COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1156

of 4 August 2020

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/186 on imports of certain corrosion resistant steels originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of slightly modified certain corrosion resistant steels

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), (‘the basic Regulation’) and in particular Articles 13(3) and 14(5) thereof,

Whereas:

1.   

PROCEDURE

1.1.   

Existing measures

(1) By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/186 (2) (‘the original Regulation’), the Commission imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain corrosion resistant steels originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘the PRC’). The individual anti-dumping duties in force range from 17,2 % to 27,9 %. All non-sampled cooperating exporting producers listed in an Annex to that Regulation received a duty of 26,1 % and all other (non-cooperating) exporting producers are subject to the residual duty of 27,9 %.

(2) These measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the measures in force’ and the investigation that led to the measures imposed by the original Regulation will be hereinafter referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

1.2.   

Ex officio

initiation

(3) The Commission had at its disposal sufficient evidence that the measures in force were being circumvented by slight modifications of the product concerned. More specifically, statistics at 10-digit TARIC level showed that a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People’s Republic of China to the Union took place following the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty.

(4) The evidence pointed to the fact that this change stems from the importation of the slightly modified product concerned and that there was no due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty for such practice, process or work.

(5) The evidence available to the Commission pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of the measures in force were being undermined both in terms of quantities and prices.

(6) The Commission also had sufficient evidence at its disposal showing that the exports of the slightly modified product were dumped in relation to the normal value previously established.

(7) Having thus determined, after having informed the Member States, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission decided to investigate the possible circumvention of the measures in force and to make imports of the slightly modified product subject to registration. As a result, the Commission adopted Regulation (EU) 2019/1948 (3) (the ‘initiating Regulation’), launching on its own initiative an investigation.

1.3.   

Product concerned and product under investigation

(8) The product concerned by the possible circumvention is flat-rolled products of iron or alloy steel or non-alloy steel; aluminium killed; plated or coated by hot dip galvanisation with zinc and/or with aluminium, and no other metal; chemically passivated; containing by weight: 0,015 % or more but not more than 0,170 % of carbon, 0,015 % or more but not more than 0,100 % of aluminium, not more than 0,045 % of niobium, not more than 0,010 % of titanium and not more than 0,010 % of vanadium; presented in coils, cut-to-length sheets and narrow strips.

The following products are excluded:

— of stainless steel, of silicon-electrical steel, and of high-speed steel,

— not further worked than hot-rolled or cold-rolled (cold-reduced).

(9) The product concerned is currently falling under CN codes ex 7210 41 00, ex 7210 49 00, ex 7210 61 00, ex 7210 69 00, ex 7212 30 00, ex 7212 50 61, ex 7212 50 69, ex 7225 92 00, ex 7225 99 00, ex 7226 99 30 and ex 7226 99 70 (TARIC codes: 7210410020, 7210490020, 7210610020, 7210690020, 7212300020, 7212506120, 7212506920, 7225920020, 7225990022, 7225990092, 7226993010, 7226997094) and originating in the People’s Republic of China. This is the product to which the original measures apply.

(10) The product under investigation for possible circumvention is flat-rolled products of iron or alloy steel or non-alloy steel; plated or coated by hot dip galvanisation with zinc and/or aluminium and/or magnesium, whether or not alloyed with silicon; chemically passivated; with or without any additional surface treatment such as oiling or sealing; containing by weight: not more than 0,5 % of carbon, not more than 1,1 % of aluminium, not more than 0,12 % of niobium, not more than 0,17 % of titanium and not more than 0,15 % of vanadium; presented in coils, cut-to-length sheets and narrow strips.

The following products are excluded:

— of stainless steel, of silicon-electrical steel, and of high-speed steel,

— not further worked than hot-rolled or cold-rolled (cold-reduced),

— the product concerned as defined in recital 8 above.

