(1)

The Fiscalis 2020 programme, which was established by Regulation (EU) No 1286/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and is implemented by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States and associated countries, as well as its predecessor programmes, have significantly contributed to facilitating and enhancing cooperation between tax authorities within the Union. The added value of those programmes, including as regards the protection of the financial and economic interests of the Member States and of the taxpayer, has been recognised by the tax authorities of the participating countries. The challenges for the next decade can only be tackled if Member States look beyond the borders of their administrative territories and cooperate intensively with their counterparts.

(2)

The Fiscalis 2020 programme offers Member States a Union framework within which to develop cooperation activities. That framework is more cost-effective than if each Member State were to set up individual cooperation frameworks on a bilateral or multilateral basis. It is therefore appropriate to ensure the continuation of the Fiscalis 2020 programme by establishing a new programme in the same area, the Fiscalis programme (the ‘Programme’).

(3)

In providing a framework for actions which supports the internal market, fosters the competitiveness of the Union and protects the financial and economic interests of the Union and its Member States, the Programme should contribute to: supporting tax policy and the implementation of Union law relating to taxation; preventing and fighting tax fraud, tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and double non-taxation; preventing and reducing unnecessary administrative burdens for citizens and businesses in cross-border transactions; supporting fairer and more efficient tax systems; achieving the full potential of the internal market and fostering fair competition in the Union; supporting a joint Union approach in international fora; supporting the administrative capacity building of tax authorities including by modernising reporting and auditing techniques; as well as supporting training the staff of tax authorities in that regard.

(4)

This Regulation lays down a financial envelope for the Programme, which is to constitute the prime reference amount, within the meaning of point 18 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, as well as on new own resources, including a roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources (4), for the European Parliament and the Council during the annual budgetary procedure.

(5)

In order to support the process of accession and association by third countries, the Programme should be open to the participation of acceding countries and candidate countries as well as potential candidates and partner countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy if certain conditions are fulfilled. It might also be open to other third countries, in accordance with the conditions laid down in specific agreements between the Union and those countries covering their participation in any Union programme.

(6)

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) (the ‘Financial Regulation’) applies to this Programme. The Financial Regulation lays down rules on the implementation of the Union budget, including the rules on grants, prizes, procurement, indirect management, financial instruments, budgetary guarantees, financial assistance and the reimbursement of external experts.

(7)

The actions under the Fiscalis 2020 programme have proven to be adequate and should therefore be maintained. In order to provide more simplicity and flexibility in the execution of the Programme and thereby better deliver on its objectives, the actions should be defined only in terms of overall categories, with a list of illustrative examples of concrete activities, such as meetings and similar ad hoc events, including, where appropriate, presence in administrative offices and participation in administrative enquiries, project-based structured collaboration, including, where appropriate, joint audits, and IT capacity building, including, where appropriate, access by tax authorities to interconnected registers. Where appropriate, actions should also aim to address priority topics in order to fulfil the objectives of the Programme. Through cooperation and capacity building, the Programme should also promote and support the uptake and leverage of innovation to further improve the capabilities to deliver on the core priorities of taxation.

(8)

Given the increasing mobility of taxpayers, the number of cross-border transactions, the internationalisation of financial instruments and the resulting increased risk of tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning, all of which go well beyond Union borders, adaptations of or extensions to European electronic systems for cooperation with third countries not associated with the Programme and international organisations could be of interest to the Union or to Member States. In particular, such adaptations or extensions would avoid the administrative burden and the costs inherent in developing and operating two similar electronic systems for Union and international exchanges of information. Therefore, when duly justified by that interest, such adaptations or extensions should be eligible for funding under the Programme.

(9)

Considering the importance of globalisation and the importance of combating tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning, the Programme should provide for the possibility of involving external experts within the meaning of Article 238 of the Financial Regulation. Such external experts should mainly be representatives of governmental authorities, including governmental authorities of non-associated third countries, including least developed countries, as well as representatives of international organisations, of economic operators, of taxpayers and of civil society. In that context, a least developed country should be understood to mean a third country or non-EU territory that is eligible to receive official development assistance in accordance with the relevant list made publicly available by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and based on the United Nations’ definition of least developed countries. The selection of experts in expert groups should be based on the Commission decision of 30 May 2016 establishing horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission expert groups. As regards experts appointed in their personal capacity for acting independently in the public interest, the Commission should ensure that those experts are impartial, that they have no possible conflicts of interest with their professional responsibilities and that information about their selection and participation is publicly available.

