# EUR-Lex - 52012PC0745 - EN

*|*

# 52012PC0745

**Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not /* COM/2012/0745 final - 2012/0353 (NLE) */**

			*

			*

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

Grounds for and objectives of the
proposal

This proposal concerns the application of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
('the basic Regulation') in the investigation of possible circumvention of the
anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on
imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the
People's Republic of China ('the PRC') by imports consigned from Taiwan and
Thailand.

General context This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation and in particular Article 13 thereof.

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal The measures currently in force were imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China.

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union Not applicable.

2.           RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS
WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Consultation of interested parties

Interested parties concerned by the proceeding have had the possibility to defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation.

Collection and use of expertise

There was no need for external expertise.

Impact assessment This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. The basic Regulation does not provide for a general impact assessment but contains an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed.

3.           LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE
PROPOSAL

Summary of the proposed action On 24 May 2012 the Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 437/2012, initiated an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC by imports consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not. The Commission has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation which contained sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres were being circumvented by means of transhipment via Taiwan and Thailand. The request was lodged on 10 April 2012 by Saint Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozo es Muszakiszovet-gyarto Bt., Valmieras "Stikla Skiedra" AS and Vitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres. The attached proposal for a Council Implementing Regulation is based on the findings of the investigation, which has confirmed that transhipment of certain Chinese-origin open mesh fabrics of glass fibres was taking place via Taiwan and Thailand and that all other criteria for the establishment of circumvention as set out in Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation are met. It is therefore proposed to extend the anti-dumping measures in force on certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC to imports of the same product consigned from Taiwan and Thailand. The duty corresponds to the country-wide duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC (62,9%). The duty shall be levied from the date of initiation of the investigation. None of the companies in Taiwan and Thailand came forward following the initiation, thus there are not any requests for exemption from any possible extension of the current measures. The relevant Council Regulation should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union no later than 23 February 2013.

Legal basis Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community and in particular Article 13 thereof.

Subsidiarity principle The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Union. The subsidiarity principle therefore does not apply.

Proportionality principle The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons:

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no scope for national decision.

Indication of how the financial and administrative burden falling upon the Union, national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable.

Choice of instruments

Proposed instruments: Regulation.

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: The above-mentioned basic Regulation does not provide for alternative options.

4.           BUDGETARY IMPLICATION

The proposal has no implication for the
Union budget.

2012/0353 (NLE)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty
imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of
certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic
of China to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from
Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or
not

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No
1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community[1]
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission,

Whereas:

1.           PROCEDURE

1.1.        Existing measures

(1)       By
Regulation (EU) No 791/2011[2] (‘the original Regulation’) the Council imposed a definitive
anti-dumping duty of 62,9% on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass
fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’) for all other
companies than the ones mentioned in Article 1(2) and Annex 1 of that
Regulation. 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.        Request

(2)       On 10 April 2012, the
European Commission (‘the Commission’) received a request pursuant to Article
13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible
circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain open
mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC and to make imports of
certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Taiwan and Thailand,
whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not, subject to
registration.

(3)       The request was lodged by
Saint-Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozo es
Muszakiszovet-gyarto Bt., Valmieras "Stikla Skiedra" AS and Vitrulan
Technical Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open mesh fabrics of
glass fibres.

(4)       The request contained
sufficient prima facie evidence that following the imposition of the
measures in force, a significant change in the pattern of trade involving
exports from the PRC, Taiwan and Thailand to the Union occurred, for which
there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the
imposition of the measures in force. This change in the pattern of trade
stemmed allegedly from the transhipment of certain open mesh fabrics of glass
fibres originating in the PRC via Taiwan and Thailand.

(5)       Furthermore, the evidence
pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of the measures in force were
being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. The evidence showed that
these increased imports from Taiwan and Thailand were made at prices below the
non-injurious price established in the original investigation.

(6)       Finally, there was
evidence that prices of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned
from Taiwan and Thailand were dumped in relation to the normal value
established during the original investigation.

