(1)

On 13 May 2013, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the product concerned’ by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 (‘the original Regulation’) (3).

(2)

On 12 July 2019, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (‘the basic Regulation’), the Commission extended the measures of the original Regulation for another five years by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198.

(3)

On 28 November 2019, following an anti-circumvention investigation pursuant to Articles 13(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission amended Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2131 (4).

(4)

In the original investigation, sampling was applied for investigating the exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’) in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

(5)

The Commission imposed individual anti-dumping duty rates ranging from 13,1 % to 18,3 % on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware for the sampled exporting producers from the PRC. 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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2131. Furthermore, a country-wide duty rate of 36,1 % was imposed on ceramic tableware and kitchenware from companies in the PRC which either did not make themselves known or did not cooperate with the investigation.

(6)

Pursuant to Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198, the Commission may amend Annex I to that Regulation, by granting a new exporting producer the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample or not granted individual treatment, namely the weighted average duty rate of 17,9 %, where that new exporting producer in the PRC provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:

(7)

On 12 August 2020, Linyi Hongshun Porcelain Co., Ltd. (‘Linyi Hongshun’ 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, i.e. 17,9 %, claiming that it met all three conditions set out in Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198.

(8)

In order to determine whether the applicant fulfilled the conditions for being granted NEPT, as set out in Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 (‘the NEPT conditions’), the Commission first sent a questionnaire to the applicant requesting evidence showing that it met the NEPT conditions.

(9)

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

(10)

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, consulted various websites including the applicant’s website and Qichacha (5) and cross-checked company information with information submitted in previous cases. In parallel, the Commission informed the Union industry about the applicant’s request and invited it to provide any comments if needed. The Union industry provided comments on the request.

(11)

On 28 September 2022 the applicant was informed of the essential facts and considerations based on which the Commission initially proposed to reject its NEPT request and the applicant was given the opportunity to comment thereon.

(12)

On 17 October 2022, the applicant provided further information regarding the condition set out in Article 2(b). This led to a further analysis as to whether the applicant fulfilled this condition or not, as detailed in recitals (14)-(17) below.

(13)

With regard to the condition set out in Article 2(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 that the applicant did not export the product concerned to the Union during the original period of investigation, during the investigation the Commission established that the applicant fulfilled this condition. The applicant was established in 2004. During the original investigation period, the applicant was producing the product concerned and selling to the domestic market and non-EU countries. The applicant provided a sales ledger for the original investigation period, indicating that there were only sales to the domestic market and non-EU countries during this period.

(14)

With regard to the condition set out in Article 2(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198, that the applicant is not related to any exporters or producers which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by the original Regulation, during the investigation the Commission established that the applicant was related to a Chinese exporter, Linyi Goldfuture. It was also established that Linyi Goldfuture exported to the EU the product concerned after the original investigation period.

(15)

However, following comments received after disclosure, the investigation also established that the company Linyi Goldfuture was a trader and was not related to any producer or exporting producer other than the applicant. The product concerned exported to the EU by Linyi Goldfuture was produced by an unrelated Chinese producer. Moreover, Linyi Goldfuture was established in August 2012, that is after the original investigation period. On this basis, the Commission established that the Applicant is not related to an exporter or a producer, which is subject to the duty and which could have cooperated in the original investigation. Therefore, the applicant fulfilled this condition.

(16)

With regard to the condition set out in Article 2(c) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198, 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, during the investigation the Commission established that the applicant had exported to the Union after the original investigation period. The applicant submitted exchanges of email with an EU client, proforma and commercial invoices, packing lists, bills of lading, customs declaration form and receipts of payment for different orders placed between 2017 and 2020 by companies located in the EU. Therefore, the applicant fulfils this condition.

(17)

Accordingly, the applicant fulfilled all three conditions to be granted NEPT, as set out in Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198, 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.

(18)

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 the applicant.

(19)

The parties were granted the possibility to submit comments on 28 September 2022. The applicant submitted comments as indicated in recital (12), arguing that, in view of Linyi Goldfuture being an exporter and not a producer, which was established after the original investigation period, Linyi Goldfuture relation to the Applicant had not bearing on the findings under the second NEPT condition. In view of the change in the findings, the Commission granted the possibility to Parties to submit comments on a revised general disclosure document. No comments were received.

(20)

The Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,