Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1267 of 6 May 2024 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in Indonesia to imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products consigned from Taiwan and Vietnam, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Vietnam or not, and terminating the investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by that Regulation by imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not

Image omitted; see official source	Official Journal of the European Union	EN L series
---	---	---
	2024/1267	7.5.2024

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 AD Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

Whereas:

1. PROCEDURE

1.1.   Previous investigations and existing measures

• (1) In 2021, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 ², the European Commission imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products (‘SSCR’) originating in, inter alia, Indonesia following an anti-dumping investigation (‘the original anti-dumping investigation’). The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 10,2 and 20,2 %, with a residual duty of 20,2 % for all non-cooperating Indonesian companies (‘the original measures’).

• (2) In 2022, the European Commission imposed definitive countervailing duties ranging between 0 % and 21,4 % on imports of SSCR originating in, inter alia, Indonesia, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/433 ³ (‘the subsidy regulation’). To avoid making SSCR from Indonesia subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation, the subsidy regulation reduced the dumping duties by the subsidy amounts found in relation to export contingent subsidies, in accordance with Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council ⁴ (‘the basic AS Regulation’). The original dumping measures were thus adjusted downwards and ranged from 9,3 % to 20,2 %, with a residual duty of 19,3 %.

1.2.   Request

• (3) The Commission received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic AD Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of SSCR originating in Indonesia by imports of SSCR consigned from Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam, whether declared in Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam or not, and to make such imports subject to registration (‘the request’).

• (4) The request was lodged on 3 July 2023 by the European Steel Association – ‘EUROFER’ (‘the applicant’.)

• (5) The request contained sufficient evidence of a change in the pattern of trade involving exports from Indonesia, Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam to the Union that had taken place following the imposition of measures on SSCR from Indonesia. This change appeared to stem from the consignment of SSCR from Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam (‘the countries concerned’) to the Union after having undergone assembly/completion operations in these countries. The request also contained sufficient evidence showing that such assembly/completion operations constituted circumvention, as Indonesian parts accounted for more than 60 % of the total value of the assembled/completed product in the countries concerned, while the value added during the assembly/completion operation was lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost.

• (6) Furthermore, the request contained sufficient evidence that the practice described above was undermining the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures in terms of quantities and prices. In addition, there was sufficient evidence that the prices of SSCR consigned from Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam were dumped in relation to the normal value established in the original anti-dumping investigation for SSCR.

1.3.   Product concerned and product under investigation

• (7) The product concerned by possible circumvention is flat-rolled products of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), classified on the date of entry into force of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 under CN codes 7219 31 00, 7219 32 10, 7219 32 90, 7219 33 10, 7219 33 90, 7219 34 10, 7219 34 90, 7219 35 10, 7219 35 90, 7219 90 20, 7219 90 80, 7220 20 21, 7220 20 29, 7220 20 41, 7220 20 49, 7220 20 81, 7220 20 89, 7220 90 20 and 7220 90 80 and originating in Indonesia (‘the product concerned’). This is the product to which the measures that are currently in force apply.

• (8) The product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam, whether declared as originating in Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam or not, currently falling under the same CN codes as the product concerned (TARIC codes 7219310010, 7219321010, 7219329010, 7219331010, 7219339010, 7219341010, 7219349010, 7219351010, 7219359010, 7219902010, 7219908010, 7220202110, 7220202910, 7220204110, 7220204910, 7220208110, 7220208910, 7220902010 and 7220908010) (‘the product under investigation’).

• (9) The investigation showed that SSCR exported from Indonesia to the Union and SSCR consigned from Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam, whether originating in Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam or not, have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and have the same uses, and are therefore to be considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic AD Regulation.

1.4.   Initiation

• (10) Having determined, after informing the Member States, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic AD Regulation, the Commission initiated an investigation by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1632 ⁵ (‘the initiating Regulation’) on 15 August 2023 and made imports of SSCR consigned from Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam, whether declared as originating in Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam or not, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic AD Regulation.

1.5.   Comments on initiation

• (11) After initiation, the Commission received comments from four interested parties: Posco Assan TST Celik Sanayi A.Ş. (‘Posco Assan’), Posco VST Co., Ltd (‘Posco VST’), Yongjin Metal Technology (Vietnam) Company Limited (‘Yongjin’) and the European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & Distributors (‘EURANIMI’).

• (12) Posco Assan, Posco VST and Yongjin provided general comments on initiation, as well as company specific comments in the context of this investigation. In view of the findings set out in section 4 below, these comments by Posco Assan and Posco VST have become moot and were therefore not addressed in this Regulation. The comments by Yongjin were addressed in section 5.2.3.

• (13) Posco Assan, Posco VST and EURANIMI also commented on the change in the pattern of trade and the lack of evidence that the remedial effects of the original duties were being undermined. In addition, Posco Assan, Posco VST, Yongjin and EURANIMI all provided similar comments related to the application of the circumvention rules on assembly/completion operations applied to SSCR and the existence of sufficient due cause or economic justification. Finally, Posco Assan and Posco VST referred to the existing steel safeguard measures already restricting imports from the targeted countries.

• (14) First, the companies argued that, in contrast to the allegations in the request, there was no change in the pattern of trade. To show this, the parties provided data from different periods. EURANIMI used data from July 2019 to June 2023, while Posco Assan and Posco VST used data from several longer or shorter periods, comparing either 2020, or the period July 2021-June 2022 to the reporting period, or comparing the first semester of 2022 to the first semester of 2023.

• (15) However, the applicant based its request on the period 1 January 2019-31 December 2022. This period included the time before the initiation of the original anti-dumping investigation (on 30 September 2020) and after the imposition of the anti-dumping duties, both of which have to be analysed and compared in order to determine whether a ‘change in a pattern of trade […] which stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty’ ⁶ occurred. The applicant showed that during that period, there was a change in the pattern of trade. That such conclusion may change depending on which periods one adds or removes from the analysis, does not detract from the fact that the applicant provided sufficient evidence that there was a change in the pattern of trade within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation ⁷.