(10)

In line with the Commission’s commitment to ensure the coherence and simplification of funding programmes, set out in its Communication of 19 October 2010 on the EU Budget Review, resources should be shared with other Union funding instruments if the actions envisaged under the Programme pursue objectives that are common to various funding instruments, excluding double financing. Actions under the Programme should ensure coherence in the use of the Union’s resources supporting tax policy and tax authorities.

(11)

With a view to cost-effectiveness, the Programme should exploit possible synergies with other Union measures in related fields, such as the Customs Programme established by Regulation (EU) 2021/444 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), the Union Anti-Fraud Programme established by Regulation (EU) 2021/785 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7), the Single Market Programme established by Regulation (EU) 2021/690 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), the Recovery and Resilience Facility established by Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) and the Technical Support Instrument established by Regulation (EU) 2021/240 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10).

(12)

Information Technology (IT) capacity-building actions are set to attract the greatest part of the budget under the Programme. Therefore, specific provisions should describe and distinguish between the common and national components of the European electronic systems. Moreover, the scope of actions and the responsibilities of the Commission and of Member States should be clearly defined. To the extent possible, there should be interoperability between the common and national components of the European electronic systems, and synergies with other electronic systems of relevant Union programmes.

(13)

Currently, there is no requirement to draw up a Multi-Annual Strategic Plan for Taxation for creating a coherent and interoperable electronic environment for taxation in the Union. In order to ensure that IT capacity-building actions are coherent and coordinated, the Programme should provide for the requirement to draw up such a plan, a planning tool which should be compliant with and should not go beyond the obligations arising from the relevant legal acts of the Union.

(14)

This Regulation should be implemented by means of work programmes. In view of the mid- to long-term nature of the objectives pursued and building on experience gained over time, it should be possible for work programmes to cover several years. A shift from annual to multiannual work programmes, which should each cover no more than three years, would reduce the administrative burden on both the Commission and Member States.

(15)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (11)

(16)

Pursuant to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (12), this Programme should be evaluated on the basis of information collected in accordance with specific monitoring requirements, while avoiding an administrative burden, in particular on Member States, and overregulation. Those requirements, where appropriate, should include measurable indicators as a basis for evaluating the effects of the Programme on the ground. The interim and final evaluations, which should be performed no later than four years after the start of the implementation and the completion of the Programme, respectively, should contribute to the decision-making process of the next multiannual financial frameworks. The interim and final evaluations should also address the remaining obstacles to the achievement of the Programme’s objectives and make suggestions for best practices. In addition to the interim and final evaluations, as part of the performance reporting system, annual progress reports should be issued to monitor the progress made. Those reports should include a summary of the lessons learnt and, where appropriate, of the obstacles encountered, in the context of the activities of the Programme that have taken place in the year in question.

(17)

The Commission should organise regular seminars of tax authorities at which representatives of beneficiary Member States discuss issues and suggest potential improvements related to the objectives of the Programme, including the exchange of information between tax authorities.

(18)

In order to respond appropriately to changes in tax policy priorities, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending the list of indicators to measure the achievement of the specific objectives of the Programme and supplementing this Regulation with provisions on the establishment of a monitoring and evaluation framework. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

(19)

In accordance with the Financial Regulation, Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13) and Council Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (14), (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 (15) and (EU) 2017/1939 (16), the financial interests of the Union are to be protected by means of proportionate measures, including measures relating to the prevention, detection, correction and investigation of irregularities, including fraud, to the recovery of funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used, and, where appropriate, to the imposition of administrative penalties. In particular, in accordance with Regulations (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 and (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has the power to carry out administrative investigations, including on-the-spot checks and inspections, with a view to establishing whether there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is empowered, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, to investigate and prosecute criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union as provided for in Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council (17). In accordance with the Financial Regulation, any person or entity receiving Union funds is to fully cooperate in the protection of the financial interests of the Union, grant the necessary rights and access to the Commission, OLAF, the Court of Auditors and, in respect of those Member States participating in enhanced cooperation pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the EPPO, and ensure that any third parties involved in the implementation of Union funds grant equivalent rights.

(20)

Third countries which are members of the European Economic Area (EEA) may participate in Union programmes in the framework of the cooperation established under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (18), which provides for the implementation of the programmes on the basis of a decision adopted under that Agreement. Third countries may also participate on the basis of other legal instruments. A specific provision should be introduced in this Regulation requiring third countries to grant the necessary rights and access required for the authorising officer responsible, OLAF and the Court of Auditors to comprehensively exercise their respective competences.

