Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/796 of 24 April 2025 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of mobile access equipment originating in the People’s Republic of China and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/45 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of mobile access equipment originating in the People’s Republic of China

(395) More specifically, R&D expenses incurred by an enterprise when it conducts any R&D activity, an extra 100 % of the amount of R&D expenses actually incurred shall be deducted before tax payment, in addition to the deduction of actual expenses as prescribed, as of 1 January 2023, provided that the said expenses are not converted into intangible assets and included in the current profits and losses.

(396) If the said expenses have been converted into intangible assets, such expenses may be amortised at the rate of 200 % of the costs of the intangible assets before tax payment as of 1 January 2023.

(398) The Commission found out that companies within the sampled groups enjoyed additional deduction on research and development expenses incurred from the research and development of new technologies, new products and new techniques.

(399) The Commission considered that the tax offset at issue is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation because there is a financial contribution in the form of revenue foregone by the GOC that confers a benefit to the companies concerned. The benefit for the recipients is equal to the tax saving.

(400) This subsidy is specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation as the legislation itself limits the application of this measure only to enterprises that incur R&D expenses in certain high technology priority areas determined by the State, such as the MAE sector. Thus, the legislation pursuant to which the granting authority operates, explicitly limits access to a subsidy to certain enterprises and sectors.

(401) The GOC of China argued that ‘research and development super deductions’ is not specific as this is a universal tax policy with the purpose to encourage enterprises to increase their investment in R&D activities. According to the GOC, there are objective criteria and conditions for the application of the programme and the programme applies automatically when the corresponding conditions are met.

(402) The Commission did not agree with the GOC reading of the laws and implementing measures, which show that the programme is limited to certain sectors and enterprises supported by the GOC on the basis of criteria that do not appear objective or neutral, such as that they comply with the scope of the ‘Key State Supported High and New Technology Areas’. This subsidy is specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation, as it applies only to enterprises operating in certain high technology areas, such as the MAE industry. Moreover, Article 30 of EIT Law provides that R&D expenses incurred by enterprises in the field of development of new technologies, new product and new techniques may be additionally deducted at the time of calculating taxable income, Article 95 of the Implementation Rules for the EIT Law explains what the deduction consists of, while Article 4 of the Notice on Improving Reduction of R&D Development Expenses lists the industries for which the pre-tax deduction is not applicable (with a certain degree of discretion, as the list ends with wording ‘…and any other industries stipulated by the Ministry of Finance and State Administration of Taxation’).

(403) Following definitive disclosure, the GOC argued that the Commission statement that ‘the programme is limited to certain sectors and enterprises supported by the GOC […], such as they comply with the scope of the “Key State Supported High and New Technology Areas”’ is flawed.

(404) However, the GOC admitted that eligibility of this program is limited to the enterprises which incurred expenses related to the research and development of new technologies, new products and new processes. No explanation was given how the word ‘new’ should be defined in this context. The GOC did not comment either on the clearly discretional possibility of the authorities to exclude certain industries from the application of this tax deduction. Therefore, the Commission disagreed with the GOC claim that the eligibility of this programme was ‘clearly and objectively stipulated by law’. Hence, this claim was rejected.

(405) The amount of countervailable subsidy was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipients during the investigation period. This benefit was calculated as the difference between the total tax payable according to the normal tax rate and the total tax payable after the additional 100 % deduction of the actual expenses on R&D.

(407) The EIT Law offers income tax preferences to Enterprises engaged in industries or projects the development of which is specifically supported and encouraged by the State and in particular, exempt from tax the income from equity investment, such as dividends and bonuses, between eligible resident enterprises.

(408) The legal basis for the programme is Article 26(2) of the EIT Law, along with the Implementation Rules for the Enterprise Income Tax Law of the PRC.

(409) Article 25 of the EIT, which stands as a chapeau for Chapter IV ‘Preferential Tax Policies’, provides that ‘The State will offer income tax preferences to Enterprises engaged in industries or projects the development of which is specially supported and encouraged by the State’. Furthermore, Article 26(2) specifies that the tax exemption is applicable to income from equity investments between ‘eligible resident enterprises’, which appears to limit its scope of application to only certain resident enterprises.

(410) The Commission found that one company in the sampled groups received an exemption from tax of dividend income between qualified resident enterprises.

(411) The Commission considered that this scheme is a subsidy under Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation because there is a financial contribution in the form of revenue foregone by the GOC that confers a benefit to the companies concerned. The benefit for the recipients is equal to the tax saving.

(412) Following definitive disclosure, the GOC claimed that this programme had a purpose of avoiding double taxation and did, therefore, not grant enterprises additional tax benefits by forgoing or not collecting revenue otherwise due.

(413) Although the Commission agreed that the elimination of double taxation is an internationally recognised tax practice, it does not apply equally across all countries. The GOC failed to show how the deduction in question avoids double taxation specifically (namely, by showing that the dividends subject to the exemption are taxed elsewhere and the rule only captures situations of double imposition). The claim was therefore rejected.

(414) This subsidy is specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation as the legislation itself limits the application of this exemption only to qualified resident enterprises which have the major support of, and the development of which is encouraged by the State. Thus, the legislation pursuant to which the granting authority operates, explicitly limits access to a subsidy to certain enterprises and sectors.

(415) Following definitive disclosure, the GOC claimed that the Commission conclusions as to the limitation of the eligibility of this programme to only some enterprises is wrong as the Commission misinterpreted the term ‘qualified’ as used in Article 26 of the EIT Law. According to the GOC word ‘qualified’ was used there in the context of ‘qualified investment incomes’ rather than in the context of the ‘qualified resident enterprises’.

(416) The Commission disagreed. Article 26(2) of the EIT is part of Chapter IV ‘Tax Preferences’, which provides for a number of preferential tax treatments that are exemptions to the general taxation rules. Furthermore, Article 25 of the EIT, which stands as a chapeau for Chapter IV ‘Preferential Tax Policies’, provides that ‘The State will offer income tax preferences to Enterprises engaged in industries or projects the development of which is specially supported and encouraged by the State’. In addition, Article 26(2) specifies that the tax exemption is applicable to income from equity investments between ‘eligible resident enterprises’, which appears to limit its scope of application to only certain resident enterprises. Therefore, the Commission considered that such preferential tax policy is limited to certain industries, which are specifically supported and encouraged by the State, such as the MAE industry, and is therefore specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation. This was also confirmed by the English copy of the income tax return (form A107010, line 3) submitted by several sampled Groups which reads ‘(II) Dividends, bonuses and other equity investment income between qualified resident enterprises is exempted from enterprise income tax (4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8)’ in the Chinese version of the tax declaration, in this respect.

(417) The Commission has calculated the amount of the subsidy by applying the normal tax rate to the dividend income that has been deducted from taxable income.

(420) In the context of this investigation, the Commission could not conclude on the countervailability of these programmes. This is without prejudice to the Commission examining those measures on the occasion of future reviews, including reviews pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.

(421) Following the definitive disclosure, the CMAE indicated that for the above schemes, the memorandum on the sufficiency of evidence showed that the complainant had provided information to establish the level of subsidisation available from third country investigations. The CMAE also observed that for most of these schemes the Commission had informed the GOC of its intention to use facts available following the application of the Article 28 of the basic Regulation. Therefore, CMAE requested the Commission to take all necessary steps to reach a conclusion about the countervailability of these schemes.