• (16) Second, with regard to the undermining of the remedial effect of the duties, Posco Assan and Posco VST claimed that this did not exist since there was no change in the pattern of trade, nor a massive or rapid increase of imports from the countries concerned. In addition, the companies pointed towards China as a possible cause for injury or undermining of the remedial effects, as Chinese imports into the Union had increased much more than the imports from the three countries concerned. EURANIMI, as well as Trinox after disclosure, claimed that there was no undermining of the remedial effects since the Union industry had made significant profits in 2021 and 2022.

• (17) The basic AD Regulation provides that for circumvention to exist, there must be (inter alia) ‘evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty are being undermined in terms of prices and/or quantities of the like product’. The applicant had demonstrated in its request, that there was a significant increase in imports from the three countries concerned at low prices, representing a non-negligible share of Union consumption ⁸. The fact that even more imports are coming in from China, or that the Union industry was profitable during the past few years, does not alter this conclusion. The Commission therefore rejected these claims.

• (18) Third, all four parties commented on the concept of assembly operations, as set out in Article 13(2) of the basic AD Regulation, and argued that this concept did not apply to the operations in the countries concerned regarding the production of SSCR. According to the parties, the transformation of slabs or stainless steel hot-rolled coils (‘SSHR’) into SSCR are not assembly operations since there are no parts which are assembled, and the resulting transformation is irreversible. In addition, the production of SSCR cannot be seen as a finishing or completion operation as this is something which should take place at the end of the manufacturing process, such as polishing, skin pass or slitting. The parties argued that the main stages of SSCR production such as the actual cold-rolling or cold annealing and pickling cannot fall under such a definition. It was also argued that assembly operations are not the same as completion operations, since the latter takes place only after the product has already been assembled. According to Posco Assan and Posco VST, the concept of completion operations is only concerned when calculating the added value under Article 13(2)(b) and can therefore not be considered a ‘practice, process or work’ as intended by Article 13(1)(d).

• (19) The Commission rejected these claims. The practice described in the request under section 5.3.2 was confirmed to be a completion operation falling within the concept of assembly operations under Article 13(2) of the basic AD Regulation. In addition, the Commission has drawn the same conclusion for similar situations in previous investigations ⁹.

• (20) The basic AD Regulation does not define the terms ‘assembly operation’ or ‘completion operation’. However, a ‘completion operation’ is explicitly mentioned in Article 13(2)(b). It follows that ‘assembly operation’ within the meaning of Article 13(2) is meant to cover not only operations that consist of assembling parts of a composite article, but may also involve all those instances in which semi-finished inputs are further processed into a finished product.

• (21) After disclosure, Yongjin argued that SSHR cannot be considered a semi-finished product, but rather a finished product which does not need to be necessarily processed into SSCR. In support of this argument, Yongjin referred to the wording of the Legal Notes of Chapter 72 of the Harmonised System which excludes that SSHR presented in coils can constitute a semi-finished material. However, the Commission considered the processing of SSHR into SSCR as one of the steps necessary to process slabs into the finished product – SSCR. For this purpose, both slabs and SSHR were considered input materials, whether semi-processed, semi-finished or not, which necessitated further processing or completion in order to obtain the finished product – SSCR.

• (22) In addition, Yongjin consistently referred to SSHR as a ‘raw material’ throughout its submission. However, the Harmonised System classifies raw materials as even less worked or manufactured than semi-finished materials: ‘As a general rule, goods are arranged in order of their degree of manufacture: raw materials, unworked products, semi-finished products, finished products’ ¹⁰. The wording used by Yongjin therefore clearly indicates that, despite the official classification of SSHR in coils as not semi-finished inputs, the company itself considers it as a product which is not finished and necessitates further processing.

• (23) The Commission therefore rejected this argument.

• (24) Furthermore, the Commission did not agree with the parties’ argument that while polishing, skin pass or slitting could be seen as finishing operations, the cold-rolling process itself would not. These actions all form part of the same process of transforming the semi-processed material (slabs or SSHR) into SSCR. It would be illogical to describe part of this process as completion, and part as assembly operations. As explained in recital 48 below, companies which perform minor operations such as cutting and slitting were not considered producers in their own right. They were confirmed as being service centres, which do not qualify for an exemption of the extension of measures in an anti-circumvention investigation. This is consistent with the notion that such minor operations cannot be seen as completion operations, since the SSCR supplied to these service centres is necessarily already a finished or completed product.

• (25) The parties’ arguments as to the irreversibility of the transformation process had to be rejected. First, such argument is not based on legal authority. In other words, there is no reason why reversibility should be a precondition for a process to be considered as assembly or finishing. Second, the parties themselves have argued that a completion operation includes, for example, slitting – which is also an irreversible operation. Slitting is basically cutting a large coil into a narrower coil, where width is one of the essential characteristics of the product. Welding the slit pieces back together will not result in the original coil, due to material loss during slitting and the addition of welding material. To reverse a slitting operation completely and invisibly, the slitted parts of steel would have to be melted together again, which in itself causes changes to the material not to mention that it necessitates all previous steps in the process including the cold rolling.

• (26) After disclosure, EURANIMI, Yongjin and the trader Gerber Steel GmbH (‘Gerber’) provided further arguments against the application of the notion of assembly operations in this investigation. All three parties referred to the fact that the cold-rolling process changes all the essential physical, mechanical and metallurgical properties of the product. In particular, the parties referred to a previous investigation on certain stainless steel seamless pipes and tubes ¹¹. In that investigation, the Commission had found that ‘the cold forming performed in India substantially transforms the product and irreversibly alters its essential characteristics. During the process the product changes its dimensions and its physical, mechanical and metallurgical properties’ ¹².

• (27) However, that finding, which is arguably different for the process, input materials and final product in that investigation (cold forming of pipes and tubes) than for the cold rolling of SSCR, was not the reason for terminating that investigation. The Commission, in the terminating Regulation ¹³, clearly stated that ‘In its assessment, the Commission noted that the finding of non-circumvention under Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation was based in this case on the existence of a sufficient due cause and economic justification for the processing activities carried out in India’. As confirmed by EURANIMI in paragraph 8 of its submission after disclosure, ‘The Commission terminated that investigation, without reaching any conclusion that cold forming would constitute an assembly or completion operation’.

