cases, the Commission would rely on the conversion rate of 1 keg = 10 kg ⁵⁰ to calculate the number of kegs. The resulting upper and lower figures for each year were then adjusted by the factor of 0,73, i.e. the percentage which the six Member States represent in the total Union imports of the two CN codes from China, to calculate a full figure of the import quantities of kegs from China into the Union. The results of that analysis are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4

Imports into the Union based on detailed customs data

Pieces of kegs	2018	2019	2020	IP
Kegs imports – lower figure	217 744	254 996	139 684	136 638
Index	100	117	64	63
Kegs imports – upper figure	602 010 51	430 208	381 958	370 107
Index	100	77	68	66
Source: detailed transaction data from customs authorities of Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland, adjusted by the factor of 0,73.	Source: detailed transaction data from customs authorities of Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland, adjusted by the factor of 0,73.	Source: detailed transaction data from customs authorities of Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland, adjusted by the factor of 0,73.	Source: detailed transaction data from customs authorities of Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland, adjusted by the factor of 0,73.	Source: detailed transaction data from customs authorities of Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland, adjusted by the factor of 0,73.

• (128) The above figures confirmed that the methodology used in the complaint was not the most appropriate to quantify imports of the product concerned into the Union.

• (129) In addition, the Commission reached out to the remaining four non-sampled cooperating exporting producers to request their sales data for the entire period considered. All of them provided the requested unverified data that were aggregated with the verified sales quantities declared by the two sampled exporting producers in their questionnaire replies, resulting in the import quantities summarised in Table 5 below.

Table 5

Total export quantity declared by sampled and non-sampled cooperating exporting producers

Pieces of kegs	2018	2019	2020	2021
Total export quantity declared by sampled and non-sampled exporting producers	[600 000 – 675 000 ]	[350 000 – 425 000 ]	[200 000 – 275 000 ]	[100 000 – 175 000 ]
Index	100	58	36	20
Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled exporting producers and unverified data provided by non-sampled cooperating exporting producers in China.	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled exporting producers and unverified data provided by non-sampled cooperating exporting producers in China.	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled exporting producers and unverified data provided by non-sampled cooperating exporting producers in China.	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled exporting producers and unverified data provided by non-sampled cooperating exporting producers in China.	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled exporting producers and unverified data provided by non-sampled cooperating exporting producers in China.

• (130) In view of the discrepancies of the available data, on 2 September 2022, the Commission published a Note to the File indicating the import quantities collected as per Tables 4 and 5 as well as their underlying different methodologies, and invited interested parties to comment. The Commission also reached out to the major users despite their initial non-cooperation, requesting the data on their suppliers and purchase volumes to try and validate the figures received by the exporting producers in Table 5. Only three out of five major users provided the requested data (see further below at recital (136)). The only comments on the note were submitted by the Complainant on 12 September 2022.

• (131) The first claim put forward by the Complainant was that the estimation of imports in Table 4 based on the customs data analysis still missed a share of Chinese imports. It referred for instance to the fact that import statistics into other Member States important for consumption of beer and kegs, such as Romania and Spain, were missing, thereby underestimating the totals.

• (132) Second, the Complainant claimed that the figures reported by the cooperating exporting producers in Table 5 did not fully reflect the volumes imported in the Union during the period considered because of the limited cooperation of the exporting producers. In its submission, the Complainant claimed that the cooperation rate of exporting producers was only 28 %.

• (133) Third, the Complainant claimed that the information on consumption obtained by the three major users only showed a partial picture of the Union consumption of kegs due to the small- and medium-sized breweries not being taken into account and the limited cooperation from users.

• (134) The Commission carefully considered all these comments by the Complainant. With regard to the first claim, while the adjustment of the import statistics of the six Member States by the factor of 0,73 as explained in recital (127) was used to determine the remaining imports from the other Member States, it cannot be ruled out at this stage that the actual import quantities into other Member States such as Romania and Spain are underestimated.

• (135) As for the second claim, as explained in recital (111), the investigation has provisionally shown that the level of cooperation is low and the cooperating exporting producers represent 32 % of imports of kegs from China in the IP. Therefore, at this stage of the investigation, it cannot be excluded that there are other exporting producers or exporters in China selling to the Union throughout the period considered, in addition to the cooperating exporters.

• (136) With regard to the third claim and the very low cooperation by users, the Commission noted that, out of the five major users, which represent around 50 % of the user market, only three users (AB InBev, Asahi, and Molson Coors) provided the requested data. Furthermore, only one of these three users (AB InBev) purchased kegs from Chinese suppliers. In addition, as also specified below in Section 5.1, the remaining 50 % of the user market, composed mainly of smaller breweries, did not cooperate with the investigation.

• (137) In light of these comments and considerations, the Commission further noted that the purchased quantities reported by the only cooperating user that sources kegs from China were well below the Union sales reported by the corresponding exporting producers. Furthermore, the Commission considered that there were other exporting producers that did not cooperate with the investigation, and that the figures submitted by the non-sampled cooperating exporting producers were not verified as those producers were not sampled.

