# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1313/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1313/2014 of 10 December 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports            of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People's Republic of China following            an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1313/2014                     

# of 10 December 2014

# imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.)                        originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC)                        No 1225/2009                     

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 Regulation), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

1.**PROCEDURE**1.1.**Measures in force**(1)By Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008(2) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating                                 in the People's Republic of China (China). The measures took the form of a specific duty per company ranging from 361,4 EUR/tonne                                 to 531,2 EUR/tonne net product weight.(2)These measures have been annulled by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 22 March 2012(3) but were re-imposed on 18 February 2013 by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013(4).1.2.**Request for an expiry review**(3)Following the publication of a Notice of impending expiry of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force(5), the Commission received on 12 August 2013 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to                                 Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by Federación Nacional de Asociaciones de Transformados Vegetales                                 y Alimentos Procesados (FENAVAL) on behalf of producers representing more than 75 % of the total Union production of certain                                 prepared or preserved citrus fruits.(4)The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the definitive anti-dumping measures would be likely to result in                                 continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.1.3.**Initiation of an expiry review**(5)Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry                                 review, the Commission announced on 25 October 2013, by a notice published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (6) (the Notice of Initiation), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.1.4.**Investigation**1.4.1.*Review investigation period and period considered*(6)The investigation of a continuation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013 (the review investigation                                 period). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of recurrence of injury covered the period                                 from 1 October 2009 to the end of the review investigation period (the period considered).1.4.2.*Parties concerned by the investigation*(7)The Commission officially advised the following parties of the initiation of the expiry review: the applicant, the producers                                 in the Union and their relevant associations, the known exporting producers in China and in the potential analogue countries,                                 unrelated importers in the Union and their relevant associations, suppliers to producers in the Union and their relevant associations,                                 an association of consumers in the Union known to be concerned and the representatives of the exporting country. These parties                                 were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in                                 the Notice of Initiation.(8)In view of the apparent large number of exporting producers in China and of unrelated importers in the Union, it was considered                                 appropriate to examine whether sampling should be used, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to                                 enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, those parties were requested                                 to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information                                 requested in the Notice of Initiation.(9)Since only one group of exporting producers in China came forward with the requested information, it was not considered necessary                                 to select a sample of exporting producers.(10)With regard to unrelated importers, 32 were identified and invited to provide sampling information. Seven of them came forward                                 and provided the information necessary for the sampling selection. Out of them, three were selected to be part of the sample,                                 but only two confirmed within the deadline their willingness to be part of the sample exercise.(11)On the basis of the above, the Commission sent questionnaires to interested parties and to those who had made themselves known                                 within the deadlines set in the Notice of Initiation. Replies were received from five Union producers, the cooperating exporting                                 producer in China, two unrelated importers, eight suppliers to the Union producers, one association of suppliers to the Union                                 producers and one producer in the analogue country.(12)Two associations of importers came forward as interested parties. Five unrelated importers also submitted comments.(13)With regard to the analogue country producers, four companies were identified and invited to provide necessary information.                                 Only one of these companies provided the requested information and agreed with the verification visit.(14)The Commission verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of a continuation of                                 dumping and likelihood of recurrence of injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises                                 of the following interested parties:(a)
Union producers:
-  Halcon Foods S.A.U., Murcia, Spain 
-  Conservas y Frutas S.A., Murcia, Spain 
-  Agricultura y Conservas S.A., Algemesí (Valencia), Spain 
-  Industrias Videca S.A., Villanueva de Castellón (Valencia), Spain 
(b)
Exporting producer in China:
-  Zhejiang Taizhou Yiguan Food Co., Ltd, China and its related company Zhejiang Merry Life Food Co.,Ltd 
(c)
Unrelated importers in the Union:
-  Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG, Hamburg, Germany 
-  I. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co), Hamburg, Germany 
(d)
Producer in the analogue country:
-  Frigo-Pak Gida Maddeleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., Turkey 
1.5.**Disclosure of the essential facts and the hearings**(15)On 13 October 2014, the Commission made the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it                                 intended to impose anti-dumping duties (final disclosure). Subsequent to the final disclosure, several interested parties                                 made written submissions including their views on the definitive findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity                                 to be heard. Three importers requested and were afforded a joint hearing in the presence of the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.                                 One European association of traders requested and was afforded a hearing with the Commission services.

2.**PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT**2.1.**Product concerned**(16)The product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original investigation, that is prepared or preserved mandarins                                 (including tangerines and satsumas), clementines, wilkings and other similar citrus hybrids, not containing added spirit,                                 whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, and as defined under CN heading 2008, originating in the                                 People's Republic of China (the product concerned), currently falling within CN codes 2008 30 55, 2008 30 75 and ex 2008 30                                 90.(17)The product concerned is obtained by peeling and segmenting certain varieties of small citrus fruit (mainly satsumas) which                                 are then packaged in a medium of sugar syrup, juice or water in various sizes to meet the specific demands of the different                                 markets.(18)Satsumas, clementines and other small citrus fruit are commonly known by the collective name ‘mandarin’. Most of these different                                 varieties of fruit are suitable to be used as fresh product or for processing. They are similar and their preparations or                                 preservations are, thus, considered to be one single product.2.2.**Like product**(19)The Union's producers argued that the imported product and the Union product are alike on the following grounds:-  both products share the same or very similar physical properties such as taste, shape, size and texture, 
-  they are sold through the same or similar channels and they mainly compete on price, 
-  they both have the same or similar end-uses, 
-  they are easily interchangeable, 
-  they are classified under the same Combined Nomenclature codes for the tariff purposes. 
(20)Certain importers claimed, on the other hand, that the imported product is of higher quality since it contains less broken                                 segments (5 % maximum) as well as better taste, appearance and the structure than the Union product. It was also claimed that                                 the imported product differs in terms of smell from the Union product.(21)The Commission investigated those claims and in view of the available data concluded that the claims of the Union's industry                                 referred to in recital 19 are correct.(22)As far as the claims made by the importers are concerned, they had to be rejected on the following grounds:(a)
some quality differences relating to the amount of broken segments, taste, appearance, smell and structure did not affect                                       the basic characteristics of the product. The imported product is still interchangeable and serves the same or similar end-uses                                       as the Union product. In fact, the Union producers sold their product, also with a higher proportion of broken segments, during                                       the period considered both to the importers and to the same categories of users/consumers (for example supermarket chains                                       and bakery industry suppliers), which were also served by the importers. In addition, one supermarket chain in the European                                       Union also confirmed that it was selling the European and the Chinese origin product under the same brand and trademark;                                    
(b)
the maximum amount of 5 % broken segments is not an exclusive feature of the imported product only. In fact, the investigation                                       revealed that Union producers offered a wide range of qualities with different percentages of broken segments, including proportions                                       which contained maximum 5 % of broken segments. Some importers purchased the product which contained maximum 5 % of broken                                       segments from the Union producers.                                    
(23)Therefore, similarly to the original investigation, the imported product and the one produced by the Union industry are considered                                 to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

