# EUR-Lex - 52013PC0110 - EN

*|*

# 52013PC0110

**Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not /* COM/2013/0110 final - 2013/0066 (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 467/2010 on
imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China ('the PRC') by
imports consigned from Taiwan.

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 467/2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China as extended to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim revue pursuant to article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

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 The Commission has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(3) of the basic Regulation to invesigate the possible cirucumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China and to make imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, subject to registration. The request was lodged on 15 May 2012 by Euroalliages (Liaison Committee of the Ferro-Alloy Industry) ('the applicant') on behalf of producers representing 100% of the Union production of silicon. On 5 July 2012, the Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 596/2012, initiated an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China by imports consigned from Tawain, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not. The Commission had at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on imports of silicon were being circumvented by means of transhipment via Taiwan. The attached proposal for a Council Implementing Regulation is based on the findings of the investigation, which has confirmed that transhipment of Chinese-origin silicon was taking place via Taiwan 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 silicon originating in the PRC to imports of the same product consigned from Taiwan. The duty corresponds to the country-wide duty on imports of silicon from the PRC (19%). The duty shall be levied from the date of initiation of the investigation. Three Taiwanese companies came forward following the initiation, with a request for exemption from the possible extension of the measures as genuine producers in the Taiwan. It is proposed not to grant exemption to any of them. The exemption request of the three companies was rejected as during the investigation it was found that they were not producers of the product concerned. The relevant Council Regulation should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union no later than 5 April 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 minimised 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.

2013/0066 (NLE)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty
imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 on imports of
silicon originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of silicon
consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan 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 ('the Commission') after having consulted the Advisory
Committee,

Whereas:

1.         PROCEDURE

1.1.        Existing measures

(1)       By
Regulation (EU) No 467/2010[2] ('the original Regulation') the Council imposed a definitive
anti-dumping duty of 19% on imports of silicon originating in the People’s
Republic of China (‘the PRC’) for all other companies than the one mentioned in
Article 1(2) of that Regulation, following the expiry review and a partial
interim review of the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 398/2004[3]. The original Regulation also maintained the duty which was
extended by virtue of Council Regulation (EC) No 42/2007[4] to
imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea whether declared as
originating in the Republic of Korea or not. The measures imposed by the
original Regulation will hereinafter be referred to as 'the measures in force'
or 'original measures' 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 15 May 2012, the
Commission has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(3) of the
basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping
measures imposed on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of
China and to make imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as
originating in Taiwan or not, subject to registration.

(3)       The request was lodged by
Euroalliages (Liaison Committee of the Ferro-Alloy Industry) ('the applicant')
on behalf of producers representing 100% of the Union production of silicon.

(4)       The
applicant argued that there is no genuine production of silicon in Taiwan and 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 and Taiwan to the Union occurred, for
which there was no sufficient due cause or justification other than the
imposition of the measures in force. This change stemmed allegedly from the
transhipment of silicon originating in the PRC via Taiwan to the Union.

(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 were made at prices below the non-injurious
price established in the original investigation. Finally, there was evidence
that the prices of silicon consigned from Taiwan were dumped in relation to the
normal value previously established for the product concerned during the
original investigation.

1.3.        Initiation

(6)       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 596/2012[5] (‘the
initiating Regulation’) of the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping
measures imposed on imports of silicon originating in the PRC and also directed
the custom authorities to register imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan,
whether declared as originating in Taiwan, or not.

1.4.        Investigation

(7)       The Commission officially
advised the authorities of the PRC and Taiwan, the exporting producers in these
countries, the importers in the Union known to be concerned and the Union
industry of the initiation of the investigation.

(8)       Exemption forms were sent
to the producers/exporters in Taiwan known to the Commission and through the Mission of the country concerned to the European Union. Questionnaires were sent to the
producers/exporters in the PRC known to the Commission and through the Mission of the PRC to the European Union. Questionnaires were also sent to the known
importers in the Union.

(9)       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.

(10)     Three Taiwanese
producers/exporters, belonging to one group, and three unrelated importers in
the Union made themselves known and submitted replies to the exemption forms
and to the questionnaires, respectively.