• (138) On balance, in light of all these elements and in particular contradictory data obtained from users and the very low cooperation by the exporting producers and by the users, whose data on purchases would be instrumental to double-check the quantities reported be the cooperating exporting producers, the Commission provisionally considered that the most appropriate methodology to quantify imports had to be based on the official import statistics in Table 4. Furthermore, given the comments submitted by the industry that even the upper figure of the data based on statistics would probably be underestimated, , the Commission provisionally considered that the upper figures obtained from statistics were the most appropriate to calculate the level of imports at this provisional stage.

• (139) To gain additional assurance of the appropriateness of this methodology, the Commission subsequently examined the statistics on imports of kegs at TARIC code level, available from the initiation of this investigation in Surveillance database, to see how big of a share imports of kegs make in the total imports of products under both relevant CN codes. The average share of imports of products at TARIC code level (i.e., imports of kegs) in the imports of all the products at the relevant CN codes’ level for the period 13 May 2022 – 6 December 2022 was consistent with the average share of imports of kegs in the CN codes which the Commission established for the period considered.

• (140) In order to further check the appropriateness of this methodology, the Commission intends to contact again the major importers identified in the complaint to further refine its assessment of import quantities over the period considered. The Commission will also seek to collect more information concerning the small breweries after provisional stage.

• (141) Moreover, the Commission intends to collect post-initiation data from the cooperating sampled and non-sampled exporting producers to reconcile them with the more precise official import statistics available for the post-initiation period. The Commission also intends to verify the import data of the non-sampled cooperating producers and request from the customs authorities of Romania and Spain the detailed customs data on the relevant CN codes to refine the actual import data further.

4.3.2.   Volume and market share of the imports from the country concerned

• (142) As explained in Section 4.3.1 above, the Commission established the volume of imports on the basis of official customs statistics from Member States. The market share of imports was established as a proportion of total reported imports from China in total Union consumption (as established in Section 4.2 above).

• (143) Imports into the Union from the country concerned developed as follows:

Table 6

Import volume (pieces) and market share

	2018	2019	2020	IP
Volume of imports from the country concerned (pieces)	602 010	430 208	381 958	370 107
Index	100	71	63	61
Market share (%)	17	17	21	31
Index	100	97	119	179
Source: Customs statistics from Member States adjusted as explained in Section 4.3.1.	Source: Customs statistics from Member States adjusted as explained in Section 4.3.1.	Source: Customs statistics from Member States adjusted as explained in Section 4.3.1.	Source: Customs statistics from Member States adjusted as explained in Section 4.3.1.	Source: Customs statistics from Member States adjusted as explained in Section 4.3.1.

• (144) As the table above demonstrates, the volume of imports from China decreased by 39 % during the period considered. Such decreasing volume of imports followed the overall decreasing trend of the consumption of kegs during the period considered (see above Table 2), although to a lesser extent, and in any event significantly less pronounced than the decreasing trend of sales of the Union industry (see below Table 9).

• (145) These decreases must be contextualised within the prevalent market situation in 2020 and the IP, namely, a significant decrease in demand for kegs during the Covid-19 pandemic. Within such a shrinking market, imports of kegs decreased by a significantly smaller margin than Union industry’s sales. Thus the market share of imports from China, due to their lower prices, has constantly increased over the period considered (by 79 % over the period considered). During the IP, the Chinese market share was quite substantial at 31 %.

4.3.3.   Prices of the imports from the country concerned: price undercutting and price suppression

• (146) In view of the difficulties to establish prices per unit on the basis of official statistics, the Commission established the prices of imports on the basis of the data provided by the cooperating exporting producers. Price undercutting of the imports was established based on the questionnaire replies by the sampled Union producers and Chinese exporting sampled producers.

• (147) The average price of imports into the Union from the country concerned developed as follows:

Table 7

Import prices (EUR/ piece)

	2018	2019	2020	Investigation period
China	43,13	37,34	38,40	43,62
Index	100	87	89	101
Source: Cooperating Chinese exporting producers.	Source: Cooperating Chinese exporting producers.	Source: Cooperating Chinese exporting producers.	Source: Cooperating Chinese exporting producers.	Source: Cooperating Chinese exporting producers.

• (148) Import prices from China decreased, respectively, by 13 % and 11 % in 2019 and 2020 and started increasing again in 2020 and the IP reaching back the level of 2018.

• (149) The Commission determined the price undercutting during the investigation period by comparing:

• — the weighted average sales prices per product type of the sampled Union producers charged to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, and

• — the corresponding weighted average prices per product type of the imports from the sampled cooperating Chinese exporting producers to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a cost, insurance, freight (CIF) basis, with appropriate adjustments for customs duties and post-importation costs.

• (150) The price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts. Almost the entirety of sales by both exporting producers and the Union industry were made directly to final users (that is, breweries), and therefore the sales channels and the level of trade were the same on both sides. The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers’ theoretical turnover during the investigation period. It showed a weighted average undercutting margin of between 11,9 % and 14 % by the imports from the country concerned on the Union market.

• (151) In addition to price undercutting, there was also significant price suppression within the meaning of Article 3(3) of the basic Regulation. Due to the significant price pressure caused by the low-priced dumped imports from Chinese exporting producers, the Union industry was unable to raise the prices throughout the IP in line with the development of costs of production and in order to achieve a reasonable level of profit.

• (152) As shown in Table 11 below, the average EU sales price decreased by almost 10 % over the period considered. At the same time, the cost of production increased by 16 % over the same period, thus the sales price was significantly below the cost of production. Especially in 2020 and over the IP, the cost of production increased substantially, while the price had to be kept stable because of the price pressure by Chinese exports. On the contrary, price levels and resulting profits in export markets not affected by dumped imports or where measures have been imposed to restore fair trade were on average 22 % higher than Union industry’s sales prices on the Union market (+ 29 % in the IP) (see recital (196)).

• (153) This situation had a clear impact on the Union industry profitability, as shown in Table 14 below. After starting at 12 % in 2018, profitability decreased sharply for the rest of the period, especially in 2020 and during the IP.

• (154) The development of these three indicators clearly show that the industry was subject to strong pricing pressure from the Chinese dumped imports, which forced it to sell at very low prices below cost of production. The details of particularities of the market situation, in particular with regard to the price pressure suffered by the Union industry in the selling process, is explained below at Section 5.1. This caused a clear price suppression for the Union industry.

4.4.   Economic situation of the Union industry

4.4.1.   General remarks

• (155) In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

• (156) As mentioned in recital (7), sampling was used for the determination of possible injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (157) 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 reply to the macro-questionnaire provided by the Complainant. The data related to all Union producers. The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators based on 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.

• (158) 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.

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

4.4.2.   Macroeconomic indicators

4.4.2.1.   Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

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

Table 8

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

	2018	2019	2020	Investigation period
Production volume (Pieces)	5 132 261	3 698 684	1 939 361	1 926 200
Index	100	72	38	38
Production capacity (measuring unit)	6 542 683	6 628 049	6 786 585	6 786 585
Index	100	101	104	104
Capacity utilisation (%)	78	56	29	28
Index	100	71	36	36
Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.

• (161) During the period considered, the production volume decreased by 62 %. The production followed closely the variation in consumption: a first drop in demand in 2019 (by 23 %) and further and more pronounced drop in demand in 2020 and 2021 (Covid-19 outbreak).

• (162) Production capacity slightly increased by 4 % over the period considered. This is due to efficiency gains in procedures and staff allocation operated by the Union industry in its production lines over the period considered.

• (163) The two above-mentioned trends (decrease in production, increase in capacity) led to a significant decrease in the capacity utilisation (– 64 %). During the investigation period, the capacity utilisation rate reached a very low level (28 %).

4.4.2.2.   Sales volume and market share

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

Table 9

Sales volume and market share

	2018	2019	2020	Investigation period
Sales volume on the Union market (Pieces)	2 875 573	2 124 518	1 479 302	822 777
Index	100	74	51	29
Market share (%)	83	83	79	69
Index	100	101	96	83
Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.

• (165) Sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market decreased steadily (by 71 %) over the period considered, at a trend steeper than the development of consumption.

• (166) Market share of the Union industry dropped from 83 % in 2018 to 69 % in the IP, a decrease of 14 percentage points, due to the significant price pressure of the Chinese imports, as explained in section 4.4.3.1 below, that constantly gained market share over the period considered.

4.4.2.3.   Growth

• (167) The demand and production of kegs followed a decreasing trend over the period considered. In the context of decreasing consumption, the Union industry lost significant sales volumes and market share and it maintained a reduced amount of sales only at the expense of its sales prices, as explained below in section 4.4.3.1.

4.4.2.4.   Employment and productivity

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

Table 10

Employment and productivity

	2018	2019	2020	Investigation period
Number of employees	960	822	538	481
Index	100	86	56	50
Productivity (Pieces/employee)	5 349	4 497	3 606	4 008
Index	100	84	67	75
Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.	Source: Macro questionnaire provided by the complainant.

• (169) Employment in the sector followed the same trend as the production and the consumption on the Union market and dropped dramatically by 50 % over the period considered. Given the above, in a situation where production decreased by 62 % over the period considered, the productivity fell. Despite the reduction in employment it dropped by 33 % over the period considered and it recovered only partially during the IP thanks to some efficiency gain.

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

• (170) All dumping margins were significantly above the de minimis level. The impact of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping on the Union industry was substantial, given the prices of imports from the country concerned.

• (171) This is the first anti-dumping investigation regarding the product concerned. Therefore, no data were available to assess the effects of possible past dumping.

4.4.3.   Microeconomic indicators

4.4.3.1.   Prices and factors affecting prices

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

Table 11

Sales prices in the Union

	2018	2019	2020	Investigation period
Average unit sales price in the Union on the total market (EUR/ piece)	56	55	51	51
Index	100	98	90	91
Unit cost of production (EUR/ piece)	55	59	63	64
Index	100	107	114	116
Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.

• (173) The sales prices decreased by 2 % between 2018 and 2019 before decreasing steeply in 2020 by 8 % and remaining at about the same level in the IP. Overall the average Union industry’s sales prices decreased by 9 % during the period considered.

