# Commission Regulation (EU) No 182/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 of 1 March 2013 making imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key            components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 182/2013                     

# of 1 March 2013

# making imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned                        from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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 anti-dumping Regulation’), and in particular Articles 10(4) and 14(5) thereof,                        

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries                           not members of the European Community(2) (‘the basic anti-subsidy Regulation’), and in particular Articles 16(4) and 24(5) thereof,                        

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

(1)On 6 September 2012, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) announced by a notice published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components                              (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘the country concerned’) following a complaint                              lodged on 25 July 2012 by EU ProSun (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union                              production of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers).

(2)On 8 November 2012, the Commission announced by a notice published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (4) the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components                              (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in China following a complaint lodged on 25 September 2012 by EU ProSun on behalf of producers                              representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e.                              cells and wafers).

A.**PRODUCT CONCERNED**(3)The product subject to the registration is crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels and cells and wafers of the                                 type used in crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels, currently falling within CN codes ex 3818 00 10, ex 8501                                 31 00, ex 8501 32 00, ex 8501 33 00, ex 8501 34 00, ex 8501 61 20, ex 8501 61 80, ex 8501 62 00, ex 8501 63 00, ex 8501 64                                 00 and ex 8541 40 90, and originating in or consigned from the country concerned. The cells and wafers have a thickness not                                 exceeding 400 μm.(4)From the product under registration the following product types are excluded:-  solar chargers that consist of less than six cells, are portable and supply electricity to devices or charge batteries, 
-  thin film photovoltaic products, 
-  crystalline silicon photovoltaic products that are permanently integrated into electrical goods, where the function of the                                    electrical goods is other than power generation, and where these electrical goods consume the electricity generated by the                                    integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell(s).                                  

B.**REQUEST**(5)The registration requests pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(5) of the basic anti-subsidy                                 Regulation were made by the complainant in the complaints at the origin of the proceedings initiated by the notices mentioned                                 in recitals 1 and 2 and were reiterated and supplemented in the subsequent submissions. The complainant requested that imports                                 of the product concerned are made subject to registration so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports                                 from the date of such registration.