3.**LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF DUMPING**3.1.**Preliminary remarks**(24)In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would                                 be likely to lead to a continuation of dumping.(25)As mentioned in recital 9, due to the fact that only one group of companies cooperated, it was not necessary to select a sample                                 of exporting producers in China. This company covered around 12 %-20 % (range given for reasons of confidentiality) of the                                 imports of product concerned from China to the Union during the review investigation period.3.2.**Dumping of imports during the review investigation period**3.2.1.*Analogue country*(26)In accordance with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value had to be determined on the basis                                 of the prices or constructed value in an appropriate market economy third country (the ‘analogue country’), or the price from                                 such a third country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis,                                 including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable                                 profit margin.(27)In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use Turkey as an appropriate analogue country for the                                 purpose of establishing normal value for China and invited interested parties to comment on this.(28)No comments were received concerning Turkey as proposed analogue country. None of the interested parties suggested alternative                                 analogue country producers of the like product.(29)One of the contacted Turkish exporting producers, Frigo-Pak, submitted the full questionnaire reply in time and it accepted                                 a verification visit at its premises.3.2.2.*Normal value*(30)Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation normal value was established on the basis of the verified information                                 received from the producer in Turkey. This company did not sell the like product on the domestic market and therefore the                                 normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation using the costs of production and, in                                 line with Article 2(6)(b), adding a reasonable percentage for selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and, in                                 line with Article 2(6)(c), a reasonable margin of profit. The SG&A rate used is the SG&A rate incurred, by this producer,                                 on their domestic sales of other canned products and amounted to 10 %-20 % (range given for reasons of confidentiality). The                                 profit rate used is the same as the one used in the initial investigation, i.e. 6,8 % which represents the profit achieved                                 by the EU industry before it was injured by the dumped imports from China.3.2.3.*Export price*(31)The export sales of the cooperating exporting producer to the Union were made directly to independent customers established                                 in the Union. In accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation the export price was established on the basis of the                                 prices actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export from China to the Union.3.2.4.*Comparison*(32)The comparison between normal value and export price was made on ex-works basis.(33)For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price of the cooperating exporting producer,                                 and in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made with regard                                 to differences in transport, insurance, commission and bank charges which affected prices and price comparability.3.2.5.*Dumping margin*(34)As provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison                                 of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.(35)For the cooperating exporting producer, that comparison showed the existence of dumping. The dumping margin amounted to more                                 than 60 %.(36)For China as a whole, a comparison of the weighted average export price for Chinese imports of the product concerned, as reported                                 in Eurostat, and a weighted average normal value established for the analogue country (duly adjusted to reflect the likely                                 product mix of the Chinese imports in view of the product mix of the EU sales of the cooperating exporting producer for comparable                                 product types), also established considerable dumping at even higher levels.(37)Subsequent to final disclosure, a European trade association claimed that, as opposed to Chinese exporting producers and Spanish                                 producers, it did not have any possibility to verify the exact calculations (dumping and injury) and therefore asked the Commission                                 to provide the dumping calculation details. During the hearing in the presence of the Hearing Officer, three importers also                                 signalled that they would have preferred to receive details on the calculation of dumping.(38)In this respect, it should be noted that the data on which the Commission based its calculations contains business secrets                                 and confidential information. The cooperating exporting producer which supplied such data has duly received specific disclosure                                 of the detailed dumping and injury calculations and did not make any comments or requests for clarification. The Commission                                 cannot make that data available for inspection by other interested parties without breaching its confidential nature. However,                                 the methodology used by the Commission, as described in recitals 30-36 above, was disclosed to all interested parties. The                                 Hearing Officer, during the mentioned hearing, informed the importers of the possibility of requesting him to verify the Commission's                                 calculation if they had concerns on its accuracy. The three importers however did not request an intervention of the Hearing                                 Officer in this respect.(39)In any event, the European trade association calculated itself a dumping margin, comparing average Eurostat import prices                                 from China with the average Eurostat import prices from Turkey. According to that trade association, such comparison would                                 suggest a lower level of dumping, circa 30 %. In this respect, it should first be noted that, in an expiry review, the exact                                 level of dumping is of less importance than in an investigation in which the level of the duty is determined. Secondly, as                                 explained in recitals 30-33 above, the Commission's calculation was based on ‘real’ normal value data from the cooperating                                 and verified Turkish producer and the comparison with the Chinese export prices was made at a detailed level. Therefore, the                                 data on which the Commission based its calculation is considered much more reliable and precise than the estimate suggested                                 by the association in its comments to the disclosure.(40)During the hearing with the Hearing Officer, three importers further claimed that there was no dumping. They based that claim                                 on the fact that the Commission had found that the average sales prices of the cooperating Chinese exporting producer to several                                 important non-EU markets were below the average sales price to the Union market. This claim has to be rejected as dumping                                 is selling in a given market at prices below normal value, not at prices below those achieved in other third markets.3.3.**Development of imports should measures be repealed**3.3.1.*Preliminary remark*(41)Further to the finding of the existence of dumping during the review investigation period, the likelihood of continuation                                 of dumping should measures be repealed was investigated and the following elements were analysed: production capacity and                                 spare capacity in China; volume and prices of dumped imports from China; the attractiveness of the Union market in relation                                 to imports from China.(42)During a big part of the RIP there were no measures in force in the EU, since they had been annulled (see recital 2 above).                                 During that period without measures, there was peak in imports in 2011/12 followed by a drop during the rests of the review                                 investigation period. This actually reflects a stock piling effect rather than a genuine increase/decrease in consumption                                 and is attributed to the high level of Chinese imports which took place between March and July 2012, when the measures were                                 not in force.3.3.2.*Production, domestic consumption and exporting capacity of the Chinese producers*(43)As concerns the total Chinese production capacity and spare capacity, the Commission did not obtain information from any of                                 the Chinese producers or other interested parties. In accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation the Commission made                                 its findings on the basis of facts available.(44)According to the report published by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the US Department of Agriculture (FSA/USDA) which                                 was included in the review request and which is also publicly available(7), the amount of fresh mandarins devoted to processing, that is production of canned mandarins, in China increased by 27 %                                 between 2009/2010 (520 000 tonnes) and the review investigation period (660 000 tonnes). The production of Chinese canned                                 mandarins followed a similar trend. According to this report, China increased the production of canned mandarins from 347                                 000 tonnes in 2009/2010 to 440 000 tonnes in the review investigation period. The report further estimated that the Chinese                                 domestic consumption of canned mandarins was around 100 000-150 000 tonnes in 2013/2014. As another publicly available source                                 estimated that domestic consumption at 50 000-100 000 tonnes(8), an estimate of a domestic consumption of 100 000 tonnes appears to be reasonable. Taking the above information into account,                                 the amount of Chinese canned mandarins available for export can be estimated to be around 340 000 tonnes in the review investigation                                 period.(45)Other available sources provide slightly different estimates concerning the amount of Chinese canned mandarins available for                                 export between 2009 and 2014(9). However, in spite of those differences, they all indicate that the amount of Chinese canned mandarins available for export                                 was at least 300 000 tonnes per reported annual season between 2009 and 2013. None of the sources indicate that the amount                                 of Chinese canned mandarins available for export could be significantly reduced in the future.3.3.3.*Attractiveness of the Union market*(46)Even if imports from China during the review investigation period were 19 253 tonnes, import data from the original investigation,                                 covering the 2002-2007 period, show that Chinese manufacturers can allocate more than 60 000 tonnes per season to the Union                                 market, as confirmed by Eurostat import data concerning the 2011/2012 season. Moreover, the high level of imports in 2011/2012,                                 a period during which measures were not applicable for the majority of the time (namely, as from 22 March 2012), shows that                                 the Union is an attractive market for Chinese manufacturers in terms of prices and that significant volumes of Chinese dumped                                 imports would reach the Union market if the current anti-dumping measures are repealed.(47)The fact that China exported to the Union in 2002-2007 period (when no anti-dumping measures were imposed) considerably more                                 canned mandarins on average per season (by 36 %) than in 2009-2013 period (when duties were imposed except between 22 March                                 2012 and 23 February 2013), although the total volumes available for Chinese export worldwide were lower in the first period                                 than in the second one, further corroborates the likelihood that the Chinese producers will increase their export volumes                                 to the Union to the levels witnessed during the original investigation if the measures are repealed.3.3.4.*Export prices to third countries*(48)With regard to exports to third countries, the investigation showed that in the review investigation period the average sales                                 prices of the cooperating company's exports to several important markets (such as Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand)                                 were below the average sales prices to the Union. It can therefore be expected that in the absence of measures, the cooperating                                 exporting producer would shift at least part of those exports to the Union.(49)Also the Chinese export statistics concerning prepared and/or preserved citrus fruit, in airtight container, demonstrate that                                 there is a likelihood of redirection of Chinese exports to the Union. Indeed, based on these statistics it is estimated that,                                 during the review investigation period, approximately 20 000 tonnes of the product concerned were sold to export destinations                                 with average prices below those obtained in the EU, even though there were no anti-dumping duties applicable to imports from                                 China on those markets. During the review investigation period that volume would equal the Union industry domestic sales and                                 71 % of the total Union industry production. In other words, on the basis of the current European canned mandarins market                                 size (total EU consumption:44 523 tonnes) and according to the information from the Chinese export statistics, the Chinese                                 volume of current EU exports plus the potential volume for which it makes economic sense to redirect it to the Union would                                 almost cover the complete EU demand of canned mandarins.3.3.5.*Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation of dumping*(50)The investigation has confirmed that Chinese imports continued to enter the Union market at dumped prices during the review                                 investigation period. Given the continued dumping, the fact that the Union market is a significant market which was interesting                                 for the Chinese exporters in the past, the production capacities available in China going beyond the total Union consumption                                 as well as the proven willingness and ability of Chinese producers to increase rapidly the exports to the Union should there                                 be an incentive, it is concluded there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping should measures be removed.