(21)

Horizontal financial rules adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of Article 322 TFEU apply to this Regulation. Those rules are laid down in the Financial Regulation and determine in particular the procedure for establishing and implementing the budget through grants, procurement, prizes and indirect implementation, and provide for checks on the responsibility of financial actors. Rules adopted on the basis of Article 322 TFEU also include a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget.

(22)

The types of financing and the methods of implementation under this Regulation should be chosen on the basis of their ability to achieve the specific objectives of the actions and to deliver results, taking into account, in particular, the cost of controls, the administrative burden, and the expected risk of non-compliance. That choice should include the consideration of the use of lump sums, flat-rate financing and unit costs, as well as financing not linked to costs as referred to in Article 125(1) of the Financial Regulation. The eligible costs should be determined by reference to the nature of the eligible actions. The coverage of travel, accommodation and subsistence costs for participants in meetings and similar ad hoc events and the coverage of costs linked to the organisation of events is of utmost importance in order to ensure the participation of national experts and tax authorities in joint actions.

(23)

In accordance with Article 193(2) of the Financial Regulation, a grant may be awarded for an action which has already begun, provided that the applicant can demonstrate the need for starting the action prior to signature of the grant agreement. However, the costs incurred prior to the date of submission of the grant application are not eligible, except in duly justified exceptional cases. In order to avoid any disruption in Union support which could be prejudicial to Union’s interests, it should be possible to provide in the financing decision, during a limited period of time at the beginning of the multi-annual financial framework 2021-2027, and only in duly justified cases, for eligibility of activities and costs from the beginning of the 2021 financial year, even if they were implemented and incurred before the grant application was submitted.

(24)

Since the objective of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(25)

Regulation (EU) No 1286/2013 should therefore be repealed.

(26)

In order to ensure continuity in providing support in the relevant policy area and to allow implementation to start from the beginning of the multi-annual financial framework 2021-2027, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency and should apply, with retroactive effect, from 1 January 2021,

(1)

On 18 January 2012 the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

(2)

On the basis of a review of the measures set out in Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, the entries for 25 natural persons and three entities in the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should be updated.

(3)

The entries for five deceased individuals should be deleted from the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

(4)

Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 contains the list of harmonised classification and labelling of hazardous substances based on the criteria set out in Parts 2 to 5 of Annex I to that Regulation.

(2)

Proposals to introduce harmonised classification and labelling of certain substances and to update or delete the harmonised classification and labelling of certain other substances have been submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (‘Agency’) pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. The Committee for Risk Assessment of the Agency (RAC) adopted opinions (2) on those proposals, after having taken account of the comments received from the parties concerned. Those RAC opinions are:

(3)

Acute Toxicity Estimates (ATE) are mainly used to determine the classification for human health acute toxicity of mixtures containing substances classified for acute toxicity. The inclusion of harmonised ATE values in the entries listed in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 facilitates the harmonisation of the classification of mixtures and provides support for enforcement authorities. Following further scientific assessmentsof some substances, ATE values have been derived by the Agency for dicopper oxide, dicopper chloride trihydroxide, tetracopper hexahydroxide sulphate and tetracopper hexahydroxide sulphate hydrate, copper flakes (coated with aliphatic acid), copper(II) carbonate--copper(II) hydroxide (1:1), copper dihydroxide; copper(II) hydroxide, bordeaux mixture; reaction products of copper sulphate with calcium dihydroxide and copper sulphate pentahydrate, in addition to those proposed in the RAC opinions for other substances. Those ATE values should be inserted in the penultimate column of Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.

(4)

Additional information was received by the Commission contesting the scientific assessment set out in the RAC opinions of 15 March 2019 concerning mancozeb, of 20 September 2019 concerning 4-methylpentan-2-one, and of 20 September 2019 concerning dimethomorph. That information was assessed by the Commission and was not found sufficient to cast doubts on the scientific analysis contained in the RAC opinions.

(5)

The Commission therefore considers appropriate to introduce, update or delete the harmonised classification and labelling of certain substances.