(422) The Commission noted that while there was sufficient evidence to initiate the investigation on the schemes in question, it could not complete the assessment on the above schemes given a number of factors such as the number of schemes to be investigated, their intrinsic complexity and 13-month deadline pertaining to anti-subsidy investigations. However, as mentioned in recital (420), this is without prejudice to the possibility of reaching findings on these schemes in the future, including in the framework of reviews.

(423) The Commission calculated the amount of countervailable subsidies for the cooperating groups of companies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation by examining each subsidy or subsidy programme, and added these figures together to calculate a total amount of subsidisation for each of the exporting producers for the investigation period. To calculate the overall subsidisation the Commission first calculated the percentage of subsidisation: the subsidy amount as a percentage of the company's turnover or company’s turnover of the PUI. This percentage was then used to calculate the subsidy amount allocated to exports of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period. This subsidy amount was later expressed as a percentage of the Costs, Insurance and Freight (‘CIF’) value of the same export.

(424) Following definitive disclosure, Zoomlion group challenged the allocation key used by the Commission in apportioning the subsidies received by the mother company to the MAE producer. It claimed that the turnover, relating to transactions of a given input between these companies, expressed as a percentage of the group turnover, should have been used as an allocation key. Zoomlion group also challenged the calculation of the consolidated turnover used as a denominator in the calculations of the subsidy rate arguing that the group turnover should have been used instead of the mother company’s consolidated turnover.

(425) The Commission rejected these claims. First, the Commission considered that an allocation based on turnover was conservative as far as a mother company is concerned, in the absence of a more appropriate apportionment method. It also noted that the transactions related to inputs were not the sole transactions between the related companies as the mother company was also involved in the sales of the product under investigation. Second, the Commission considered that the consolidated turnover had been calculated correctly, on the basis of verified information submitted by Zoomlion group. On the contrary, the group turnover suggested by Zoomlion group was not submitted, nor verified in the course of the investigation. It was only submitted as an approximation following definitive disclosure Also, the Commission considered that the data of the mother company was more pertinent than that of the group as the mother company had bi-directional transactions (both sale of inputs and purchase of the product under investigation) with the entity producing and selling the product under investigation, showing their interconnection, justifying the consolidation at its level. Hence, an allocation based on consolidated turnover was considered the most appropriate.

(426) Following additional disclosure Zoomlion group reiterated its claim that the Commission had erroneously used the turnover of the mother company rather than the total group turnover. It also added that, should the Commission use such turnover as an allocation key, it should use exclusively the turnover to unrelated companies in the numerator as part of the allocation exercise and not include that to related companies.

(427) For the reasons mentioned in recital (425) and considering the strong relationship between the mother company and the producer of MAE, in the form of a majority shareholding of the mother company in the producer of MAE and the availability of a verified consolidated turnover for the investigation period for the mother company as provided by Zoomlion group, the Commission considered that using such turnover for the allocation of the benefits was more appropriate than using an approximation of the consolidated group turnover for the investigation period that was neither submitted nor verified ahead of the definitive disclosure. As far as the use of (a minor share of) sales to related companies in the numerator is concerned, the Commission considered that such approach was to the benefit of Zoomlion group as it presumed that sales to unrelated customers would normally be made at a higher price than between related parties whereby the numerator was slightly underestimated leading to a slightly lower allocation to the product under investigation and lower subsidy amount. On these grounds, Zoomlion group’s claims were rejected.

(428) As a result of the corrections in the calculation of the subsidy amount for Zoomlion group, summed up in the recital (321), the overall subsidy rate for the group increased from 11,14 % to 11,65 %. Zoomlion group received a full re-disclosure of the calculations with the explanatory description of the changes made, including small technical and clerical errors done in the original calculations.

(429) In accordance with Article 15(3) of the basic Regulation, the total subsidy amount for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample was calculated on the basis of the total weighted average amount of countervailing subsidies established for the cooperating exporting producers in the sample with the exclusion of negligible amounts. Indeed, the Commission considers that the facts available used in those cases did not affect substantially the information needed to determine the amount of subsidisation in a fair manner, so that exporters who were not asked to cooperate in the investigation will not be prejudiced by using this approach.

(430) Given the high rate of cooperation of Chinese exporting producers and the representativeness of the sample also in terms of subsidy eligibility, the Commission considered it appropriate to set the amount for ‘all other companies’ at the level of the highest amount established for the sampled companies. The ‘all other companies’ amount was applied to those companies which did not cooperate in the investigation.

(432) Except for the JLG Group, the subsidy rates established in relation to the imports from the PRC were above the de minimis threshold laid down in Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation. The imports of the JLG Group were de minimis and could thus not be considered in the injury analysis below but were taken into account when analysing the effects of other factors on the injurious situation of the Union industry.

(433) To assess if the findings of absence of subsidisation regarding the JLG Group could be extended to the non-sampled exporting producers, the Commission assessed the volume and prices of the imports of the JLG Group compared to all other imports from the PRC to the Union in the IP.

(434) In the IP, the volume of non-subsidised imports from the JLG Group amounted to [20 – 25 %] of total imports from the PRC, and it represented around [40 – 45 %] of the sampled imports. The Commission then compared the average CIF export price of the JLG Group to the average CIF export prices of the other three sampled exporting producers based on the verified data and the average price of all the Chinese imports to the Union, based on the submitted sampling replies (154). It found that in the IP, the average CIF export price of the JLG Group was [25 – 30 %] higher than the average export price of the other sampled exporting producers. In the same period, the average CIF export price of the JLG Group was [40 - 45 %] higher than the export price of all the other exporting producers based on the sampling replies. As these total exports of all exporting producers (excluding the exports of the JLG Group) accounted for [75 – 80 %] of the total imports from the PRC to the Union in the IP, the Commission considered that it could not extend the findings of absence of subsidisation regarding the JLG Group to the non-sampled exporting producers and to all the imports from the PRC to the Union in general.

(435) The product under investigation defined in Section 2 includes both units (whole machines) and sections of the units. However, the below analysis of the different injury indicators only focuses on units, and not on individual sections. Although the Union industry produced both units and sections during the period considered, it did not sell nor purchase sections separately. The sections produced are always used for a specific machine type, normally produced on order. Hence, the injury analysis was only based on units.

(436) According to the complainant, during the investigation period, the like product was manufactured by 22 producers in the Union. They constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(437) The total Union production during the investigation period was established at around 35 000 units (complete machines). The Commission established the figure on basis of all the available information concerning the Union industry, namely the verified questionnaire reply received from the complainant, where possible crosschecked with the questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

(438) As indicated in Section 1.4.1, three Union producers were selected for the sample, representing 56 % of the total Union production of the like product.

(441) In the period considered, the Union consumption increased by 122 %.

(442) Imports from the PRC were based on the data provided by the cooperating exporting producers that were considered to represent 100 % of imports to the Union (157).

(443) The market share of the Chinese imports was established by comparing import volumes with the Union market consumption as per Table 2 above.