(11) The product under investigation is currently falling under CN codes ex 7210 41 00, ex 7210 49 00, ex 7210 61 00, ex 7210 69 00, ex 7210 90 80, ex 7212 30 00, ex 7212 50 61, ex 7212 50 69, ex 7212 50 90, ex 7225 92 00, ex 7225 99 00, ex 7226 99 30, ex 7226 99 70 (TARIC codes: 7210410030, 7210490030, 7210610030, 7210690030, 7210908092, 7212300030, 7212506130, 7212506930, 7212509014, 7212509092, 7225920030, 7225990023, 7225990041, 7225990093, 7226993030, 7226997013, 7226997093), originating in the People’s Republic of China.

1.4.   

Investigation

(12) The Commission duly informed the authorities of the PRC, the exporting producers in the PRC known to be concerned and an association of the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation.

(13) Pursuant to Article 3(1) of the initiating Regulation, questionnaires for the exporting producers in the PRC were made available on the website of DG TRADE (4).

(14) Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. All parties were informed that non-cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and to findings being based on facts available.

(15) Six groups of companies from the PRC and an association of the Union industry, representing the Union industry as defined in the original investigation, made themselves known.

(16) Of the above six groups, only two submitted complete replies to the questionnaires and requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation:

— Beijing Shougang Cold Rolling Co., Ltd., Shougang Jingtang United Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. and their related traders China Shougang International Trade & Engineering Corp., Shougang Holding Trade (Hong Kong) Limited, and Shougang International (Austria) GmbH (‘the Shougang group’);

— Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd., BX Steel POSCO Cold Rolled Sheet Co. Ltd and their related traders Benxi Iron & Steel Hong Kong Limited, Benxi Iron and Steel Group Europe GmbH, Benxi Iron & Steel (Group) International Economic and Trading Co., Ltd., and Benxi Iron Steel America Limited (‘the BSP group’).

(17) In line with the Notice on the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations (5), the Commission decided not to carry out verification visits at the premises of the companies that requested an exemption due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Instead, the Commission organised a videoconference with the Shougang group to crosscheck the questionnaire replies submitted by the group.

(18) For the same reasons, another exporter made a written submission instead of attending the requested hearing.

1.5.   

Reporting period and investigation period

(19) The investigation period covered the period from 1 January 2013 to 30 September 2019 (the ‘IP’). For the IP, data were collected to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change in the pattern of trade. For the period from 1 October 2018 to 30 September 2019 (the reporting period or ‘the RP’), more detailed data were collected in order to examine the possible undermining of the remedial effects of the measures in force and the existence of dumping.

2.   

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

2.1.   

General considerations

(20) Pursuant to Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission analysed whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between the product concerned and the slightly modified product originating in the PRC, whether this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than avoiding the imposition of the duty, whether there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of prices and/or quantities of the product under investigation, and whether there was evidence of dumping, in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.

2.2.   

Degree of cooperation

(21) In the notice of initiation, Chinese exporting producers were invited to cooperate and to reply to a questionnaire in order to demonstrate that their exports did not constitute circumvention.

(22) While 19 groups or companies were involved in the original anti-dumping investigation, only two groups of companies requested an exemption and provided the information requested in the current proceeding. These two groups accounted for 14 % of total imports from China declared by the exporting producers during the original anti-dumping investigation but less than 1 % of the total imports of the product under investigation during the RP. The level of cooperation was therefore low.

(23) Based on the questionnaire replies, the information provided by the BSP group was deemed incomplete and unreliable. Therefore, the Commission informed BSP of its intention to disregard the information provided and make its findings with regard to the group on the basis of facts available, pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(24) The BSP group submitted comments on the Commission’s intention to use facts available with regard to the group. It did not agree with the Commission conclusion that the group did not provide the necessary information and claimed that it had fully cooperated with the Commission by sending all questionnaire responses and answers to deficiency letters in time.