• (174) During the same period considered, unit costs of production increased by 16 %. This was linked mostly to the increase of the fixed costs, which followed the drop in the production volume. To counter this, during the years affected by the Covid-19 lockdowns the Union industry managed to decrease its fixed costs by over 20 %. Despite this, the impact of the proportionally higher incidence of fixed costs in a period of low capacity utilisation was significant, as the weight of such costs out of the overall costs of production went from 13 % in 2018 to 23 % in the IP. Over the period considered the Union industry decreased its employment as per Table 10 and labour costs yielded by the dismissals during the Covid-19 period as show at Section 4.4.3.2.

• (175) Sales prices and cost of production followed a divergent trend. As explained above at Section 4.3.3 and below at Section 5.1, the Union industry was not able to raise its prices to sustainable levels to cover the increased cost of production and the low capacity utilization as the price negotiation in the market was significantly affected by low-priced and dumped imports from China.

4.4.3.2.   Labour costs

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

Table 12

Average labour costs per employee

	2018	2019	2020	Investigation period
Average labour costs per employee (EUR)	48 510	45 157	50 218	52 988
Index	100	93	104	109
Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.

• (177) The average labour cost per employee decreased in 2019, followed by an increase in 2020 and in the IP. However, as shown in Table 10, at the same time employment decreased by 54 %.

4.4.3.3.   Inventories

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

Table 13

Inventories

	2018	2019	2020	Investigation period
Closing stocks (Pieces)	308 350	210 370	157 417	128 525
Index	100	68	51	42
Closing stocks as a percentage of production	6	6	8	7
Index	100	95	135	111
Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.

• (179) Stocks decreased by 58 % over the period considered. This was linked to the decrease of the production and sales. During the period considered, stocks as a percentage of production overall increased by 11 %, as the industry had to maintain some volume of activity and was therefore not able to reduce production in line with the decrease of sales. In any case, given that the majority of the production was based on orders and customers specifications, inventories do not constitute an important indicator of injury.

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

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

Table 14

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments

	2018	2019	2020	Investigation period
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)	12	5	-18	-9
Index	100	42	- 144	-73
Cash flow (EUR)	26 413 388	17 979 438	-4 762 380	-2 257 500
Index	100	68	-18	-9
Investments (EUR)	11 655 450	5 408 642	2 536 354	1 220 214
Index	100	46	22	10
Return on investments (%)	65	14	-35	-19
Index	100	21	-54	-29
Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.

• (181) 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.

• (182) Over the period considered, profits decreased by 58 % in 2019, before dropping steeply and turning into double-digit losses in 2020. It partially recovered in 2021 but still remained negative. Overall, profit decreased by – 173 % over the period considered. In the context of the sudden drop in demand linked to the Covid-19 pandemic, the increased competition of low-priced Chinese exports, as explained below in section 5.1, forced the Union industry to decrease its prices in a period of increasing cost of production, as explained in section 4.4.3.1, and led to significant losses.

• (183) The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. The trend in net cash flow developed in a similar manner to profitability: a drastic fall in 2019-2020 followed by a partial recovery in the IP, yet remaining negative.

• (184) The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. It developed in a similar manner to profitability: a drastic fall by 129 % over the period considered to the negative values.

• (185) Given the drop in profitability, cash flow and return on investment, the sampled Union producers’ ability to raise capital was severely affected.

4.4.4.   Conclusion on injury

• (186) The main macro-indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered: Union sales volume dropped by 71 %, production by 62 %, employment by 50 %.

• (187) A similar picture can be drawn as regards the micro-indicators. Profitability of sales in the Union (from + 12 % to - 9 %), sales prices (- 9 %), as well as cash flow (- 109 %) all deteriorated significantly.

• (188) Against a background of decreased consumption due to Covid-19, while cost of production of the Union industry increased by 16 %, import prices from China were consistently and significantly below Union industry prices and costs since 2018.

• (189) Chinese exporters’ import volumes decreased by 39 % over the period considered. However, at the same time the decrease in consumption was far more pronounced (by 66 %). As a result Chinese exports increased their market share by 79 %, from 17 % in 2018 to 31 % in the IP, and their prices significantly undercut the Union industry’s prices throughout the whole period considered. The undercutting margin was on average 13,1 % during the IP, as set out above in section 4.3.3.

• (190) The low-priced Chinese dumped imports also caused significant price suppression for the Union industry in view of the underselling margins which ranged from 52,9 % to 58,8 %. The Union industry was unable to increase its prices in line with the increase of cost of production and was thus forced in a dire profitable situation to preserve, at least partially, its sales quantity.

• (191) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded at this stage that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

5. CAUSATION

• (192) In accordance with Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports from the country concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. In accordance with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined whether other known factors could at the same time have injured the Union industry. These factors were the Covid-19 pandemic affecting the Union consumption and the export performance of the Union industry. The Commission ensured that any possible injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports from the country concerned was not attributed to the dumped imports.