(445) During the period considered, the volume of imports of the product concerned from the PRC increased by 214 % and their market share went up from 29 % in 2020 to 41 % in the IP, representing an increase of 42 %.

(446) The Commission established the prices of imports based on data provided by the cooperating exporting producers that were considered close to 100 % of imports to the Union (159).

(448) In the period considered, the average price of the Chinese imports increased by 54 %, reaching a level of 17 008 EUR/unit in the IP.

(450) The price comparison was made for the same product type for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary. The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers’ theoretical turnover during the investigation period. On basis of the above, a weighted average undercutting margin of 21 % was established for the subsidised Chinese imports on the Union market.

(451) Regardless the existence of price undercutting, the Commission also established that the Chinese imports significantly suppressed the prices of the Union industry, which had to sell at below costs during the IP.

(452) In accordance with Article 8(3) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the subsidised imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

(453) As mentioned in Section 1.4.1, sampling was used for the determination of possible injury suffered by the Union industry.

(454) For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on basis of data contained in the complaint and the complainant’s reply to a specific questionnaire. The data related to all Union producers. The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators on basis of data contained in the questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers. Both sets of data were found to be representative of the economic situation of the Union industry.

(455) The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity and magnitude of the subsidy margin.

(456) The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital.

(458) In the period considered, the production of the Union industry increased by 100 % achieving more than 35 000 units in the IP. The increase in the production positively impacted the capacity utilisation, which increased by 88 % over the period considered.

(460) In the period considered, the sales volumes of the Union producers of the product concerned increased by 62 %. However, since they were not able to benefit fully from the Union consumption of 122 % (see Table 2), the market share of the Union producers decreased by 27 %.

(461) In the period considered, the consumption of the product concerned increased 122 %. In the same period, the market share of the Union industry decreased by around 27 %, and the market share of the imports from the PRC of the product concerned increased by 47 %. Although the production and sales of the Union industry increased in absolute terms, they were not able to benefit from the increased Union consumption in terms of market share. To the contrary, the Union industry lost market share and was thus not even able to maintain its position.

(463) In the period considered, employment in the Union increased by 40 %. In combination with the increase in productivity (of 43 %), the production in the same period increased by 100 % (see Table 5).

(464) Except for the JLG Group, all subsidy margins established (see Section 3.6.4) were significantly above de minimis level. The impact of the magnitude of the subsidisation on the Union industry was substantial given the volume and prices of imports from the country concerned.

(465) Two of the sampled Union producers were part of the same group. Therefore, the sample consisted of only two different economic operators. The Commission thus accepted the request of the sampled Union producers to provide the information in range for reasons of confidentiality.

(467) The table above shows the evolution of the unit sales price on the Union market as compared to the corresponding cost of production during the period considered.

(468) Over the period considered, the prices of the factors of production increased substantially. The costs increase of more than 30 % concerned mainly the prices of steel, of semi-conductors and of energy. Since the production utilisation increased from a very low level in 2020 (25 %) to 47 % in the IP, and since the fixed costs remained the same, the overall costs increased to a lesser extent.

(469) In parallel, the volume of imports of MAE from China increased between 2020 and 2022 by 199 % (see Table 2) at prices significantly below the Union industry prices (see Table 3). This price pressure prevented the Union industry from increasing prices to reflect the increasing costs. As the result, the Union industry was forced to set its prices at an unsustainably low level in order not to lose too much market share. Therefore, although not directly visible from Table 7 because of the ranges, on average, the costs of production were higher than the sales prices throughout the whole period. Accordingly, in the period considered, the Union industry continued operating at losses (see Table 10), even in a situation of a booming market and increasing sales. Under normal market conditions, i.e. in the absence of strongly increasing imports at unfairly low prices, the Union industry would have been able to benefit and return to a profitable situation.

(470) The Union industry’s average unit sales prices to unrelated customers in the Union increased by 16 % and the average cost of production of the Union industry increased by 14 % over the period considered. The major factor that influenced the increase of the cost of production was the increase in the raw material price over the period considered. On average, the costs of production were higher than the sales prices over the period considered.

(472) During the period considered, the average labour costs per employee went up by 7 %.

(474) During the period considered the level of closing stock varied. In the IP, it was 30 % higher compared to 2020. Closing stock as a percentage of production decreased by 35 % over the period considered.

(475) Most product types of the like product are produced by the Union industry based on specific orders of the users. Therefore, stocks are not considered to be a meaningful injury indicator for this industry.

(477) The Commission established the profitability of the sampled Union producers by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales.

(478) In 2020 the financial situation of the Union industry was already affected by the rise in Chinese imports which started in 2018. As explained in Section 4.6.3.1, the price pressure from unfair imports on the Union market prevented the Union industry from increasing prices to reflect the increasing costs. As the result, the Union industry was forced to set its prices at an unsustainably low level to maintain sufficient volume. Since the Union industry could not, under the pressure of the low-priced Chinese imports, increase its production, this reflected in a low-capacity utilisation, which increased from 25 % in 2020 to 47 % in the IP, but remained under 50 % compared to the capacity utilisation of the sampled Chinese exporting producers which was, depending on the company and the year, between 53 % to 99 %.

(479) Although in 2021, the profitability improved by 27 %, the Union industry remained loss making. In 2022, the financial situation of the Union industry worsened, as profitability went down by 185 %. The drop in profitability in 2022 was caused by the abnormal increase in costs of production driven by increased raw material prices in combination with the fact that sales prices were based fixed for a certain period of time. Therefore, the sales prices could not be increased accordingly which translated in heavy losses. Therefore, despite the expanding market and the massive increase in consumption, the Union industry was not able to keep up with the continuous cost increase. This situation worsened in 2022. As the result, during the period considered overall profitability increased but it remained negative in the investigation period – between [(– 5 %)–0 %]. Cash flow dropped considerably (by 146 %) and in parallel, the level of yearly investments decreased by 64 % over the period considered. The return on investments followed the same downward trend, it decreased during the period considered by 440 %.

(480) The year 2020 which was taken as the reference point for the analysis of trends was according to the complainant strongly impacted by the pandemic situation and the Union industry’s activities were the lowest over the last decade. Therefore, the increase of indicators from 2020 was not an indication for a growing industry but rather meant a recovery back to previous level of activities.

(481) Indeed, the data submitted for 2019 by the complainant confirmed that in 2020, the Union industry’s production and sales were exceptionally low – in 2019, the volume of production of the Union producers was similar to the level of the production in the IP, and the sales of the Union industry on the Union market between 2019 and the IP decreased by 14 %. However, as the reference year 2020 was impacted by the pandemic situation, a number of indicators showed an increase in the period considered. In particular, the production of the Union industry increased by 100 % and its sales on the Union market increased by 62 %.

(482) Despite the considerable increase in Union consumption of the product concerned during the period considered (by 122 %), the Union industry was not able to increase its sales correspondingly in order to at least maintain its market share. On the contrary, due to the Chinese imports at significant subsidised prices during the period considered the market share of the Union industry decreased from 52 % to 38 %. In parallel, the volume of the Chinese imports increased substantially, by 214 %, in the same period and their market share increased from 29 % to 41 %. In addition to the losses incurred by the Union industry throughout the period considered, other injury indicators like cash flow, level of investments and return of investments developed negatively as well.