• (28) Moreover, the Commission disagreed that the essential properties of the product are changed during the cold-rolling process. While some properties may undergo changes, others (equally or more essential) are already determined at the input material stage. This was confirmed by EUROFER in their submission after disclosure, ‘the essential characteristics of stainless steel products are determined at the first stage of production, during which the slab is molten and poured, by the selection and quantity of raw materials such as nickel and chromium. The raw inputs and their chemical composition determine the essential characteristics of the later stainless steel product such as its resistance against oxidation. In particular, the chemical composition of the product will not change during further processing such as cold rolling.’

• (29) The Commission therefore dismissed the arguments regarding the changes in the properties of the product.

• (30) According to EURANIMI, interpreting the term assembly operation in an overly broad manner would deprive the rest of the provisions of the basic AD Regulation of their intended effect. Instead, the Commission should, in a case such as the current investigation, open a new anti-dumping/anti-subsidy investigation. However, it is well documented that the Court of Justice has favoured a broad interpretation of Article 13 of the basic AD Regulation, in view of its context and the need to preserve its effectiveness ¹⁴. The purpose of investigations conducted in accordance with Article 13 of the basic AD Regulation is to ensure the effectiveness of anti-dumping duties and to prevent their circumvention. Consequently, the purpose of Article 13(2) of the basic AD Regulation is to capture the practices, processes or works that use predominantly parts from the country that is subject to the measures and assemble or finish them by adding limited value to these parts. Because the starting point and objective of anti-circumvention investigations are fundamentally different from those of new anti-dumping/anti-subsidy investigations, one cannot be used as a substitute for the other.

• (31) Fourth, EURANIMI put forward several arguments regarding due cause or economic justification for the change in the pattern of trade alleged in the request. The party claimed that the increase in SSCR imports from the countries concerned was influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, that the increase in the use of Indonesian inputs already started before the initiation of the original anti-dumping investigation, and that the request’s table showing Union consumption and market shares was incorrect due to the inclusion of ‘indirect imports’ and the influence of recent events causing limited availability of SSCR from Union suppliers.

• (32) However, the relevant tables in the request showed that there was an increase in imports from the countries concerned comparing 2022 and 2019. While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trade flows was felt in 2020 and 2021, there was still a significant increase in 2022 as compared with the last ‘normal’ year before the pandemic ¹⁵. Regarding the use of Indonesian inputs before 2019, no data was supplied by EURANIMI supporting this argument. Finally, the consumption and market share table the party referred to indeed included the notion of indirect imports. However, these imports were shown on a separate line and it was clear from the table that the data without this notion showed similar trends as for the indirect imports ¹⁶. As for the scarcity of SSCR from Union suppliers, no evidence was provided supporting this assertion.

• (33) Following disclosure, EURANIMI pointed to the 23 letters it had provided after initiation from SSCR end-users testifying to the scarcity. However, these letters dated from 2021, the time of the original anti-dumping investigation against Indonesia. As EURANIMI stated in its submission for the hearing on 12 October 2023, the shortages in 2021 were linked to the ‘natural recovery from the pandemic’. No evidence was provided that shortages alleged at that time persisted since then and/or into the reporting period. The Commission therefore rejected these arguments.

• (34) Fifth, Posco VST and Posco Assan both claimed that the safeguard measures in place against steel imports (including SSCR) from all three countries concerned ¹⁷ already restricted imports of SSCR from these countries and provided the necessary and sufficient protection to the Union industry.

• (35) However, safeguard measures are by definition of a temporary nature and have a different rationale and objective than that of anti-dumping measures or that of Article 13 of the basic AD Regulation, namely to ensure the effectiveness of anti-dumping duties and to prevent their circumvention. The Commission therefore rejected this claim.

• (36) In addition to the above claims, Gerber, an importer of SSCR, submitted the following comments after disclosure, which include comments concerning the initiation of the case.

• (37) First, that the Commission should not use the unprecedented increase in nickel prices in 2022 as a basis for any calculation in this investigation. The Commission however, did not use nickel prices in its calculations.

• (38) Second, the fact that steel imports into the Union have been stable for the past 10 years. However, it is irrelevant whether steel imports into the Union have remained stable throughout the years or not. What is relevant in the case at hand is whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between the Union, Indonesia and the three countries concerned. As indicated in the request and as was confirmed during the investigation, there was such a change in the pattern of trade.

• (39) Third, Gerber claimed that the finding both in the request and in the investigation that the value added during the processing of SSCR is less than 10 % is wrong, and that the Commission failed to provide evidence of such finding. However, it should be noted that the threshold laid down in Article 13(2)(b) of the basic AD Regulation is an added value of 25 %, not 10 %. In its analysis, the Commission used the data provided by the individual cooperating companies, which was verified on spot. For most of these companies, the added value did not rise above 10 %, and it remained far below 25 % for all of them. Contrary to Gerber’s claims, this finding was not the result of leaving out processing or finishing stages such as annealing, or excluding certain types of stainless steel (Gerber mentioned 200 and 400 series steel), ‘other numerical tricks’ or even ‘fraud’. The Commission calculated the value added to the parts as required by Article 13(2)(b) of the basic AD Regulation by expressing the ‘value added to the parts brought in’ (in this case manufacturing cost other than the material cost) as a percentage of the overall manufacturing cost. None of the cooperating companies, which provided the data, contested this methodology nor the Commission’s findings with regard to the added value based on the companies’ data.

• (40) Fourth, Gerber argued that certain actions by the Union stainless steel industry run counter to the Union’s anti-trust law or even constitutes a criminal offence. However, such allegations fall outside the scope of the current investigation. If Gerber believed that the Union industry has behaved in an untoward manner, Gerber should address its concerns to the competent authorities, e.g. the Commission’s department dealing with competition issues, OLAF (the European Anti-Fraud Office) or the competent national authorities.

• (41) The Commission therefore dismissed these four arguments brought by Gerber.

• (42) Considering the above, the Commission rejected the claims with regard to the initiation of the investigation and concluded that the request contained sufficient evidence to warrant the initiation of the investigation.

1.6.   Investigation period and reporting period

• (43) The investigation period covered the period from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2023 (‘the investigation period’). Data were collected for the investigation period to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change in the pattern of trade following the imposition of the measures on the product concerned, and the existence of a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. More detailed data were collected for the period from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 (‘the reporting period’) in order to examine if imports were undermining the remedial effect of the measures in force in terms of prices and/or quantities and the existence of dumping.

