In November 2013, the Commission 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 certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of certain slightly modified open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China, and to make such imports subject to registration.

The request was lodged by Saint-Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozo, Valmieras Stikla Skiedra AS and Vitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres.

The request contained sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China are being circumvented by means of imports of a certain slightly modified product originating in the PRC, containing by weight more rovings than yarns and therefore declared under CN code ex 7019 40 00, not subject to duties.

The product concerned is the same as defined in the original investigation, namely open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m², excluding fibreglass discs, originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC), currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00, containing by weight more yarns than rovings.

The product under investigation, namely the product allegedly used for circumventing the original measures, is the same as that defined in recital 8, but containing by weight more rovings than yarns.

The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC after the initiation of the investigation and sent questionnaires to the exporting producers in the PRC and importers in the Union known to be concerned. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make themselves and their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. All parties were informed that non-cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and to findings being based on facts available.

No Chinese producer came forward and requested exemption from any possible extension of the current duties or made any submission relative to the investigation.

The European Plastic Converters association asserted that it remained neutral on the outcome of the investigation. Other interested parties, such as unrelated importers and users, did not make any submission relative to the investigation.

The Commission carried out on-the-spot investigations at the premises of the cooperating complainant Union producer Saint-Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o., Czech Republic.

The investigation period was set from 1 April 2010 to 30 September 2013 (IP) in order to investigate the alleged change in the pattern of trade. The reporting period (RP) covered the period from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013 in order to investigate if the imports were made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.

In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of possible circumvention practices was made by analysing successively: (1) whether there was a change in pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union; (2) if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty; (3) if there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the product under investigation; and (4) whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.

The investigation has shown that the product under investigation is open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m², excluding fibreglass discs, originating in the PRC, containing by weight more rovings than yarns. Rovings and yarns consist of an assemblage of one or more strands of long (continuous) filaments of glass fibres. According to the notes of the Harmonised System, the main difference between rovings and yarns is that the assemblage of the first is loose with little or no twist (less than five turns per metre) while the assemblage of yarns is more twisted with more than five turns per metre. The product allegedly circumventing the measures is basically the same as the product concerned except that it contains by weight more rovings than yarns and therefore can currently be declared under CN code ex 7019 40 00, not subject to duties, while the product concerned contains by weight more yarns than rovings and currently falls under CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00. In many cases the difference between the two products is not visible and the correct code can be established only by laboratory examinations.

As mentioned in recital 15 of the provisional anti-dumping regulation, both products can be found in different cell sizes and weight per square metre and are mostly used as reinforcement material in the construction sector (external thermal insulation, marble/floor reinforcement, wall repair).

No Chinese exporters or any of the other interested parties made any submission questioning these conclusions.

Therefore, it is concluded that the product under investigation is only slightly modified compared to the product concerned and imported for no other economic justification but to circumvent the anti-dumping duties in place.

Given that no cooperation was received from Chinese exporters, the findings of the investigation were established on the basis of the information contained in the complaint and cross-checked against and completed by the information contained in the Eurostat Comext trade database.

The product concerned is declared under CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 and the product under investigation under CN code ex 7019 40 00. All these CN codes are broad and cover numerous other products which are different from the product concerned and product under investigation.

It should be noted that the product under investigation is declared under the CN code ex 7019 40 00 which also covers other products called woven fabrics of rovings used in particular by the plastic converter industry for making high-end composite material used in the automotive, shipping, aircraft and wind blades industry. There was thus no direct way to investigate any possible change in the pattern of trade of the product under investigation in the Union market. Instead, use needed to be made of facts available.

Further examining of the trends in the Union market revealed that in 4 Member States (Latvia, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Slovakia) there was a significant increase in imports in CN code 7019 40 00, which could not be explained by these countries' own needs as they do not have any significant converter industry. For the RP, imports under CN code ex 7019 40 00 in the four countries represented 32 % of all imports to the Union under that code.

As shown in Table 2 there were only very few imports under CN code ex 7019 40 00 in those four countries before the imposition of the initial duties in 2011 and there was a significant increase of imports in 2012 and the RP, shortly after the anti-dumping measures were imposed.

Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires that the change in pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of duty.

Both the product concerned and the product under investigation are mostly used as reinforcement material in the construction sector (external thermal insulation, marble/floor reinforcement, wall repair) and the end-users of both products are the same. The slight modification of the product under investigation does not impart any different substantial characteristic with regard to the product concerned. Also, there is no price difference between these products in the Union market.

The investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the imports of the product under investigation other than the avoidance of the payment of the duty in force on imports of the product concerned.

It is therefore concluded that, in the absence of any other sufficient due cause or economic justification within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the change in the pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union was due to the imposition of the measures in force.

To assess whether the imports of the product under investigation, in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects to the measures in force, data provided by the complainants were used, and cross-checked against and completed by the information contained in the Eurostat Comext trade database.

The increase in imports of the product under investigation from the PRC as from the imposition of the provisional measures was significant in terms of quantities.

The comparison of the injury elimination level as established in the original Regulation and the weighted average export price showed significant underselling. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being undermined both in terms of quantities and prices.

Finally, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value previously established in the original investigation.

In the original investigation the normal value was established on the basis of prices in Canada, which in that investigation was found to be an appropriate market economy analogue country for the PRC. In line with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was considered appropriate to use the normal value as previously established in the original investigation.

In the absence of cooperation by any Chinese producer of the product under investigation, the export prices of the product under investigation were based on facts available, i.e. on the average export price of the product under investigation during the RP as reported in Comext, and reproduced in Table 3.

In the original investigation, Canada was used as analogue country. The normal value that was used for the dumping calculations of the product concerned is ranging between 0,168 EUR/m² and 0,257 EUR/m². The average normal value in the original investigation was 0,193 EUR/m².