(483) On basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 8(4) of the basic Regulation.

(484) In accordance with Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the subsidised imports from the country concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. In accordance with Article 8(6) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined whether other known factors could, at the same time, have injured the Union industry. The Commission ensured that any possible injury caused by factors other than the subsidised imports from the country concerned was not attributed to the subsidised imports. The Commission examined imports from third countries, the non-subsidised imports from the PRC and the export performance of the Union industry. No other factors that could have caused the injury to the Union industry was known to exist.

(485) As set out in Section 4.5.1, the import volumes of the product concerned from the PRC increased significantly over the period considered. Prices of imports also undercut the Union industry’s prices by 21 % on average. The Union industry was therefore unable to maintain or increase its market share and benefit from the increased consumption of the product concerned on the Union market during the period considered. This situation had a serious impact on the Union industry’s profitability, which was negative throughout the whole period considered.

(486) Therefore, the Commission concluded that those subsidised imports had a negative impact on the situation of the Union industry.

(487) The Commission also examined whether other known factors, individually or collectively, were capable of attenuating the causal link established between the subsidised imports to the effect that such link would no longer be genuine and substantial.

(488) The Commission established the imports from other third countries on basis of Eurostat data. Since the data for these imports under some of the CN codes were only reported in tonnes (and not in units), the Commission could not establish volumes and prices per unit, like it was done for the Union industry and for imports from China, based on data provided by the sampled exporting producers. Therefore, the volumes and prices of imports from other third countries could not be directly compared with those of the Union industry and imports from China and were, hence, only indicative, though the trends based on these volumes and prices over the period considered were accurate. To establish the market shares, however, the Commission used a conversion factor from tonnes into units based on the data of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers (160). As regards prices the Commission did not consider this as accurate, as in view of the differences in product mix the use of a conversion factor would not lead to accurate prices per unit.

(490) Apart from China, the two next biggest importing countries to the Union were the United States and the Union Kingdom, with each having a market share of 3 % in the IP. The rest of the countries (except China) together represented in the IP a market share of around 3 %. The prices of imports from these countries increased during the period considered by 22 %.

(491) In absolute terms, the level of imports from total of all third countries except the PRC increased by 57 %, however, due to the increased consumption on the Union market, the market share of all of these countries decreased by 4 percentage points during the period considered and were far lower than the market share of Chinese imports.

(492) The Commission therefore concluded that imports from other countries have not contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(494) The non-subsidised imports increased over the period considered by 272 %, from [2 000–3 000] units in 2020 to [8 000–9 000] units in the investigation period. Their market share increased by 68 % from [5–10 %] in 2020 to [10–15 %] in the investigation period. As mentioned in Section 4.1, in the IP, the average CIF export price of the JLG Group was [25–30 %] higher than the average export price of the other sampled exporting producers. In the same period, the average CIF export price of the JLG Group was [40-45 %] higher than the export price of all the other exporting producers based on the sampling replies. However, the prices of the JLG Group remained during the period considered well below the prices of the Union industry and therefore, these low-priced imports and their increase in import volume were considered to have had a negative impact on the performance of the Union industry, and thus, might have contributed to the material injury suffered by the Union industry. However, given that their average prices are higher than those of the subsidised imports, that the volumes are smaller and the limited market share these non-subsidised imports represent, the Commission considered that those imports did not attenuate the causal link established between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the subsidised imports from the PRC.

(495) The Commission assessed the export volume based on the information submitted by CMAE. Export prices were determined based on the questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

(497) In the period considered, the Union industry increased its export volume by 188 %. However, as mentioned in Section 4.6.3.5, in 2020 the Union industry was strongly impacted by the pandemic situation which impacted its level of exports. Before the pandemic, their level of exports was similar to the level achieved in 2021.

(498) The average export prices decreased, in the period considered, by 7 %, and they were, in the IP, below the average cost of production. However, these export prices per unit varied from around 13 000 EUR/unit to 49 000 EUR/unit.

(499) Overall, the investigation revealed that the majority of the export sales of the sampled Union producers were profitable. Hence, it was concluded that the export performance of the Union industry was positive and could not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(500) The Commission distinguished and separated the effect of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the subsidised imports. The effect of these other factors, if any, on the Union’s industry performance were however limited.

(501) In light of the above considerations, the Commission established a causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the subsidised imports from China, which was not attenuated by the factors mentioned above.

(502) The Commission examined whether, despite the determination of injurious subsidy, the imposition of measures would not be against the Union interest in accordance with Article 31 of the basic Regulation. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, upstream suppliers, users, distributors and unrelated importers.

(503) The Union industry producing the mobile aerial platforms is composed according to the complainant of 22 companies and employs according to its information more than 3 000 staff. None of the producers opposed the initiation of the investigation.

(504) As concluded in Section 4.6.3.5, the subsidised imports from the PRC negatively impacted the situation of the Union producers of the product concerned: despite the increase in consumption on the Union market, the market share of the Union producers did not increase, and its profitability declined.

(505) It is expected that the imposition of countervailing duties will restore fair trade conditions in the Union market and will enable the Union industry to improve its profitability and recover.

(506) The Commission therefore concluded that the imposition of the measures is in the interest of the Union industry.

(507) Beyond the direct employment, the MAE industry also relied on a comprehensive network of upstream suppliers of the different MAE components which are then assembled on the production lines of the Union industry. The complainants alone relied according to their information on at least 280 suppliers, of which an estimated 260 operate in the Union. This would translate according to the estimate of the Union industry in about 32 000 jobs in the EU in at least 14 different Member States: Italy, Poland, France, Germany, Belgium, Hungary, Slovenia, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland and Romania. Many of these suppliers were according to the complainant SMEs in remote or vulnerable regions of the Union. Some SMEs were in its view as well heavily dependent on demand from the Union MAE industry.

(508) In the absence of additional information available to the Commission, based on the above the Commission considered that besides the positive effect on the financial situation of the Union industry, the imposition of countervailing duties might positively impact the MAE suppliers, situated across a broad range of Member States.

(509) According to the complainant, the vast majority of users (between 75-90 %) are rental companies. No user participated in the investigation.

(510) According to the complainant, the lifetime of the machines was long and since every machine was rented and used many times, the price fluctuation was diluted. Also, with the average machine price around EUR [35 000-40 000], any price fluctuations were divided over several years and several instances of use, and over different customers. In its view, the size of the fleet of the big rental companies was also relatively big compared to the annual Union consumption. Taken altogether, the size of these fleets, and the relatively slow replacement rate, makes the users much less vulnerable to price fluctuations. Rental companies were in its view also protected by potential increases in price resulting from measure by their ability to pass these effects on to their customers, allowing them to maintain their margins.

(511) The complainant also argued that machines were also commonly resold by rental companies or other buyers. These re-sales, even after several years of use, could be done at a considerable portion of the purchase price. Therefore, any increase in price resulting from the measure would also, in turn, increase the re-sale price of the used machines.

(512) Based on the above, the Commission considered that the impact on the rental companies were indeed less significant than if they were further ‘processing’ the product concerned. Since machines remained in general the property of the rental companies, any increase of its price would directly reflect in an increase of its assets. The fact that the machines were used over a longer period diminished in the Commission’s view the negative effect of a potential price increase as well.

