Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/935 of 11 May 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of high tenacity yarns of polyesters originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Zhejiang Hailide New Material Co., Ltd

• (221) By increasing their export volume to the European Union during the period considered by 17 % at prices below the Union industry’s prices, the producers subject to current duties have contributed to the injury of the Union Industry. The exporters currently subject to duties sold at 1 440 EUR/tonne in the investigation period, and showed an overall price decrease of 13 % throughout the period considered. These exporters were able to further extend their market share over the period concerned by 4 percentage points. The Commission therefore concluded that these exporters contributed to the injurious situation of the Union industry.

• (222) However, these imports did not attenuate the link found between the dumped imports from Hailide and the material injury suffered by the Union industry such that this link can no longer be characterized as a genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect. Hailide’s exports represented a market share of [18 % – 23 %] on the Union market during the IP, and its prices followed closely the prices of the other Chinese exporting producers, with anti-dumping duties added. This high market share, (which represents more than two thirds of the market share of the Union industry and as much as the market share of the total of all third countries excluding China) coupled with low prices has such an important weight on the market, that it exercised a significant independent price pressure on the Union industry.

• (223) Accordingly, the effects of exports from other producers than Hailide, even if they contributed to the injury, did not materially diminish the relative importance of the Hailide’s dumped imports in bringing about the injury.

5.2.3.   Imports from third countries

• (224) The imports into the Union of HTYP from third countries other than China were mainly from South Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan.

• (225) The (aggregated) volume of imports into the Union as well as the market share and price trends for imports of HTYP from other third countries developed as follows:

Table 14

Imports from third countries

Country		2018	2019	2020	Investigation Period
South Korea	Volume (tonnes)	15 150	13 025	9 259	15 167
	Index	100	86	61	100
	Market share	7 %	6 %	5 %	7 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	2 024	2 051	1 803	2 077
	Index	100	101	89	103
Vietnam	Volume (tonnes)	500	129	776	12 231
	Index	100	26	155	2 444
	Market share	0 %	0 %	0 %	5 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	2 340	4 136	2 276	1 537
	Index	100	177	97	66
Taiwan	Volume (tonnes)	6 776	4 485	3 795	7 375
	Index	100	66	56	109
	Market share	3 %	2 %	2 %	3 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	1 874	1 858	1 636	1 816
	Index	100	99	87	97
Other third countries	Volume (tonnes)	19 759	15 261	11 917	11 364
	Index	100	77	60	58
	Market share	9 %	7 %	6 %	5 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	2 586	2 780	2 683	2 740
	Index	100	108	104	106
Total of all third countries except the country concerned	Volume (tonnes)	42 185	32 900	25 747	46 137
	Index	100	78	61	109
	Market share	18 %	15 %	13 %	20 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	2 267	2 371	2 200	2 055
	Index	100	105	97	91
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (226) In the IP, 46 137 tonnes of HTYP were imported from third countries excluding China – this volume represents 20 % of the Union market. In total, their market share decreased from 2018 to 2020 from 18 % to 13 % and then increased to 20 % in the IP. This follows the trend of EU consumption, but in a more pronounced way. The average import price from third countries excluding China increased in 2019 by 5 %, then decreased 8 percentage points in 2020 and further decreased 6 percentage points in the IP. These imports mainly stem from South Korea (7 % of the Union Market), Vietnam (5 % of the Union market) and Taiwan (3 % of the Union market). Due to the fact that all these countries are located in East Asia, they were affected by the shipping container shortage and the resulting high shipping costs, which explains that in 2020 the market share of these third countries decreased.

• (227) Imports from all third countries together have increased their market share on the Union Market by 2 percentage points. However, the average price of all third country imports in the IP, but also in all previous years of the period considered was substantially above the average EU sales price. Therefore, all third countries together have not contributed to the injury of the Union Industry. The Commission therefore analysed if imports from a specific third country have contributed to the injury of the Union industry.