C.**GROUNDS FOR THE REGISTRATION**(6)According to Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, the                                 Commission may, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, direct the customs authorities to take the appropriate steps                                 to register imports, so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports. Imports may be made subject to registration                                 following a request from the Union industry which contains sufficient evidence to justify such action.(7)The complainant claimed that registration is justified as the product concerned was being dumped and subsidised and significant                                 injury to the Union industry, which is difficult to repair, was being caused by the low-priced imports.(8)As regards dumping, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that imports of the product concerned                                 from China are being dumped. The complainant provided evidence on the normal value based on total cost of production plus                                 a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative expenses and for profits, based on the choice of the US as analogue                                 country. The evidence on dumping is based on the comparison of the normal value thus established with the export price (at                                 ex-works level) of the product concerned when sold for export to the Union. As a whole, and given the extent of the dumping                                 margin alleged, this evidence provides sufficient support at this stage that the exporters in question practice dumping.(9)In relation to subsidisation, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that imports of the product                                 concerned from the country concerned are being subsidised. The alleged subsidies consist, inter alia, of preferential lending                                 to the solar panel industry (e.g. credit lines and low-interest policy loans granted by State-Owned Commercial Banks and Government                                 Policy Banks, export credit subsidy programmes, export guarantees, insurances for green technologies, granting access to offshore                                 holding companies, loan repayments by Government), grant programmes (e.g. Export Product Research and Development Fund, ‘Famous                                 Brands’ and ‘China World Top Brands’ subsidies, Funds for Outward Expansion of Industries in Guangdong Province, Golden Sun                                 Demonstration Programme), government provision of goods for less than adequate remuneration (e.g. provision of polysilicon,                                 aluminium extrusions, glass, power and land), direct tax exemption and reduction programmes (e.g. income tax exemptions or                                 reductions under the Two Free/Three Half Programme, income tax exemptions for export-oriented Foreign Invested Enterprises                                 (FIEs), income tax reductions for FIEs based on geographic location, income tax reductions for FIEs purchasing Chinese-made                                 equipment, tax offset for R & D at FIEs, tax refunds for reinvestment of FIEs’ profits in export-oriented enterprises, preferential                                 corporate income tax for FIEs recognised as High and New Technology Industries, tax reductions for High and New Technology                                 Enterprises involved in designated projects, preferential income tax policy for enterprises in the North-East Region, Guangdong                                 Province tax programmes) and indirect tax and import tariff programmes (e.g. VAT exemptions for use of imported equipment,                                 VAT rebates on FIEs’ purchases of Chinese-made equipment, VAT and tariff exemptions for purchases of fixed assets under the                                 Foreign Trade Development Programme). It is alleged that the above schemes are subsidies since they involve a financial contribution                                 from the Government of China or other regional governments (including public bodies) and confer a benefit to the recipients.                                 They are alleged to be contingent upon export performance and/or the use of domestic over imported goods and/or are limited                                 to certain sectors and/or types of enterprises and/or locations, and are therefore specific and countervailable. In the anti-subsidy                                 complaint and the subsequent submissions related to the request for registration, the evidence regarding the price and volume                                 of imports shows a massive increase of imports in absolute terms and in terms of market share in the period between 2009 and                                 2011. Given the above, the evidence provides sufficient support at this stage that the exports of the product in question                                 are benefiting from countervailable subsidies.(10)As regards injury, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that the exporters’ dumping and subsidy                                 practices are causing material injury to the Union industry, which is difficult to repair. In the complaints and the subsequent                                 submissions related to the requests for registration, the evidence regarding the price and volume of imports shows a massive                                 increase of imports in absolute terms and in terms of market share in the period between 2009 and 2011. Despite the decrease                                 in imports in absolute terms in 2012, the market share of the imports of the product concerned from the country concerned                                 further increased. The volume and prices of the imported product concerned have had a negative impact on the quantities sold                                 and level of the prices charged in the Union market and the market share held by the Union industry resulting in substantial                                 adverse effects on the overall performance and the financial situation of the Union industry. This evidence consists of data,                                 contained in the complaints and the subsequent submissions regarding registration but is also supported by information from                                 the Union industry and public sources, concerning the key injury factors set out in Article 3(5) of the basic anti-dumping                                 Regulation and Article 8(4) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.(11)The Commission also has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence, contained in the anti-dumping complaint and the subsequent                                 correspondence, that the importers were aware, or should have been aware, that the exporters’ dumping practices are injurious                                 or are likely to be injurious to the Union industry. A number of articles in the press over an extended period of time suggested                                 that the Union industry may have been suffering injury as a result of dumped imports from the country concerned. Finally,                                 given the extent of the dumping that may be occurring, it is reasonable to assume that the importers would be aware, or should                                 be aware, of the situation.(12)In relation to subsidisation, the request provides sufficient evidence of critical circumstances where for the subsidised                                 product in question injury, which is difficult to repair, is caused by massive imports benefiting from countervailable subsidies                                 in a relatively short period of time. Evidence of such circumstances includes the rapid nature of the deterioration of the                                 situation of the Union industry.(13)As regards dumping, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence that such injury is being caused or                                 would be caused by a further substantial rise in these imports, which in light of the timing and the volume of the dumped                                 imports and other circumstances (such as the growing level of stocks or reduced capacity utilisation) would be likely to seriously                                 undermine the remedial effect of any definitive duties, unless such duties would be applied retroactively. In addition, in                                 view of the initiation of the current proceedings, it is reasonable to assume that the imports of the product concerned may                                 further increase prior to the adoption of provisional measures, if any, and inventories may be rapidly built up by the importers.

D.**PROCEDURE**(14)In view of the above, the Commission has concluded that the complainant provided sufficient prima facie evidence to justify                                 making imports of the product concerned subject to registration in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping                                 Regulation and Article 24(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.(15)All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the                                 Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons                                 why they should be heard.