(513) Therefore, the Commission concluded that measures would not have a disproportionate effect on rental companies.

(514) The other users of MAE are mostly construction companies, industrial and agricultural or companies that are regularly in need of use these machines such as logistical centres and airports. These are in most cases large companies.

(515) In the complainant’s view, the impact of price increases on these companies is limited since the mobile aerial platforms only represent a marginal portion of their equipment and of their costs. These end-users are companies with sufficient volume of activities making the investments in the platforms a limited portion of their costs.

(516) The Commission considered that the companies that purchase MAE have different core activities and the cost of MAE would in general be marginal compared to the total costs of these companies. Any potential price increase of MAE would add to their costs but not to the extend to have a serious financial impact of its operation. The Commission thus concluded that the impact of the measures on these other users was limited.

(517) In the absence of cooperation of importers and traders, the Commission considered that the unrelated importers and traders could continue to source the mobile access equipment from multiple sources, and they could resell them at prices allowing them to maintain their margins. The Commission thus considered that in case the countervailing measures are imposed, the impact on unrelated importers and traders was limited.

(518) Although the overall price level of MAE is expected to increase, in view of the above the Commission found that the overall benefits of the measures outweigh the potential negative impact for importers and users. The Commission considered that it was also important for the main users – the rental companies – that production of MAE continues to take place in the Union market, to diversify their fleets. In case the rental companies were entirely dependent on imports, they would face possibly extended lead times and supply disruptions and price increases at longer term.

(519) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to subsidisation, injury, causation and Union interest, definitive countervailing duties should be imposed to remove the material injury caused to the Union industry by the subsidised imports of the product concerned from the PRC.

(520) Article 15(1), third subparagraph of the basic Regulation states that the amount of the countervailing duty shall not exceed the amount of countervailable subsidies established.

(521) Article 15(1), fourth subparagraph then states that ‘Where the Commission, on the basis of the information submitted, can clearly conclude that it is not in the Union’s interest to determine the amount of measures in accordance with the third subparagraph, the amount of the countervailing duty shall be less if such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry.’

(522) No such information has been submitted to the Commission, and therefore the level of the countervailing measures will be set with reference to Article 15(1), third subparagraph.

(523) Given that the definitive measures in this case will be based on the amount of countervailable subsidies established, the injury margin was not established.

(525) The anti-subsidy investigation was carried out in parallel with a separate anti-dumping investigation concerning the same product concerned originating from the PRC, in which the Commission imposed anti-dumping measures at the level of the dumping margin for Sinoboom and Dingli and at the level of the injury margin for Zoomlion. The company Zoomlion was not part of the sampled exporting producers in the anti-dumping investigation and its dumping margin was based on injury margin of all other cooperating companies.

(526) The normal value in the anti-dumping investigation was constructed in accordance with Article 2(6a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (161) with reference to undistorted costs and profits in an appropriate external representative country. Consequently, in accordance with Article 15(2) of the basic Regulation and in order to avoid double counting, the Commission first imposed the definitive countervailing duty at the level of the established definitive amount of subsidisation and then imposed the remaining definitive anti-dumping duty, which corresponds to the relevant dumping margin reduced by the amount of the countervailing duty and up to the relevant injury elimination level established in the separate anti-dumping investigation. Since the Commission reduced the dumping margin found with the entire amount of subsidisation established in the PRC, there was no double counting issue within the meaning of Article 24(1) of the basic Regulation.

(527) After definitive disclosure, the CCCME argued that there was nevertheless an issue of double counting, even in a situation where the definitive anti-dumping duties were imposed at the injury elimination level, for two reasons. First, the definitive anti-dumping duties set at the injury elimination level would have the effect of already offsetting the subsidisation embedded in the lower Chinese export price. Second, the non-sampled companies in the anti-dumping proceeding received a dumping margin which was the weighted average level of the sampled producers. The dumping margins of two out of the four sampled companies were extremely high as a result of the partial application of the facts available. In the view of the CCCME, this gave rise to an unreasonable weighted average level of dumping margin that unfairly constrained the non-sampled companies’ final duty setting.

(528) The Commission disagreed with these arguments. First, as already explained in recital (526) above, as the Commission reduced the dumping margin found with the entire amount of subsidisation established in the PRC, any risk of double counting was eliminated. The purpose of establishing the injury elimination level is a different one, i.e. to assess if a lower margin than the dumping margin would be adequate to remove the injury. Accordingly, the injury elimination level has no link with any double counting issue, which concerns the assessment if (part of) the dumping margin is caused by subsidisation and not which level of duty is adequate to remove the injury. This so-called lesser duty rules only applies in anti-dumping proceedings and not in anti-subsidy proceedings. Capping the combined level of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties by the injury elimination level, as suggested by the CCCME, would de facto result in the application of the lesser duty rule in an anti-subsidy proceeding, which is not permitted by the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

(529) Second, as regards the situation of the non-sampled coopering producers, the Commission considered that their anti-dumping duty was based on the (lower) sampled average injury elimination level, so the sampled average countervailing duty could be added to their duty. The claim of CCCME that the sampled average dumping margin was artificially high, was neither factually correct nor substantiated. Contrary to what the CCCME claimed, best facts available were not applied to two sampled companies, but only to one company, and only to a limited extent. The application of best facts available only had a minor impact on the dumping margins. In any event, the CCCME did not provide any evidence showing that the partial application of best facts available to one company resulted in an artificially high sampled average dumping margin.

(530) The CMAE argued, on the other hand, that the Commission should not have reduced the dumping margin found with the entire amount of subsidization, as at least part of the subsidization was not covered in the dumping margin. According to the CMAE, for a number of subsidies such as grants, preferential financing, tax exemption and reduction identified by the Commission, no double remedies would occur considering the specificity of the data used in the parallel anti-dumping investigation to construct normal value. According to the complainant, in the parallel anti-dumping investigation, the Commission constructed the normal value by replacing the value of inputs and factors of production. However, it did not assess the existence of subsidies on any of the inputs or on electricity in the anti-subsidy investigation. This means that there is no risk of double remedy between the subsidies and the dumping margin that would stem from the replacement of the value of inputs or electricity under the dumping methodology used by the Commission. Accordingly, the CMAE claims that cumulation of the countervailing measures with the anti-dumping duties is possible up to 14,25 % for Dingli and 7,31 % for Sinoboom.

(531) The Commission noted that its approach to deduct in full the subsidy amount from the dumping margin as it applied the methodology based on Article 2(6a) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation when constructing normal value was fully in line with the basic anti-dumping and anti-subsidy regulation as well as the relevant WTO texts. The Commission acknowledged the complainant’s argument that even in the context of methodology to construct normal value based on undistorted prices and costs, it would be in principle possible to cumulate countervailing and anti-dumping duties, except for export subsidies. This was explicitly acknowledged by the relevant WTO jurisprudence (162) on this issue subject to certain relevant conditions. However, with regard to the subsidies affecting the financial results of the exporting producers, such as grants, preferential financing, and preferential tax regimes, the Commission acknowledged the complainant’s arguments and evidence that the financial results of the company used in the representative country could be lower than what it would have been had this company received such subsidies in Brazil. However, as these arguments and the relevant evidence were submitted at a very late stage of the investigation, the Commission could not collect additional information and properly address the information submitted, and it was thus unable to reach a finding on the merit of this claim. Thus, in a situation where it is unclear whether the approach taken in the anti-dumping investigation to construct normal value would mean that some subsidies found in this investigation were totally neutralised, the Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, decided to maintain its approach as already disclosed to interested parties in this case. This conclusion is without prejudice to the possibility to revisit the issue in the future.

