Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/670 of 26 February 2024 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

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

Whereas:

(1) In July 2005, by Council Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘the PRC’). The measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 7,6 % and 46,7 % (‘the original measures’).

(2) In July 2008, by Council Regulation (EC) No 684/2008 (3) and following an ex officio partial interim review under Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation (‘the basic Regulation’), the Council clarified the scope of the measures and excluded from the original anti-dumping measures certain products, i.e. high lifters, stackers, scissor lifts and weighing trucks, which can be self-propelled or moved manually and are used to move and to lift the loads, assist in storage of loads, to stack one pallet above the other, to lift the load to a working level or to lift and to weigh the loads, which were found to be distinct from hand pallet trucks due to their characteristics and specific functions and end uses.

(3) In June 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 499/2009 (4) the Council, following an anti-circumvention investigation under Article 13 of the basic Regulation, extended the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’ imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 to hand pallet trucks consigned from Thailand whether declared as originating in Thailand or not.

(4) In October 2011, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 (5), the Council, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, prolonged the application of the existing anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks originating in China.

(5) In April 2013, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 (6), the Council, following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, amended Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011, modified the original range of anti-dumping duties and imposed a duty rate of 70,8 % applicable to all imports into the Union of hand pallet trucks originating in China.

(6) In September 2014, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 946/2014 (7), the European Commission (‘Commission’), following a new exporter review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, amended Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011, imposing an individual duty rate of 54,1 % on imports of hand pallet trucks from Ningbo Logitrans Handling Equipment Co.

(7) In August 2016, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1346 (8), the Commission, following an anti-circumvention investigation under Article 13 of the basic Regulation, extended the definitive anti-dumping duty in force to imports of slightly modified hand pallet trucks incorporating a weight indication system not integrated in the chassis (the forks) originating in China.

(8) In November 2017, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2206 (9), the Commission, pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation following an expiry review re-imposed the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of hand pallet trucks originating in China (the ‘previous expiry review’).

(9) The anti-dumping duties currently in force are ad valorem duties established at 70,8 %. An individual duty rate of 54,1 % applies to Ningbo Logitrans Handling Equipment Co., Ltd. (10)

(10) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry in the Official Journal of the European Union (11), the Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request for review was submitted on 29 August 2022 by Toyota Material Handling Europe and PR Industrial S.r.l. (‘the applicants’) on behalf of the Union industry of hand pallet trucks in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.

(11) The request for review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(12) Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 29 November 2022 the Commission initiated an expiry review regarding imports into the Union of hand pallet trucks originating in the People’s Republic of China and in the Kingdom of Thailand on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (‘the Notice of Initiation’) (12).

(13) The investigation of the likelihood of continuation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2019 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(14) In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicants, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers, the Chinese authorities, known importers and users about the initiation of the expiry review and invited them to participate.

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

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

(17) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers.

(18) In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected the sample based on the largest representative production and sales volume of hand pallet trucks (‘HPT’) in the review investigation period, which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. This sample consisted of two Union producers.

(19) The two sampled Union producers accounted for over 75 % of the production and over 70 % of the production capacity of the Union industry in the review investigation period. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample.

(20) No comments were received, and the provisional sample was therefore confirmed. The sample is representative of the Union industry.

(21) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. No unrelated importer came forward and provided the requested information.

(22) In the Notice of Initiation of the expiry review investigation, the Commission stated that it might sample exporting producers in accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation.

(23) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known exporting producers in China to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. However, no exporting producer in the country concerned provided the information requested within the time limit defined in the Notice of Initiation.

(24) 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. No response was provided.

(25) In view of the above, there was no cooperation from the Chinese producers and the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary, and it informed the Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the European Union accordingly. No comments were made.

(26) 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 questionnaire reply was received.

(27) The Commission sent questionnaires to the exporting producers, to the sampled Union producers, to the users and to the importers. The same questionnaires had also been made available online on the day of initiation (13).

(28) Both sampled Union producers answered the questionnaires. However, exporting producers, unrelated importers, and users did not respond.

(29) As there was no cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers or the GOC, the findings regarding dumping and injury were made on the basis of facts available pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the European Union was informed accordingly. No comments were received.

(30) The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and of the Union interest.

(32) The Commission verified the macroeconomic data provided by the Union industry at the premises of their legal representative, White & Case, in Brussels.

(33) The product under review is the same as in the previous expiry review, namely hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, currently falling under CN codes ex 8427 90 00 (TARIC codes 8427900011 and 8427900019) and ex 8431 20 00 (TARIC codes 8431200011, and 8431200019).

