Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1444 of 11 July 2023 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of steel bulb flats originating in the People’s Republic of China and Türkiye

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) On 14 November 2022, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of steel bulb flats originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘the PRC’) and Türkiye (‘the countries concerned’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation. The Commission published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 30 September 2022 by Laminados Losal S.A.U. (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of steel bulb flats in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of resulting material injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.

(3) Pursuant to Article 14(5a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission should register imports subject to an anti-dumping investigation during the period of pre-disclosure, unless it has sufficient evidence within the meaning of Article 5 that the requirements either under point (c) or (d) of Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation are not met.

(4) The complainant did not request registration and the Commission found that the requirements under point (d) of Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation were not met. In addition to the level of imports which caused injury during the investigation period, there was no further substantial rise in imports thereafter.

(5) For the reasons set out in section 4.3.1 below, the Commission decided to cumulate the imports from the countries concerned for the purpose of the analysis described in the recitals above. An analysis of the data extracted from the Surveillance Database and the data supplied by the cooperating exporting producers in the countries concerned, showed that the cumulative volume of imports from the countries concerned decreased by 2 % in the first four full months (i.e. December 2022 to March 2023) after the initiation of the investigation as compared to the same months during the investigation period. The average monthly imports from the countries concerned during the first four months after the initiation of the investigation decreased by 15 % as compared to the average monthly imports during the investigation period. Therefore, the Commission did not make the imports of steel bulb flats subject to registration under Article 14(5a) of the basic Regulation during the period of pre-disclosure.

(6) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, the known exporting producers, the authorities of the PRC and Türkiye, known importers, suppliers and users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.

(7) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(8) Following initiation, comments were received from the Government of Türkiye, the Turkish exporting producer Özkan Demir Çelik Sanayi A.Ş (‘Özkan Demir’), the Union user Fincantieri S.p.A (‘Fincantieri’) and the unrelated importer Baglietto s.r.l. (‘Baglietto’).

(9) The Government of Türkiye and Fincantieri both claimed, among other things, that the complaint relied too much on confidential information, especially with respect to the level of detail concerning the microeconomic indicators of the Union industry, as well as certain annexes to the complaint. Both parties claimed that the non-confidential version was therefore insufficient to allow parties to provide meaningful comments on the injury indicators and allegations set out in the complaint.

(10) Article 19 of the basic Regulation allows for the safeguarding of confidential information in circumstances where disclosure would be of significant competitive advantage to a competitor or would have a significantly adverse effect upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom that person has acquired the information. Since the complaint relates to the information of one Union producer only, or the information of that Union producer in combination with publicly available information and statistics, the complainant provided the relevant figures in meaningful ranges for reasons of confidentiality. In the same vein, the complainant provided a non-confidential version of the annexes or a meaningful summary of the information provided. The Commission therefore considered that the non-confidential version of the complaint available in the file for inspection by interested parties contained all the essential evidence and non-confidential summaries of the confidential data which allow interested parties to properly exercise their rights of defence. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(11) The Government of Türkiye and Fincantieri both opposed the inclusion in the injury analysis of the data for Laminorul S.A. (‘Laminorul’), a Romanian steel bulb flats producer, which went bankrupt and ceased production during the period considered. According to the information available to the Commission, following its bankruptcy, Laminorul was acquired by another company, but has not restarted its production of steel bulb flats. According to the Government of Türkiye and Fincantieri, the data available for Laminorul should not have been included in the figures presented in the complaint, since that company went bankrupt and no longer produces steel bulb flats. Laminorul should therefore not have been considered part of the Union industry in the complaint.

(12) The Commission considered, however, that Laminorul was still part of the Union industry during the period considered, albeit not throughout the entire period. For that reason, the complainant was correct in including Laminorul’s data in the complaint and showed an accurate reflection of the situation of the Union industry for the relevant periods. In addition, the data presented in the complaint showed that most indicators showed similar trends, with and without including Laminorul in the analysis. In any case, the Commission has indicated the effect of Laminorul’s data on the Union industry’s injury situation in its analysis for the period considered in this Regulation, where possible.

(13) The Government of Türkiye and Özkan Demir provided comments on several individual injury indicators presented in the complaint, claiming that some of the indicators did not point to an injurious situation of the Union industry, or that that injury might have been caused by other factors than the imports from the countries concerned.

(14) In this respect, the Commission recalled the wording of Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation, which states that the complaint shall contain the information on changes in the quantity of the allegedly dumped imports, the effect of those imports on prices of the like product on the Union market and the consequent impact of the imports on the Union industry, as demonstrated by relevant (not necessarily all) factors. The complaint contained this information, which pointed to the existence of injury and a causal link with imports from the countries concerned. Accordingly, the Commission considered that the complaint contained sufficient evidence tending to show injury and a causal link, and therefore rejected the claim.

(15) Other specific comments on injury, causation and Union interest, which were not directly linked to the initiation, are dealt with in the relevant sections below (Sections 4, 5 and 7).