(532) Given the high rate of cooperation of exporting producers in the PRC, the Commission found that the level of the highest duty imposed on the sampled companies would be representative as the ‘all other companies’ rate. The ‘all other companies’ duty will be applied to those companies, which did not cooperate in this investigation.

(533) In accordance with Article 15(3) of the basic Regulation, the total subsidy amount for the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample was calculated on the basis of the total weighted average amount of countervailing subsidies established for the cooperating exporting producers in the sample.

(535) The individual company countervailing duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on basis of the findings of this investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during this investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates are exclusively applicable to imports of the product concerned originating in the country concerned and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product concerned produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

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

(537) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the application of the individual countervailing duties. The companies with individual countervailing duties must present a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this regulation. Imports not accompanied by that invoice should be subject to the countervailing duty applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(538) While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rates of countervailing duty to imports, it is not the only element to be taken into account by the customs authorities. Indeed, even if presented with an invoice meeting all the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this regulation, the customs authorities of Member States must carry out their usual checks and may, like in all other cases, require additional documents (shipping documents, etc.) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration and ensure that the subsequent application of the lower rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

(539) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 23(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met an anti- circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

(540) Statistics of MAE are frequently expressed in pieces. However, there is no such supplementary unit for MAE specified in the Combined Nomenclature laid down in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (163). It is therefore necessary to provide that not only the weight in kg or tonnes but also the pieces for the imports of the product concerned must be entered in the declaration for release for free circulation. Pieces should be indicated for 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: 8427 10 10 10, 8427 20 19 10, 8428 90 90 20, 8431 20 00 60 and 8431 39 00 10).

(541) As mentioned in Section 1.2, the Commission made imports of MAE subject to registration. The registration took place with a view to possibly collecting duties retroactively under Article 16(4) of the basic Regulation.

(542) Since no provisional duties were imposed, no retroactive collection could occur. Thus, the registration of imports should be discontinued.

(543) Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive countervailing duty on imports of the product concerned originating in the People's Republic of China. Interested parties were given the opportunity to provide comments on the accuracy of the calculations specifically disclosed to them.

(544) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council (164), when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.

(545) As explained in recitals (526) above, the Commission deducted from the dumping margin part of the subsidy amount in order to avoid double counting. Thus, should any modification or removal of the definitive countervailing duties occur, the level of anti-dumping duties should be automatically increased by the same proportion in order to reflect the actual extent of double counting as a result of this modification or removal. This change of the anti-dumping duties should take place as from the entry into force of this regulation.

(546) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Member States shall, on a monthly basis, inform the Commission of the net mass and the number of items released for free circulation under TARIC codes: 8427 10 10 10, 8427 20 19 10, 8428 90 90 20, 8431 20 00 60 and 8431 39 00 10.

Article 2

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/45 is amended as follows:

(2) in Article 1, a new paragraph 6 is inserted: ‘6.   Should the definitive countervailing duties imposed by Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/796(1) be modified or removed, the duties specified in paragraph 2 shall be increased by the same proportion limited to the actual dumping margin found or the injury margin found as appropriate per company and from the entry into force of this Regulation. (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/796 of 24 April 2025 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of mobile access equipment originating in the People's Republic of China and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/45 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of mobile access equipment originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L, 2025/796, 25.4.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/796/oj).’;"

(3) in Article 1, a new paragraph 7 is inserted: ‘7.   In cases where the countervailing duty has been subtracted from the anti-dumping duty for certain exporting producers, refund requests under Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 shall also trigger the assessment of the dumping margin for that exporting producer prevailing during the refund investigation period.’

(4) the Annex is replaced by Annex I, Annex II and Annex III.

Article 3

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 April 2025.

For the Commission The President Ursula VON DER LEYEN

(1) OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1037/oj.

(2) Notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of mobile access equipment (‘MAE’), originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ C, C/2024/2362, 27.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2362/oj).

(3) The term ‘GOC’ is used in this Regulation in a broad sense, including all Ministries, Departments, Agencies and Administrations at central, regional or local level.

(4) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/45 of 8 January 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mobile access equipment originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L, 2025/45, 9.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/45/oj).

(5) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2725 of 24 October 2024 making imports of mobile access equipment originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ L, 2024/2725, 25.10.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2725/oj).

(6) See t24.002997.

(7) 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 (OJ L, 2024/1915, 12.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/1915/oj).

(8) Constitution of the PRC, adopted on 4 December 1982, as amended; available at: http://en.moj.gov.cn/2021-06/22/c_634901.htm.

(9) See for example Articles 1 and 206 of the Civil Code of the PRC, according to which: ‘ This Law is formulated […] for the purposes of protecting the lawful rights and interests of the persons of the civil developing socialism with Chinese characteristics, and carrying forward the core socialist values ’ and ‘[t]he State upholds and improves the fundamental socialist economic systems, such as the ownership system under which diverse forms of ownership co-develop with public ownership as the mainstay, the distribution system under which multiple forms of distribution co-exist with distribution according to work as the mainstay, as well as the system of socialist market economy. The State consolidates and develops the public sector of the economy, and encourages, supports, and guides the development of the non-public sector of the economy. The State implements a socialist market economy […]’; available at: https://www.trans-lex.org/601705/_/civil-code-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-/. Similarly, according to Article 1 of the Company Law of the PRC: ‘ The Company Law of the People’s Republic of China […] has been enacted in order to standardize the organization and activities of companies, protect the lawful rights and interests of companies, shareholders and creditors, safeguard the social and economic order and promote the development of the socialist market economy ’; available at: http://mg.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policy/201910/20191002905610.shtml.

(10) See Article 1 of the Constitution: ‘ The socialist system is the fundamental system of the People’s Republic of China. Leadership by the Communist Party of China is the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics. It is prohibited for any organization or individual to damage the socialist system.’

(11) See the General Program of the CCP Constitution, according to which: ‘ Leadership of the Communist Party of China is the most essential attribute of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and the greatest strength of this system. The Party is the highest force for political leadership. The Party exercises overall leadership over all areas of endeavour in every part of the country’; available at: https://english.news.cn/20221026/d7fff914d44f4100b6e586372d4060a4/c.html (accessed on 3 June 2024).

(12) Concerning the composition of the National People’s Congress and its relation to the Chinese Communist Party, see for example at: https://npcobserver.com/about-npc/.

(13) See at: https://www.gov.cn/.

(14) See Article 12 of the Judges Law of the PRC which provides that judges must ‘[u]phold […] the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, the leadership of the Communist Party of China, and the socialist system’; available at: www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/c23934/202012/9c82d5dbefbc4ffa98f3dd815af62dfb.shtml#:~:text=Article%201%3A%20This%20Law%20is,in%20accordance%20with%20the%20law.