(11)     The Commission carried out
verification visits at the premises of the three following related companies
part of the Group refferred to above in recital (10):

- Asia Metallurgical Co. Ltd. (Taiwan)

- Latitude Co. Ltd. (Taiwan)

- YLB Co. Ltd. (Taiwan)

1.5.        Reporting period and
investigation period

(12)     The investigation period
covered the period from 1 January 2008 to 30 June 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 July 2011 to 30 June 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

(13)     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 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 for the product concerned in the original
investigation, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of
the basic Regulation.

2.2.        Product concerned and
product under investigation

(14)     The product concerned by
the possible circumvention is silicon metal, originating in the People’s
Republic of China, currently falling within CN code 2804 69 00 (silicon content
less than 99, 99% by weight) (‘the product concerned’). Purely by reason of the
current classification set out in the Combined Nomenclature, it should be read
"silicon". Silicon with a higher purity, that is containing by weight
not less than 99, 99% of silicon, used mostly in the electronic
semi-conductor industry, falls under a different CN code and is not covered by
this proceeding.

(15)     The product under
investigation is the same as that defined above, but consigned from Taiwan,
whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, currently falling within the
same CN code as the product concerned ('the product under investigation’).

(16)     The investigation showed
that silicon, as defined above, exported from the PRC to the Union and silicon
consigned from Taiwan to the Union has the same basic physical and technical
characteristics and has the same use, and is therefore to be considered as like
products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

2.3.        Findings

2.3.1.     Level of cooperation

(17)     As stated in recital (10)
above, only three Taiwanese companies belonging to the same group of companies
submitted an exemption form reply. A comparison of their exports into the Union
to the Eurostat import data, showed that the cooperating companies were
representing 65% of the Taiwanse exports of the product under investigation to
the Union in the RP.

(18)     There was no cooperation
from the exporting producers of silicon in the PRC. Therefore, findings in
respect of imports of silicon from the PRC into the Union and exports from the
PRC into Taiwan had to be made on the basis of data from Eurostat import data,
Taiwanese import statistics and data gathered from the cooperating Taiwanese
companies.

2.3.2.     Change in the pattern of
trade

Imports of silicon into the Union

(19)     Table 1 shows imports of
silicon from the PRC and Taiwan into the Union between 2004 and the end of the
RP.

|| 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || RP

PRC || 1 268 || 27 635 || 1 435 || 9 671 || 5 353 || 6 669 || 11 448 || 13 312 || 5 488

Taiwan || 0 || 2.7 || 0.2 || 340 || 3 381 || 5 199 || 11 042 || 5 367 || 2 707

Source : Eurostat

(20)     The data from Eurostat
clearly show that there were no imports from Taiwan into the Union at all in
2004. They went up with more than 300% in 2008 and remained very high. The
imports doubled again in 2010, following the imposition of new measures against
the PRC.

(21)     In 2011, the imports into
the Union from Taiwan decreased. This development may be attributable to an
anti-fraud investigation which was launched by OLAF around that time. The
Commission was informed that the Taiwanese issuing authority, the Bureau of
Foreign Trade of Taiwan (BOFT) withdrew the certificates of origin of silicon from
all Taiwanese producers in 2011. This decision to withdraw the certificates was
appealed by the three Taiwanese exporters referred to in recitals (10) and (11)
above (Group of exporters). The board of appeal quashed the decision of the
BOFT, and the certificates in question were re-issued to these three Taiwanese
producers/exporters, but not to the other Taiwanese producers.

(22)     In this context, the
Commission also observes that the presentation of a non-preferential
certificate of origin is not required for the customs formalities at
importation into the EU and that in the event of serious doubt, such a
certificate cannot serve as proof of the non-preferential origin of the
declared product (Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code[6]).

(23)     The imports of silicon from
the PRC into the Union have been increasing since 2008. In particular, it is
observed that these imports are still increasing after the imposition of the
measures in 2010. This development can be explained by the fact that the
anti-dumping duty went down significantly in 2010, namely from 49% to 19%.

Exports of silicon from the PRC to Taiwan

2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || RP

16 530 || 16 600 || 7 101 || 10 514 || 3 675 || 15 893 || 16 007 || 17 912 || 9 177 || 10 507

Source : Chinese export statistics

(24)     Table 2 shows imports from
the PRC into Taiwan. The data from the Chinese exports database show that
imports were at their highest in 2010 following the imposition of the original
measures. The decrease in 2011 can be explained by the anti-fraud investigation
as explained in recital (21).