5.1.   Effects of the dumped imports

• (193) The volume of imports from China decreased by 39 % over the period considered, from 602 010 pieces in 2018 to 370 107 pieces in 2021; however, during the same period, their market share gained 14 percentage points reaching 31 % in the investigation period, causing injury to the Union industry that, in the same period, had its sales volume dropping by 71 %.

• (194) Furthermore, these imports were made at prices significantly lower than those of the Union industry over the whole period considered. The Union industry had no choice but to follow the low prices set by the Chinese producers to preserve a minimum sales volume in a period of dropping consumption and increasing production costs, as explained above in section 4.4.3.1. This in turn resulted in a profound profitability drop for all sampled Union producers from profits (of + 12 % in 2018) to heavy losses (– 9 % in 2021), and the consequent deterioration of other financial indicators such as return on investment and cash flow. This price suppression, as explained in Section 4.3.3, was clearly due to the behaviour of the Chinese exporting producers offering dumped kegs on the Union market.

• (195) In a significantly smaller market the Union industry sales went from 2,8 million kegs in 2018 to 800 000 in the IP. Without lowering its prices, the Union industry would have been at risk of losing even this limited amount of sales that would have resulted, for some of the Union producers, in a complete stop of their production.

• (196) Union exports, detailed in section 5.2.2, show what a normal situation would be in terms of price levels and resulting profits in export markets not affected by dumped imports or where measures have been imposed to restore fair trade, e.g. the USA, the main export market for the Union producers, where kegs originating in China are subject to anti-dumping measures since 2019. Over the period considered, the landed prices (including transport related costs and import duties) of the Union industry, were on average 22 % higher than its sales prices on the Union market (+ 29 % in the IP) and constantly above its cost of production, except for 2020, the year most significantly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. These prices are representative of a market on which fair trade has been restored by anti-dumping measures against Chinese imports and are therefore a reasonable proxy for what prices could have been on the Union market without the price suppression described below in recitals (197) to(209).

• (197) The Union market is mainly split between two main categories of users for both the Union producers and the Chinese exporting producers, i.e., the small and mid-size independent breweries (which account for around 40 % of the sales) and the major beer conglomerates (which account for more than 50 %).

• (198) Small and mid-size independent breweries mostly buy kegs according to their needs in medium and short period. The breweries contact several kegs producers asking for a quote for the requested quantity and a delivery time. This is a very important segment for the Union industry, where the geographical proximity and the delivery time could constitute an advantage. This segment of users did not cooperate with the investigation. Nevertheless, the Union industry provided evidence that several orders were lost to the low-priced Chinese offers for this segment. This forced the Union producers to significantly reduce their prices to remain competitive.

• (199) The other half of the market is characterized by the presence of the five major users, accounting for over 50 % of the Union industry’s sales in the Union (out of this five the major two, AB InBev and Heineken, are believed to have a combined global share in the beer market of above 50 %/60 %) and at least 55 % of the sales of the two sampled Chinese exporting producers. The Union industry demonstrated that those users organised their kegs purchases for the following year through a bidding process via private tenders. As for the sales to the independent breweries, also the tendering process forced competitors to minimise their prices and the presence of the Chinese exporting producers bidding at very low prices pushed the Union industry to match those low prices and prevented them to pass their cost increases on their customers.

• (200) Regarding the tendering process, the investigation showed that this was conducted by the major users in a peculiar way. The tender conditions were specific in terms of prices and maximum quantities sought. There was no contractual obligation for the buyer to purchase the quantity of kegs tendered, whereas there was a contractual obligation for the supplier to supply the tendered quantity at a tendered price. In fact, the actual purchased quantities rarely corresponded to the quantities initially sought on the given tender. At the same time, the tender winners (i.e. the suppliers of kegs) were obliged to respect the tendered delivery quantities at a given price, not being able to take into account for instance the changes of costs of production.

• (201) Over the period considered the cooperating users organized an average of seven tenders per year. The quantities ultimately purchased based on these tenders vary from tender to tender and corresponded, on average, to less than 60 % of the quantities tendered. In addition, the price agreed during the tender procedure was used by the users as a starting point for any subsequent price negotiation for spot sales.

• (202) The tender process, which worked with red, yellow and green lights to advise any participant (including Union producers and Chinese exporters) how high or low was its offer compared to the other participants, was used as a tool to minimise the prices. The presence of the Chinese exporters, with very low-price bids, forced the Union industry to lower their prices to unsustainable levels. Union industry’s prices for sales via tenders were on average 10 % lower than the other sales in 2020 and the IP, while the contract signed at the end of the tendering procedure concerned only potential purchase volumes without any certainty to receive an order. This is confirmed by the significant undercutting and underselling levels established in the investigation.

• (203) In addition, AB InBev in its submission 20 June 2022, referred to ‘recent pricing from the [Union] keg suppliers that [has been] competitive against Chinese supplier pricing’ in the IP and 2022. This further confirms that Union producers have decreased their prices compared to the earlier years of the period considered to remain competitive with Chinese prices.