E.**REGISTRATION**(16)Pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation imports                                 of the product concerned should be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigations result                                 in findings leading to the imposition of anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties, those duties can, if the necessary conditions                                 are fulfilled, be levied retroactively in accordance with applicable legal provisions on the registered imports.(17)Any future liability would emanate from the findings of the anti-dumping and the anti-subsidy investigations respectively.(18)The allegations in the complaint requesting the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation estimate an average dumping margin                                 of around 60-70 % and an underselling margin of up to 125 % for the product concerned. The estimated amount of possible future                                 liability is set at the level of dumping estimated on the basis of the anti-dumping complaint, i.e. 60-70 % *ad valorem* on the CIF import value of the product concerned.(19)The allegations in the complaint requesting the initiation of an anti-subsidy investigation estimate the subsidisation margin                                 of around 10-15 % and an underselling to represent of up to 125 % for the product concerned. The estimated amount of possible                                 future liability is set at the level of subsidisation estimated on the basis of the anti-subsidy complaint, i.e. 10-15 % *ad valorem* on the CIF import value of the product concerned.(20)As mentioned under Section 5 of the notices mentioned in recitals 1 and 2, the Commission is in the process of determining                                 whether imports of the product concerned can be considered as originating in China. Pursuant to Article 2(a) of the basic                                 anti-subsidy Regulation and Article 1(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation respectively, subsidies granted by the government                                 of an intermediate country are countervailable and the exporting country of a dumped product may be an intermediate country,                                 respectively. It should also be noted that the complaints and the requests for registration relate to imports from China without                                 specifying the origin thereof. Lastly, the anti-dumping and countervailing investigations conducted by the USA involving the                                 same product imported from China highlighted the complexity of the production and assembly operations which might or might                                 not confer origin(5). In the light of these considerations and without prejudice to the conclusion that will be reached on these matters, it is                                 considered appropriate that registration should cover the product concerned originating in or consigned from China.

F.**PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA**(21)Any personal data collected in the context of this registration will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001                                 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing                                 of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data(6),

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

1.The Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and Article 24(5) Regulation                        (EC) No 597/2009 to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union of:                  
          -  crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels currently falling within CN codes ex 8501 31 00 (TARIC codes 8501 31 00                           81 and 8501 31 00 89), ex 8501 32 00 (TARIC codes 8501 32 00 41 and 8501 32 00 49), ex 8501 33 00 (TARIC codes 8501 33 00                           61 and 8501 33 00 69), ex 8501 34 00 (TARIC codes 8501 34 00 41 and 8501 34 00 49), ex 8501 61 20 (TARIC codes 8501 61 20                           41 and 8501 61 20 49), ex 8501 61 80 (TARIC codes 8501 61 80 41 and 8501 61 80 49), ex 8501 62 00 (TARIC codes 8501 62 00                           61 and 8501 62 00 69), ex 8501 63 00 (TARIC codes 8501 63 00 41 and 8501 63 00 49), ex 8501 64 00 (TARIC codes 8501 64 00                           41 and 8501 64 00 49) and ex 8541 40 90 (TARIC codes 8541 40 90 21 and 8541 40 90 29),                         
          -  cells of the type used in crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels currently falling within CN code ex 8541 40 90                           (TARIC codes 8541 40 90 31 and 8541 40 90 39), and                         
          -  wafers of the type used in crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels currently falling within CN code ex 3818 00                           10 (TARIC codes 3818 00 10 11 and 3818 00 10 19),                         

originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China. The cells and wafers have a thickness not exceeding 400 μm.

From the product under registration the following product types are excluded:
          -  solar chargers that consist of less than six cells, are portable and supply electricity to devices or charge batteries, 
          -  thin film photovoltaic products, 
          -  crystalline silicon photovoltaic products that are permanently integrated into electrical goods, where the function of the                           electrical goods is other than power generation, and where these electrical goods consume the electricity generated by the                           integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell(s).                         

Registration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

2.All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing, to provide supporting evidence or to request to be                        heard within 20 days from the date of publication of this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

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, 1 March 2013.

*For the Commission*                            

*The President*                            

José Manuel Barroso                            

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.                           

2

OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.                           

3

OJ C 269, 6.9.2012, p. 5.                           

4

OJ C 340, 8.11.2012, p. 13.                           

5

See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Crystalline Silicon                              Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People’s Republic of China, 9 October 2012, at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2012-25580-1.pdf                           

6

OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.