Conclusion on the change in the pattern of
trade

(25)     It is considered that there
is a change in the pattern of trade since there were no imports of silicon from
 Taiwan into the Union at all in 2004. They really started as from 2007 and
became very important in 2008. They remain at a very high level up to the RP,
with a reduction in 2011 because of the possible reason which is explained
above in recital (21).

2.3.3.     Nature of the circumvention
practice and insufficient due cause or economic justification

(26)     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. The Commission takes the view that in the present
case, the change in the pattern of trade stems from the consignment of the
product subject to measures via a third country.

(27)     The
Commission first of all notes that there is no production of silicon in Taiwan. None of the producers/exporters have
denied the fact that they import the silicon they export from the PRC.

(28)     Secondly, with the
exception of the group of exporters referred to in recitals (10) and (11), the
producers/exporters have not provided any economic justification other than the
imposition of the duty for their activity.

(29)     The Group of exporters referred
to in recitals (10) and (11) above alleged that they import silicon lumps of very
low quality in bags from the PRC. They pretend that the silicon lumps are then
tumbled, crushed, sieved and packed in bags again before being exported to the
Union market. After that operation, they alleged that the product is of a
higher quality.

(30)     They
claim that this operation constitutes a unique purification method, developed
in cooperation with the University of Taipei, which allegedly eliminates 80%
of the impurities in the silicon metal lumps imported from the PRC.. During the
onsite verification, it was  however observed that their process was a simple  tumbling,
sieving and crushing operation which removes some surface impurities such as
oxidation and dust, but which did not remove in particular the main impurities
inside the silicon lumps. The processed product thus kept the same physical and
technical basic characteristics as the product concerned.

(31)     The
evidence collected and verified during the investigation, in particular the
purchase invoices, the sales invoices and the accompanying documents such as
the bill of lading, and other customs documents, showed that the products
purchased and sold for export by the Group of exporters were in most cases of
the same specifications. The records relating to the stocks in the warehouses of
the Group, located close to harbours, also showed that there was not always
time to process all batches of silicon purchased in China with the method that they claimed to apply.
Furthermore, the information available, in particular from producers in the
Union, show that in order to remove the inner impurities of the silicon lump,
either a crushing followed by a chemical treatment or a melting process is
necessary. Neither of these processes has been used by the Group of exporters.

(32)     It is also noteworthy that
in 2010, acting upon a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC
from Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Hoesch Metals and Alloys GmbH v. Hauptzollamt
Aachen), in a matter relating to the AD measures against silicon from China,
the European Court of Justice ruled: "The separation, crushing and
purification of silicon metal blocks and the subsequent sieving, sorting and
packaging of the silicon grains resulting from the crushing, as carried out in
the main proceedings, do not constitute origin-conferring processing or working
for the purposes of Article 24 of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12
October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code." The
purification process as carried out by the Group of exporters is considered to
be similar to the one as described in this ruling.

(33)     The investigation also
revealed that the purification process amounts to less than 5% of the total
cost of the Group. It was furthermore confirmed that the price of the silicon
sold into the EU by the Group of exporters and the price of the silicon
purchased in the PRC by the Group during the IP, never showed a difference of
more than 11%.

(34)     In
the light of these considerations, it is concluded that also for the Group of
exporters the import from the PRC and the subsequent export to the EU of the
Silicon is to be considered as a transshipment and thus circumvention in the
sense of Article 13 of the Basic Regulation.

(35)     It is therefore concluded
that 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, namely the 19% anti-dumping duty on the PRC. 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 silicon originating in the PRC via Taiwan.

2.3.4.     Evidence of dumping

(36)     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 established in the original
investigation.

(37)     In the original Regulation,
the normal value was established on the basis of prices in Brasil, 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. Two PCNs from the previous investigation matched with
the two PCNs of the exporting companies. Export prices were established in
accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely the prices
actually paid or payable for export of the product under investigation into the
 Union.

(38)     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 to the export price for transport and
insurance in order to bring prices at the same level of trade. In accordance
with Articles 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated
by comparing the adjusted weighted average normal value as established in the
original Regulation and the corresponding weighted average export prices of the
Taiwanese import during this investigation’s RP, expressed as a percentage of
the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.

