The Notice of Initiation for this proceeding published on 12 August 2019 highlighted that the dumping margins calculated are significant for all countries. As a whole, and given the extent of the alleged dumping margins ranging from 15,1 % to 54,3 %, the evidence in the complaint provides sufficient support at this stage that the exporting producers practice dumping.

The complaint also provided sufficient evidence of alleged injury to the Union industry, including a decline in market share and a negative development of other key performance indicators of the Union industry.

By its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Notice of Initiation is a public document accessible to all importers. Furthermore, as interested parties in the investigation, importers have access to the non-confidential version of the complaint and the non-confidential file. Therefore, the Commission considered that, on this basis, importers, who are experienced professionals, were aware, or should have been aware, of the alleged dumping practices, the extent thereof and the alleged injury.

It thus concluded that the first criterion for registration was met.

August 2019 – November 2019 Source: Surveillance 2 database
Origin	Investigation Period (IP)	Monthly average	Post-initiation	Monthly Average	ΔIP – post-initiation
PRC	220 705	18 392	110 568	27 642	+50 %
Indonesia	107 107	8 926	9 011	2 253	-75 %
Taiwan	36 542	3 045	13 932	3 483	+14 %
Countries Concerned	364 354	30 363	133 511	33 378	+10 %

On the basis of these statistical data, the Commission found that the average monthly volume of imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils from the countries concerned to the Union in the period from September 2019 to November 2019, i.e. after initiation of the case, was 10 % higher than the average monthly volume of imports to the Union during the investigation period.

In investigations involving more than one country concerned, whether or not imports from these countries will be cumulated for the purpose of the analysis described in the recitals above, will depend on whether the Commission decides to cumulate these imports in the underlying investigation. The Commission also noted that, in its judgment in Stemcor, the General Court ruled that the ‘further substantial rise in imports’ within the meaning of Article 10(4)(d) of the basic regulation must be assessed as a whole, in order to determine whether the imports, taken as a whole, are likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the definitive duties and thus create additional injury for the Union industry, without considering the individual and subjective position of the importers in question. As the above table shows, there is no question as to whether the cumulated imports from the countries concerned have shown a further substantial rise.

Marcegaglia argued that a further substantial rise in imports was not evidenced in the complainant’s submission and was unlikely to occur because the applicable safeguard tariff quotas (‘the quotas’) on certain steel products, which, inter alia, cover the product concerned, are set at levels, for each of the countries concerned, significantly below the export volumes observed during the investigation period. Any quantity imported in excess of the quotas will be subject to a safeguard duty of 25 %. Therefore, imports of the product concerned are, according to Marcegaglia, likely to decrease to the level set by the quotas, which is 25 % below the import volume observed in the investigation period. Marcegaglia added that although in July and August 2019, or, in general, in any given month, the volume of imports (could) exceed these monthly averages, this should not warrant the conclusion that imports are likely to increase.

The Commission recalls that the quotas in question are tariff quotas, which provide that any import made beyond the threshold set by them is not prohibited but is subject to an additional ad valorem duty rate of 25 %. This means that importers are allowed to import volumes well beyond the applicable thresholds, subject to the payment of the safeguard duty. In any event, the fact that the product concerned is subject to tariff-rate quotas is linked to the need to avoid serious injury for the Union industry to materialise. The same increase in imports after the initiation of the current investigation may lead to the need for retroactive collection of the eventual duties because of the material injury found and the need for an effective remedy. Moreover, in view of the dumping and injury margins that have been estimated by the complainant (see recital (30) below), the 25 % safeguard duty may not be sufficient to remedy the full extent of dumping and injury. Subsequently, a duty of 25 % will in all likelihood not deter importers from importing additional volumes.

Further in response to Marcegaglia’s comments, the Commission also recalls that the present Regulation concerns the registration of imports and is without prejudice to the decision as to whether or not anti-dumping duties will be collected, which is only taken at the stage of any definitive measures.

Therefore, in view of the further substantial rise in imports from the countries concerned, the Commission concluded that the second criterion for registration was also met.

The Commission has at its disposal sufficient evidence at this stage that additional injury has already been caused by the continuing rise in imports at further decreasing prices.

As established in recitals (14) and (15), there is sufficient evidence of a substantial rise in imports of the product concerned.

In addition, there is no evidence on the file that import prices have gone up since the initiation of the investigation. To the contrary, according to the publicly available Surveillance 2 database, the average unit value of the product concerned of imports from the countries concerned was 1 % lower in the period August to November 2019 when compared to the investigation period.

Furthermore, in its request for registration, the complainant pointed at the fact that the swiftly deteriorating situation of the Union industry observed in the complaint during the second half of 2018 continued in the first half of 2019, with a further decrease in production levels and increased undercutting by the imports. In the request it also provided evidence showing that the situation had gone from bad to worse since then, inter alia, pointing at four major announcements of restructuring of different kinds by the various Union manufacturers since July 2019, affecting the jobs of hundreds of their staff.

On that basis, the timing of the further substantial rise of imports as explained in recitals (14) and (15) is already seriously undermining the remedial effect of any definitive duty, unless such duty would be applied retroactively.

The Commission therefore concluded that the third criterion for registration for the dumping part of the request was also met.