• (204) Another related feature of the tendering process was that there was a substantial amount of sales concluded eventually outside the actual tenders by these subsequent price negotiation relying on this ‘lights system’. This is shown by the quantities sold by the Union industry via tenders, which was very low throughout the period considered. This level shrank from above 30 % of their total sales in the period 2019-2020, to less than 16 % in the IP. In practice, the users exploited this peculiar tendering process and the low-priced, dumped Chinese offers to push the EU industry prices down to the Chinese level, eventually agreeing on these prices outside the framework of the tender.

• (205) The data provided by the cooperating users shows that the Chinese exporting producers won on average 30 % of the quantities tendered over the period considered. However, this is a conservative estimate since evidence on file shows that one of the biggest non-cooperating users (Heineken) accounted for at least 30 % of the quantities exported by the two sampled Chinese producers during the IP.

• (206) In any event, as explained above, whether the sales were formally concluded under a tender or not did not make any difference as concerns the effects and causation of dumped Chinese prices on the EU industry prices and injurious situation.

• (207) As explained above in section 4.3.3, the Chinese prices decreased in 2019 and 2020, as compared to 2018, and increased again during the IP, but only reaching again the 2018 levels. Over the same period Union industry’s prices dropped by 9 % while its cost of production increased by 16 %.

• (208) The price pressure exerted by imports of kegs from China in both segments of the market entailed that, to maintain, at least partially, its market share, the Union industry had to decrease its sales prices despite the spike in cost of production. As a result, profitability shrank from 12 % to -9 % during the period considered and all the financial indicators deteriorated.

• (209) It is therefore concluded that – in view of the concomitance in time – the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry coincided with a significant presence of Chinese imports at very low prices. In a context of shrinking market and increasing cost of production, the Chinese prices consistently undercut the Union industry prices and suppressed EU market price levels, establishing a genuine and substantial causal nexus between the two.

5.2.   Effects of other factors

5.2.1.   The Covid-19 pandemic and the decrease in consumption

• (210) Imports of kegs from China at very low prices were recorded from 2018 onwards. Over the period considered, the average price of Chinese imports was on average 24 % lower than the average sales price of the Union industry. This coincided with a constant decrease of the Union industry’s prices despite the increasing production costs. The fact that the decrease in consumption was further aggravated by the Covid-19 pandemic did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury of the Union industry. Over the period consumption decreased by 66 % and sales volume of the Union industry by 71 % while the Chinese exports decreased only by 39 %, increasing their market share from 17 % to 31 %. As discussed in recital (196) on the basis of market prices achievable on the US market, without the Chinese imports and the price pressure exerted, the Union industry would have been able to increase its prices to a more sustainable level and to cover for the increased cost of production.

• (211) The substantial decrease of the consumption and the capacity utilisation significantly impacted the Union industry performance. However, as explained above in section 4.4.3.1, even when the Union industry managed to substantially decrease their fixed costs, its share on the total costs increased to 23 %. At the same time, the industry also managed to reduce other structural costs such as employment during the Covid-19 period. This management of fixed and other structural costs during this period allowed a minimisation of the impact of such costs on its performance, as also explained above, but could be compensated only partially due to the significant price suppression caused by the Chinese imports.

5.2.2.   Export performance of the Union industry

• (212) The volume of exports of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 15

Export performance of the sampled Union producers

	2018	2019	2020	Investigation period
Export volume (pieces)	2 364 368	1 827 572	547 427	1 124 371
Index	100	77	23	48
Average EXW price (EUR/piece)	66,04	62,18	58,86	63,05
Index	100	94	89	95
Average landed52 price (EUR/piece)	68,34	64,87	60,83	66,28
Index	100	95	89	97
Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.	Source: Questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.

• (213) During the period considered, Union industry’s exports decreased by 52 %.

• (214) Between 2018 and 2020 the export performance of the Union industry showed somewhat similar trends as the development of volumes of sales of the Union industry on the Union market. Both Union and export sales volume of the Union industry decreased during this first part of the period considered which was the most affected by Covid 19 pandemic. However, the volume of export sales, in relative terms, decreased less than the sales to the Union market. Furthermore, export performance of Union industry clearly started recovering as soon as Covid-19 restrictions were lifted with volumes of export sales more than doubling from 2020 to 2021. Moreover, throughout the period considered Union industry export sales prices were significantly higher than the sales price on the Union market and constantly above its cost of production, except for 2020, the year most significantly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, which covers also half of the IP. On that basis, the Commission concluded that the temporary decrease in export performance did not contribute to the injury as the export prices level was sufficient to allow the Union industry to be profitable on the majority of its export sales.

5.3.   Conclusion on causation

• (215) The Chinese export prices were significantly lower than Union industry’s prices and costs since the beginning of the period considered in 2018. The investigation showed a weighted average undercutting margin of 13,1 %. This increasing market presence at very low prices was to the detriment of the Union industry that was obliged to decrease sales prices during the period considered to maintain at least a limited amount of sales in the market during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. This led to the negative development in the economic situation of the Union industry.

• (216) The Commission distinguished and examined the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports. The effect of the Covid-19 pandemic and the related drop in the Union and global consumption of kegs weighed negatively on the Union industry’s developments but was considered as a temporary factor with limited impact. The situation of the Union industry deteriorated already before the Covid-19 pandemic and continued to do so until the end of the period considered.