(25) The BSP group claimed that the application of fact available was not valid because, firstly, the Commission should have requested clarification beforehand on the discrepancy concerning the quantities exported during the original investigation. Secondly, the group claimed that the Product Control Number (‘PCN’) table would be impossible to establish and the product codes used by the companies could not correspond exactly with the PCN designated by the Commission. Finally, the BSP group claimed that it could not provide the exact chemical composition requested by the Commission, as this was not required by the industry standards and therefore only measured and booked upon specific customer request.

(26) As the BSP group did not bring any evidence altering the conclusions of the Commission, the Commission confirmed its intention to disregard the questionnaire reply of the BSP group and make its findings with regard to the group on the basis of facts available following Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(27) The exports of the non-cooperating exporters were thus estimated at more than 99 % of the total Chinese exports of the product under investigation to the Union for the reporting period. Hence, for those exports the Commission used facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(28) The Shougang group cooperated and, as set out in section 4 below, was exempted from the extended anti-dumping duties.

2.3.   

Change in the pattern of trade

(29) In order to establish whether there was a change in the pattern of trade, the Commission analysed the volume of imports of the product concerned and the volume of imports of the product under investigation during the investigation period.

(30) The product concerned and the product under investigation fall within the same CN codes, which also include other products (i.e. automotive grades). Specific TARIC codes allowing to determine the actual level of imports were attributed to both products only upon initiation of the respective investigations, i.e. in December 2016 for the product concerned (subject to anti-dumping measures) and in November 2019 for the product under investigation. The Commission had therefore to make estimations of the relevant imports.

(31) For the period from 2013 to 2016, the Commission established the import volume of products excluded from the scope of the anti-dumping measures (mostly automotive grades) falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned based on the evidence provided in the original anti-dumping investigation, i.e. that around 15 % of the imports under the CN codes consisted of products other than the product concerned (6).

(32) For the subsequent period, total imports were established on the basis of the full CN codes, imports of the product concerned were based on the specific TARIC codes, imports of the automotive grades were based on estimations submitted by the Union industry, and imports of the product under investigation were established by the difference.

(33) The table below compiles the information collected.

Table 1 – Imports volume (tonnes) product concerned and product under investigation from the PRC into the EU

(34) The total volume of imports of the product concerned from the PRC fell from 1 857 490 tonnes during the investigation period of the original anti-dumping investigation (October 2015 to September 2016) to 204 tonnes during the reporting period. The decrease was especially marked as from June 2017, when the Commission made imports of the product concerned subject to registration (13).

(35) In parallel, imports of the product under investigation started to grow only as from 2017. They fluctuated between 978 000 and 988 937 tonnes between 2017 and the RP, while they had been insignificant before the start of the original investigation.

(36) The quasi disappearance of imports of the product concerned since imposition of anti-dumping measures combined with a parallel increase of imports of the product under investigation constitutes a significant change in the pattern of trade, as required by Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.

2.4.   

Existence of circumvention practices

(37) Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter alia, the slight modification of the product concerned to make it fall under customs codes which are normally not subject to the measures, provided that the modification does not alter its essential characteristics.

(38) The product concerned and the product under investigation share the same essential characteristics. The product under investigation is obtained by making small modifications to the product concerned by, for example, slightly changing the chemical composition of the product or its coating. The producers of the product concerned can easily make these modifications and produce the product concerned and the product under investigation on the same production lines. The resulting products can be used for the same applications, i.e. in the construction industry or to produce home appliances. From the point of view of the producers and the users, the product concerned and the product under investigation should be considered the same product.

(39) Only two groups of Chinese exporting producers sent a request for exemption in order to demonstrate that they are genuine producers of the product under investigation and did not increase their Union sales of this product following the imposition of the original measures. These two producers only represented a fraction (less than 1 %) of the imports of the product under investigation in the RP. By contrast, 19 groups of Chinese exporters had cooperated to the original anti-dumping investigation. This low level of cooperation suggested that many of the Chinese exporters of the product under investigation were unwilling to provide evidence that they did not engage in slight modifications of the product concerned following the imposition of anti-dumping measures. The Commission therefore had to resort to other sources of information, to be used as facts available, in order to obtain positive evidence on the existence of circumvention.