4.**INJURY**4.1.**General remarks**(51)Mandarins are harvested in autumn and winter, with the harvesting and processing season starting early October and finishing                                 around the end of January (for certain varieties, February or March) the following year. Most purchase (for example by unrelated                                 importers) and sales contracts are negotiated in the first months of each season. Practice in the mandarin preserving industry                                 is to use the season (the period from 1 October in one year to 30 September in the following year) as the basis for comparisons.                                 As in the original investigation, the Commission adopted this practice in its analysis.4.2.**Union production and Union industry**(52)During the review investigation period, the like product was manufactured in the union by five Union producers. The total                                 union production of the like product during the review investigation period was established on the basis of questionnaire                                 replies provided by four individual producers which were verified during an on-spot verification. The production of the remaining                                 producer, who did not adequately cooperate and was not subject to an on-site verification visit, was based on the reply to                                 the questionnaire submitted by that producer cross-checked with the complaint. On this basis, the total Union production was                                 estimated to be around 28 500 tonnes during the review investigation period.(53)It is concluded that the above Union producers accounting for the total Union production constitute the Union industry within                                 the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.4.3.**Apparent consumption in the Union market**(54)The Union consumption was established on the basis of import data as reported by Eurostat at TARIC (integrated community tariff)                                 level, thus exactly coinciding with the definition of the product concerned — and on the basis of the EU sales volumes of                                 the Union industry.(55)It should be noted that, even though the analysis is based on seasons rather than calendar years, the above methodology does                                 not necessarily reflect the consumption at industrial user/consumer level. Indeed, given the seasonality of the main raw material                                 (fresh fruits), it is common practice in the sector for both importers and Union producers to build up stocks when fresh fruits                                 are canned, and sell the processed products to distributors or industrial users throughout the year. The consumption may thus                                 sometimes be affected by stock-piling effects.(56)On this basis, during the period considered the Union consumption developed as follows:*Table 1*2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodUnion consumption (tonnes)66 48772 61890 20744 523*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**109**136**67*(57)During the period considered, the Union consumption for citrus fruits remained on average slightly below 70 000 tonnes. There                                 was however a peak in imports in 2011/2012, followed by a drop during the review investigation period. This development actually                                 reflects a stock piling effect rather than a genuine increase/decrease in consumption and is attributed to the high level                                 of Chinese imports which took place between March and July 2012, when the measures were temporarily not in force (see recital                                 2). The peak of imports in 2011/2012 was compensated by a lower import level during the review investigation period, thus                                 a lower Union consumption.(58)Some of the importers claimed that they had not been practising stockpiling. They also submitted that since 6 October 2011,                                 when the Advocate General delivered its opinion in Case C-338/10, they were already convinced that the Court of Justice would                                 annul the measures. Therefore, they postponed the custom clearance of the product concerned until the final judgment of the                                 Court of Justice was adopted.(59)In this context, it should be recalled that stockpiling can be defined as accumulating and storing a reserve supply. The data                                 at the disposal of the Commission shows that since the annulment of the measures, on 22 March 2012, there had been a massive                                 import volume of the product concerned until July 2012: on average of almost 9 000 tonnes per month. Thereafter and until                                 the end of the RIP, the average level of imports went down to only around 1 650 tonnes per month, which was about 2 000 tonnes                                 less per month as compared to the average level of imports in the period preceding the annulment of the measures. The Commission                                 concluded that in order to reach such a significant level of monthly imports during a relatively short period of time, importers                                 had been accumulating high volumes of the product concerned. This was in fact also confirmed by some importers, who admitted                                 that they had been delaying customs clearance when they become convinced that the anti-dumping duties would be annulled. Therefore,                                 the claim that the importers were not practising stockpiling had to be rejected.4.4.**Imports into the Union from China**(60)Bearing in mind that only one group of Chinese exporters cooperated with the investigation and that this group represented                                 around 12 %-20 % (range given for reasons of confidentiality) of the total imports from China during the review investigation                                 period, it was concluded that the Eurostat data (at TARIC (integrated community tariff) code level where necessary) was the                                 most accurate and the best information source for import volumes and prices. Individual prices of the cooperating Chinese                                 exporter were nevertheless also examined.4.4.1.*Volume and market share*(61)The Chinese import volume and the corresponding market shares developed as follows during the period considered:*Table 2*Imports from China2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodVolume of imports (tonnes)47 23541 91559 61319 294*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**89**126**41*Market share71 %57,7 %66,1 %43,3 %(62)Following the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in 2008, the volume of Chinese imports generally followed a downward                                 trend. It is recalled that imports during the original investigation period (2006/2007) amounted to 56 108 tonnes.(63)As explained above, there was however a peak of imports in 2011/2012. This peak was clearly the result of the annulment of                                 the anti-dumping measures in March 2012. Indeed, when looking at the monthly development of Chinese imports, based on Eurostat                                 data, while the monthly Chinese imports generally fluctuated between 2 000 and 6 000 tonnes, they reached levels between 6                                 000 and 12 000 tonnes in the period March 2012-July 2012 (on average almost 9 000 tonnes per month). In this respect, it should                                 be noted that measures were annulled in March 2012 and re-imposed in February 2013, but registration was introduced on 29                                 June 2012(10), which had a chilling effect on imports.(64)Similarly to the import volume, the Chinese market share followed a downward trend during the period considered, decreasing                                 from 71 % to 43 %. Even considering the impact of the unusual level of Chinese imports in 2011/2012 and the review investigation                                 period, the market shares decreased from around 70 % in 2009/2010 to an average of 55 % in the following years.4.4.2.*Price and price undercutting**Table 3*Imports from China2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodAverage import price (EUR/tonne)6777441 068925*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**110**158**137*(65)As reflected in the above table, over the period considered the prices of Chinese imports increased by 37 %. It should however                                 be noted that prices significantly increased until the period 2011/2012 and then decreased during the review investigation                                 period.(66)Since the import volume of the only cooperating exporter represented only around 12 %-20 % (range given for reasons of confidentiality)                                 of the Chinese imports during the review investigation period, the existence of price undercutting has been examined also                                 for the overall Chinese exports, based on import statistics.(67)For this purpose, the weighted average sales prices of the cooperating Union producers to unrelated customers on the Union                                 market were compared to the corresponding weighted average CIF (cost, insurance and freight) prices of imports from China                                 as reported by Eurostat. These CIF (cost, insurance and freight) prices were adjusted to cover costs related to customs clearance,                                 namely customs tariff and post-importation costs.(68)On that basis, the comparison showed that during the review investigation period the imports of the product concerned undercut                                 the Union industry's prices by 4,8 %, when calculations take into account the impact of the anti-dumping duties in force.                                 The undercutting margin however reaches 28 % when import prices are considered without anti-dumping duties.(69)When considering the import prices reported by the Chinese cooperating exporter, duly adjusted, an undercutting margin of                                 14 % could be established during the review investigation period, when taking into account anti-dumping duties in force. When                                 discounting the effect of the anti-dumping duties, the undercutting margin reached a level of 20 %. It should be noted that                                 the majority of these exports during the review investigation period took place when the measures were annulled.4.5.**Imports into the Union from other third countries**(70)Over the period considered the volume of imports from other third countries never held a market share of more than 11,2 %.                                 Most of these imports (it was at least 89 % during period considered) were from Turkey.*Table 4*2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodVolume of imports from other third countries (tonnes)4 0338 07810 0904 717*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**200**250**117*Market share6,1 %11,1 %11,2 %10,6 %4.6.**Economic situation of the Union industry**(71)Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry                                 included an evaluation of all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the                                 period considered.(72)Even though all the five Union producers provided a questionnaire reply it was considered that the questionnaire reply submitted                                 by one of the producers could not be completely used as its reply was not verified during an on-spot verification. The analysis                                 was therefore based on the following methodology.(73)The macroeconomic indicators (production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, employment,                                 productivity, growth, magnitude of dumping margins and recovery from the effects of past dumping) were assessed at the level                                 of the whole Union industry. The assessment was based on the information provided by the four fully cooperating Union producers.                                 In case of the producer whose questionnaire reply was not verified assessment was based on the data provided by this producer                                 which was, to the extent possible, cross-checked with data included in the complaint and its audited financial statements.(74)The analysis of microeconomic indicators (stocks, sale prices, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments,                                 ability to raise capital, wages) was carried out at the level of the fully cooperating four Union producers. The assessment                                 was based on their information which was duly verified during an on-spot verification visit.4.6.1.*Macroeconomic indicators*4.6.1.1.*Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation**Table 5*2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodProduction (tonnes)11 81533 31829 67228 763*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**282**251**243*Production capacity (tonnes)77 38077 38077 38077 380*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**100**100**100*Capacity utilisation15 %43 %38 %37 %(75)The production significantly increased during the period considered from around 12 000 tonnes to almost 29 000 tonnes during                                 the review investigation period. In 2009/2010 season the production was small since the Union industry was still affected                                 by the dumped import of Chinese canned mandarins, which were imported in the previous season, as well as by the fact that                                 it maintained a stock from the previous season when the anti-dumping measures had not been in force. The production increased                                 in 2010/2011 season once the new Chinese imports were captured by the anti-dumping measure being in force.(76)Since the Union production capacity did not change during the period, the capacity utilisation increased accordingly. It however                                 systematically remained below 50 %.(77)One European association of traders claimed that one Union producer stopped production since 2012/2013 and that this producer                                 and two others were in a difficult financial situation. For these reasons, it is claimed that the production and production                                 capacity/utilisation figures were artificially inflated.(78)In this respect, it should first be recalled that the information collected in the course of the investigation indicated that                                 all Union producers forming part of the Union industry have been producing in all seasons during the period considered. The                                 first claim that one producer stopped production during the RIP should therefore be rejected.(79)Concerning the alleged difficult financial situation of Union producers, one of the Union producers was indeed subject to                                 an insolvency proceeding during the period considered. However, the investigation showed that the production level of that                                 producer increased significantly throughout the period considered, while its capacity remained unchanged. Therefore, it was                                 concluded that the insolvency proceeding did not negatively affect that producer's output. As far as the two other Union producers                                 are concerned, they entered into insolvency proceedings but only after the period considered. This in fact confirms the conclusion                                 (see recitals from 96 to 98) that the injury actually resumed and that the Union industry has been still in a fragile financial                                 situation.4.6.1.2.*Sales volume and market share in the Union**Table 6*2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodSales volume (tonnes)15 21922 62520 50420 512*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**149**135**135*Market share (of Union consumption)22,9 %31,2 %22,7 %46,1 %(80)The sales by the Union industry on the Union market to unrelated customers increased by 35 % during the period considered.(81)The Union industry market share also followed an increasing trend during the period considered. Even considering the stock                                 piling effect on the level of the union consumption in 2011/2012 and during the review investigation period, the market share                                 increased from around 23 % at the beginning of the period to an average of 35 % in the last 2 years examined.4.6.1.3.*Employment and productivity**Table 7*2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodEmployment350481484428*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**137**138**122*Productivity (tonnes per employee)34696167*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**205**182**199*(82)Both employment and productivity improved during the period considered and reflect the overall increase of production and                                 sales volume. The increase of productivity in 2010/2011 season was linked to the higher production volumes which resulted                                 from the fact that the anti-dumping measures took full effect in that period.(83)The above employment figures are full-time equivalent and therefore they do not show the absolute number of seasonal jobs                                 involved. In order to have a better idea of the magnitude of jobs involved, it should be noted that the figure for the review                                 investigation period is a full-time equivalent expression of around 2 400 seasonal jobs.4.6.1.4.*Growth*(84)The Union industry managed to benefit from growth on the Union market until 2011. However, as soon as the measures against                                 China were lifted (see recital 2) and the Chinese imports flooded the Union market, the Union industry lost a considerable                                 part of its market share. After the duties were re-imposed, the Union industry was able to regain its lost market share, albeit                                 at a cost of deteriorating financial situation.4.6.1.5.*Magnitude of dumping and recovery from past dumping*(85)Dumping continued during the review investigation period at a significant level, as explained under point 3.2.5 (see recitals                                 34 and 35) above.(86)As to the impact on the Union industry of the magnitude of the actual dumping margin, given the volume of the dumped imports                                 from China, this impact cannot be considered negligible. It is noted that the Union industry is still on the recovery path                                 from past dumping in particular in terms of capacity utilisation and profitability (as compared to the original investigation).4.6.2.*Microeconomic indicators*4.6.2.1.*Stocks**Table 8*2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodStocks (tonnes)2 0202 9427 2579 729*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**146**359**482*(87)The Union producers increased their stock significantly in the last two seasons. This reflects the fact that production increased                                 more than sales in the period considered.4.6.2.2.*Sales prices in the Union**Table 9*2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodAverage unit sales price (EUR/tonne)1 2601 3221 5771 397*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**105**125**111*(88)Over the review period, the Union industry managed to increase its EU sales price by 11 %. The increase was especially marked                                 until 2011/2012, but prices subsequently decreased during the review investigation period. This is attributed to the high                                 level of Chinese imports which took place between March and July 2012 when the measures were not in force, and the undercutting                                 of Union industry's prices by the prices of the product concerned from China.4.6.2.3.*Profitability and cash flow**Table 10*2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodProfitability– 29,8 %5,9 %6,4 %– 2,9 %(89)During the period considered the profitability of the Union industry first significantly improved, that is in the period 2010/2011-2011/2012.                                 However, in the review investigation period the Union industry became loss-making again.(90)The improvement of the profitability was clearly related to the fact that the Union industry managed to increase its sales                                 and production volume as well as sales price in the years following the imposition of the anti-dumping measures. The return                                 to a loss-making situation in the review investigation period is the consequence of lower sales prices due to the sudden influx                                 of Chinese imports after the annulment of the duties by the Court of Justice of the European Union.(91)In this context, it should be recalled that a significant volume of Chinese products was imported free-of-anti-dumping duty                                 in the period March-July 2012. Moreover, Chinese imports were found to be undercutting the Union prices during the review                                 investigation period at significant levels, in particular when discounting the effect of the anti-dumping duties. This has                                 caused a general price depression, which in turn resulted in a loss-making situation of the Union industry.*Table 11*2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodCash flow (EUR)1 211 3423 078 496– 1 402 390– 2 023 691*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**254**– 116**– 167*(92)During the period considered the evolution of the cash flow mainly corresponded to the development of the overall profitability                                 of the Union industry, in conjunction with the effect of increases of stocks, in particular in the last 2 years analysed.4.6.2.4.*Investment, return on investments, ability to raise capital and growth**Table 12*2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodInvestments (EUR)318 695416 7142 387 341238 473*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**131**749**75*Return on investments (net assets)– 60 %29 %19 %– 1 %(93)During the period considered part of the Union industry made investments for the maintenance and optimisation of the existing                                 production machinery. The level of investment increased especially in the period 2011/2012, most likely favoured by the level                                 of profit during and immediately before that year. This investment was mainly made by one Union producer with a view to secure                                 source of supply of raw materials, which will complement the existing ones, and to improve the compliance with environmental                                 regulations. The return on investments during the period considered followed closely the profitability trend.(94)Part of the Union industry encountered difficulties to raise capital during the period considered but was ultimately able                                 to restructure its debt.4.6.2.5.*Wages**Table 13*2009/20102010/20112011/2012Review investigation periodLabour costs per employee (EUR)23 57821 86421 37123 025*Index (2009/2010 = 100)**100**93**91**98*(95)The average wage levels remained rather stable over the period considered, whereas the unit cost of production dropped.4.7.**Conclusion**(96)The injury analysis shows that the situation of the Union industry improved in the period considered. The imposition of the                                 anti-dumping measures at the end of 2008 allowed the Union industry to, slowly but steadily, recover from the injurious effects                                 of the dumping, further exploiting its potential onto the Union market. The fact that the Union industry benefited from the                                 measures is mostly illustrated by increased production and sales levels and in particular the level of profit.(97)The situation, however, changed during the review investigation period. Measures were annulled in March 2012 and imports from                                 China massively increased until June 2012 when imports became subject to registration. Importers used the annulment of the                                 anti-dumping duties to build up stocks in 2011/2012 and put these products on the EU market at cheap prices during the review                                 investigation period. This caused a significant overall price pressure on the EU market and, as a result, the financial situation                                 of the industry deteriorated again. Indeed, the industry had no choice but to decrease its prices in order to maintain its                                 level of sales. This however had serious consequences on its financial situation.(98)The still injurious situation of the Union industry is best demonstrated by a series of negative financial indicators, namely                                 profitability and cash flow, combined with high stock levels and low capacity utilisation. This context deters new investments                                 and growth.(99)One European association of traders questioned the findings of injury on the grounds that the sales volumes, employment and                                 sales prices of the Union industry, as well as the level of investments of one Union producer, have developed positively during                                 the period considered.(100)This claim should however be rejected. Indeed, according to Article 3(5) of the Basic Regulation, the list of the relevant                                 economic indicators that should be examined is not exhaustive, one or more of these factors cannot necessarily give decisive                                 guidance regarding the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry. As explained in recital 98,                                 the indicators suggested by the claimant were not decisive for the Commission to reach its conclusions on the injurious situation                                 of the Union industry. The conclusion that injury continued was rather based on the negative financial indicators relating                                 to profitability and cash flow combined with high stock levels and low capacity utilisation.