(34) In 2008, the Commission carried out an interim review investigation and clarified that the measures in place do not cover certain product categories, i.e. high lifters, stackers, scissor lifts and weighing trucks, which can be self-propelled or moved manually and are used to move and to lift the loads, assist in storage of loads, to stack one pallet above the other, to lift the load to a working level or to lift and to weigh the loads.

(35) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in China.

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

(38) To determine the quantity and price of hand pallet trucks imported into the Union, the Commission relies on import statistics. Official data for these imports is recorded both in kilograms and in units (pieces).

(39) However, all statistical sources available (Comext, Surveillance 3 and the database based on Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation) showed inconsistent data concerning the volume of hand pallet trucks imported into the Union.

(40) The weight per hand pallet truck imported showed inexplicable fluctuations. This was inconsistent with both evidence collected in this investigation and with the import statistics used in the original investigation and in previous expiry reviews, which showed that the weight per hand pallet truck is basically constant and does not vary over time or across Member States.

(41) The Commission therefore contacted Eurostat, which informed that data on volumes of imports into two Member States seem not to have been reported correctly, and that the kilograms and pieces reported were not considered reliable in view of their reported value. The data of the imports into the Union without imports into these two Member States was found coherent across Member States and consistent with previous statistics.

(42) Therefore, the Commission adjusted the Eurostat import dataset for the period considered by taking the price per piece from all imports into the Union other than those into the two Member States mentioned in recital (41) and applying that price per piece ratio to the reported value of imports into these two Member States in order to determine the corrected volume of these imports in pieces.

(43) This adjustment then provided a dataset for imports into the Union where the number of pieces imported and their value per piece was coherent across Member States.

(44) This adjusted dataset has been used to calculate dumping in the absence of cooperation from Chinese exporting producers and also for various injury indicators as set out below in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 below.

(45) In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the expiry of the measures in force would be likely to lead to a continuation of dumping.

(46) As mentioned in recital (25), no exporting producer from China cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, the Commission informed the GOC that due to the absence of cooperation, the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The Commission did not receive any comments or requests for an intervention of the Hearing Officer in this regard.

(48) In addition, in order to construct the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission used the data available in the representative country as explained in Section 4.2.4 below.

(49) Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation tending to show, with regard to China, the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated the investigation on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(50) To obtain information that it deemed necessary for its investigation regarding the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC. In addition, as mentioned 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.

(51) 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.

(52) 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. No comments were raised by the GOC in this regard.

(53) In point 5.3.2. of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also specified that, in view of the evidence available, it may need to select an appropriate representative country pursuant to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation for the purpose of determining the normal value based on undistorted prices or benchmarks. It also specified that a possible representative third country for the PRC in this case was Brazil, but that it would examine other possibly appropriate countries in accordance with the criteria set out in first indent of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(54) On 3 April 2023, the Commission informed interested parties by a note on the relevant sources that it intended to use for the determination of the normal value (‘Note on sources’).

(55) In the Note on sources, the Commission informed interested parties that in the absence of cooperation, it would need to rely on facts available according to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Therefore, the Commission intended to use the information contained in the expiry review request, combined with other sources of information deemed appropriate according to the relevant criteria laid down in Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation in accordance with Article 18(5) of the basic Regulation.

(56) In the Note on sources, the Commission also informed interested parties that it intended to use Brazil as representative country and about the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value with Brazil as the representative country. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the sources and the appropriateness of Brazil as a representative country and to suggest other countries, provided they would submit sufficient information on the relevant criteria.

(57) It also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG&A’) and profit based on available information for the company Paletrans Equipamentos Ltda, a producer in the representative country. No comments were received.

(58) 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’.

(59) 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’.

(60) 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.

(61) In recent investigations concerning the steel sector in the PRC (14), the Commission found that significant distortions in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation were present.

(62) In those investigations, the Commission found that there is substantial government intervention in the PRC resulting in a distortion of the effective allocation of resources in line with market principles (15). In particular, the Commission concluded that in the steel sector – steel being the main raw material to produce the product under review – not only does a substantial degree of ownership by the GOC persist in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), first indent of the basic Regulation (16), but the GOC is also in a position to interfere with prices and costs through State presence in firms in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), second indent of the basic Regulation (17).

(63) The Commission further found that the State’s presence and intervention in the financial markets, as well as in the provision of raw materials and inputs have an additional distorting effect on the market. Indeed, overall, the system of planning in the PRC results in resources being concentrated in sectors designated as strategic or otherwise politically important by the GOC, rather than being allocated in line with market forces (18).