(40) The Union industry provided examples of practices used by Chinese exporters to slightly modify the product concerned to make it fall under specific custom codes, which were not subject to the measures. This information confirmed the existence of different circumvention practices.

(41) The Union industry association provided a test certificate of an imported sample, indicating the addition of magnesium to the coating. By this slight modification, the product fell under a different TARIC code than the product concerned and was therefore not covered by the original measures.

(42) Furthermore, the Union industry association provided promotion material of a Chinese exporter promoting the sales of corrosion resistant steels with a coating to which magnesium was added, specifically indicating that no anti-dumping measures would be applicable on this product.

(43) The Union industry association also submitted information indicating that some importers tried to make their imports fall outside the scope of the measures in force, for example by importing a product that had a thin oil coating or that was oiled only for some meters at the head and the tail, including the eye of the coil, while the rest of the coil remained passivated and therefore subjected to the original measures.

(44) In light of all evidence above, that constitutes the facts available for the non-cooperating exporting producers, the Commission established the existence of a circumvention practice within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation at a country level for all imports of the product under investigation from the PRC. This circumvention practice takes the form of a slight modification of the product concerned to make it fall under customs codes, which are normally not subject to the measures.

(45) In addition to the above, other jurisdictions have also established Chinese practices of circumvention resulting from the imposition of anti-dumping measures on the product concerned.

(46) Australia concluded in 2016 an anti-circumvention investigation in which it found that the exported non-alloyed galvanized steel had been slightly modified through a minor change to the manufacturing process with the addition of alloying elements (14).

(47) In February 2020, The United States of America also concluded that circumvention of certain corrosion-resistant steel took place, where the product was shipped from China to a number of third countries (Costa Rica, Malaysia, and the United Arab Emirates) where it underwent minor processing. (15)

(48) The above practices indicate that Chinese exporters have put in place circumvention practices with regard to not only exports to the Union, but also to other export markets.

2.5.   

Undermining the remedial effects of the duty

(49) As shown in Table 1 above, the imports of the product under investigation to Union by the Chinese exporters have increased significantly between 2016 and the RP. In the RP, the product under investigation accounted for 53 % of the injurious imports in the original anti-dumping investigation period.

(50) In terms of volume, during the RP, the Union industry reported their Union sales between 4 000 000 and 5 000 000 tonnes, while the total imports of the product concerned and the product under investigation accounted for 2 441 000 tonnes, resulting in a total Union consumption between 6 441 000 and 7 441 000 tonnes. Therefore, the market share of Chinese imports was estimated at a level of more than 13 %.

(51) In terms of prices, the Commission compared the export price of the slightly modified product with the sales price of the Union industry during the RP.

(52) As prices and costs have evolved since the original investigation, the target price of the product concerned in the original investigation did not reflect any more the price during the RP. Therefore, the Commission compared the export price of the slightly modified product with the price of the Union industry during the RP, as provided by the Union industry.

(53) The Chinese import price reported in Eurostat is a mix of the slightly modified product concerned and the more expensive automotive steel grades. Given the low level of cooperation of Chinese exporters, and in absence of any other reliable information, the Commission relied on an estimation submitted by the Union industry that the price of automotive steel grades is 20 % higher than the product concerned, which is also applicable for the Chinese imports of similar products.

(54) Applying the difference of price between the product concerned and the product under investigation to the import value of the product under investigation, provided in Eurostat, the Chinese import prices of the product under investigation did undercut the Union price during the RP by around 4 %. The Union industry also submitted data showing that it is still in a loss-making situation.

(55) Given the significant volume of imports of the product under investigation, which had substituted to a large extent the imports of the product concerned after the imposition of the original measures, and their low prices, it was concluded that the remedial effects of the duty were undermined both in terms of quantities and prices.