1.7.   Investigation

• (44) The Commission officially informed the authorities of Indonesia, Taiwan, Türkiye, and Vietnam, the known exporting producers in those countries, the Union industry and the known importers in the Union of the initiation of the investigation.

• (45) Exemption claim forms for the exporting producers in Taiwan, Türkiye, and Vietnam, questionnaires for the producers/exporters in Indonesia and for importers in the Union were made available on DG TRADE’s website.

• (46) The following exporting producers submitted exemption requests and verification visits were carried out at their premises:

Taiwan:

• — Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd

• — Tang Eng Iron Works Co., Ltd (YUSCO Group)

• — Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd

• — Walsin Lihwa Corporation

• — Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO Group)

• — Yuan Long Stainless Steel Corp.

Türkiye:

• — Posco Assan TST Celik Sanayi A.Ş.

• — Trinox Metal Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.

Vietnam:

• — Lam Khang Joint Stock Company

• — Posco VST Co., Ltd

• — Yongjin Metal Technology (Vietnam) Company Limited.

• (47) In addition, exemption claim forms were submitted by the following service centres:

• — YC Inox Tr Çelik Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi (Türkiye)

• — Yue Seng Industrial Co. (Taiwan)

• — YC Inox Co Ltd (Taiwan).

• (48) However, based on an analysis of the information provided in their requests, the Commission concluded that the activities of these three companies during the investigation period consisted of providing services such as cutting and slitting of the SSCR produced by other companies, which does not entail any actual production of the product under investigation. As such, these companies could not be considered producers and thus could not be eligible for an exemption of the extension of the measures under Article 13(4) of the basic AD Regulation, which only provides such possibility for producers of the product concerned. No verification visits were carried out at the premises of these companies.

• (49) Moreover, questionnaire replies were submitted by the following companies:

Union importers & users:

• — Replasa Advanced Materials, S.A.

• — Marcegaglia Specialties SpA

• — Padana Tubi & Profilati Acciaio SpA

• — Nova Trading S.A.

Indonesian producers:

• — Pt. Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy

• — Pt. Indonesia Guang Ching Nickel and Stainless Steel Industry

• — Pt. Indonesia Tsingshan Stainless Steel

• — Pt. Sulawesi Mining Investment.

• (50) The Commission did not verify the questionnaire replies of these companies but used the submitted information to cross check the trade flows and names of suppliers from Indonesia.

• (51) In the process of verification of information and statistics provided by the applicant and the cooperating companies, the Commission held on spot consultations with Taiwanese and Vietnamese Authorities, namely with the Taiwan International Trade Administration (TITA) and the Trade Remedies Authority under the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam.

• (52) Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. All parties were informed that the non-submission of all relevant information or the submission of incomplete, false or misleading information might lead to the application of Article 18 of the basic AD Regulation and to findings being based on the facts available.

• (53) Several parties provided submissions outside the time-limit set in the initiating Regulation. The Commission informed these parties that their submission could not be accepted for that reason, and informed them of the possibility to provide comments after disclosure of the essential facts and considerations in this investigation.

• (54) A hearing was held on 12 October 2023, with EURANIMI. After disclosure, hearings took place with EUROFER on 14 March 2024, with Lam Khang on 18 March 2024 and with Yongjin on 20 March 2024.

2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

2.1.   General considerations

• (55) In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation, the following elements should be analysed successively in order to assess possible circumvention:

• (1) whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between Indonesia, Taiwan, Türkiye, Vietnam and the Union,

• (2) if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty,

• (3) if there was evidence of injury or whether the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures in force were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the product under investigation, and

• (4) whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the product concerned.

• (56) Since the evidence provided by the applicant in the request pointed to assembly/completion operations in Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam, the Commission in the present investigation, specifically analysed whether the criteria set out in Article 13(2) of the basic AD Regulation were met, in particular:

• (1) whether the assembly/completion operation started or substantially increased since, or just prior to, the initiation of the anti-dumping investigation and whether the parts concerned are from the country subject to measures, and

• (2) whether those parts constituted 60 % or more of the total value of the parts of the assembled/completed product and whether the added value of the parts brought in, during the assembly or completion operation, was greater than 25 % of the manufacturing costs.

2.2.   Change in the pattern of trade between Indonesia and the Union

• (57) Table 1 below shows the development of imports from Indonesia into the Union in the investigation period.

Table 1

Imports of SSCR into the Union in the investigation period (tonnes)

	2020	2021	2022	RP
Indonesia	106 483	107 362	51 382	7 634
Index (base = 2020)	100	101	48	7
Share total imports	14 %	12 %	4 %	1 %
Total imports	766 159	893 672	1 295 790	838 007
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (58) Table 1 shows that the volume of imports of SSCR from Indonesia decreased from 106 483 tonnes in 2020 to 7 634 tonnes in the reporting period. The volume of imports increased from 2020 to 2021 by 1 %, but sharply decreased in 2022 by 53 % compared to 2020. This decrease coincided in time with the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on SSCR from Indonesia at the end of 2021. From 2022 to the reporting period the volume of imports of SSCR from Indonesia severely declined further, resulting in an overall decline of almost 93 % during the entire investigation period. At the same time, its share of total imports decreased from 14 % to 1 %.

2.3.   Results of the investigation in Taiwan

2.3.1.   Degree of cooperation

• (59) As stated in recital 46, six Taiwanese exporting producers provided exemption requests and cooperated throughout the investigation. These companies accounted for only 50 % of the total imports of SSCR from Taiwan during the reporting period. Findings with respect to exports of SSCR from Taiwan to the Union as well as the raw materials from Indonesia to Taiwan were therefore based on statistics extracted from Eurostat and the Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’) ¹⁸.

2.3.2.   Change in the pattern of trade in Taiwan

• (60) Table 2 below shows the development of imports from Taiwan into the Union in the investigation period.