(15) See Article 30 of the CCP Constitution: ‘ A primary-level Party organisation shall be formed in any enterprise, […], government organ, […] and any other primary-level [organisation where people work] where there are three or more full Party members ’.

(16) Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, 20 December 2017, SWD(2017) 483 final/2 (the ‘China Report of 2017’) – Chapter 4, p. 41-42, 83. See also the updated Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, 10 April 2024, SWD(2024) 91 final (the ‘China Report’) – Chapter 4, pp. 57-59, 99.

(17) Articles of association of the ICBC, Chapter 6, Articles 52-53; available at: http://v.icbc.com.cn/userfiles/Resources/ICBCLTD/download/2017/gszc_en.pdf. (last checked on 29.1.2025).

(18) Ibid., Article 52.

(19) Ibid., Article 53(3).

(20) Ibid., Article 144.

(21) Articles of association of the ABC; available at: https://www.abchina.com/en/investor-relations/corporate-announcements/announcements/201811/W020181126632885896610.pdf. (last checked on 29.1.2025).

(22) www.cncma.org/upfile/file/20210713/1626143544661031384.pdf.

(23) Seetao, ‘Construction Machinery 14th Five-Year Development Plan Released’, 19 July 2021, https://www.seetao.com/details/97137.html.

(24) https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-11/06/5449193/files/26c9d25f713f4ed5b8dc51ae40ef37af.pdf.

(25) See at: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2015-05/19/content_9784.htm; English translation available at: https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/t0432_made_in_china_2025_EN.pdf.

(26) ISDP, ‘Made in China 2025’, June 2018, https://isdp.eu/publication/made-china-2025/.

(27) Notice of the State Council on the Publication of Made in China 2025 (translated), page 16 (available at: https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/t0432_made_in_china_2025_EN.pdf).

(28) Idem, page 12.

(29) Idem, page 23.

(30) See: https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-03/13/content_5592681.htm. An English translation is available at: https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/t0284_14th_Five_Year_Plan_EN.pdf.

(31) See Art. LXV, Section 1 of the Plan.

(32) See Art. LXV, Section 3 of the Plan.

(33) www.cncma.org/article/10579 (last checked on 24.2.2025).

(34) The 14th Five-Year Plan for the Construction Machinery Industry, page 16.

(35) Idem, pages 139-140.

(36) See Appendix to 14 FYP for Construction machinery.

(37) Idem pages 139-140.

(38) https://zjjcmspublic.oss-cn-hangzhou-zwynet-d01-a.internet.cloud.zj.gov.cn/jcms_files/jcms1/web1585/site/attach/0/157823f5651e42ea85038c86b74becca.pdf.

(39) https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/fzggw/jgsj/zxs/sjdt/202004/P020200401627898788135.pdf.

(40) Xuzhou Engineering Machinery Cluster: Consolidate the ‘No. 1 Industry’ and Call for the ‘China Engineering Machinery Capital’ (https://www.js.gov.cn/art/2022/11/14/art_63909_10663820.html).

(41) https://hnfzyjy.hnu.edu.cn/info/1109/6191.htm.

(42) http://cpc.people.com.cn/n1/2024/0529/c64387-40245669.html.

(43) http://www.yuelu.gov.cn/rdzt/1757360/qsh/plzl/202203/t20220323_10509367.html.

(44) https://stock.hnchasing.com/main/aboutUs/jtyw/detail/1600404406236819458.html.

(45) The NFRA replaced the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (‘CBIRC’) in 2023.

(46) Panel Report, China – Broiler Products (Article 21.5 – US), paras. 7.229-7.231. WT/DS427.

(47) See http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2013/1239/oj, recital (139) in OJ L 325, 5.12.2013, pp. 88 (Solar panels case) and http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2018/1690/oj, recital (48) in OJ L, 283, 12.11.2018, pp. 7 (Tyres case).

(48) Such as, but not limited to: loan agreements, loan applications, internal assessment of the bank on the loan application, loan approval documents.

(49) Law of the People’s Republic of China on State-Owned Assets of Enterprises, Decree No. 5 of the President of the People's Republic of China, 28 October 2008, article 11 & 12.

(50) Law of the People's Republic of China on Regulation of and Supervision over the Banking Industry, Order No. 58 of the President of the People's Republic of China, 31 October 2006.

(51) Panel Report, US – Supercalendered Paper, para. 7.175; Appellate Body Report, US – Supercalendered Paper, paras. 5.81.

(52) T25.000833 of 15/01/2025.

(53) www.landchina.com.

(54) WT/DS379/AB/R (US – Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China), Appellate Body Report of 11 March 2011, DS 379, paragraph 318. See also WT/DS436/AB/R (US — Carbon Steel (India)), Appellate Body Report of 8 December 2014, paragraphs 4.9 - 4.10, 4.17 - 4.20 and WT/DS437/AB/R (US – Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China) Appellate Body Report of 18 December 2014, paragraph 4.92.

(55) WT/DS379/AB/R (US – Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China), Appellate Body Report of 11 March 2011, DS 379, paragraph 318. See also WT/DS436/AB/R (US — Carbon Steel (India)), Appellate Body Report of 8 December 2014, paragraphs 4.9 - 4.10, 4.17 - 4.20 and WT/DS437/AB/R (United States – Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China) Appellate Body Report of 18 December 2014, paragraph 4.92.

(56) WT/DS379/AB/R (US – Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China), Appellate Body Report of 11 March 2011, DS 379, paragraph 297.

(57) WT/DS379/AB/R (US – Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China), Appellate Body Report of 11 March 2011, DS 379, paragraph 349.

(58) See Bank of Beijing Y2022 Annual Report (April 2023) https://pdf.valueonline.cn/web/viewer.html?v=20200509&file=https:// oss.valueonline.cn/cloud-irh-bucket/public/formal/0/167278f7-743a-4dca-be0f-bb065e3f8748.pdf.

(59) See China Minsheng Bank, Annual Report 2022; available at: https://ir.cmbc.com.cn/media/mc3d2wm2/

%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E6%B0%91%E7%94%9F%E9%93%B6%E8%A1%8C2022%E5%B9%B4%E5%B9%B4%E5% BA%A6%E6%8A%A5%E5%91%8A.pdf, p. 94.

(60) See Ping An Bank, Homepage – Investor Relations – Major Shareholders; available at: https://group.pingan.com/investor_relations/major_shareholders.html.

(61) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1690 of 9 November 2018 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries and with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 283, 12.11.2018, p. 1 (rec.210 and 211)).

(62) Updated Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, 10 April 2024, SWD(2024) 91 final (the ‘China Report’) – Chapter 6.3 Banking Sector, pp. 137-144.

(63) See also Chorzempa, M. and Véron, N., Will China’s impending overhaul of its financial regulatory system make a difference?, PIIE, March 2023, p. 2; available at: https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/2023-03/pb23-1.pdf.

(64) Ibidem footnote 56.

(65) Decree of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China (No 283).

(66) See for example at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/434566/leading-banks-in-china-assets/.

(67) See ICBC, Annual Report 2021; available at file.finance.sina.com.cn/211.154.219.97:9494/MRGG/CNSESH_STOCK/2022/2022-3/2022-03-31/7943541.PDF.