• (217) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the dumped imports from the country concerned caused material injury to the Union industry and that the other factors, considered individually or collectively, did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury.

6. LEVEL OF MEASURES

• (218) To determine the level of the measures, the Commission examined whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove the injury caused by dumped imports to the Union industry.

6.1.   Injury margin

• (219) The injury would be removed if the Union Industry were able to obtain a target profit by selling at a target price in the sense of Articles 7(2c) and 7(2d) of the basic regulation.

• (220) In accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, for establishing the target profit, the Commission considered the following factors: the level of profitability before the increase of imports from the country concerned, the level of profitability needed to cover full costs and investments, research and development (R&D) and innovation, and the level of profitability to be expected under normal conditions of competition. Such profit margin should not be lower than 6 %.

• (221) The sampled Union producers proposed in their questionnaire replies that the target profit should be set between 12 % and 20 % as, in their view, this is the level needed to finance the necessary investments in processes and products and to ensure the long term viability of the Union industry. The industry also showed that in the years in which there were normal conditions of competition their average profitability was 15 %.

• (222) In light of this evidence, the Commission provisionally decided to use the profit margin of 12 %, which is at the low end of the range of the figures as detailed in the previous recital, thus adopting a very conservative approach.

• (223) In view of the above considerations, the profit margin was provisionally established at 12 % in accordance with the provision of Article 7(2c).

• (224) As regards the level of investments, research and development (R&D) and innovation during the period considered, the Commission verified the information provided and concluded that the difference between investments, R&D and innovation ('IRI') expenses under normal conditions of competition as provided by the EU Industry and verified by the Commission was already included in the target profit of 12 %.

• (225) On this basis, the Commission calculated a non-injurious price per piece for the like product of the Union industry by applying the above-mentioned target profit margin (see recital (223)) to the cost of production of the sampled Union producers during the investigation period on a type-by-type basis.

• (226) The Commission then determined the injury margin level on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the sampled cooperating exporting producers in the country concerned, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the weighted average non-injurious price of the like product sold by the sampled Union producers on the Union market during the investigation period. Any difference resulting from this comparison was expressed as a percentage of the weighted average import CIF value.

• (227) The injury elimination level for ‘other cooperating companies’ and for ‘all other companies’ is defined in the same manner as the dumping margin for these companies.

Country	Company	Dumping margin	Injury margin
People’s Republic of China	Penglai Jinfu Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd	77,1 %	58,8 %
People’s Republic of China	Ningbo Major Draft Beer Equipment Co., Ltd	65,3 %	52,9 %
People’s Republic of China	Other cooperating companies	72,1 %	56,3 %
People’s Republic of China	All other companies	91,0 %	112,0 %

6.2.   Conclusion on the level of measures

• (228) Following the above assessment, provisional anti-dumping duties should be set as below in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation:

Country	Company	Provisional anti-dumping duty
People’s Republic of China	Penglai Jinfu Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd	58,8 %
People’s Republic of China	Ningbo Major Draft Beer Equipment Co., Ltd	52,9 %
People’s Republic of China	Other cooperating companies	56,3 %
People’s Republic of China	All other companies	91,0 %

7. UNION INTEREST

• (229) Having decided to apply Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether it could clearly conclude that it was not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this case, despite the determination of injurious dumping, in accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation. 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

• (230) There are eight companies producing kegs in the Union. They employ over 400 workers directly (they were more than 800 in 2018), located in Austria, Czechia, Germany, Italy and Spain.

• (231) The imposition of measures would allow the Union industry to maintain its market share, increase capacity utilisation, increase prices to sustainable levels and improve profitability to levels to be expected under normal conditions of competition.

• (232) The non-imposition of measures would likely lead to further deterioration of profitability, which was already negative. The non-imposition of measures could lead to the closure of production facilities and dismissals thus endangering the viability of the Union industry.

• (233) The Commission therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition of provisional measures is in the interest of the Union industry.

7.2.   Interest of unrelated importers and traders

• (234) One unrelated importer, representing 1,6 % in volume of Chinese imports, submitted a sampling form and replied to the questionnaire. The average profit of the cooperating importer during the investigation period was 16 %.

• (235) This importer was against the imposition of measures. It claimed that, in the light of increasing price of stainless steel and shipping, the imposition of measures would have a further negative impact on its profitability, resulting in liquidation of the company. The company also stressed that it made significant R&D investments from its own resources over the past years to develop new intellectual property, as well as investments to develop new solutions in keg production which could benefit the Union users and that the imposition of measures may end this project.

• (236) The Commission concluded that it is likely the importer can pass part of the anti-dumping duty to the final users. The good profit level of the importer also mitigates the impact of the duty on the importer’s viability. On balance, the very limited cooperation of only one importer in this investigation suggests the measures will not have a highly negative impact on importers overall and would thus not outweigh the positive effect of measures on Union producers.

• (237) The traders/service providers that are in the business of personalisation and customisation of kegs will be able to continue this business, competing on the merits and not with the dumped imports.