1.3.        Initiation

(7)       Having
determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, 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, initiated an
investigation by Commission Regulation (EU) No 437/2012[3] (‘the initiating Regulation’). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5)
of the basic Regulation the Commission, by the initiating Regulation, also
directed the customs authorities to register imports of certain open mesh
fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Taiwan and Thailand.

1.4.        Investigation

(8)       The Commission officially
advised the authorities of the PRC, Taiwan and Thailand, the exporting
producers in those countries, the importers in the Union known to be concerned
and the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation. Questionnaires
were sent to the known producers/exporters in the PRC, Taiwan and Thailand known to the Commission from the request or through the Taipei Representative
Office and the Mission of the Kingdom of Thailand to the European Union.
Questionnaires were also sent to importers in the Union named in the request.
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 the facts available.

(9)       The
anti-circumvention questionnaire was sent to eight companies in Taiwan and to seven companies in Thailand. Some Taiwanese and Thai companies came forward and claimed that they do not want
to be considered as interested parties as they do not produce the product under
investigation and/or do not have any exports in Union. The remaining known
companies from the two countries concerned did not come forward at all. None of
the companies submitted a questionnaire reply. The anti-circumvention
questionnaire was also sent to fourty four companies in the PRC. However, none
of these exporting producers in the PRC either came forward or submitted a
questionnaire reply. Questionnaires were sent also to importers in the Union but none of them either came forward or submitted a questionnaire reply.

1.5.        Investigation period

(10)     The investigation period
covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 March 2012 (‘the IP’). Data were
collected for the IP to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change in
the pattern of trade. More detailed data were collected for the reporting
period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012 (‘the RP’) in order to examine the
possible undermining of the remedial effect of the measures in force and
existence of dumping.

2.           RESULTS OF THE
INVESTIGATION

2.1.        General considerations

(11)     In accordance with Article
13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circumvention
was made by analysing successively whether there was a change in the pattern of
trade between the PRC, Taiwan, Thailand and the Union; if this change stemmed
from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or
economic justification other than the imposition of the duty; if there was
evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being
undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the product under
investigation; and whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the
normal values previously established in the original investigation, if
necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic
Regulation.

2.2.        Product concerned and the
product under investigation

(12)     The product concerned is as
defined in the original investigation: Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a
cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more
than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, originating in the
People's Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and
ex 7019 59 00.

(13)     The product under
investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but
consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan
and Thailand or not.

(14)     The investigation showed
that open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, as defined above, exported from the PRC
to the Union and those consigned from Taiwan and Thailand to the Union have the
same basic physical and technical characteristics and have the same uses, and
are therefore to be considered as like products within the meaning of Article
1(4) of the basic Regulation.

2.3.        Degree of cooperation and
determination of the trade volumes

Taiwan

(15)     As stated in recital (9), none
of the companies submitted a questionnaire reply, i.e. there was no cooperation
from the Taiwanese exporting producers, and consequently no on the spot
verification visits were carried out. The findings in respect of imports of
certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from Taiwan into the Union and
exports of the product concerned from the PRC to Taiwan had to be made on the
basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic
Regulation. In this case COMEXT data was used to determine overall import
volumes from Taiwan to the Union and Chinese national statistics were used for
the determination of the overall exports from the PRC to Taiwan.

Thailand

(16)     The Thai exporting
producers did not cooperate either as they also did not submit questionnaire
replies, thus no on the spot verification visits were carried out. The findings
in respect of imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from Thailand into the Union and exports of the product concerned from the PRC to Thailand had to be made on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of
the basic Regulation. In this case COMEXT data was used to determine overall
import volumes from Thailand to the Union and Chinese national statistics were
used for the determination of the overall exports from the PRC to Thailand.

The People's Republic of China

(17)     There was no cooperation
from the Chinese exporting producers. Therefore, findings in respect of imports
of the product concerned into the Union and exports of certain open mesh
fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC to Taiwan and Thailand had to be made on
the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic
Regulation. Also in this case COMEXT data was used to determine overall import
volumes from the PRC to the Union. Chinese national statistics were used for
the determination of the overall exports from the PRC to Taiwan and Thailand.