• (228) Imports form South Korea followed the trend of the EU consumption in a more accentuated way, decreasing from 2018 to 2020 and in the IP recovering closely above the level of 2018. The market share gradually decreased from 2018 to 2020 from 7 % to 5 % and then recovered to 7 % in the IP. The price level of South Korean imports gradually increased over the period concerned, with the exception of 2020, which shows a price decrease that can be linked to the low demand in that year.

• (229) The price level of imports from South Korea during the IP as well as in the two preceding years was higher than the Union industry’s sales price. Due to the higher price level, the Commission concluded that imports from South Korea have not contributed to the injury.

• (230) Imports from Vietnam where at a very low level from 2018 until 2020 representing a market share clearly below 1 % in that period, they increased in the IP to a quantity representing 5 % of the Union market share. This coincided with a price decrease from levels above the Union Industry’s average sales price to a price of 1 537 EUR/tonne in the IP, which is not only substantially lower than the Union Industry’s sales price, but also close to the price of Hailide’s exports from China of [1 500 – 1 600] EUR/tonne.

• (231) However, Hailide’s exports to the EU in the IP were substantially higher. They amounted to [43 000 – 48 000] tonnes, whereas imports from Vietnam only amounted to 12 231 tonnes, thereby only representing a fraction of Hailide’s exports to the EU.

• (232) Therefore, the Commission concluded that while imports from Vietnam may have contributed to the injury of the Union industry, they do not attenuate the causal link as the volume of imports from Vietnam represent only a small fraction of Hailide’s exports to the Union and do not have a comparable weight to put pressure on Union industry.

• (233) Imports from Taiwan represented a market share of 3 % in the beginning of the period considered as well as in the IP. While the import price of 1 816 EUR/tonne in the IP was slightly lower than the Union Industry’s sales price, it was substantially higher than the price of Hailide’s exports from China of [1 400-1 600] EUR/tonne.

• (234) Therefore, the Commission concluded that while imports from Taiwan may have contributed to the injury of the Union Industry, they do not attenuate the causal link as the volume of imports from Taiwan represent only a fraction of Hailide’s imports from China, their price was substantially above Hailide’s sales price for imports from China and do not have a comparable weight to put pressure on Union industry.

• (235) Imports from Taiwan and Vietnam, when considered together with the imports from the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties, did not attenuate the link found between the dumped imports from Hailide and the injury suffered by the Union industry such that this link cannot be characterized as a genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect. Hailide’s exports represented a market share of [18 % – 23 %] on the Union market during the IP and were sold, on average, substantially below the costs of production of the Union industry. Considering this magnitude and the resulting price pressure imports from Taiwan, Vietnam and other Chinese exporting producers did not materially diminish the relative importance of the dumped imports from Hailide in bringing about the injury.

5.2.4.   Export performance of the Union industry

• (236) 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	Review Investigation Period
Export volume (tonnes)	21 674	19 603	18 729	21 299
Index	100	90	86	98
Average price (EUR/tonnes)	2 208	2 161	1 767	2 272
Index	100	98	80	103
Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (237) While export volumes over the period considered followed a similar trend than the sales on the Union market, in the IP, the volumes were only 2 % below the 2018 figures and recovered stronger than sales on the Union market, which were still 5 % below the 2018 volumes.

• (238) The average price for exports in every year was clearly above the sales price on the EU market, in the IP it was more than 10 % higher. The average price for exports followed a trend similar to the prices on the EU market. However, while in 2020 the export price fell stronger, in the IP it recovered quicker than the prices on the EU market, reaching a level 3 % higher than the 2018 average price, whereas the sales price on the EU market in the IP was still 4 % below the 2018 price.

• (239) The comparison shows that the Union producers are strongly committed to the Union market, while being able to reach higher prices for export sales.

• (240) Therefore, the Commission concluded that the export performance of the Union industry has not contributed to the injury, but to the contrary contributed to limiting the loss.