(39)     The comparison of the
weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price as
established in the investigation showed the existence of dumping.

2.3.5.     Undermining the remedial
effects of the anti-dumping duty in terms of prices and quantities

(40)     The comparison of the
injury elimination level as established in the original Regulation and the
weighted average export price showed the existence of undercutting and
underselling. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the
measures in force are being undermined in terms of prices and quantities.

3.           MEASURES

(41)     Given the above, it was
concluded that the original mesure, namely the definitive anti-dumping duty
imposed on imports of silicon originating in the PRC, was circumvented by transhipment
via Taiwan within the mening of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.

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

(43)     The measures established in
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 for "all other companies"
from the PRC, should therefore be extended to imports from Taiwan. The level of duty should be set at 19% applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price,
before duty.

(44)     In accordance with Articles
13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provide 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 silicon consigned from Taiwan.

4.           REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION

(45)     As explained in the recital
(10), three companies located in Taiwan, belonging to one group, submitted
exemption form responses requesting an exemption from the possible extended
measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation

(46)     In view of the findings
with regard to the change in the pattern of trade, the lack of real production
in Taiwan and the export under the same customs code as set out in recitals
(19) to (29), the exemptions as requested by these three companies could, in accordance
with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, not be granted.

(47)     Without prejudice to
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the potential exporters/ producers in
Taiwan which did not come forward in this proceeding and did not export the
product under investigation during the IP, which intend to lodge 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 an exemption form in
order to enable the Commission to assess such a request. 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. Provided that the conditions set in
Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation are met, an exemption may be
warranted.

(48)     Where an exemption is
warranted, the Commission may, after consultation of the Advisory Committee,
authorise by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not
circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EU) No 467/2010,
from the duty extended by this regulation.

(49)     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.

5.           DISCLOSURE

(50)                 All interested
parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the
above conclusions and were invited to comment. They were also granted a period
to submit comments subsequent to that disclosure.

6.         COMMENTS

(51)                 Following disclosure,
comments were received from the Group of exporters and from two importers.

(52)     The main argument concerned
the claim that the purification carried out by the Group of exporters referred
to in recitals (10) and (11) was origin-conferring in the sense of Article 24
of Regulation (EEC) Nr. No 2913/92. The importers presented a report concerning
sample tests performed by the University of Taipei and an analysis report of an
independent expert. The report concerning sample test shows a percentage of slag
reduction of 90.8% after the purification process. The analysis of the
independent expert claims that only after purification, the silicon can be used
for certain melting purposes.

(53)     It is noted these two
studies are contradicted by the findings of the Commission during the on-site
verification, as described above in recital (31). In particular, it is recalled
that according to the invoices, the products purchased and sold for export by
the Group of exporters were in most cases of the same specifications.

(54)     If the claims made by the
importers were true, this should also result in a much higher difference
between the price at which the silicon is imported from PRC and the price at
which the silicon is exported to the EU.

(55)     Based on the on-site inspection
of the tools used for the alleged purification of the silicon, the Commission
also concludes that the tools are not such as to allow for any of the two
methods of purification described above in recital (31) at the end.

(56)     Finally, the analysis
report of the independent expert also ignores the fact known to the Commission that
the users process their silicon before use.

(57)     For these reasons, the
comments submitted by the parties have not been able to alter the conclusions
provisionally reached by the Commission before disclosure.

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 467/2010 on imports of silicon currently falling within CN
code 2804 69 00 and originating in the People's Republic of China, is hereby
extended to imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as
originating in Taiwan or not, currently falling within CN code ex 2804 69 00
(TARIC code 2804 69 00 20).

2. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this
Article shall be collected on imports consigned from Taiwan, whether declared
as originating in Taiwan or not, registered in accordance with Article 2 of
Regulation (EU) No 596/2012 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
467/2010, 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 596/2012.

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 131, 29.5.2010, p. 1.

[3]               OJ L 66, 4.3.2004, p. 15.

[4]               OJ L 13, 19.1.2007, p. 1.

[5]               OJ L 176, 6.7.2012, p. 50.

[6]               OJ L
302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.