Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1915 of 11 July 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of mobile access equipment originating in the People’s Republic of China

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 13 November 2023, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of mobile access equipment (‘MAE’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘the PRC’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation). It 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 29 September 2023 by the ‘Coalition to Restore a Level Playing Field in the EU Mobile Access Equipment Sector’ (‘CMAE’) (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of MAE in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of resulting injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.

(3) On 15 January 2024 and on 12 March 2024, the complainant submitted a request for registration of imports of MAE originating in the PRC pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.

(4) In its submission of 22 January 2024 and of 21 May 2024, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for import and export of Machinery and Electrical products (CCCME), empowered to represent eight exporting producers (3) in this investigation, submitted comments on the requests by the complainant to register the imports. It considered that the requests did not contain sufficient evidence justifying the imports registration. It mainly considered that the imports statistics were not reliable since CN codes contained other products, that in any event the increase was not substantial, and influenced by the seasonality of demand. It also considered that the demand-driven MAE market does not permit unexpected additional imports or stock piling.

(5) The Commission rejected these comments of the CCCME since the second registration request submitted by the complainant on 12 March 2024 contained sufficient evidence regarding the increase of imports post initiation, including when taking into account the seasonality of demand.

(6) The Commission considered the CCCME’s comments unsubstantiated. The analysis of the volumes of the imports after the initiation took into account the product concerned only and the effect of the seasonality was addressed by comparing the same periods of the year before and after the initiation. Based on the information in the requests and analysis of the import statistics before and after the initiation, the Commission concluded that there was sufficient evidence to justify registration of imports.

(7) In accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1450 (4), the Commission therefore decided that imports of the product concerned should be made subject to registration for the purpose of ensuring that, should the investigation result in findings leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duties, those duties can, if the necessary conditions are fulfilled, be levied retroactively on the registered imports in accordance with the applicable legal provisions.

(8) 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, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the Chinese authorities, known importers, and users about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.

(9) 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. The Commission received comments that were addressed in the respective sections.

(10) Comments were submitted by CCCME and by the complainant.

(11) On 22 January 2024, the CCCME made a submission on different aspects of the investigation. The comments on specific aspects of the investigation were addressed where appropriate in the specific sections of this Regulation.

(12) The CCCME also submitted comments regarding the complaint (including matters pertaining to injury and causation). These comments relating to the preliminary evidence in the complaint, arrived more than one month after the deadline of 37 days set in Section 5.2 of the Notice of Initiation and could not be thus considered. The Commission however recalled that the requirements for initiation of the investigation were met, i.e., that the adequacy and accuracy of the evidence presented by the complainant were considered to be sufficient. It also recalled that the legal standard of evidence required for a complaint (‘sufficient evidence’) makes it clear that the quantity and quality of information in the complaint is not the same as the one available at the end of an investigation. Parties have in any event the opportunity to comment on the preliminary findings including matters pertaining to injury and causality after the disclosure of the provisional findings.

(13) The CCCME also argued that it could not fully exercise its right of defence because the evidence made available in the complaint was heavily redacted and contained only rough estimates, without sufficiently indicating the cause for it. It requested thus the Commission to ask the complainant to provide a sufficiently detailed open version.

(14) The Commission first noted that CCCME in its own name had no rights of defence as, not being a representative association within the meaning of the basic Regulation, it could not be considered as an interested party within the meaning of that Regulation. As far as rights of defence of the exporting producers it represented were concerned, the Commission considered that the version open for inspection by interested parties of the complaint contained all the essential evidence and non-confidential summaries of data provided under confidential cover in order for interested parties to exercise their right of defence throughout the proceeding. It also noted that the request of the CCCME arrived more than two months after the proceeding was initiated, and only contained mere statements but no substantiated claim on a concrete piece of evidence that was missing. The Commission thus rejected the claim.

(15) The complainant provided comments on the submission of the CCCME. It considered that the different comments should not be considered since they arrived after the procedural deadlines set up in the Notice of Initiation. It provided additional comments on the product scope, significant distortions and injury aspects of the investigation that were addressed where appropriate in the respective sections below.

(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.

(17) In its Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of the largest representative volume of sales and of production of the like product in the Union in the investigation period, which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.

(18) This sample consisted of three Union producers which accounted for 55 % of the estimated total production in the Union and 52 % of sales of all Union producers of the like product on the Union market. By selecting the three largest Union producers and sellers in the investigation period, located in two different Member States, the Commission covered the largest representative volume of production and sales which could reasonably be investigated within the time available, in line with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received. The Commission concluded that the sample of Union producers was therefore representative of the Union industry.

(19) 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 Annex of the Notice of Initiation within 7 days of the date of publication of the Notice. No importer provided the information and cooperated with the investigation.

(20) To decide whether sampling is 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) Eighteen exporting producers in the country concerned provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of four on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned, and the authorities of the country concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample.

(22) The Coalition to Restore a Level Playing Field in the EU Mobile Access Equipment Sector (CMAE) argued that the Commission should ensure the representativeness of the sample by considering factors beyond the volume of exports like the ownership of the exporters, domestic sales and production capacity. The Commission in its analysis followed the provisions of Article 17(1) and focussed on the most relevant criteria to select the sample and, therefore, rejected these arguments.

(23) In view of the above, the Commission maintained the original sample accounting for 68,91 % of the estimated total export volume of MAE to the Union from the People’s Republic of China in the investigation period.

(24) On 15 May 2024, JLG was informed that the Commission intended to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation because during the verification of the questionnaire reply it appeared that a part of the reply was based on a system whose data could not be accessed in real time. The Commission could not ascertain whether the information used to prepare the questionnaire was downloaded before the initiation of the investigation or not. As a result, the Commission was unable to ascertain that the submitted information in the questionnaire reply derived from the accounting system of the company, and that the information accurately reflected in particular the consumption rates of the input materials.