(18)     The import volume recorded
in COMEXT statistics covers a larger product group than the product concerned
and the product under investigation. However, based on estimates provided by
the Union industry, it could be established that a significant part of this
import volume covered the product concerned and the product under
investigation. Accordingly, these data could be used to establish a change in
the pattern of trade.

2.4.        Change in the pattern of
trade

Imports of certain open mesh fabrics of
glass fibres into the Union

(19)     Imports of the product
concerned from the PRC to the Union dropped dramatically subsequent to the
imposition of the provisional measures in February 2011[4] and of the definitive measures
in August 2011 by the original Regulation.

Taiwan

(20)     Total exports of the
product under investigation from Taiwan to the Union increased significantly in
2011 and particularly following the imposition of the definitive measures in
August 2011. Based on COMEXT data, exports from Taiwan to the Union surged
suddenly in the second semester of 2011 whereas they were at insignificant
levels in previous years. These imports exploded further in the quarter
January-March 2012, following the initiation in November 2011 of the
anti-circumvention investigation on open mesh fabrics originating in the PRC
and consigned via Malaysia[5].
This trend is confirmed by the corresponding Chinese statistics with regard to
exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to Taiwan from the PRC.

Thailand

(21)     As far as Thailand is concerned, the total exports of the product under investigation to the Union also
increased sharply in 2011. Based on COMEXT data, exports from Thailand to the Union exploded in the quarter June-August 2011 whereas they were insignificant in
previous years. These imports also present a further surge in the quarter
January-March 2012, following the initiation in November 2011 of the anti-circumvention
investigation on open mesh fabrics originating in the PRC and consigned via Malaysia[6]. This trend is confirmed by the
corresponding Chinese statistics with regard to exports of open mesh fabrics of
glass fibres to Thailand from the PRC.

(22)     Table 1 below shows import
quantities of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC, Taiwan and Thailand into the Union from 1 January 2009 to 31 March 2012.

Import volumes (millions of m2) || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 1/4/2011 – 31/3/2012

PRC || 294,90 || 383,72 || 193,07 || 121,30

Taiwan || 1,33 || 1,03 || 10,67 || 17,07

Thailand || 0,66 || 0,04 || 10,40 || 24,11

Source: COMEXT
statistics

The COMEXT data is provided in kilograms while
the measurement of the product concerned is in square meters. The Union
Industry provided conversion rates for the two codes covered by the proceeding
which were used to calculate the figures in the Tables.

(23)     The data above clearly show
that imports from Taiwan and Thailand into the Union were negligible in 2009 and
2010. However, in 2011, following the imposition of the measures, the imports
surged suddenly and partly replaced the exports from the PRC on the Union
market in terms of volume. Moreover, since the imposition of the measures in
force, the decrease of the exports from the PRC to the Union has been
significant (70%).

Exports from the PRC to Taiwan and Thailand

(24)     A dramatic increase of
exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres can be observed from the PRC to Taiwan within the same period. From a relatively small number in 2009 (748.000 m2),
exports surged to 14,39 million m2 in the RP.

(25)     Table 2 below shows exports
of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC to Taiwan from 1 January 2009
to 31 March 2012.

Taiwan || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 1/4/2011 – 31/3/2012

Quantity (million m2) || 0,75 || 2,45 || 7,58 || 14,39

Yearly change (%) || || 227% || 209% || 90%

Index (2009=100) || 100 || 327 || 1011 || 1919

Source: Chinese
statistics

(26)     The same trend can be
observed for the exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC to Thailand. The export volume in 2009 was only 1,83 million m2 while in the RP
exploded to 41,70 million m2.

(27)     Table 3 below shows exports
of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC to Thailand from 1 January
2009 to 31 March 2012.

Thailand || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 1/4/2011 – 31/3/2012

Quantity (million m2) || 1,83 || 9,80 || 25,51 || 41,70

Yearly change (%) || || 436% || 160% || 63%

Index (2009=100) || 100 || 535 || 1394 || 2279

Source: Chinese
statistics

(28)     To establish the trend of
the trade flow of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC to Taiwan and Thailand, Chinese statistics were considered, though, these were only available at a
higher product group level than the product concerned. In view of COMEXT data
and the estimates provided by the Union industry on the volumes classified
under the two CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00, it could however be
established that the product concerned covers a significant part of the Chinese
statistics. Therefore, these data could be taken into account.