(6)

Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

Compliance with the new or updated harmonised classifications should not be required immediately as a certain period of time is necessary to allow suppliers to adapt the labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures to the new or revised classifications and to sell existing stocks subject to the pre-existing regulatory requirements. That period of time is also necessary to allow suppliers sufficient time to take the actions required to ensure continuing compliance with other legal requirements following the changes made under this Regulation. Such requirements may include those set out in point (f) of Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) or those set out in Article 50 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4). Suppliers should, however, have the possibility to apply the new or updated harmonised classifications, and to adapt the labelling and packaging accordingly, on a voluntary basis before the date of application of this Regulation and as of the date of entry into force to ensure a high level of protection of human health and of the environment and to provide sufficient flexibility to suppliers,

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) provides for a harmonised classification of substances as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR) based on an opinion prepared by the Committee for Risk Assessment of the European Chemicals Agency. The substances are classified as CMR substances of category 1A, CMR substances of category 1B or CMR substances of category 2 depending on the level of evidence of their CMR properties.

(2)

Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 provides that substances which have been classified as CMR substances of category 1A, category 1B or category 2 under Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CMR substances) are prohibited from use in cosmetic products. A CMR substance may however be used in cosmetic products where the conditions laid down in the second sentence of Article 15(1) or in the second subparagraph of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 are fulfilled.

(3)

In order to uniformly implement the prohibition of CMR substances within the internal market, to ensure legal certainty, in particular for economic operators and national competent authorities, and to ensure a high level of protection of human health, CMR substances should be included in the list of prohibited or, as applicable, restricted substances in Annex II or Annex III, respectively, to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and, where relevant, deleted from the lists of restricted or authorised substances in Annexes III to VI to that Regulation. Where the conditions laid down in the second sentence of Article 15(1) or the second subparagraph of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 are fulfilled, the lists of restricted or authorised substances in Annexes III to VI to that Regulation should be amended accordingly.

(4)

By Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 (3), which is to apply from 1 October 2021, certain substances have been classified as CMR substances in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. It is therefore necessary to prohibit the use of those CMR substances in cosmetic products from the same date.

(5)

In particular, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 provides for a classification of the substance TiO2 (INCI name: titanium dioxide) as ‘Carcinogen Category 2 (inhalation)’, that applies to titanium dioxide in powder form containing 1 % or more of particles with aerodynamic diameter of ≤ 10 μm.

(6)

Titanium dioxide is currently listed in entry 143 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and allowed for use as colorant in cosmetic products, provided that it complies with the purity criteria as set out in entry E 171 (titanium dioxide) of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 (4). Titanium dioxide is also listed in entries 27 and 27a (nano form) of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 as UV filter and only allowed in cosmetic products in concentrations of up to 25 %. In addition, titanium dioxide (nano) is allowed in ready for use preparation, except in applications that may lead to exposure of the end user’s lungs by inhalation and subject to the other conditions listed in that entry.

(7)

Following the classification of titanium dioxide as a CMR substance, a request for its use in cosmetic products by way of exception pursuant to the second sentence of Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 was submitted on 28 January 2020.

(8)

On 6 October 2020, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) adopted a scientific opinion on titanium dioxide (5) (‘the SCCS opinion’) for the purpose of the adoption of the necessary measures in accordance with Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. The SCCS opinion, which covered titanium dioxide (inhalable) in powder form containing 1 % or more of particles with aerodynamic diameter ≤ 10 μm, concluded that, based on the available data, TiO2 was safe for general consumers when used in face products in loose powder form up to a maximum concentration of 25 % and in hair products in aerosol spray form up to a maximum concentration of 1,4 %. As regards professional use, TiO2 was considered safe when used in hair products in aerosol spray form up to a maximum concentration of 1,1 %.

(9)

Finally, the SCCS concluded that those results were drawn from cosmetic products based on only one type of titanium dioxide material (pigmentary) and that, in the absence of more information, it could not be established whether those conclusions would be also applicable to other cosmetic applications containing other types of titanium dioxide not explicitly covered by the SCCS opinion.

(10)

In the light of the SCCS conclusions, titanium dioxide in powder form containing 1 % or more of particles with aerodynamic diameter ≤ 10 μm should not be authorised for use in applications that may give rise to inhalation exposure by the end user and should, therefore, be added to the list of restricted substances in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and its use should be allowed only in face products in loose powder form and in hair aerosol spray products as indicated in those conclusions. In addition to the inclusion of titanium dioxide in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, it should be provided that the use of titanium dioxide as colorant in accordance with entry 143 of Annex IV to that Regulation, as well as the use of titanium dioxide as UV filter in accordance with entry 27 of Annex VI to that Regulation should be allowed without prejudice to its restricted use under Annex III to that Regulation. To this aim, a reference to the restricted use of titanium dioxide under Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 should be added in the relevant entries in Annex IV and Annex VI to that Regulation. As regards the use of titanium dioxide (nano) as UV filter in accordance with entry 27a of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, no additional measures are required, as entry 27a already provides that titanium dioxide (nano) is not to be used in applications that may lead to exposure of the end-user’s lungs by inhalation.

