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.

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of modules and cells originating in or consigned from the PRC (‘the products concerned’). By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013, the Council also imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports into the Union of the products concerned.

• Chinaland Solar Energy Co. Ltd covered by TARIC additional code B808 (‘Chinaland’).

Following the expiry and interim reviews referred to in recitals 10 to 12, the Commission maintained the measures in force by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367.

The exporting producers agreed, inter alia, not to sell the product covered to the first independent customer in the Union below a certain minimum import price (‘the MIP’) within the associated annual level of imports to the Union (‘annual level’) laid down in the undertaking. The MIP is set on a cash equivalent basis. If the payment term is different from the cash equivalent basis, a certain deduction is applied to the invoice value when compliance with the MIP is compared.

The exporting producers also agreed to sell the product covered only by means of direct sales. For the purpose of the undertaking, a direct sale is defined as a sale either to the first independent customer in the Union or via a related party in the Union listed in the undertaking.

The undertaking sets out, in a non-exhaustive list, the breaches of the undertaking. This list of breaches includes indirect sales to the Union by companies other than those listed in the undertaking.

The undertaking also obliges the exporting producers to provide the Commission on a quarterly basis with detailed information on all their export sales to and re-sales in the Union (‘the quarterly reports’). This implies that the data submitted in these quarterly reports must be complete and correct and that the reported transactions fully comply with the terms of the undertaking. Reporting of re-sales in the Union is a particular obligation when the product covered is sold to the first independent customer through a related importer. Only these reports enable the Commission to monitor whether the re-sale price of the related importer to the first independent customer is in accordance the MIP.

The exporting producer is liable for the breach of any of its related parties, whether or not listed in the undertaking.

The undertaking further stipulates that the acceptance of the undertaking by the Commission is based on trust and any action which would harm the relationship of trust established with the Commission should justify the withdrawal of the undertaking.

While monitoring compliance with the undertaking, the Commission verified information submitted by Chinaland that was relevant to the undertaking. The Commission also assessed publicly available information regarding the corporate structure of Chinaland.

The Commission also received evidence from customs authorities of one Member State on the basis of Articles 8(9) and 14(7) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Articles 13(9) and 24(7) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

The findings listed in recitals 38 to 40 address the problems identified for Chinaland which oblige the Commission to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking for this exporting producer.

In its quarterly reports, Chinaland had reported sales transactions of the product covered to an allegedly unrelated importer in the Union and had issued undertaking invoices. These transactions amounted in value to around 20 % of its total sales to the Union. Based on the information available to the Commission, the importer involved in these transactions was related to Chinaland. In particular, several sales transactions of this allegedly unrelated importer were carried out by two of Chinaland's officials. In their communication with final customers, these officials stated that this allegedly unrelated customer was a Union company belonging to Chinaland. Email accounts of these officials also hint to Chinaland. The Commission analysed this trade pattern. As this importer is not listed as related party in the undertaking, Chinaland had breached the terms of the undertaking as described in recital 30.

In addition, sales made by this importer to the first independent customer in the Union were carried out at prices below the MIP. Therefore, Chinaland breached the terms of the undertaking as described in recitals 29 and 33.

None of the re-sales by the related importer was reported to the Commission. Consequently, Chinaland also breached the terms of the undertaking as described in recitals 32 and 33.

The Commission analysed the findings set out in recitals 38 to 40 and concluded that these also harmed the relationship of trust established with the Commission.

In this context, the Commission recalls that pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) read in conjunction with Annex III, No 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013, Article (2)(1)(b) read in conjunction with Annex III, No 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 and to Article 2(1)(b) read in conjunction with Annex 2, No 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013, Article 2(2)(b) read in conjunction with Annex 2, No 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366, imports are only exempted from duties if the invoice indicates the price and possible rebates for the product covered. Where those conditions are not complied with, duties are due, even where the commercial invoice accompanying the goods has not been invalidated by the Commission.

The undertaking stipulates that a breach by an individual exporting producer does not automatically lead to the withdrawal of the acceptance of the undertaking for all exporting producers. In such a case, the Commission should assess the impact of that particular breach on the practicability of the undertaking with the effect for all exporting producers and the CCCME.

The Commission accordingly assessed the impact of the breaches by Chinaland on the practicability of the undertaking with the effect for all exporting producers and the CCCME.

Interested parties were granted the opportunity to be heard and to comment pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 13(9) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

Chinaland submitted comments after the disclosure. It contested the relationship with the importer in the Union.

Chinaland further alleged that the importer in the Union was owned by another person than the exporting producer. Chinaland also alleged that the two officials (referred to in recital 38 above) were pursuing their personal interests without authorisation of Chinaland in referring to the affiliation between the importer and Chinaland. The Commission, however, considers that, in absence of evidence to the contrary, communications of the exporter's officials towards third parties made within their usual business activities are to be attributed to Chinaland. As Chinaland failed to disprove this presumption, the claim is therefore rejected.

Chinaland also contested the invalidation of invoices. It claimed that the Commission cannot impose duties/order customs to levy duties on imports released for free circulation before the date of the withdrawal of the acceptance of the undertaking if imports have not been registered. That claim is made by reference to Articles 8 and 13 of the basic anti-dumping and anti-subsidy Regulations. That understanding is, however, not correct. According to Article 8(10) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 13(10) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, a provisional duty may be imposed retroactively for a limited period where registration of imports occurred. Those provisions, however, address a different point in time during an anti-dumping or anti-subsidy investigation. The articles do not apply to the case at hand where the investigations were already completed in 2013 with the imposition of definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties and the voluntary commitment, by some exporting producers of the product concerned, including Chinaland, for a price undertaking in lieu of the payment of those duties to remove the injury arising from their dumping practices. In any case, the retroactive invalidation of invoices and the related claim for the payment of outstanding duties is not effected under those provisions. The claim is, therefore, rejected.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 8(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, Article 13(9) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation and also in accordance with the terms of the undertaking, the Commission concluded that the acceptance of the undertaking for Chinaland 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) No 1239/2013 and maintained by Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 automatically apply to imports originating in or consigned from the PRC of the product concerned and produced by Chinaland as of the day of entry into force of this Regulation.

The Commission also 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.

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