5.**LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF INJURY**5.1.**Impact of the projected volume of imports and price effects in case of repeal of measures**(101)Should the measures be repealed, the volume of imports is expected to increase and cause further injury to the Union industry.                                 This is based on the following elements.(102)The analysis above (see recital 44) shows that, although the Chinese export volumes to the Union decreased significantly after                                 the imposition of measures at the end of 2008, Chinese producers still manufacture significant volumes of product concerned                                 most of which is destined for exportation.(103)In terms of projected volumes and prices, it is clear that the Union market remains very attractive to the Chinese exporting                                 producers. First, in terms of volume, the Union market is the third biggest world market for Chinese canned mandarins. Moreover,                                 the development following the annulment of the measures shows that the Chinese exporters are able to quickly export significant                                 quantities of the product concerned to the Union market without even the need to redirect its sales from other markets. Finally                                 in this respect, based on import data from the original investigation, China can easily export more than 60 000 tonnes per                                 season to the Union market, and this corresponds to almost 90 % of the average Union consumption in the period considered.(104)If China indeed increased its EU exports as a result of a repeal of the measures, there would more than likely be a general                                 price decrease on the EU market in the medium term. This would put the EU producers in an even more difficult position, as                                 explained below.(105)Secondly, as far as prices are concerned, the Chinese database(11) shows that in the past China exported significant volumes to non-EU countries at prices below the export prices to the EU.                                 During the review investigation period, the volumes exported to these non-EU countries were approximately 20 000 tonnes, which                                 constituted 71 % of the total Union industry production. Because of the attractiveness of the EU market in terms of pricing,                                 it is concluded that if the measures are terminated, Chinese exporters are likely to re-direct those volumes to the more lucrative                                 Union market.(106)Furthermore, the above analysis (see recitals 68 and 69) has demonstrated that Chinese imports on the Union market significantly                                 undercut the Union producers' prices during the RIP, in particular when discounting the effect of the anti-dumping duties.                                 Even if the Chinese import prices increased in 2011/2012, when the measures were not in force, their level was still well                                 below the level of the EU prices, based on Eurostat data. On that basis the magnitude of the price difference in 2011/2012                                 was actually comparable to the RIP.(107)The market for prepared or preserved citrus fruits is very price competitive as the competition mainly takes place on the                                 basis of prices. This is further exacerbated by the fact that sales usually take place for relatively big quantities. If cheap                                 and dumped imports are made available in significant quantities on the Union market, there would be a direct repercussion                                 on the general level of prices on the Union market, which would result in overall price depression.(108)The annulment of the anti-dumping duties at the end of the period considered is a perfect illustration of what would happen                                 if measures lapsed.(109)As soon as the measures were annulled by the Court of Justice of the European Union and until imports became subject to registration,                                 the volume of Chinese imports increased rapidly and significantly. The massive presence of these cheap imports on the Union                                 market forced the Union producers to decrease their prices in order to maintain their position in terms of volumes of sales                                 and production, which resulted in a loss making situation.(110)This was the result of free-of-anti-dumping duty imports during a period of only 5 months. Repercussions on the situation                                 of the Union industry would obviously be even more serious if measures expired. If the high volumes of low-priced imports                                 recurred, injury suffered by the Union industry would in all likelihood be exacerbated. Union producers would suffer a fall                                 in production and sales volumes and prices which would lead to increased losses. An undercutting calculation based on the                                 data presented in point 4.4.2 (see recitals 68 and 69) but with the anti-dumping duties removed points at an undercutting                                 level higher than 20 %.(111)One European association of traders claimed that the Union industry would not suffer injury if the measures were repealed,                                 because lower volumes of imports of the product concerned would be expected in the future. This claim was based on the following                                 reasons. Firstly, that the domestic consumption of fresh fruits in China would increase in the future, as well as the Chinese                                 exports of fresh fruits to Russia. Secondly, that the domestic Chinese consumption of canned mandarins was also expected to                                 increase. Thirdly, that the Eurostat statistics prove the above as they show lower imports of the products concerned since                                 the 2012/2013 season.(112)These claims should however be rejected on the following grounds:(a)
firstly, even if the Chinese domestic consumption and export of fresh fruits would be expected to increase, the Chinese production                                       is also estimated to increase to a comparable extent, based on the available data(12). It is therefore concluded that the availability of fresh fruits for the Chinese canning industry in the 2013/2014 season                                       will not be significantly affected;                                    
(b)
secondly, it was concluded in recital 44 that the Chinese domestic consumption of canned mandarins would be around 100 000                                       tonnes per season, and there is no indication that this figure is expected to grow in the future. The claimants did also not                                       provide any evidence that consumption would increase;                                    
(c)
with relation to the third reason, it should be recalled that the lower imports of the product concerned in the 2012/2013                                       season (the RIP) could be reasonably explained by the stockpiling effect resulting from a massive imports which took place                                       in 2011/2012 season during the first 5 months after the annulment of the measures (see recital 59).                                    
(113)The same European association of traders also claimed that bigger volumes of fresh fruits available on the Union market, presumably                                 due to Russian embargo, would decrease the prices of those fruits, thus enable the Union industry to further improve its competitiveness.(114)However, such claim is purely speculative and was not supported by any evidence. Even if raw material prices may decrease                                 in the future, it is not considered to be a sufficient reason not to remedy the negative effects of dumped imports on the                                 situation of the Union Industry. It is indeed considered that, without the maintenance of measures, dumped imports would resume                                 in significant volumes and further cause injury to the Union Industry. This would, as the case may be, deprive the Union Industry                                 to fully benefit from the positive effect of any future decrease of their raw material price. The claim was therefore rejected.5.2.**Conclusion**(115)On this basis, it is concluded that the repeal of measures on the imports from China would in all likelihood result in a continuation                                 of injury to the Union industry.