(29)     Tables 1 to 3 above clearly
demonstrate that the sharp drop of Chinese exports of open mesh fabrics of
glass fibres to the Union was followed by a significant increase of Chinese
exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to Taiwan and Thailand and a
subsequent drastic increase of Taiwanese and Thai exports of open mesh fabrics
of glass fibres to the Union in the RP.

Production volumes in Taiwan and Thailand

(30)     As there was no cooperation
from the companies in Taiwan and Thailand, no information could be obtained on
the possible levels of the genuine production of the product under
investigation in these two countries.

2.5.        Conclusion on the change in
the pattern of trade

(31)     The overall decrease of the
exports from the PRC to the Union and the parallel increase of both exports
from Taiwan and Thailand to the Union and of exports from the PRC to Taiwan and
Thailand respectively, following the imposition of provisional measures in
February 2011 and of definitive measures in August 2011, constitutes a change
in the pattern of trade between the above mentioned countries, on the one hand,
and of the exports of these countries to the Union, on the other hand.

2.6.        Nature of the circumvention
practice

(32)     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 consignment of the product subject to
measures via third countries.

Transhipment

(33)     The Commission has evidence
regarding business contacts of chinese operators with importers in the Union
which confirm the existence of transhipment practices via Thailand. In addition the lack of cooperation by any of the producers of the product under
investigation in Taiwan and Thailand points to transhipment practises taking
place in those countries with regard to open mesh fabrics of glass fibres.
Moreover, the recent surge in imports from these two countries indicates that
it is due to Taiwanese and Thai traders transhipping Chinese products to the Union.

(34)     The existence of transhipment of Chinese-origin products
via Taiwan and Thailand is therefore confirmed.

2.7.        Insufficient due cause or
economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty

(35)     The investigation did not
bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the
transhipment than the avoidance of the measures in force on the product
concerned. No elements were found, other than the duty, which could be
considered as a compensation for the costs of transhipment, in particular
regarding transport and reloading, of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres
originating in the PRC via Taiwan and Thailand.

2.8.        Undermining of the remedial
effect of the anti-dumping duty

(36)     To assess whether the
imported product under investigation had, in terms of quantities and prices,
undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force on imports of the
product concerned, COMEXT data was used as the best data available concerning
quantities and prices of exports by the non-cooperating companies in Taiwan and Thailand. The prices so determined were compared to the injury elimination level
established for Union producers in recital (74) of the original Regulation.

(37)     The increase of imports
from Taiwan to the Union from 1,03 million m2 in 2010 to 17,07
million m2 in the RP was considered to be significant in terms of
quantities.

(38)     Also, the increase of
imports from Thailand to the Union from 40.000 m2 in 2010 to 24,11
million m2 in the RP was considered to be substantial in terms of
quantities.

(39)     The comparison of the
injury elimination level as established in the original Regulation and the
weighted average export price (determined in this investigation for Taiwan and Thailand respectively and adjusted for post importation costs and quality adjustments
established in the original investigation) showed significant underselling for
both countries concerned. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects
of the measures in force are being undermined in terms of both quantities and
prices.

2.9.        Evidence of dumping

(40)     Finally, in accordance with
Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether there was
evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value previously established in
the original investigation.

(41)     In the original Regulation
the normal value was established on the basis of prices in Canada, which in that investigation was found to be an appropriate market economy analogue country
for the PRC. In line with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was
considered appropriate to use the normal value as previously established in the
original investigation.

(42)     The export prices from Taiwan and Thailand, respectively, were based on facts available, i.e. on the average export price
of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres during the RP as reported in
COMEXT. The use of facts available was due to the lack of cooperation by any
producer of the product under investigation in the two countries concerned.