7.3.   Interest of users

• (238) At initiation two users, Appie and Carlsberg, came forward but provided only limited information in their questionnaire replies. Another user, AB InBev, registered as interested party and provided comments but did not provide a questionnaire reply. These users represent breweries or brewing conglomerates.

• (239) At a later stage, as explained above in section 4.3.1, the Commission contacted again the major users requesting data on their suppliers and purchase volumes. Three users (AB InBev, Asahi, and Molson Coors) provided some data, but did not provide the key questionnaire narrative.

• (240) In its initial submission AB InBev opposed the imposition of measures claiming that:

• — the duties would result in an increase of cost of kegs that will negatively affect the HORECA sector, which has been already significantly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic;

• — the Union industry does not have sufficient capacity to supply the full Union demand of kegs.

• (241) As regards the first claim, the information collected during the investigation showed that the HORECA sector do not buy kegs from the beer producers, they just buy its content (i.e. the beer). Pubs and bars pay a deposit for the kegs which is refunded when empty and returned to the beer producers. Therefore the impact of the cost of kegs on the profitability of the HORECA sector is expected to be limited.

• (242) As regards the second claim, the Union industry appears to have sufficient spare capacity. At its peak, in 2018, the Union consumption was around 3,2 million kegs while the Union industry has a total production capacity of almost 6,8 million kegs. Even considering the export sales, the Union industry has still almost 2 million kegs of spare capacity.

• (243) Given the long lifetime (typically 30 years) and its refillable nature, the cost impact of kegs on the beverage industry is minimal.

• (244) The Commission therefore provisionally concluded that negative impacts of measures on users are expected to be limited and not to outweigh the positive effect of measures on Union producers.

7.4.   Conclusion on Union interest

• (245) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons to suggest that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of stainless steel refillable kegs originating in the People’s Republic of China at this stage of the investigation.

8. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

• (246) Based on the conclusions reached by the Commission on dumping, injury, causation, level of measures and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.

• (247) Provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports of stainless steel refillable kegs originating in the People’s Republic of China in accordance with the lesser duty rule in Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation. The Commission compared the injury margins and the dumping margins. The amount of the duties was set at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins.

• (248) On the basis of the above, the provisional anti-dumping duty rates, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, should be as follows:

Country	Company	Provisional anti-dumping duty
People’s Republic of China	Penglai Jinfu Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd	58,8 %
People’s Republic of China	Ningbo Major Draft Beer Equipment Co., Ltd	52,9 %
People’s Republic of China	Other cooperating companies	56,3 %
People’s Republic of China	All other companies	91,0 %

• (249) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of this investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during this investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates are exclusively applicable to imports of the product concerned originating in the country 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.

• (250) To ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duties, the anti-dumping duty for all other companies should apply not only to the non-cooperating exporting producers in this investigation, but to the producers which did not have exports to the Union during the investigation period.

• (251) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the 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’.

• (252) 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.

• (253) 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 rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

• (254) Statistics of stainless steel refillable kegs are frequently expressed in number of pieces. However, there is no such supplementary unit for stainless steel refillable kegs specified in the Combined Nomenclature laid down in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 ⁵³. It is therefore necessary to provide that not only the weight in kg or tonnes but also the number of pieces for the imports of the product concerned must be entered in the declaration for release for free circulation. Pieces should be indicated for TARIC codes 7310100010 and 7310299010, provided this indication is compatible with Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87.

9. REGISTRATION

• (255) As mentioned in recital (3), the Commission did not make imports of the product concerned subject to registration.

10. INFORMATION AT PROVISIONAL STAGE

• (256) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, the Commission informed interested parties about the planned imposition of provisional duties. This information was also made available to the general public via DG TRADE's website. Interested parties were given three working days to provide comments on the accuracy of the calculations specifically disclosed to them.

• (257) Ningbo Major and Penglai Jinfu jointly submitted comments on the pre-disclosure, where they requested the Commission to refrain from applying the provisional measures. They highlighted that the target prices of some product types did not reflect the expected target prices according to their knowledge. They also claimed some product types were not part of the injury margin calculation and that a heading of a disclosure table was not properly annotated.

• (258) The Commission examined the comments in detail and considered that none of them concerned the accuracy of the calculations, therefore it will consider them, together with all other submissions after the publication of the provisional measures.

• (259) Regarding the units used in the disclosure table, as the exporting producers rightly noted, these are indeed pieces rather than tonnes. Moreover, some product types were not included in the injury margin calculation, because the Union industry did not produce the corresponding product types and therefore were not relevant to calculate the underselling margin.

11. FINAL PROVISION

• (260) In the interests of sound administration, the Commission will invite the interested parties to submit written comments and/or to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings within a fixed deadline.

• (261) The findings concerning the imposition of provisional duties are provisional and may be amended at the definitive stage of the investigation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Country	Company	Provisional anti-dumping duty	TARIC additional code
People’s Republic of China	Penglai Jinfu Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd	58,8 %	A024
	Ningbo Major Draft Beer Equipment Co., Ltd	52,9 %	A030
	Other cooperating companies listed in Annex	56,3 %
	All other companies	91,0 %	C999