6.**UNION INTEREST**6.1.**Introduction**(116)In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping                                 measures would not be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an                                 appreciation of the various interests involved, that is those of the Union industry on the one hand, and those of importers                                 and other parties on the other hand.(117)It should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest                                 of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping                                 measures have already been in place, allows for the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the                                 current anti-dumping measures.(118)On this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation of injurious dumping, it                                 could be concluded that it would not be in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.6.2.**Interest of the Union industry**(119)The Union industry, composed of five producers in rural areas of Spain, gained market share and was able to increase the price                                 of the product concerned to a level that allowed it to turn the business back towards breakeven or profitable in the periods                                 of the period considered when measures were in force. Production volume and employment figures improved in the same way. Should                                 measures be repealed, the Union industry would be in a much worse situation as described above (under likelihood of recurrence                                 of injury) in terms of lower sales prices and further increased losses (see recital 110). New investments aimed at consolidating                                 the companies and improving their competitiveness on the market of the product concerned would be hindered as well. The continuation                                 of measures would be in the interest of the Union industry and should help it further exploiting its potential on a Union                                 market governed by restored competition.6.3.**Interest of importers, traders and retailers**(120)As mentioned in recital 10 above, in view of the apparent high number of unrelated importers sampling was applied. Importers                                 are located mainly in Germany, but also in other countries such as for example, but not only, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands                                 or the Czech Republic.(121)Two companies which imported the product concerned during the period considered cooperated in the investigation. The aggregated                                 preserved citrus fruit-related business of these parties constituted 3,8 % of their aggregated turnover. Even if the preserved                                 citrus fruit related business is not the most profitable one for these importers, this is inherent to their business option,                                 which consists of offering a very wide range of products to certain customers (for example supermarket chains) in order to                                 secure big contracts where less profitable products are offset by sales of other products and economies of scale.(122)There appeared to be no indications that a continuation of measures would have any significant negative effect on the activities                                 of the two importers. They are not dependent on this product, whereas the supply chain adapted to the costs linked to the                                 anti-dumping duty. Moreover, as the investigation shows, the measures did not close the Union market for the Chinese exporters                                 as the product concerned was imported in significant quantities throughout the period considered despite the existence of                                 measures.(123)Another importer claimed that anti-dumping duties negatively affect its preserved citrus fruit-trading business. In light                                 of the absence of verifiable data provided by that importer, it is considered that the negative effect that the continuation                                 of anti-dumping measures can have on these parties would not outweigh the positive effect of measures on the Union industry.(124)Some parties pointed at a shortage of production capacity by the Union industry. It should be noted that the non-continuation                                 of duties could lead to a situation where the alternative source of supply would have to close down its activities, leaving                                 importers with only one source of supply (imports from China). Yet it is recalled that supermarket chains and retailers value                                 maintaining a security of supply for their business. In fact, one of them supported continuation of the measures in order                                 to have competition and at least two sources of supply. In addition, the Union industry, which is still far from reaching                                 a satisfactory capacity utilisation level, has the capacity to further serve the Union market in a framework of restored competition.                                 The fact that the Union industry is currently not covering 100 % of the needs in the Union cannot justify either the unfair                                 trade practices by Chinese exporters or the removal of measures in this case.(125)One European association of traders claimed that the continuation of the measures would unduly restrict the normal conduct                                 of its members' business since a significant part of it was related to trade in the product concerned. In this respect, it                                 should be noted that the purpose of anti-dumping duties is to remedy unfair trade practices, i.e. dumping, and not to restrict                                 business. It is recalled that the Commission came to the conclusion that maintaining the remedy was still necessary in this                                 case.6.4.**Interest of users**(126)For the purpose of the analysis, users were divided into two categories: on the one hand, households; and, on the other hand,                                 professional/industrial users active in sectors such as the production of drinks, jams or yogurts, baking or catering.(127)No party belonging to any of these categories or representing their interests came forward or cooperated in any way in the                                 investigation.(128)One importer argued that the anti-dumping duties imposed on the product concerned would be anti-competitive and thus not in                                 the interest of the Union consumers. No evidence was submitted in order to support that claim.(129)Given the limited weight that the product concerned may have in the budget of an average household in the Union, there is                                 no evidence that an increase in consumer price, if any, derived from the maintenance of the measures can outweigh the positive                                 effect of measures on the Union industry.(130)Even if it cannot be contested that the continuation of duties can in the abstract affect some professional/industrial users                                 negatively in terms of lower margins, there is no evidence that costs stemming from the product concerned (as compared to                                 their total costs) are significant. Any negative impact from a continuation of the measures on this category of users would                                 thus not be disproportionate.6.5.**Interest of suppliers**(131)Both individual suppliers of fresh fruit to the Union industry and one association of such suppliers stated that measures                                 are in their interest and would be beneficial also in terms of new investments and jobs. Fruit sold to the Union producers                                 is an important complementary source of revenue for suppliers in the absence of which major disruptions in the agriculture                                 sector in the Spanish regions concerned may occur. It is estimated that the number of cooperative members affected would be                                 more than 2 000 in the region of Valencia only. With relation to seasonal jobs involved, among others, in collection, transport                                 and storage of fruits, it is estimated that at least 2 500 would be affected in the region of Valencia and Murcia together.(132)From the data submitted by the Association of the Spanish suppliers, it derives that if the Chinese imports exceed 60 000                                 tonnes, which already happened twice during the original investigation, the suppliers will likely face the situation when                                 they will not be able to sell the whole volume of satsumas destined for the Union canning industry.(133)One European association of traders claimed that the suppliers could expect subsidies to dispose of the quantities of fruits                                 which could not be exported due to the embargo to Russia. However, the claimant did not present any evidence supporting the                                 subsidy claim. In addition, subsidies, if any, would have been available only for unsold fruits destined for export to Russia                                 but not for those which had not been sold to the Union industry due to the injury caused by the product concerned after the                                 lapse of the measures. The claim was therefore rejected.6.6.**Conclusion**(134)The investigation has shown that the existing anti-dumping measures did not close the Union market to Chinese imports and                                 contributed to the recovery of the Union industry. As this recovery process is still ongoing, the continuation of measures                                 is in the interest of the Union industry. If measures were allowed to lapse, this recovery process would come to a stop, profitable                                 price levels would be out of reach and the Union industry would incur high losses. Moreover, a complementary source of revenue                                 for members of numerous cooperatives and seasonal workers in several rural areas where little job alternatives exist would                                 be in a threat.(135)From the data available, the existing measures appear not to have had any important negative effects on the economic situation                                 of the importers in the Union which cooperated in the investigation. In light of available data, the impact of measures on                                 other parties that came forward or on importers, traders, users and retailers cannot be deemed substantive either. Any price                                 increase, if at all, resulting from the continuation of anti-dumping measures, does not appear to be disproportionate when                                 compared to the benefit to the Union industry achieved by the removal of the trade distortion caused by the dumped imports.(136)Taking into account all of the factors outlined in the recitals above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons                                 against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.