(11)

With regard to substances other than titanium dioxide, which were classified as CMR substances pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217, no request for use in cosmetic products by way of exception has been submitted. This concerns cobalt, metaldehyde (ISO), methylmercuric chloride, benzo[rst]pentaphene, dibenzo[b,def]chrysene; dibenzo[a,h]pyrene, ethanol, 2,2'-iminobis-,N-(C13-15-branched and linear alkyl) derivs, cyflumetofen (ISO), diisohexyl phthalate, halosulfuron-methyl (ISO), 2-methylimidazole, metaflumizone (ISO), dibutylbis(pentane-2,4-dionato-O,O’)tin, nickel bis(sulfamidate), 2-Benzyl-2-dimethylamino-4′- morpholinobutyrophenone and ethylene oxide. Those substances are currently neither subject to the restrictions laid down in Annex III nor authorised in accordance with Annexes IV, V or VI to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. Three of those substances, namely nickel bis(sulfamidate), ethylene oxide and 2-Benzyl-2-dimethylamino-4′- morpholinobutyrophenone, are currently listed in Annex II to that Regulation. The substances that are not yet listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 should be added to the list of substances prohibited in cosmetic products in that Annex.

(12)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1966 (6), that was adopted to uniformly implement the prohibition of substances classified as CMR, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1480 (7), introduced changes to entry 98 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 with regard to the substance benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy- (INCI name: salicylic acid). In order to fully align those changes with the conclusion of the original SCCS opinion (8), it is appropriate to authorise the use of that substance, for purposes other than preservative function, in body lotion, eye shadow, mascara, eyeliner, lipstick and roll-on deodorant in a concentration of up to 0,5 %. Entry 98 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(13)

Additionally, the substance nickel bis(tetrafluoroborate) (CAS number: 14708-14-6) has been introduced twice by error in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (entries 1401 and 1427) by Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/831 (9), that was adopted to uniformly implement the prohibition of substances classified as CMR, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, by Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/776 (10). The second of those entries is therefore redundant and should be removed.

(14)

Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 should therefore be amended and corrected accordingly.

(15)

The amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 provided for in this Regulation that are based on the classifications of the relevant substances as CMR substances by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 should apply from the same date as that Delegated Regulation.

(16)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Cosmetic Products,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.

(2)

Regular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)

Given the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,

(1)

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (‘the Agreement’) (3) was signed, on behalf of the Union, on 29 December 2020. It is to be applied on a provisional basis from 1 January 2021.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 opens and provides for the administration of Community tariff quotas bound in GATT and certain other Community tariff quotas and establishes detailed rules for adjusting the quotas, and repeals Council Regulation (EC) No 1808/95 (4).

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 847/2006 (5) opens and provides for the administration of Community tariff quotas for certain prepared or preserved fish.

(4)

The Agreement states that products originating in the United Kingdom are not eligible to be imported into the Union under existing WTO tariff quotas as defined in the Agreement. It refers to tariff quotas apportioned between the parties pursuant to Article XXVIII GATT negotiations initiated by the Union in WTO document G/SECRET/42/Add.2 (6) and by the United Kingdom in WTO document G/SECRET/44 (7) and as set out in each party’s respective internal legislation. The Agreement further states that the originating status of the products is to be determined on the basis of non-preferential rules of origin applicable in the importing party.

(5)

The existing WTO tariff quotas as defined in the Agreement refer to WTO concessions of the Union included in the draft EU28 schedule of concessions and commitments under GATT 1994 submitted to the WTO in document G/MA/TAR/RS/506 (8) as amended by documents G/MA/TAR/RS/506/Add.1 and G/MA/TAR/RS/506/Add.2 (9).

(6)

Regulations (EC) No 32/2000 and (EC) No 847/2006 currently apply to such imports originating in the United Kingdom. In order to comply with the Agreement, those Regulations should be amended to exclude import of products originating in the United Kingdom from existing WTO tariff quotas.

(7)

The Agreement is to be applied on a provisional basis from 1 January 2021. Therefore, import of products originating in the United Kingdom should also be excluded from the application of tariff quotas the quota periods of which started before 1 January 2021 and were still ongoing on that date, as regards imports that took place on or after 1 January 2021.