Table 2

Imports of SSCR into the Union in the investigation period (tonnes)

	2020	2021	2022	RP
Taiwan	125 072	218 784	251 304	186 872
Index (base = 2020)	100	175	201	149
Share total imports	16 %	24 %	19 %	22 %
Total imports	766 159	893 672	1 295 790	838 007
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (61) Table 2 shows that the volume of imports of SSCR from Taiwan into the Union increased from 125 072 tonnes in 2020 to 186 872 tonnes in the reporting period. The most significant increase in the volume of imports took place from 2020 to 2021, when the volume increased by 75 %, from 125 072 tonnes to 218 784 tonnes. This increase coincided in time with the initiation of the original anti-dumping investigation, in September 2020, and the imposition of definitive measures in November 2021. From 2021 to 2022, the volume of imports from Taiwan continued increasing to reach 251 304 tonnes to later decrease to a level of 186 872 tonnes during the reporting period. Overall, the volume of imports from Taiwan increased 49 % during the investigation period.

• (62) Furthermore, the volume of imports to the Union from Taiwan, not originating from the exporting producers who submitted requests for exemption, significantly increased after the initiation of the original anti-dumping investigation. More particularly, before the initiation of the anti-dumping investigation the cooperating producers accounted for the vast majority (over 90 %) of all exports to the Union whilst during the reporting period they only accounted for just above 50 %.

• (63) Table 3 shows the development of exports of raw materials necessary for the production of SSCR from Indonesia to Taiwan during the investigation period. These raw materials consisted of either stainless steel slabs, or stainless steel hot-rolled coils (‘SSHR’).

Table 3

Exports of raw materials from Indonesia to Taiwan in the investigation period (tonnes)

	2020	2021	2022	RP
Slabs	93 085	190 908	140 272	141 041
Index (base = 2020)	100	205	151	152
SSHR	529 143	817 705	563 534	631 208
Index (base = 2020)	100	155	106	119
Total Slabs and SSHR	622 228	1 008 614	703 805	772 249
Index (base = 2020)	100	162	113	124
Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.

• (64) In general, the main input for the production of SSCR is SSHR. SSCR production can, however, also start from stainless-steel slabs, which are then hot rolled into SSHR, which is subsequently further rolled into SSCR. Table 3 shows that the exports of stainless steel slabs from Indonesia to Taiwan increased from 93 085 tonnes in 2020 to 141 041 tonnes in the reporting period. The most significant increase in the volume of exports took place from 2020 to 2021, when the volume increased by 105 % from 93 085 tonnes in 2020 to 190 908 tonnes in 2021. From 2021 the volume of exports of slabs from Indonesia decreased to 140 272 tonnes in 2022, to later slightly increase to reach a level of 141 041 tonnes during the reporting period. Overall the volume of exports of slabs from Indonesia to Taiwan increased 52 % during the investigation period.

• (65) During the investigation period, the exports from Indonesia represented between 95 % to 99,8 % of the total volume of imports of stainless steel slabs into Taiwan. During the reporting period exports from Indonesia of stainless steel slabs represented 99,8 %.

• (66) Similarly, exports of SSHR from Indonesia to Taiwan increased, from 529 143 tonnes in 2020 to 631 208 tonnes in the reporting period. The most significant increase in the volume of exports took place from 2020 to 2021, when the volume increased by 55 % from 529 143 tonnes to 817 705 tonnes. From 2021 to 2022, the volume of exports of SSHR from Indonesia decreased to 563 534 tonnes to later increase again to a level of 631 208 during the reporting period. Overall the volume of exports of SSHR from Indonesia to Taiwan increased 19 % during the investigation period.

• (67) It should be noted that there are significant quantities of SSHR exports from Indonesia to Taiwan that are not accounted for or purchased by the Taiwanese exporting producers who submitted requests for exemption, as explained in recital 62. Before the initiation of the original anti-dumping investigation imports of SSHR by the cooperating producers accounted for around 97 % of all imports whilst during the reporting period they only accounted for 84 %. Thus more than 100 000 tonnes of SSHR imported from Indonesia were purchased by companies which did not submit a request for exemption.

• (68) The combined exports of stainless steel slabs and SSHR from Indonesia to Taiwan increased, from 622 228 tonnes in 2020 to 772 249 tonnes in the reporting period. The most significant increase in the volume of exports took place from 2020 to 2021, when the volume increased by 62 % from 622 228 tonnes to 1 008 614 tonnes. From 2021 the volume of combined exports of stainless steel slabs and SSHR from Indonesia decreased to reach 703 805 tonnes in 2022, to later increase to a level of 772 249 during the reporting period. Overall the volume of combined exports of stainless steel slabs and SSHR from Indonesia to Taiwan increased 24 % during the investigation period.

• (69) The increase in export volumes of stainless steel slabs and SSHR from Indonesia to Taiwan indicated an increasing demand for such input materials in Taiwan, which could, at least in part, be explained by the increase in the production and exports to the Union of SSCR from Taiwan during the reporting period. This was also corroborated by the information provided by the cooperating companies.

2.3.2.1.   Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade in Taiwan

• (70) The investigation established that the significant volumes of stainless steel, either in the form of slabs or SSHR, exported from Indonesia, were further processed into SSCR in Taiwan to be later exported to the Union. The increase of exports of SSCR from Taiwan to the Union seen in Table 2, together with the significant increase of exports of stainless steel slabs and SSHR from Indonesia to Taiwan in the investigation period, as shown in Table 3, constituted a change in the pattern of trade between Indonesia, Taiwan and the Union within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation.

2.3.3.   Practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty

• (71) Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, amongst others, the consignment of the product subject to the existing measures via third countries, and the assembly of parts/completion operations in a third country in accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic AD Regulation.

• (72) Stainless steel slabs and SSHR coils were considered as semi-finished products, which were further processed into finished goods such as SSCR. This further processing of stainless steel slabs and SSHR into SSCR falls under the concept of an assembly of parts/completion operation in the sense of Article 13(2) of the basic AD Regulation.

• (73) The original anti-dumping duties were imposed on 19 November 2021. As described in section 2.3.2 above, Taiwan substantially increased its export sales to the Union during the investigation period, and a substantial part of the main input material, stainless steel slabs and SSHR, were imported from Indonesia.