7.**ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES**(137)All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is considered appropriate that                                 the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to submit comments subsequent to that disclosure. The                                 submissions and comments were, where warranted, duly taken into consideration.(138)It follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures applicable                                 to imports of certain preserved certain fruit originating in China should be maintained for an additional period of 5 years.(139)Some parties claimed that measures with a quantitative element (a quota system) are preferable to anti-dumping measures. This                                 claim cannot be retained given that the according to the basic Regulation a form of measures cannot be changed in an expiry                                 review investigation. This claim cannot undermine the findings in the framework of this investigation either, namely that                                 the requirements for maintaining the anti-dumping measures are met.(140)A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its                                 entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission(13). The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right                                 of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its                                 right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a notice informing about the change of name will be published in                                 the *Official Journal of the European Union*.(141)The Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation did not deliver an opinion,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

1.A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of prepared or preserved mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas),                        clementines, wilkings and other similar citrus hybrids, not containing added spirit, whether or not containing added sugar                        or other sweetening matter, and as defined under CN heading 2008, currently falling within CN codes 2008 30 55, 2008 30 75                        and ex 2008 30 90 (TARIC codes 2008 30 90 61, 2008 30 90 63, 2008 30 90 65, 2008 30 90 67 and 2008 30 90 69) and originating                        in the People's Republic of China.                  