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

Sampling of Union producers

(17) Given the limited number of Union producers of steel bulb flats, the Commission announced in the Notice of Initiation that it would make questionnaires available to the only two known Union producers. Of these two producers, only Laminados Losal, S.A.U. (the complainant) provided a questionnaire reply. The second Union producer, Olifer s.p.l., (‘Olifer’) accounting for [15-25] % of Union production, did not come forward during the investigation. Thus, the Commission did not have recourse to sampling but used the data of the complainant and estimated the data for Olifer and Laminorul where relevant as explained in recital 147.

Sampling of importers

(18) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(19) Only one unrelated importer provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. The Commission therefore decided that sampling was not necessary.

Sampling of exporting producers in the PRC

(20) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the PRC to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the European Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(21) One exporting producer in the PRC, Changshu Longteng Special Steel Co., Ltd. provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Accordingly, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

Sampling of exporting producers in Türkiye

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

(23) One exporting producer in Türkiye, Özkan Demir, provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Accordingly, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

(24) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in China within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’). No reply was received. Consequently, the Commission informed the Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the European Union about its intention to apply facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. No comments were received.

(25) The Commission published online (3) the questionnaires for the exporting producers, the unrelated importers and the Union producers.

(28) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022 (‘the investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2019 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(29) The product under investigation is non-alloy steel bulb flats in the range up to 204 mm width (‘steel bulb flats’). Steel bulb flats are mainly used in the shipbuilding industry for the construction of the steel framework of passengers’ cruises, ferries, military vessels, and merchant vessels. Steel bulb flats can also be used in the construction of offshore platforms and tram rails, but in the Union this application of steel bulb flats concerns only marginal quantities (‘the product under investigation’).

(30) The product concerned is the product under investigation originating in the People’s Republic of China and Türkiye, currently falling under CN code ex 7216 50 91 (TARIC code 7216509110) (‘the product concerned’).

(32) The Commission decided at this stage that those products are therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(33) No claims regarding product scope were received.

(34) In view of the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation pointing to the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation with regard to China, the Commission considered it appropriate to initiate the investigation with regard to the exporting producers from this country having regard to Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(35) Consequently, in order to collect the necessary data for the eventual application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, in the Notice of Initiation the Commission invited all exporting producers in China to provide information regarding the inputs used for producing steel bulb flats. One exporting producer, Changshu Longteng Special Steel Co, Ltd., submitted the relevant information. In addition, in order to obtain information it deemed necessary for its investigation with regard to the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC.

(36) Moreover, in point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited all interested parties to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence regarding the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation within 37 days of the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union. No questionnaire reply was received from the GOC and no submission on the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was received within the deadline. Subsequently, the Commission informed the GOC that it would use facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation for the determination of the existence of the significant distortions in China. The Commission invited the GOC to submit its comment on the application of Article 18. No comments were received.

(37) In point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also specified that, in view of the evidence available, a possible appropriate representative third country was Türkiye pursuant to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation for the purpose of determining the normal value based on undistorted prices or benchmarks. The Commission further stated that it would examine other possibly appropriate representative countries in accordance with the criteria set out in 2(6a)(a) first indent of the basic Regulation.

(38) On 24 January 2023, the Commission informed by a note (‘the First Note’) interested parties on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value. In that note, the Commission provided a list of all factors of production such as raw materials, labour and energy used in the production of steel bulb flats, based on data provided by Changshu Longteng Special Steel Co., Ltd. submission, the sole exporting producer of the product concerned located in the PRC that cooperated. In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks, the Commission identified Türkiye as an appropriate representative country. The Commission received comments from exporting producer Changshu Longteng Special Steel Co., Ltd. on the First Note.

(39) On 3 April 2023, and after having analysed the comments received and the additional information provided by Changshu Longteng Special Steel Co., Ltd., the Commission informed by a second note (‘the Second Note’) interested parties on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value, with Türkiye as the representative country. It also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG&A’) and profits based on a data from a producer in the representative country, namely Kocaer Çelik Sanayi. The Commission invited interested parties to comment and received comments from Changshu Longteng Special Steel Co., Ltd.

(40) After having analysed the comments and information received on the Second Note, the Commission provisionally concluded that Türkiye was an appropriate choice as representative country from which undistorted prices and costs would be sourced for the determination of the normal value. The underlying reasons for that choice are further described in detail in Section 3.4 below.

(41) According to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation, ‘the normal value shall normally be based on the prices paid or payable, in the ordinary course of trade, by independent customers in the exporting country’.

(42) However, according to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, ‘in case it is determined […] that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence in that country of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b), the normal value shall be constructed exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks’, and ‘shall include an undistorted and reasonable amount of administrative, selling and general costs and for profits’.

(43) As further explained below, the Commission concluded in the present investigation that, based on the evidence available, and in view of the lack of cooperation of the GOC and the exporting producers, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.

(44) In recent investigations concerning the steel sector in the PRC (4), the Commission found that significant distortions in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation were present.