• (74) Furthermore, as explained above (recitals 62 and 67), large amounts of input material originating from Indonesia could not be accounted for by purchases from cooperating producers whilst, at the same time, exports of (assembled/completed) SSCR to the Union, not exported by the cooperating producers, increased significantly.

• (75) The investigation has demonstrated that stainless steel slabs and SSHR coils were being imported from Indonesia into Taiwan, further processed in Taiwan into SSCR and exported to the Union triggering a change of pattern of trade. The investigation further revealed no economic justification for the change in the pattern of trade described in Section 2.3.2 other than the initiation of the original anti-dumping investigation and the subsequent imposition of the original measures.

• (76) Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation establishes a link between the practice, process or work in question and the change of the pattern of trade as the latter must ‘stem’ from the former. It follows that the circumvention found in Taiwan was an assembly/completion operation that lead to the change of the pattern of trade and for which there was no economic justification. Therefore, this requirement of Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation was met in Taiwan for the country as a whole.

2.3.4.   Undermining of the remedial effects of the duty

• (77) In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation, the Commission examined whether the imports of the product under investigation into the Union, both in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures currently in force.

• (78) Regarding quantities, the market share of the imports from Taiwan represented around 4,7 % of Union consumption during the reporting period, which was estimated at 400 000 tonnes ¹⁹. The volume of imports was thus considered to be significant.

• (79) Regarding prices, the Commission compared the average non-injurious price, as established in the original anti-dumping investigation adjusted for the price increase of SSCR based on the European Union producer price index ²⁰, with the weighted average export CIF prices determined on the basis of Eurostat statistics, duly adjusted for post importation costs. This price comparison showed that the imports from Taiwan undersold the Union prices by more than 19 %.

• (80) The Commission therefore concluded that the remedial effect of the measures in force was being undermined in terms of both quantities and prices.

2.3.5.   Evidence of dumping

• (81) In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation, the Commission also examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product.

• (82) To this end, the Commission compared the average export prices from Taiwan to the Union, based on Eurostat statistics and adjusted to ex-works prices based on the data reported by the cooperating companies, to the normal values established during the original anti-dumping investigation, adjusted for the price increase of SSCR from Indonesia since the original anti-dumping investigation. The Commission, following the methodology established in the request, took as reference the increase in prices of worldwide imports of SSCR from Indonesia, as per GTA data. For this analysis, the exports from Indonesia to the Union and China were excluded, since for these two destinations distortions had been identified due to the dumping and subsidisation practices established in the original anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations ²¹.

• (83) The comparison of the export price thus established and the normal values previously established in the original anti-dumping investigation for the like product and adjusted as explained in recital 82, showed evidence of dumping during the reporting period, within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation.

2.4.   Results of the investigation in Türkiye

2.4.1.   Degree of cooperation

• (84) As stated in recital 46, two Turkish exporting producers provided exemption requests and cooperated throughout the investigation. These two companies accounted for only 52 % of the total imports of SSCR from Türkiye during the reporting period. Findings regarding exports of SSCR from Türkiye to the Union as well as the raw materials from Indonesia to Türkiye were therefore based on statistics extracted from Eurostat and GTA.

2.4.2.   Change in the pattern of trade in Türkiye

• (85) Table 4 below shows the development of imports from Türkiye into the Union in the investigation period.

Table 4

Imports of SSCR into the Union in the investigation period (tonnes)

	2020	2021	2022	RP
Türkiye	73 835	105 619	125 072	105 116
Index (base = 2020)	100	143	169	142
Share total imports	10 %	12 %	10 %	13 %
Total imports	766 159	893 672	1 295 790	838 007
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (86) Table 4 shows that the volume of imports of SSCR from Türkiye into the Union increased from 73 835 tonnes in 2020 to 105 116 tonnes in the reporting period. The most significant increase in the volume of imports took place from 2020 to 2021, when the volume increased from 73 835 tonnes to 105 619 tonnes. This increase coincided with the initiation of the original anti-dumping investigation, in September 2020, and the imposition of definitive measures in November 2021. In 2022 the volume of imports from Türkiye increased further to 125 072 tonnes before decreasing again to a level of 105 116 tonnes during the reporting period. Overall, the volume of imports from Türkiye increased 42 % during the investigation period.

• (87) Table 5 shows the development of exports of raw materials necessary for the production of SSCR from Indonesia to Türkiye during the investigation period.

Table 5

Exports of raw materials from Indonesia to Türkiye in the investigation period (tonnes)

	2020	2021	2022	RP
Slabs	24 241	50 378	20 328	81
Index (base = 2020)	100	208	84	0
SSHR	23 560	84 443	84 126	77 544
Index (base = 2020)	100	358	357	329
Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.

• (88) In general, the main input for the production of SSCR is SSHR. SSCR production can however also start from stainless-steel slabs which then are hot rolled into SSHR, which is subsequently further rolled into SSCR. Table 5 shows that the exports of stainless-steel slabs from Indonesia to Türkiye has decreased between 2020 and the reporting period from 24 241 tonnes to a negligible amount. This is largely due to the extension of the measures on SSHR from Indonesia to Türkiye in 2022 on imports of SSHR consigned from Türkiye, following an anti-circumvention investigation ²².

• (89) However, the evidence available to the Commission showed that there were no SSCR production facilities in Türkiye which start the production process from slabs, nor were there Turkish SSCR producers purchasing SSHR from Turkish SSHR producers to further roll this into SSCR. The evolution of the export volumes of slabs to Türkiye is therefore not deemed relevant for this investigation.

• (90) Table 5 also shows that exports of SSHR from Indonesia to Türkiye increased from 23 560 tonnes in 2020 to 77 544 tonnes in the reporting period. The most significant increase in the volume of exports took place from 2020 to 2021, when the volume more than tripled to reach 84 443 tonnes. From 2021 the volume of exports of SSHR from Indonesia decreased slightly, to 77 544 tonnes in the reporting period. Overall the volume of exports of SSHR from Indonesia to Türkiye more than tripled throughout the investigation period.

• (91) The increase in export volumes of SSHR from Indonesia to Türkiye indicated an increasing demand for such input materials in Türkiye, which could, at least in part, be explained by the increase in the production and exports of SSCR to the Union from Türkiye during the reporting period.

2.4.2.1.   Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade in Türkiye

• (92) The investigation established that significant volumes of SSHR exported from Indonesia were further processed into SSCR in Türkiye, to be later exported to the Union. The increase of exports of SSCR from Türkiye to the Union seen in Table 4, together with the significant increase of exports of SSHR from Indonesia to Türkiye in the investigation period, as shown in Table 5, constituted a change in the pattern of trade between Indonesia, Türkiye and the Union within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation.

2.4.3.   Practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty

• (93) Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes the consignment of the product subject to the existing measures via third countries, and the assembly of parts/completion operations in a third country in accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic AD Regulation.

• (94) SSHR coils were considered as semi-finished products, which were further processed into finished goods such as SSCR. This further processing of SSHR into SSCR falls under the concept of assembly of parts/completion operation in the sense of Article 13(2) of the basic AD Regulation.

• (95) The original anti-dumping duties were imposed on 19 November 2021. As described in section 2.4.2 above, Türkiye substantially increased its export sales to the Union during the investigation period and a substantial part of the main input material SSHR was imported from Indonesia.

• (96) The investigation has demonstrated that SSHR were imported from Indonesia into Türkiye, further processed in Türkiye into SSCR and exported to the Union triggering a change of pattern of trade. The investigation further revealed no economic justification for the change in the pattern of trade described in Section 2.4.2 other than the initiation of the original anti-dumping investigation and the subsequent imposition of the original measures.

• (97) Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation establishes a link between the practice, process or work in question and the change of the pattern of trade as the latter must ‘stem’ from the former. It follows that any circumvention found in Türkiye was an assembly/completion operation that lead to the change of the pattern of trade and for which there was no economic justification. Therefore, this requirement of Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation was met in Türkiye for the country as a whole.

2.4.4.   Undermining of the remedial effects of the duty

• (98) In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation, the Commission examined whether the imports of the product under investigation into the Union, both in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures currently in force.

• (99) Regarding quantities, the market share of the imports from Türkiye represented around 2,6 % of Union consumption during the reporting period, which was estimated at 400 000 tonnes ²³. The volume of imports was thus considered to be significant.

• (100) Regarding prices, the Commission compared the average non-injurious price, as established in the original anti-dumping investigation adjusted for the price increase of SSCR based on the European Union producer price index ²⁴, with the weighted average export CIF prices determined on the basis of Eurostat statistics, duly adjusted for post importation costs. This price comparison showed that the imports from Türkiye undersold Union prices by 1,3 %.

• (101) The Commission therefore concluded that the remedial effect of the measures in force was being undermined in terms of quantities and prices.

2.4.5.   Evidence of dumping

• (102) In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation, the Commission also examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product.

• (103) To this end, the Commission compared the export prices from Türkiye to the Union, based on the ex-works prices of the two cooperating companies on product-type level, to the normal values established during the original anti-dumping investigation, adjusted for the price increase of SSCR in Indonesia. The Commission, following the methodology established in the request, took as reference the increase in prices of worldwide imports of SSCR from Indonesia, as per GTA data. For this analysis, the exports from Indonesia to the Union and China were excluded, since for these two destinations distortions had been identified due to the dumping and subsidisation practices established in the original anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations ²⁵.

• (104) The comparison of the export price thus established and the normal values previously established for the like product in the original anti-dumping investigation and adjusted as explained in recital 103, did not show evidence of dumping during the reporting period, within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation.

2.5.   Results of the investigation in Vietnam

2.5.1.   Degree of cooperation

• (105) As stated in recital 46, three Vietnamese exporting producers provided exemption requests and cooperated throughout the investigation. These three companies accounted for 82 % of the total imports of SSCR from Vietnam during the reporting period. Findings with respect to exports of SSCR from Vietnam to the Union as well as the raw materials from Indonesia to Vietnam were therefore based on statistics extracted from Eurostat and GTA.

2.5.2.   Change in the pattern of trade in Vietnam

• (106) Table 6 below shows the development of imports from Vietnam into the Union in the investigation period.

Table 6

Imports of SSCR into the Union in the investigation period (tonnes)

	2020	2021	2022	RP
Vietnam	35 345	51 566	87 606	96 668
Index (base = 2020)	100	146	248	274
Share total imports	4,6  %	5,8  %	6,8  %	11,5  %
Total imports	766 159	893 672	1 295 790	838 007
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (107) Table 6 shows that the volume of imports of SSCR from Vietnam into the Union increased from 35 345 tonnes in 2020 to 96 668 tonnes in the reporting period. The most significant increase in the volume of imports took place from 2021 to 2022, when the volume increased from 51 566 tonnes to 87 606 tonnes. This increase coincided with the imposition of definitive measures on 19 November 2021. In 2022 the volume of imports from Vietnam increased further to 96 668 tonnes during the reporting period. Overall, the volume of imports from Vietnam increased by 174 % during the investigation period.

• (108) Table 7 shows the development of exports of raw materials necessary for the production of SSCR from Indonesia to Vietnam during the investigation period.

Table 7

Exports of raw materials ²⁶ from Indonesia to Vietnam in the investigation period (tonnes)

	2020	2021	2022	RP
SSHR	184 018	245 603	361 082	397 923
Index (base = 2020)	100	133	196	216
Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.	Source: Global Trade Atlas.

• (109) Table 7 shows that the exports of stainless-steel hot-rolled coils from Indonesia to Vietnam has substantially increased between 2020 and the reporting period from 184 018 tonnes to 397 923 tonnes. The most significant increase in the volume of exports took place from 2021 to 2022, when the volume increased from 245 603 tonnes in 2021 to 361 082 tonnes in 2022. This increase coincided in time with the imposition of definitive measures on 19 November 2021. Overall, the volume of exports of SSHR from Indonesia to Vietnam more than doubled throughout the investigation period.

• (110) Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade in Vietnam

• (111) The investigation established that significant volumes of SSHR exported from Indonesia were further processed into SSCR in Vietnam, to be later exported to the Union. The increase of exports of SSCR from Vietnam to the Union seen in Table 6, together with the significant increase of exports of SSHR from Indonesia to Vietnam in the investigation period, as shown in Table 7, constituted a change in the pattern of trade between Indonesia, Vietnam and the Union within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation.

