On 13 May 2013, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of ceramic tableware and kitchenware (‘the product concerned’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (the PRC) by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013.

On 12 July 2019, following an expiry review pursuant to pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission extended the measures for another five years by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198.

On 28 November 2019, following an anti-circumvention investigation pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission amended Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2131.

In the original investigation, sampling was applied for investigating the exporting producers in the PRC in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

The Commission imposed individual anti-dumping duty rates ranging from 13,1 % to 23,4 % on imports of the product concerned for the sampled exporting producers. For the cooperating exporting producers that were not included in the sample, a duty rate of 17,9 % was imposed. The cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample are listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2019/2131. Furthermore, a country-wide duty rate of 36,1 %. was imposed on the product concerned from companies in the PRC which either did not make themselves known or did not cooperate with the investigation.

it did not export to the Union the product concerned during the period of investigation on which the measures are based, that is from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 (‘the original investigation period’); it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the PRC which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by the original Regulation; and it has actually exported to the Union the product concerned after the end of the original investigation period or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union.

The company Hunan Huazhi Ceramic Co., Ltd. (‘Huazhi’ or the ‘applicant’) submitted a request to the Commission to be granted new exporting producer treatment (‘NEPT’) and hence be subject to the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies in the PRC not included in the sample, which is 17,9 %. The applicant claimed that it met all three conditions set out in Article 2 of the original Regulation.

In order to determine whether the applicant fulfilled the conditions for being granted NEPT, as set out in Article 2 of the original Regulation (‘the NEPT conditions’), the Commission first sent a questionnaire to the applicant requesting evidence showing that it met the NEPT conditions.

Following the analysis of the questionnaire reply, the Commission requested further information and supporting evidence, which was submitted by the applicant.

The Commission sought to verify all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of determining whether the applicant met the NEPT conditions. To this end, the Commission analysed the evidence submitted by the applicant in its questionnaire reply, consulting various online databases including Orbis and Qichacha and cross-checking company information with information submitted in previous cases. In parallel, the Commission also informed the Union industry about the applicant’s request and invited it to provide any comments if needed. No comments from Union industry were received.

With regard to the condition set out in Article 2(a) of the original Regulation that the applicant did not export the product concerned to the Union during the period of investigation on which the measures are based, that is from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 (‘the original investigation period’), the Commission established that the applicant did not exist as a company at the time. The Articles of Association of Huazhi date from October 2013 and its business license from November 2013. Therefore, the applicant could not have exported the product concerned to the Union during the period of investigation and thus fulfils this condition.

With regard to the condition set out in Article 2(b) of the original Regulation that the applicant is not related to any exporters or producers which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by the original Regulation, the Commission established that the two shareholders of Huazhi had no other shareholdings. Although Huazhi had as one of its prime customers a Chinese producer of the product concerned subject to anti-dumping measures, no relationship as defined by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 was identified between the two. Therefore, the applicant fulfils this condition.

With regard to the condition set out in Article 2(c) of the original Regulation, that the applicant has actually exported the product concerned to the Union after the original investigation period or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union, the Commission established that the applicant had exported to the Union in 2019, therefore after the original investigation period. The applicant submitted invoices, a packing list, a bill of lading and a receipt of payment for an order placed in 2019 by a company in France. Therefore, the applicant fulfils this condition.

Accordingly, the applicant fulfils all three conditions to be granted NEPT, as set out in Article 2 of the original Regulation and the request should therefore be accepted. Consequently, the applicant should be subject to an anti-dumping duty of 17,9 % for cooperating companies not included in the sample of the original investigation.

The applicant and the Union industry were informed of the essential facts and considerations based on which it was considered appropriate to grant the anti-dumping duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample of the original investigation to Hunan Huazhi Ceramic Co., Ltd. (‘Huazhi’).

The parties were granted the possibility to submit comments. No comments were received.

The Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation,