A group of exporting producers gave a mandate to the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (‘CCCME’) to submit a price undertaking on their behalf to the Commission, which they did. It is clear from the terms of that price undertaking that it constitutes a bundle of individual price undertakings for each exporting producer, which is, for reasons of practicality of administration, coordinated by the CCCME.

As per the text of the undertaking, any exporting producer may voluntarily withdraw its agreement to the undertaking at any time during its application.

Shanghai Shenzhou notified the Commission in June 2017 that it wished to withdraw its agreement thereto on its own behalf as well as on behalf of the related companies listed in recital 4 above.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 8(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, Article 13(9) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation and with the terms of the undertaking, the Commission concluded that the acceptance of the undertaking for Shanghai Shenzhou and the related companies listed in recital 4 should be withdrawn.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 13(9) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 and the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 automatically apply to imports of the product concerned originating in or consigned from the PRC and produced by Shanghai Shenzhou and the related companies listed in recital 4 above (jointly covered by TARIC additional code B875) as of the day of entry into force of this Regulation.

For those imports cleared before the date of entry into force of this Regulation, the rules applicable to the undertaking should be respected. Accordingly, the Commission recalls that where the customs authorities of the Member States have indications that the price presented on an undertaking invoice does not correspond to the price actually paid, they should investigate whether the requirement to include any rebates in the undertaking invoices has been violated or the MIP has not been respected. Where customs authorities of the Member States conclude that there has been such a violation or whether the MIP has not been respected, they should collect the duties as a consequence thereof. In order to facilitate, on the basis of Article 4(3) of the Treaty, the work of the customs authorities of the Member States, the Commission should share in such situations the confidential text and other information of the undertaking for the sole purpose of national proceedings.

Finally, the Commission observes that the acceptance of the voluntary withdrawal is without prejudice to the power conferred upon the Commission by Article 3(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013, Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367, Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 and Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 to cancel undertaking invoices that have been issued prior to the acceptance of the voluntary withdrawal, where the Commission becomes aware of facts justifying such a cancellation.

For information purposes, the table in Annex to this Regulation lists the exporting producers for whom the acceptance of the undertaking by Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU is not affected,