2.5.3.   Practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty

• (112) Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes the consignment of the product subject to the existing measures via third countries, and the assembly of parts/completion operations in a third country in accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic AD Regulation.

• (113) SSHR coils were considered as semi-finished products, which were further processed into finished goods such as SSCR. This further processing of SSHR into SSCR falls under the concept of completion operation in the sense of Article 13(2) of the basic AD Regulation.

• (114) The original anti-dumping measures were imposed on 19 November 2021. As described in section 2.5.2 above, Vietnam substantially increased its export sales to the Union during the investigation period and a substantial part of the main input material SSHR was imported from Indonesia.

• (115) The investigation demonstrated that SSHR coils were imported Indonesia into Vietnam, further processed in Vietnam into SSCR and exported to the Union triggering a change of pattern of trade. The investigation further revealed no economic justification for the change in the pattern of trade described in Section 2.5.2 other than the initiation of the original anti-dumping investigation and the subsequent imposition of the original measures.

• (116) After disclosure, the Trade Remedies Authority under the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam argued that the change in the pattern of trade was due to the nature of the operation and to market demand and not for the purpose of circumvention. However, the Trade Remedies Authority under the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam did not provide a substantiated analysis of how the nature of the operation and market demand could explain that exports from Vietnam to the Union almost tripled between 2020 and the RP. There was also no analysis of the origin of the supplies of SSHR, whether there was a preference give to supplies from Indonesia or not, and, if so, if there was a sufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping measures.

• (117) Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation establishes a link between the practice, process or work in question and the change of the pattern of trade as the latter must ‘stem’ from the former. It follows that the circumvention found in Vietnam, as confirmed in section 5.2 below, was an assembly/completion operation that led to the change of the pattern of trade and for which there was no economic justification. Therefore, this requirement of Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation was met in Vietnam for the country as a whole.

2.5.4.   Undermining of the remedial effects of the duty

• (118) In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation, the Commission examined whether the imports of the product under investigation into the Union, both in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures currently in force.

• (119) Regarding quantities, the market share of the imports from Vietnam represented around 2,4 % of Union consumption during the reporting period, which was estimated at 400 000 tonnes ²⁷. The volume of imports was thus considered to be significant.

• (120) Regarding prices, the Commission compared the average non-injurious price, as established in the original anti-dumping investigation adjusted for the price increase of SSCR based on the European Union producer price index ²⁸, with the weighted average export CIF prices determined on the basis of Eurostat statistics, duly adjusted for post importation costs. This price comparison showed that the imports from Vietnam did not undersell Union prices. After disclosure, EURANIMI pointed to the fact that underselling was found for one Vietnamese company, Yongjin (see recital 168). Indeed, while no underselling was found on a countrywide average basis, there was evidence of underselling from at least one of the exporting producers, which in addition was found to be circumventing the original anti-dumping measures.

• (121) The Commission therefore concluded that the remedial effect of the measures in force were being undermined in terms of quantities.

2.5.5.   Evidence of dumping

• (122) In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation, the Commission examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product.

• (123) To this end, the Commission compared the export prices from Vietnam to the Union, based on the ex-works prices of the three cooperating companies on product-type level, to the normal values established during the original anti-dumping investigation, adjusted for the price increase of SSCR coils in Indonesia. The Commission, following the methodology established in the request, took as reference the increase in prices of worldwide imports of SSCR from Indonesia, as per GTA data. For this analysis, the exports from Indonesia to the Union and China were excluded, since for these two destinations distortions had been identified due to the dumping and subsidisation practices established in the original anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations ²⁹.

• (124) The comparison of the export price thus established and the normal values previously established for the like product in the original anti-dumping investigation and adjusted as explained in recital 123, showed evidence of dumping during the reporting period, within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation.

• (125) Based on the above findings and their assessment in relation to the three countries as a whole, the Commission concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in Indonesia was circumvented by imports of the product under investigation consigned from Taiwan and Vietnam.

• (126) Therefore, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic AD Regulation, the anti-dumping measures in force should be extended to imports from Taiwan and Vietnam into the Union of the product under investigation.

• (127) Pursuant to Article 13(1), second subparagraph of the basic AD Regulation, the measure to be extended should be the one established in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 for ‘all other Indonesian companies’, subsequently amended in Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/433, which is a definitive anti-dumping duty of 19,3 % applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before customs duty.

• (128) With respect to Taiwan, there are currently anti-dumping duties in place against imports of SSCR since 27 August 2015, following an anti-dumping investigation ³⁰ and continued on 16 September 2021 following an expiry review investigation ³¹. These duties were set at a level of 6,8 % for all Taiwanese companies except Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. To avoid double imposition of anti-dumping duties, the 6,8 % duties payable by those companies which were not exempted from the extension of the measures in the current investigation should be suspended for the duration of the extension of the measures in the current investigation.

• (129) Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic AD Regulation, which provide that any extended measure should apply to imports that entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties are to be collected on those registered imports of the product under investigation in accordance with the findings made in this investigation.

• (130) In their submission after disclosure, EUROFER called on the Commission to apply the special provisions under Article 14(3) of the basic AD Regulation. EUROFER urged the Commission to initiate on its own initiative interim reviews of the measures on SSCR from Indonesia, to replace the applicable non-preferential rules of origin by alternative measures based on information on the place of the melting of the stainless steel, through a mill certificate. However, the decision to initiate such investigations should be based on a thorough analysis of the available information and adhere to the rules for interim reviews as laid down in the basic AD Regulation. As such, EUROFER’s request and possible Commission actions based on such request fall outside the scope of the current anti-circumvention investigation and cannot be addressed by this Regulation.

4. TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION

• (131) In view of the findings mentioned in recitals 102 to 104, the investigation concerning possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures by imports of SSCR into the Union consigned from Türkiye should be terminated. The registration of imports of SSCR consigned from Türkiye, introduced by the initiating Regulation, should be discontinued.

5. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION

5.1.   Taiwan

• (132) Six exporting producers from Taiwan requested an exemption of the extension of the measures.

5.1.1.   Start or substantial increase of operations