(43)     For the purpose of a fair
comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance, in the
form of adjustments, was made for differences which affect prices and price
comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, insurance and
packing costs. Given that there was no cooperation from the producers in Taiwan, Thailand and the PRC, the adjustments had to be established on the basis of the best facts
available. Thus, the adjustment for these allowances was based on a percentage
calculated as the proportion of the total transport, insurance and packing
costs over the value of the sales transactions to the Union with CIF delivery
terms provided by the cooperating Chinese exporting producers in the original
investigation.

(44)     In accordance with Articles
2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing
the weighted average normal value as established in the original Regulation and
the corresponding weighted average export prices of the two countries concerned
during this investigation’s RP, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at
the Union frontier duty unpaid.

(45)     The comparison of the
weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price as
established showed dumping.

3.           MEASURES

(46)     Given the above, it was
concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain
open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC was circumvented by
transhipment via Taiwan and Thailand pursuant to Article 13(1) of the basic
Regulation.

(47)     In accordance with the
first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the measures in force
on imports of the product concerned, should be extended to imports of the product
under investigation, i.e. the same product but consigned from Taiwan and
Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not.

(48)     In light of the non-cooperation
in this investigation, the measures to be extended should be the measures
established in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 for "all other
companies", which is presently a definitive anti-dumping duty of 62,9%
applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty.

(49)     In accordance with Articles
13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended
measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration
imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those
registered imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Taiwan and Thailand.

4.           REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION

(50)     As stated in recital (9)
none of the producers in the two countries concerned came forward following
initiation. Accordingly, no requests for exemption from the possible extension
of the measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation were
made.

(51)     Without prejudice to
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the producers in Taiwan and Thailand
which did not come forward in this proceeding and did not export the product
under investigation to the Union in the RP and which consider lodging a request
for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Articles 11(4)
and 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete a questionnaire
in order to enable the Commission to determine whether an exemption may be
warranted. Such exemption may be granted after the assessment of the market
situation, production capacity and capacity utilisation, procurement and sales
and the likelihood of continuation of practices for which there is insufficient
due cause or economic justification and the evidence of dumping. The Commission
would normally also carry out an on spot verification visit. The request should
be addressed to the Commission, with all relevant information, in particular
any modification in the company's activities linked to the production and
sales.

(52)     Where an exemption is
warranted, the Commission will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee,
propose the amendment of the extended measures in force accordingly.
Subsequently, any exemption granted will be monitored to ensure compliance with
the conditions set therein.

5.           DISCLOSURE

(53)     All interested parties were
informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above
conclusions and were invited to comment. Following disclosure, comments were
received from the Department of Foreign Trade in the Ministry of Commerce of Thailand. They requested to take into consideration the Thai import and export statistics
of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres as well. The statistics provided by the
Thai authorities were taken into consideration and proved to be a useful source
of information. However, they were finally not used for the definitive findings
as, COMEXT data and Chinese national statistics showed more coherent trends. Thus
the arguments presented did not give rise to a modification of the definitve
findings.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. The definitive anti-dumping duty
applicable to "all other companies" imposed by Article 1(2) of
Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of
a cell size of more than 1.8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more
than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, originating in the
People's Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports of open mesh fabrics of
glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1.8 mm both in length and in width
and weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, consigned
from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and
Thailand or not, currently falling CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00
(TARIC codes 7019 51 00 12, 7019 51 00 13, 7019 59 00 12 and 7019 59 00 13).

2. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this
Article shall be collected on imports consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not, registered in accordance
with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 437/2012 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

3. 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
Directorate H
Office: N-105 08/20
1049 Brussels

Belgium
Fax (32 2) 295 65 05

2. In accordance with Article 13(4) of
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 the Commission, after consulting the Advisory
Committee, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies
which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EU) No
791/2011, from the duty extended by Article 1.

Article 3

Customs authorities are hereby directed to
discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article
2 of Regulation (EU) No 437/2012.

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,

For
the Council

The
President

[1]               OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

[2]               OJ L 204, 9.8.2011, p. 1.

[3]               OJ L 134, 24.5.2012, p. 12.

[4]               OJ L 43, 17.2.2011, p. 9.

[5]               OJ L 292, 10.11.2011, p. 4.

[6]               OJ L 292, 10.11.2011, p. 4.