5.2.5.   Captive consumption

• (241) The captive consumption of the Union industry has substantially increased in the IP. Over the period considered it increased by 39 %. However, the decision to increase the captive consumption in order to sell downstream products at a higher manufacturing level, is not a cause of the injury of the Union industry, but rather a direct consequence of the dumped imports, since the Union producers were not able to reach a fair market price on the free market for HTYP due to the pricing pressure from the dumped imports. Therefore, the Commission concluded that this is not a factor contributing to the injury.

5.2.6.   High energy prices and inflation

• (242) As a reaction to a submission of the applicant on post-IP developments, several users together with a user association claimed that rising energy costs and inflation crisis breaks the causal link between imports of Chinese HTYP and the injury experienced by the Union industry. The rising energy costs and inflation, as submitted by the applicant, have however occurred post-IP. The users have not detailed that any such development occurred during the IP. Therefore, the Commission rejected this argument.

5.3.   Conclusion on causation

• (243) There was a clear coincidence in time between the substantial imports from Hailide from China and the deterioration of the situation of the Union industry.

• (244) The Commission has also investigated other factors of injury and has not found any other factor which would attenuate the causal link between Hailide’s exports from China and the material injury suffered by the Union industry to the extent that there was no longer any genuine and substantial relationship between imports from Hailide and the injury found.

• (245) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that Hailide’s dumped exports from China materially contributed to the injury of the Union industry and that no other factors, considered individually or collectively, attenuated the causal link between the dumped exports of Hailide and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

6. LEVEL OF MEASURES

• (246) Based on the conclusions reached by the Commission on dumping, injury, causation and Union interest (examined under point 7 below), definitive measures should be imposed to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.

• (247) 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

• (248) The Commission first established the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury suffered by the Union industry. In this case, the injury would be eliminated if the Union industry was able to cover its costs of production, including those costs resulting from multilateral environmental agreements, and protocols thereunder, to which the Union is a party, and of ILO Conventions listed in Annex Ia of the basic Regulation, and was able to obtain a reasonable profit (‘target profit’) by selling at a target price in the sense of Articles 7(2c) and 7(2d) of the basic regulation.

• (249) In accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, for establishing the target profit, the Commission took into account the level of profitability before the increase of imports from the country concerned and the level of profitability to be expected under normal conditions of competition. The Commission analysed the profits achieved by the sampled Union producers before the increase of imports from China. However, this was lower than the minimum 6 % required by Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation. Thus, this profit margin was replaced by 6 % as required under Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation.

• (250) No claims were made that the Union industry’s level of investments, research and development (R & D) and innovation during the period considered would have been higher under normal conditions of competition.

• (251) One sampled EU producer (Glanzstoff) could demonstrate the existence of future compliance costs within the meaning of Article 7(2d) of the basic Regulation. Amounts of 6,6€/tonne were added to the target price of the respective producer to reflect additional environmental costs during the period of application of the measures. This represents less than 1 % of the average production cost per tonne of Glanzstoff.

• (252) On this basis, the Commission calculated a non-injurious price of the like product for the Union industry by applying the target profit margin of 6 % to the cost of production of the sampled Union producers during the investigation period.

• (253) The Commission then determined the injury elimination level on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average export price of Hailide on a type-by-type basis, 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 free Union market during the investigation period. Any difference resulting from this comparison was expressed as a percentage of the weighted average import CIF value. The resulting average underselling margin at final disclosure was 39 %.

• (254) In response to the final disclosure, Hailide raised number of specific claims regarding the export sales via Hailide’s related importer in the Union, as highlighted in detail in section 2.6 above. Moreover, the Commission noted and corrected a clerical error in the rounding of the figures for the injury margin. As a result, Hailide’s injury margin as well as the undercutting were recalculated. The Commission found that the recalculation did not have any material impact on the undercutting. The revised calculations were subject to an additional disclosure.