(8)

In order to ensure conformity with the Agreement, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and apply from 1 January 2021 the date of application of the Agreement.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

(1)

Commission Directive 2008/113/EC (2) included Streptomyces K61 (formerly ‘S. griseoviridis’) as an active substance in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (3).

(2)

The concerned active substance is a bacterium, that was first named ‘Streptomyces griseoviridis’. Subsequently, for scientific reasons, that name was changed into Streptomyces K61. More recently, it was changed again into its current name Streptomyces strain K61.

(3)

Active substances included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC are deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and are listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (4).

(4)

The approval of the active substance Streptomyces strain K61, as set out in Part A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, expires on 30 April 2022.

(5)

An application for the renewal of the approval of the active substance Streptomyces strain K61 was submitted in accordance with Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 (5) within the time period provided for in that Article.

(6)

The applicant submitted the supplementary dossiers required in accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The application was found to be complete by the rapporteur Member State.

(7)

The rapporteur Member State prepared a draft renewal assessment report in consultation with the co-rapporteur Member State and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) and the Commission on 15 January 2019.

(8)

The Authority communicated the draft renewal assessment report to the applicant and to the Member States for comments and forwarded the comments received to the Commission. The Authority also made the supplementary summary dossier available to the public.

(9)

On 19 June 2020, the Authority communicated to the Commission its conclusion (6) on whether Streptomyces strain K61 can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The Commission presented a renewal report on the 3 December 2020 and a draft Regulation regarding Streptomyces strain K61 to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed on 25 January 2021.

(10)

The Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion of the Authority and, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 14(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, on the renewal report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined.

(11)

It has been established with respect to one or more representative uses of at least one plant protection product containing the active substance Streptomyces strain K61 that the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are satisfied. It is therefore appropriate to renew the approval of Streptomyces strain K61.

(12)

The risk assessment for the renewal of the approval of the active substance Streptomyces strain K61 is based on a limited number of representative uses, which however do not restrict the uses for which plant protection products containing Streptomyces strain K61 may be authorised. It is therefore appropriate not to maintain the restriction to use as a fungicide only.

(13)

In accordance with Article 20(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, in conjunction with Article 13(4) thereof, the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(14)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/566 (7) extended the approval period of Streptomyces strain K61 to 30 April 2022 in order to allow the renewal process to be completed before the expiry of that period. However, given that a decision on renewal is being taken ahead of the expiry of that extended approval period, this Regulation should start to apply earlier than that date.

(15)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

On 30 September 2020, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products (‘SSCR’ or ‘the product under investigation’) originating in India and Indonesia ('the countries concerned'), on the basis of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (‘Notice of Initiation’).

(2)

The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 17 August 2020 by the European Steel Association (‘Eurofer’ or ‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products. The complaint contained evidence of dumping from the countries concerned and resulting material injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.

(3)

Following a request by the complainant supported by the required evidence, the Commission made imports of the product concerned subject to registration under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/370 (3).

(4)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, known exporting producers in the countries concerned and the authorities of the countries concerned, known importers and users in the Union about the initiation of the investigation, and invited them to participate.

(5)

Interested parties had the opportunity to comment on the initiation of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. The Commission held a hearing with the complainant, one exporting producer and one Union user. The Commission received comments that are addressed in Sections 2.3 and 5.2 and 7.2.

(6)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(7)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had decided to limit to a reasonable number the Union producers that would be investigated by applying sampling, and that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the provisional sample on the basis of production and Union sales volumes reported by the Union producers in the context of the pre-initiation standing assessment analysis, taking also into account their geographical location. The provisional sample thus established consisted of three Union producers accounting for more than 60 % of production and around 70 % of sales in the Union of the like product, and located in four different Member States. Details of this provisional sample were made available in the file for inspection by interested parties, with the possibility for them to make comments. No comments were made.

(8)

As a result of the above, the provisional sample of Union producers was confirmed. It consisted of Aperam Stainless Europe (‘Aperam’), Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. (‘AST’) and Outokumpu Stainless Oy (‘OTK’). The definitive sample is representative of the Union industry.

(9)

To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(10)

Three unrelated importers made themselves known as interested parties and provided the requested information. In view of the low number of replies received, sampling was not necessary. No comments were made to this decision. The importers were invited to complete a questionnaire.

(11)

In view of the potentially large number of exporting producers in the countries concerned, the Notice of Initiation provided for sampling in India and Indonesia and therefore, the Commission asked all known exporting producers in India and Indonesia to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation to decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample.