2.6.   

Evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value previously established for the like product

(56) In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether export prices of the product under investigation were dumped.

(57) Given the negligible level of cooperation of exporting producers, the Commission based the export price on Eurostat data, adjusted following the estimation by the Union industry, as explained in recital 53.

(58) The Chinese average import price from Eurostat, adjusted to ex-works value using the sole cooperating exporter’s data on allowances, was compared to the weighted average normal value established in the original investigation.

(59) The comparison of normal value and export price showed a level of dumping of around 14 % during the reporting period by the non-cooperating exporting producers.

2.7.   

Conclusion

(60) Based on the findings above, the Commission concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on the product concerned as defined in the original investigation were circumvented by imports of the slightly modified product originating in the PRC.

(61) The investigation showed that there was a change in the pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union which stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty.

(62) The Commission found that the remedial effects of the duty are being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product. Evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product was also found.

3.   

MEASURES

(63) In view of the findings above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on certain corrosion resistant steels originating in the PRC are circumvented by imports of the product under investigation originating in the PRC.

(64) In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of certain corrosion resistant steels originating in the PRC should therefore be extended to imports of the product under investigation originating in the PRC.

(65) Under Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provide that any extended measures should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, the anti-dumping duty should be collected on those imports into the Union of the product under investigation originating in the PRC.

4.   

REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION

(66) Two groups of exporting producers from the PRC requested to be exempted from the possible extended measures and submitted an exemption request in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.

(67) As set out in recital 26, one group of Chinese exporting producers did not provide the necessary information in its exemption request and the Commission therefore disregarded the information submitted by this company group.

(68) The sole cooperating group of exporting producers and their related traders provided information that it already sold a small volume of the product under investigation before the imposition of the original measures and no change in the pattern of trade took place since then. Therefore, the group was not found to be involved in circumvention practices and the Commission concluded that an exemption to this group is warranted.

(69) As set out in recital 17, the Commission decided not to carry out any verification visits at the premises of the company groups that requested an exemption.

(70) The Commission may, pursuant to the Notice on the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations, as soon as the areas where the exempted exporting producers are located are no longer considered unsafe for travelling, initiate

ex officio

a review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

5.   

DISCLOSURE

(71) All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. Only Eurofer, the complainant in the original investigation, commented on the final disclosure, supporting the conclusions reached by the Commission and calling on the Commission to follow the evolution of exports by the only exporting producer that received an exemption.

(72) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/186 on imports of flat-rolled products of iron or alloy steel or non-alloy steel; aluminium killed; plated or coated by hot dip galvanisation with zinc and/or with aluminium, and no other metal; chemically passivated; containing by weight: 0,015 % or more but not more than 0,170 % of carbon, 0,015 % or more but not more than 0,100 % of aluminium, not more than 0,045 % of niobium, not more than 0,010 % of titanium and not more than 0,010 % of vanadium; presented in coils, cut-to-length sheets and narrow strips originating in the People’s Republic of China

The following products are excluded:

— of stainless steel, of silicon-electrical steel, and of high-speed steel,

— not further worked than hot-rolled or cold-rolled (cold-reduced).

The product concerned is currently falling under CN codes ex 7210 41 00, ex 7210 49 00, ex 7210 61 00, ex 7210 69 00, ex 7212 30 00, ex 7212 50 61, ex 7212 50 69, ex 7225 92 00, ex 7225 99 00, ex 7226 99 30 and ex 7226 99 70 (TARIC codes: 7210410020, 7210490020, 7210610020, 7210690020, 7212300020, 7212506120, 7212506920, 7225920020, 7225990022, 7225990092, 7226993010, 7226997094) and originating in the People’s Republic of China. This is the product to which the original measures apply.

is hereby extended to imports of

flat-rolled products of iron or alloy steel or non-alloy steel; plated or coated by hot dip galvanisation with zinc and/or aluminium and/or magnesium, whether or not alloyed with silicon; chemically passivated; with or without any additional surface treatment such as oiling or sealing; containing by weight: not more than 0,5 % of carbon, not more than 1,1 % of aluminium, not more than 0,12 % of niobium, not more than 0,17 % of titanium and not more than 0,15 % of vanadium; presented in coils, cut-to-length sheets and narrow strips.