• (255) Therefore, the final injury elimination level is as follows:

Country	Company	Definitive injury margin (%)
China	Zhejiang Hailide New Material Co., Ltd.	38,7

7. UNION INTEREST

• (256) In accordance with Article 21 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. 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

• (257) The investigation has shown that the Union industry is suffering material injury because of the effects of dumped imports from Hailide from China that undercut Union industry’s prices, which are also adding to the price pressure exercised by the Chinese exporters already subject to duties. The Union industry was indeed not able to fully benefit from the imposition of anti-dumping duties against China.

• (258) The Union industry will benefit from the extension of the existing measures to Hailide, which would likely prevent a further surge of imports from China at very low prices. Without measures, Hailide will continue to dump HTYP on the Union market preventing the Union industry from selling HTYP at an adequate price and thus causing further material injury to the Union industry.

7.2.   Interest of unrelated importers

• (259) No unrelated importers cooperated in the current investigation.

• (260) The Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons from the position of unrelated importers against the imposition of measures against Hailide.

7.3.   Interest of users

• (261) There are several main groups of different HTYP users: tire producers who account for around 50 % of the HTYP demand in the Union and technical fabrics, tapes, webbings, straps, ropes and belt producers, who account for around 50 % of the HTYP demand in the Union. Technical fabrics, webbings, straps, ropes and belts are used in automotive, lifting, transport securing and all kinds of machine applications.

• (262) Upon initiation, 64 known users and user associations in the Union were contacted and invited to cooperate. Following the initiation of the investigation, five users came forward together with a user’s association. The users that came forward belong to the segment of technical fabrics, tapes, webbings, straps, ropes and belt producers. The participating users represent 10 % of the Union consumption of HTYP. No user of the tire producer segment came forward.

• (263) No user of HTYP produced by Hailide replied to the questionnaire. However, a user’s association together with five users of HTYP produced by Hailide provided submissions on the financial impact of the extension of the duties to Hailide, and the need for supply stability.

• (264) Following the final disclosure, ten users, a user’s association as well as one integrated producer, which also produces woven products, commented on the final disclosure and opposed the Commission’s intention to impose anti-dumping duties on HTYP from Hailide.

• (265) Several users together with the user’s association claimed that the analysis of the Commission is based on incomplete facts, since the Commission ignored the submissions from the user companies, who are SMEs, despite their offer for their data to be verified on the spot or via a remote verification.

• (266) The Commission disagreed with this claim. In fact, as can be seen in the following sections, the Commission took into account the submissions of all users when analysing the Union interest, even though some specific data were submitted within a hearing presentation 64 days following the deadline, supplemented with more data 7 months following the deadline and too late to be the object of a verification. The Commission had already informed the parties of the passing of the deadline when they requested permission for a late submission of questionnaires two months following the deadline.

7.3.1.   Financial impact

• (267) The user’s association together with five users of HTYP produced by Hailide submitted the position that the level of existing duties against other Chinese exporters, from 5,1 % to 9,8 %, struck the right balance between the interests of EU producers of HTYP and user industries. Therefore, a continuation of the measures at the original levels could be absorbed by the user industry. While Hailide in the past was not subject to duties, a duty of 6,9 % on imports of Hailide is within the range of duties previously imposed against the other Chinese exporters. The Commission therefore concluded that there is no compelling reason from a financial aspect against the imposition of a duty against Hailide of 6,9 %.

• (268) Following the final disclosure, ten users, the user’s association as well as the integrated producer argued that an additional cost increase coming from the duties on their main raw material will further erode their competitive position as EU based manufacturers. They provided multiple examples of offers from Chinese manufacturers of downstream products made with HTYP to European clients, whose prices were very close or even below the price of HTYP after addition of the proposed duties. They argued that the biggest problem of anti-dumping duties on HTYP from Hailide is that they do not extend to downstream products like fabrics, belts, lashing straps, round slings and webbing slings.

