The European Commission ('the Commission') has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China and to make imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, subject to registration.

The request was lodged on 15 May 2012 by Euroalliages (Liaison Committee of the Ferro-Alloy Industry) ('the applicant') on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, namely 100 %, of the Union production of silicon.

The product concerned by the possible circumvention is silicon metal originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN code 2804 69 00 (silicon content less than 99,99 % by weight) (‘the product concerned’). Purely by reason of the current classification set out in the Combined Nomenclature, it should read ‘silicon’. Silicon with a higher purity, that is containing by weight not less than 99,99 % of silicon, used mostly in the electronic semi-conductor industry, falls under a different CN code and is not covered by this proceeding.

The product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, currently falling within the same CN code as the product concerned (‘the product under investigation’).

The request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China are being circumvented by means of transhipment via Taiwan.

The prima facie evidence at the Commission's disposal is as follows:

There is a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan to the Union which has taken place following the imposition of measures on the product concerned, without sufficient due cause or justification for such a change other than the imposition of the duty.

This change appears to stem from the transhipment of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China via Taiwan to the Union.

Furthermore, the evidence points to the fact that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that imports of the product under investigation are made at prices well below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures, adjusted for the increase in the costs of the raw material.

Finally, the Commission has sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned, adjusted for the increase in the costs of the raw material.

Should circumvention practices via Taiwan covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than transhipment, be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.

In light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the product under investigation, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied from the date on which registration of such imports consigned from Taiwan was imposed.

• interested parties may make themselves known to the Commission, present their views in writing and submit questionnaire replies or any other information to be taken into account during the investigation,

• producers in Taiwan may request exemption from registration of imports or measures,

• interested parties may make a written request to be heard by the Commission.

Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the time-limits indicated in Article 3 of this Regulation.

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time-limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.

If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

The investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date of the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Interested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade. The Hearing Officer acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission investigation services. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time limits and requests by third parties to be heard. The Hearing Officer may organise a hearing with an individual interested party and mediate to ensure that the interested parties' rights of defence are being fully exercised.

A request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. The Hearing Officer will also provide opportunities for a hearing involving parties to take place which would allow different views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered.

For further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on the Directorate-General for Trade's website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/hearing-officer/index_en.htm.