The following products are excluded:

— of stainless steel, of silicon-electrical steel, and of high-speed steel,

— not further worked than hot-rolled or cold-rolled (cold-reduced),

— the product concerned as defined in the beginning of this article,

currently falling under CN codes ex 7210 41 00, ex 7210 49 00, ex 7210 61 00, ex 7210 69 00, ex 7210 90 80, ex 7212 30 00, ex 7212 50 61, ex 7212 50 69, ex 7212 50 90, ex 7225 92 00, ex 7225 99 00, ex 7226 99 30, ex 7226 99 70 (TARIC codes: 7210410030, 7210490030, 7210610030, 7210690030, 7210908092, 7212300030, 7212506130, 7212506930, 7212509014, 7212509092, 7225920030, 7225990023, 7225990041, 7225990093, 7226993030, 7226997013, 7226997093), originating in the People’s Republic of China.

2.   This extension does not apply to imports referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article produced by the companies listed below:

3.   The application of exemptions granted to the companies specifically mentioned in paragraph 2 of this Article shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice issued by the producer on which shall appear a declaration dated and signed by an official of the entity issuing such invoice, identified by his/her name and function. This declaration shall be drafted as follows: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of certain corrosion resistant steels sold for export to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) in (country concerned). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’ If no such invoice is presented, the anti-dumping duty as imposed by paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply.

4.   The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports into the Union of certain corrosion resistant steels, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1948 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

5.   Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

Article 2

1.   Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the official languages of the European Union and must be signed by a person authorised to represent the entity requesting the exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade

Office: CHAR 04/039

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

2.   In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, the Commission may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/186, from the duty extended by Article 1 of this Regulation.

Article 3

Custom authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1948.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the

Official Journal of the European Union

.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 August 2020.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

(1)  

OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21

.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/186 of 7 February 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain corrosion resistant steels originating in the People’s Republic of China (

OJ L 34, 8.2.2018, p. 16

).

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1948 of 25 November 2019 initiating an investigation concerning possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/186 on imports of certain corrosion resistant steels originating in the People’s Republic of China, and making such imports subject to registration (

OJ L 304, 26.11.2019, p. 10

).

(4)  https://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/case_details.cfm?id=2409

(5)  

OJ C 86, 16.3.2020, p. 6

.

(6)  

OJ L 34, 8.2.2018

, see recitals 64 to 66.

(7)  85 % of the applicable CN codes as defined for the period concerned in the original investigation. For the year 2016 the same assumption was applied.

(8)  TARIC codes

(9)  Imports of products other than the product concerned, but including the product under investigation as well as automotive grades before the imposition of the original measures, constituted around 15 % of the total imports at CN code level, based on the findings of the original investigation for the period 2013-2016. The cooperating exporting producer sold certain product types falling under the definition of the product under investigation already before the original measures were established, in 2013-2016.

(10)  Total imports under CN codes including the product concerned, the product under investigation, and other products.

(11)  Obtained by difference, total imports minus imports of the product concerned and other products.

(12)  Industry estimation based on market intelligence for the period following the original investigation.

(13)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1238 of 7 July 2017 making imports of certain corrosion resistant steels originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (

OJ L 177, 8.7.2017, p. 39

).

(14)  https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/adc/public-record/040_-_final_report_-_rep_290_and_298_0.pdf

(15)  https://www.trade.gov/press-release/us-department-commerce-announces-preliminary-rulings-self-initiated-circumvention