(25) On 23 May 2024, Sinoboom was informed that the Commission intended to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation to the data that could not be verified in its questionnaire reply. During the verification visit an issue relating to the reporting of the factors of production, with regard to self-produced and purchased structural parts emerged. The Commission provisionally concluded that the data related to costs submitted by Sinoboom was not an accurate reflection of the costs actually incurred, in particular with regard to the self-produced parts.

(26) Both JLG and Sinoboom submitted comments on the intended application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation. JLG disagreed with the application of best facts available on the basis of Article 18 and requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer. On 6 June 2024, in a meeting with the case team some clarifications were provided by JLG and, provisionally, it was decided to partially apply best facts available to the construction of the normal value of JLG. Their export prices could still be used for the calculation of the dumping margin as these were not affected by the issue described above. A final decision will be taken at definitive stage after further investigation, taking also into account the views of the Hearing Officer.

(27) On 31 May 2024, Sinoboom submitted comments regarding the application of Article 18 but these did not change the provisional conclusion to apply best facts available as regards certain factors of production. Their export prices could still be used for the calculation of the dumping margin. A final decision about the scope of the application of facts available will be taken at definitive stage.

(28) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in the PRC within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’).

(29) Furthermore, the complainant provided in the complaint sufficient evidence of raw material distortions in the PRC regarding the product concerned. Therefore, as announced in the Notice of Initiation, the investigation covered those raw material distortions to determine whether to apply the provisions of Article 7(2a) and 7(2b) of the basic Regulation with regard to the PRC. For this reason, the Commission sent additional questionnaires in this regard to the Government of the People’s Republic of China.

(30) The Commission sent questionnaires to the three sampled Union producers, the complainant, the sampled exporting producers, the known importers and to users. The same questionnaires were made available online on the day of initiation.

(32) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2023 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2020 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(33) The product under investigation is mobile access equipment (‘MAE’) designed for the lifting of persons, self-propelled, with a maximum working height of 6 meters or more, and pre-assembled or ready-to-assemble sections thereof, excluding individual components when presented separately, and excluding person lifting equipment mounted on vehicles of Chapter 86 and Chapter 87 of the Harmonised System (‘the product under investigation’), currently falling under CN codes ex 8427 10 10, ex 8427 20 19, ex 8428 90 90, ex 8431 20 00 and ex 8431 39 00 (TARIC codes: 8427101010, 8427201910, 8428909020, 8431200060 and 8431390010).

(34) The product scope includes machines used for the lifting of people in a vast range of different applications and it includes articulated boom lifts, telescopic boom lifts, scissor lifts and vertical masts.

(35) The product concerned is mobile access equipment, originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the product concerned’).

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

(38) After initiation, the CCCME submitted that the product scope included a too broad variety of products such as booms or scissors, electrical and hybrid MAE or MAE with other type of propulsion (internal combustion engine (ICE), such as diesel, LPG, propane etc.) and that these products were not all alike.

(39) The CCCME mainly argued that there were differences in physical and technical characteristics between the conventional ICE MAE and electric or hybrid MAE – because of the different propulsion, the two categories had different mechanical components and the electric or hybrid MAE did not have any of the technical functions of the conventional ICE MAE which was very different in terms of power and capacity. There were in CCCME’s view differences with regards to the weight distributions and design, and in addition, conventional and electrical MAE also had different technical specificities such a different autonomy, lifting capacity and mobility. Furthermore, the production process was different as well as the main uses: conventional MAE are used outdoor while the electrical or hybrid MAE indoor.

(40) For these reasons, the CCCME argued that the electrical and hybrid MAE and conventional MAE did not share the same technical and physical characteristics and should not be treated as similar products. It was of the opinion that the electrical and hybrid MAE should be thus excluded from the product scope.

(41) The complainant, on the other hand, considered that the Commission had a wide discretion in defining the product scope of an investigation. It also noted that all the MAE are a safer, more convenient alternative for ladders, scaffolding or towers and they are essentially a tool ensuring the safety and security of workers and that there were no differences justifying modification of the product scope. It argued that the fact that the conventional ICE MAE and electric or hybrid MAE had a different power source did not alter its basic characteristics, and that the differences between for instance an electrical and diesel lifts would not be visible from the outside of the product.

(43) As according to the CCCME the Union did not have the capacity to produce these types of MAE, the CCCME was of the view that the imports of these MAE models from China could not have affected this market segment and could not have caused any injury to the Union producers. Moreover, imposing duties on these categories of MAE would not be in its view in the Union’s interest, as there were no domestically produced models capable to replace the imports of these types. Hence, adopting trade defence measures against these types of MAE would only result in an increase in costs for downstream users, without adducing any benefit to the EU domestic industry, as the Union domestic industry cannot supply them and meet the market demand.

(44) The complainant submitted that one of the models (electric/hybrid booms with a working height above 24 m) that allegedly was not produced by the Union producers, was produced by the producer Dynolift Oy and it considered that the MAE models were in any case interchangeable.

(45) The Commission disagreed that the different power source, and the fact that electrical or hybrid MAE were generally used inside and conventional ICE MAE outside, the different components and different production/assembly line justified an exclusion of the electrical or hybrid MAE from the product scope. To the contrary, these MAE were to a large extent interchangeable, both categories fell under the product definition, and it was justified that both categories were part of the product scope.

(46) The Commission also recalled that the description of the product scope entailed the main physical and technical characteristics of the product to include self-propelled MAE designed for the lifting of people, and it defined the minimum height of the platform. Both the conventional ICE MAE and electric or hybrid MAE complied with the description and had thus according to the Commission the same basic use and main physical characteristics.