(68) See ABC, Annual Report 2021; available at: https://www.abchina.com/en/investor-relations/performance-reports/annual- reports/202204/P020220427580795705015.pdf.

(69) See China Minsheng Bank, Annual Report 2022; available at: https://ir.cmbc.com.cn/media/mc3d2wm2/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E6%B0%91%E7%94%9F%E9%93%B6%E8%A1%8C2022%E5%B9%B4%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E6%8A%A5%E5%91%8A.pdf, p. 94.

(70) See China Everbright Bank, 2021 Semi-Annual Report; available at: https://vip.stock.finance.sina.com.cn/corp/view/vCB_AllBulletinDetail.php?stockid=601818&id=7512500.

(71) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-banks-party-idUSKBN1JN0XN.

(72) According to the Implementing Measures of the CBIRC for Administrative Licensing Matters for Chinese-funded Commercial Banks (Order of the CBIRC [2017] No 1), the Implementing Measures of the CBIRC for Administrative Licensing Matters relating to Foreign funded Banks (Order of the CBIRC [2015] No 4) and the Administrative Measures for the Qualifications of Directors and Senior Officers of Financial Institutions in the Banking Sector (CBIRC [2013] No 3). After the CBIRC was replaced with the NFRA, the Implementing measures were not amended.

(73) Article 13 of the Notice on the Supervision regulations concerning the behaviour of large shareholders of bank and insurance institutions (CBIRC, [2021] No 43).

(74) See CBIRC’s Notice on the Commercial banks performance evaluation method, issued on 15 December 2020. http://jrs.mof.gov.cn/gongzuotongzhi/202101/t20210104_3638904.htm.

(75) See for example the HRF, Tyres and E-bikes cases.

(76) See Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/969 of 8 June 2017 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/649 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 146, 9.6.2017, p. 17) (‘HRF case’), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1690 of 9 November 2018 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries and with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People's Republic of China and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1579 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries, with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People's Republic of China and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/163 (OJ L 283, 12.11.2018, p. 1) (‘Tyres case’), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2287 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of aluminium converter foil originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 458, 22.12.2021, p. 344) (‘ACF case’), and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 of 12 June 2020 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China and Egypt (OJ L 189, 15.6.2020, p. 33) (‘GFF case’), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/72 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of optical fibre cables originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 12, 19.1.2022, p. 34) (‘OFC case’), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1866 of 3 July 2024 imposing a provisional countervailing duty on imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China, OJ L, 4.7.2024 (‘BEV case’).

(77) http://www.pbc.gov.cn/zhengcehuobisi/125207/125213/125440/3876551/de24575c/index2.html.

(78) See Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/969 of 8 June 2017 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/649 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 146, 9.6.2017, p. 17) (‘HRF case’), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1690 of 9 November 2018 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries and with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People's Republic of China and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1579 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries, with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People’s Republic of China and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/163 (OJ L 283, 12.11.2018, p. 1) (‘Tyres case’), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2287 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of aluminium converter foil originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 458, 22.12.2021, p. 344) (‘ACF case’), and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 of 12 June 2020 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China and Egypt (OJ L 189, 15.6.2020, p. 33) (‘GFF case’), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/72 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of optical fibre cables originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 12, 19.1.2022, p. 34) (‘OFC case’), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1866 of 3 July 2024 imposing a provisional countervailing duty on imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China, OJ L, 4.7.2024 (‘BEV case’).

(79) WT/DS/296 (DS296 United States – Countervailing duty investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAMS) from Korea) Appellate Body Report of 21 February 2005, para. 116.

(80) Appellate Body Report, DS 296, para. 116.

(81) Appellate Body Report, DS 296, para. 115.

(82) Appellate Body Report, DS 296, para. 114 agreeing with the Panel Report, DS 194, para. 8.31. on that account.

(83) Appellate Body Report, DS 296, para. 115.

(84) See the cases cited in footnote 80 before.

(85) IMF Working Paper ‘Resolving China’s Corporate Debt Problem’, by Wojciech Maliszewski, Serkan Arslanalp, John Caparusso, José Garrido, Si Guo, Joong Shik Kang, W. Raphael Lam, T. Daniel Law, Wei Liao, Nadia Rendak, Philippe Wingender, Jiangyan, October 2016, WP/16/203.

(86) Livingston, M. Poon, W.P.H. and Zhou, L. (2017). Are Chinese Credit Ratings Relevant? A Study of the Chinese Bond Market and Credit Rating Industry, in: Journal of Banking & Finance, p. 24.

(87) China bond market insight 2021, https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/10/China-bond-market-booklet.pdf.

(88) China bond market insight 2021, Footnote 59, p. 31.

(89) Price, A.H., Brightbill T.C., DeFrancesco R.E., Claeys, S.J., Teslik, A. and Neelakantan, U. (2017). China’s broken promises: why it is not a market-economy, Wiley Rein LLP, p. 68.

(90) OJ L 458, 22.12.2021, recitals (210) to (214) (‘Aluminium foil case’), OJ L 146, 9.6.2017 n recitals (159) to (161), (‘HRF case’), OJ L 283, 12.11.2018, recitals (239) to (241) (‘Tyres case’), OJ L 189, 15.6.2020 recitals (279) to (284) (‘GFF case’), OJ L 12, 19.1.2022, recitals (274) to (279) (‘OFC case’) and OJ L 208, 4.7.2024, recitals (474) to (478) (‘BEV case’).

(91) See footnote 71 in Commission Implementing Regulation EU) 2022/72 of 18 January 2022 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of optical fibre cables originating in the People’s Republic of China and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of optical fibre cables originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(92) Available at https://ch.allianzgi.com/-/media/allianzgi/globalagi/china-microsite/9-things-to-know/9-things-to-know-about-chinas- bond-markets.pdf.

(93) See OECD Economic Surveys,: China, March 2022, p. 34-35; available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/b0e499cf-en.pdf.

(94) See the Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, 10 April 2024, SWD(2024) 91 final (the ‘China Report’) – Chapter 6, pp. 156-160.

(95) See Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2754 of 29 October 2024 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China, OJ L series 29.10.2024, recital (218).

(96) OJ L 458, 22.12.2021, p. 344 (recital 237) (‘Aluminium foil case’) OJ L 146, 9.6.2017, p. 17, recitals (152) to (244) (‘HRF case’), OJ L 283, 12.11.2018, p. 1, recital (236) (‘Tyres case’), OJ L 189, 15.6.2020, p. 33, recital (300) (‘GFF case’), OJ L 12, 19.1.2022, p.75, recital 294 (‘OFC case’) and OJ L 208,, p. 81, recital (490), 4.7.2024, (‘BEV case’) .

(97) See recital (453) above.

(98) In case of fixed interest loans. For variable interest rate loans, the PBOC benchmark rate during the IP was taken.

(99) HRF Case, recital 175.

(100) https://www.icbc.com.cn/en/column/1438058389078163465.html.

(101) https://www.vorys.com/publication-365-360-Interest-Calculation-Latest-Developments-in-Ohio-Case-Law-Provide-Guidance-in-Interest-Calculation-Methods#:~:text=Banks%20most%20commonly%20use%20the,on%20a%2030%2Dday%20month.&text=To%20calculate%20the%20interest%20payment,365%2C%20then%20divide%20by%20360.