(12)

In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of India to the European Union and the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia in Brussels to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(13)

Upon initiation, seven potential exporting producers in India were contacted by the Commission. Two exporting producers in India provided the information required for sampling and they represented all exports of the product concerned to the Union. The Commission therefore abandoned sampling with regard to exporting producers in India.

(14)

Upon initiation, 14 potential exporting producers in Indonesia were contacted by the Commission. Three exporting producers replied to the sampling questions and reported sales to the Union. According to the information provided in the sampling returns, their sales represented 72 % of Indonesian exports to the Union. On that basis, sampling was abandoned also for Indonesia.

(15)

The complaint provided sufficient prima facie evidence of raw material distortions in India and Indonesia regarding the product concerned. Therefore, as announced in the Notice of Initiation, the investigation covered those raw material distortions to determine whether to apply the provisions of Article 7(2a) and 7(2b) of the basic Regulation with regard to India and Indonesia. For this reason, the Commission sent questionnaires in this regard to the Governments of India (‘GOI’) and Indonesia (‘GOIS’).

(16)

The Commission sent questionnaires to the three sampled Union producers, the complainant, the three unrelated importers, and the five exporting producers in the countries concerned. The same questionnaires had also been made available online (4) on the day of initiation.

(17)

Questionnaire replies were received from the three sampled Union producers, the complainant, two unrelated importers, the two exporting producers from India and three exporting producers from Indonesia. Questionnaire replies were also received from the GOI and the GOIS.

(18)

In view of the outbreak of COVID-19 and the confinement measures put in place by various Member States as well as by various third countries, the Commission could not carry out verification visits pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation at provisional stage. The Commission instead cross-checked remotely all the information deemed necessary for its provisional determinations in line with its Notice on the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations (5).

(19)

The Commission carried out remote crosschecks (‘RCC’) of the following companies / parties:

(20)

With regard to the procedure of Articles 7(2a) and 7(2b) of the basic Regulation, RCCs with the GOI and with the GOIS took place.

(21)

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2017 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(22)

The product concerned by this investigation is flat-rolled products of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), currently falling under CN codes 7219 31 00, 7219 32 10, 7219 32 90, 7219 33 10, 7219 33 90, 7219 34 10, 7219 34 90, 7219 35 10, 7219 35 90, 7219 90 20, 7219 90 80, 7220 20 21, 7220 20 29, 7220 20 41, 7220 20 49, 7220 20 81, 7220 20 89, 7220 90 20 and 7220 90 80 and originating in India and Indonesia. The CN codes are given for information only.

(23)

The investigation showed that the following products have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses:

(24)

The Commission decided at this stage that those products are therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(25)

At a very late stage of the provisional part of the investigation, one Union user came forward as an interested party and sent a submission concerning the product scope. The company requested the exclusion of products with steel grade 200 (‘200 SSCRPs’) from the product scope as, according to the company, those products have no or very limited production in the Union and such products have a specific and niche end use. According to the company, the exclusion of 200 SSCRP on the basis of their steel grade and end use would not risk circumvention of other types of products.

(26)

The above claim was opposed by the complainant. Eurofer insisted that the 200 SSCRPs are produced by at least two of the Union producers. Moreover, Eurofer submitted that they can be easily replaced by other steel grades in end use, and are as such in direct competition with these product types. Furthermore, the 200 SSCRPs have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics as well as distribution channels as other steel grades and cannot be easily identified without specialist tests – which, according to the complainant, clearly opens the possibility of circumvention. Considering the claims made by Eurofer, the Commission provisionally concluded that the product types are interchangeable.

(27)

Taking into account the very late submission of the product scope request, the fact that there is Union production of the 200 SSCRPs and the interchangeability of 200 SSCRPs with other product types, the product exclusion request is provisionally rejected.

(28)

Given the limited number of parties cooperating both in India and Indonesia, the details of certain findings on dumping are confidential and therefore only contained in the bilateral disclosures.

(29)

The two co-operating exporting producers in India were Chromeni Steels Private Limited and the Jindal Group.

(30)

Chromeni Steels Private Limited produced the product concerned in India and sold it on the domestic market mainly to unrelated and to a few related customers. All exports to the Union were made directly to unrelated customers.