• (269) Following the final disclosure, the applicants also argued that the main concern of the users are related to the unfair competition they are facing from China in downstream markets. This concern would be further exacerbated if anti-dumping duties on HTYP imports from Hailide are imposed. On the other hand, users repeatedly indicated that they did not oppose a prolongation of the original anti-dumping measures, whose range was from 5,1 % to 9,8 %.

• (270) In order to address the issue of unfair competition on downstream products, five users together with a user’s association requested the Commission to extend the duties to HTYP contained in imported webbings ropes and fire hoses. They referred to the Commission’s Regulation on steel wind towers from China ⁹², in which the anti-dumping duty applied not only to wind towers, but also to wind turbines, which incorporate steel wind towers.

• (271) First, the Commission acknowledges that the competition from Chinese exporters of downstream products limits the users’ possibility to increase prices and pass on the additional costs of increased duties. However, a potential unfair competition on the level of the users cannot by itself constitute a compelling reason for not addressing the injurious dumping found on the upstream market. While the users have demonstrated that the increased duties on HTYP cause a competitive disadvantage against Chinese manufacturers of the same downstream product, they have also indicated that a protection against these imports of downstream products could be reached by anti-dumping duties on these products. They have not demonstrated that it is not feasible for the user industry to file a complaint to initiate an investigation against potentially dumped imports of HTYP based fabrics or other secondary products.

• (272) In addition, the anti-dumping duties imposed on HTYP from Hailide at 6,9 % are at the lower end of the duties that were already imposed on the other Chinese exporting producers. The users have argued several times that the original level of the duties struck a balance between the different interests. In addition, the users have the option to source supply from other third countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, which are increasing their production capacity.

• (273) Concerning the proposal to extend the measures to the HTYP incorporated in the downstream products, the Commission noted that, contrary to the steel wind towers case, the products to which the duties would be extended were not included in the product scope of the investigation. Indeed, the definition of the product concerned in the steel wind towers case already included the towers imported as part of a wind turbine: “The product concerned is certain utility scale wind towers of steel, […], currently falling under CN codes ex 7308 20 00 (TARIC code 7308200011), and ex 7308 90 98 (TARIC code 7308909811) and, when imported as part of a wind turbine , currently falling under CN codes ex 8502 31 00, …” The Commission cannot in principle impose duties on a product that was not within the scope of the investigation. In this case particularly, the Commission considered that the multitude of possible transformations covered within the suggested CN codes would expand the application of the duties beyond the scope of the investigation.

• (274) Therefore, the Commission found that the request of the users would have expanded the scope of the investigation beyond the application. The request was thus rejected.

• (275) Consequently, the Commission confirmed its initial position.

7.3.2.   Supply stability

• (276) The users have also pointed out a lack of capacity of the Union producers. The EU consumption of HTYP was 230 000 tonnes in the IP, 73 % higher than the production capacity of the Union industry, which amounts only to 134 000 tonnes. This demonstrates the overall need for imports.

• (277) Furthermore, following the IP, in 2022 several Union producers have temporarily reduced or fully stopped their production as a reaction to the difficult situation caused by the dumped imports and also the temporary increase in energy prices in Europe. However, this situation occurred post-IP, and it was only a temporary measure. There is no indication at this stage that the temporary capacity reduction will be prolonged in the long-term, all the more so that the energy costs have in the meantime already significantly decreased.

• (278) All cooperating users have argued that for their segment, only one Union producer provides the quality of HTYP used within their products, whereas other Union producers are to a large extent focused on supplying the tire industry or are integrated competitors. The users have further argued that other third countries either produce expensive specialised grades, like South Korea, or do not offer sufficient capacity or quality, with the exception of Vietnam.

• (279) Exports from Vietnam during the IP had a 5 % Union market share. However, Vietnamese imports only amounted to 12 000 tonnes and cover only a fraction of the needed imports to satisfy the demand on the Union market. The Commission therefore noted that imports from China are generally needed to ensure the supply stability on the Union Market.

• (280) The Commission concluded in the previous section that the duty against Hailide of 6,9 % is within the level of duties that could be absorbed by the users. Consequently, this level of duty will not have a prohibitive effect to continue to source from China, especially in view of the fact that the users still have the choice of an exporting producer at the lower end of the duties. Consequently, the supply stability will not be endangered by the imposition of duties on Hailide.

• (281) Therefore, the Commission concluded that the interest of the users for supply stability does not lead to a compelling reason against the imposition of measures.

7.3.3.   Risk of transferring production capacities outside the EU

• (282) Several users and the integrated producer emphasized the importance of the HTYP weaving and coating industry for the job market and the fact that the increased duties on HTYP may lead to a transfer of production capacities outside of the EU. The integrated producer argued that the workforce in the EU involved in the production of downstream products made out of HTYP consists of around 100 000 skilled workers.

• (283) The Commission recognized that the HTYP weaving and coating industry is an important employer for the EU job market. However, as stated in recitals (272) and (274), the duty of 6,9 % imposed on imports of Hailide is within the level of duties that could be absorbed by the users. The Commission therefore concluded that the argument of a potential transfer of production capacities does not constitute a compelling reason against the duties on HTYP from Hailide. In addition, no concrete evidence was submitted to support these claims.

7.4.   Conclusion on Union interest

• (284) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons of the Union interest against the imposition of duties on Chinese exports of HTYP from Hailide.

• (285) Following the above comments of users, the user’s association and one integrated producer, the Commission confirmed its assessment.

8. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

• (286) Definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports into the Union of HTYP originating in China in accordance with the lesser duty rule in Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation. The amount of the duty should be set at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins.

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

Company	Dumping margin	Injury margin	Definitive anti-dumping duty
Zhejiang Hailide New Material Co., Ltd.	6,9  %	38,7  %	6,9  %

• (288) The individual company anti-dumping duty rate specified in this Regulation was established on the basis of the findings of this investigation. Therefore, it reflected the situation found during this investigation with respect to this company. This duty rate is exclusively applicable to imports of the product concerned originating in the country concerned and produced by the named legal entity. Imports of product concerned produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to that specifically mentioned, shall be subject to the duty rates listed under Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/934 of 11 May 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of high tenacity yarns of polyesters originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council ⁹³.

• (289) To minimise the risks of circumvention, the company with individual anti-dumping duty 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(4) of this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by that invoice should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’ under Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/934.

• (290) While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rate 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(4) 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 declaration and ensure that the application of the individual duty rate is justified and in compliance with customs law.

• (291) The company may request the application of the individual anti-dumping duty rate if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission ⁹⁴. The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a regulation about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

9. FINAL PROVISION

• (292) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council ⁹⁵, 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.

• (293) All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to impose the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of HTYP originating in China and produced by Zhejiang Hailide New Material Co., Ltd. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to the disclosures. The comments submitted by interested parties were duly considered, and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.

• (294) The Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 did not deliver an opinion on the measures provided for in this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Company	Definitive anti-dumping duty (%)	TARIC additional code
Zhejiang Hailide New Material Co., Ltd.	6,9	A976

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, 11 May 2023.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

https://huanbao.bjx.com.cn/news/20210707/1162695.shtml (accessed on 22 November 2022).

https://www.zj.gov.cn/art/2021/6/24/art_1229540815_4671249.html (accessed on 22 November 2022)

further implement the spirit embodied in General Secretary Xi Jinping’s keynote speech on advancing the reform of corporate governance of the financial sector’. Moreover, the Plan’s section II aims at promoting the organic integration of the Party’s leadership into corporate governance: ‘we shall make the integration of the Party’s leadership into corporate governance more systematic, standardised and procedure-based […] Major operational and management issues must have been discussed by the Party Committee before being decided upon by the Board of Directors or the senior management.’

https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-chn-2019-en (accessed on 15 November 2022).

https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Electricity-and-Natural-Gas-Prices-Period-II:-July-December,-2021-45566

https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Electricity-and-Natural-Gas-Prices-Period-I:-January-June,-2021-37459