(31)

The following companies that were expressly named by the Jindal Group as being involved in the production and sales of the product concerned were involved in the investigation and RCC:

(32)

The RCC revealed that a related company of the Jindal Group in a third country was involved in the sales of the product concerned to the Union. Yet the relevant role of this party with regard to the product under investigation had not been reported as such in the correspondence by the Jindal Group, including in the questionnaire replies. Consequently, the Commission informed the Jindal Group, by letter of 23 March 2021, that it intended to apply the provisions of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and use facts available with regard to the information that had not been disclosed relating to the role of the related company. Following that letter, the related company located in a third country submitted comments on 29 March 2021. With their comments, the Jindal group also provided the related company’s reply to the annex to the questionnaire.

(33)

These comments were reiterated during a hearing with the Hearing Officer on 16 April 2021.

(34)

The comments of the Jindal Group on the March 23 letter were duly assessed but they did not alter the Commission’s appreciation of the facts. In particular, the reply to the annex to the questionnaire which was submitted in reply to the Commission’s letter of 23 March 2021 could not be remotely cross-checked and therefore, the Commission could not assess the completeness of the information provided on behalf of that party.

(35)

Consequently, the Commission confirmed its intention to apply the provisions of Article 18 of the basic Regulation at this stage.

(36)

The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for each cooperating exporting producer was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period.

(37)

On this basis, the total sales volume by each cooperating exporting producer of the like product on the domestic market were found to be representative.

(38)

The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union.

(39)

The Commission then examined whether the product types sold by each of the cooperating exporting producers on their domestic market compared with product types sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of a product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the identical or comparable product type to the Union.

(40)

The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each product type during the investigation period in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value or whether to disregard the sales outside of the ordinary course of trade by reason of price, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

(41)

The normal value is based on the actual domestic price per product type, irrespective of whether those sales are profitable or not, if:

(42)

In this case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type during the investigation period.

(43)

The normal value is the actual domestic price per product type of only the profitable domestic sales of the product types during the investigation period, if:

(44)

Where more than 80% of the domestic sales per product type during the investigation period were profitable, and where the weighted average sales price was equal to or higher than the weighted average unit cost of production, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all actual domestic sales during the investigation period in the situation described in recital (42). Alternatively, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the profitable sales in the situation described in recital (43).

(45)

When a product type was not sold in representative quantities or not sold at all on the domestic market, and when there were no or insufficient sales of a product type of the like product in the ordinary course of trade, as provided for in Article 2 (2) and (4) of the basic Regulation, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2 (3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

(46)

Normal value was constructed per product type by adding the following to the average cost of production of the like product of the investigated exporting producers during the investigation period:

(47)

For the product types not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the average SG&A expenses and profit of transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market for those types were added. For the product types not sold at all on the domestic market, or where no sales were found in the ordinary course of trade, the weighted average SG&A expenses and profit of all transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market were added.

(48)

The exporting producers exported to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related companies.

(49)

For the exporting producers that exported the product concerned directly to independent customers in the Union and for exporting producers that exported the product concerned to the Union through related companies located in a third country, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(50)

For the exporting producers that exported the product concerned to the Union through related companies acting as an importer, the export price was established on the basis of the price at which the imported product was first resold to independent customers in the Union, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. In this case, adjustments to the price were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including SG&A expenses and a reasonable profit.

(51)

The Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the exporting producers on an ex-works basis.

(52)

Where justified by the need to ensure a fair comparison, the Commission adjusted the normal value and/or the export price for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments to the export price were made for commission of the related trader in a third country (see recital(49)). Adjustments to the normal value and the export price were made for transport, insurance, packing, handling, loading and ancillary costs, credit cost, bank charges and conversion costs when applicable and discounts, including deferred discounts, where they affected price comparability.

(53)

The Jindal Group made a claim under Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation for a duty drawback adjustment to the normal value, arguing that the existence of a flat rate ‘Duty Drawback Scheme’ implies that all their domestic sales would incorporate an indirect tax compared to the export sales. However, the Jindal Group failed to establish that the claimed amounts were linked to the imports of incorporated raw materials or to the duties paid on them. The claim was therefore rejected.

(54)

In view of the RCC findings with regard to Jindal’s related company located in third country, as explained in recitals (32) to (35) above, the Commission replaced certain information with regard to the allowances applicable to Jindal Group’s sales prices to the Union by facts available under Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(55)

For the exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

(56)

The level of cooperation in this case was considered high as the exports of the cooperating exporting producers constitute 100% of the total exports to the EU during the IP. No other exporting producers than the cooperating two could be identified. Consequently, the Commission found it appropriate to set the residual dumping margin at the level of the exporting producer with the highest dumping margin.