2.The amount of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable for the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the                        companies listed below shall be as follows:                  

# Article 2U.K.

1.In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable                        is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93(14) the amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis of Article 1 above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds                        to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.                  

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

# Article 3U.K.

Article 1(2) may be amended by adding a new exporting producer to the cooperating companies not included in the sample and                     thus subject to the weighted average duty rate of 499,6 EUR/tonne net product weight where any new exporting producer in the                     People's Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that it:                  

did not export to the Union the product described in Article 1(1) during the review investigation period (1 October 2012 to                              30 September 2013) and during the original investigation period (1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007);                           

is not related to any of the exporting producers in the People's Republic of China which are subject to the measures imposed                              by this Regulation; and                           

has either actually exported to the Union the product concerned or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation                              to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the review investigation period.                           

# Article 4U.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, 10 December 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

*The President*                            

Jean-Claude Juncker                            

## ANNEXU.K.Cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample

          -  Hunan Pointer Foods Co., Ltd, Yongzhou, Hunan 
          -  Ningbo Pointer Canned Foods Co., Ltd, Xiangshan, Ningbo 
          -  Yichang Jiayuan Foodstuffs Co., Ltd, Yichang, Hubei 
          -  Ninghai Dongda Foodstuff Co., Ltd, Ningbo, Zhejiang 
          -  Huangyan No 2 Canned Food Factory, Huangyan, Zhejiang 
          -  Zhejiang Xinchang Best Foods Co., Ltd, Xinchang, Zhejiang 
          -  Toyoshima Share Yidu Foods Co., Ltd, Yidu, Hubei 
          -  Guangxi Guiguo Food Co., Ltd, Guilin, Guangxi 
          -  Zhejiang Juda Industry Co., Ltd, Quzhou, Zhejiang 
          -  Zhejiang Iceman Group Co., Ltd, Jinhua, Zhejiang 
          -  Ningbo Guosheng Foods Co., Ltd, Ninghai 
          -  Yi Chang Yin He Food Co., Ltd, Yidu, Hubei 
          -  Yongzhou Quanhui Canned Food Co., Ltd, Yongzhou, Hunan 
          -  Ningbo Orient Jiuzhou Food Trade & Industry Co., Ltd, Yinzhou, Ningbo 
          -  Guangxi Guilin Huangguan Food Co., Ltd, Guilin, Guangxi 
          -  Ningbo Wuzhouxing Group Co., Ltd, Mingzhou, Ningbo 

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.                           

2

Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively                              the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating                              in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 350, 30.12.2008, p. 35).                           

3

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 22 March 2012 in Case C-338/10, *Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS)* v *Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt*.                           

4

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports                              of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 49, 22.2.2013, p. 29).                           

5

OJ C 94, 3.4.2013, p. 9.                           

6

OJ C 310, 25.10.2013, p. 9.                           

7

United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service Citrus: World Markets and Trade, January 2013. Available                              at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/fas/citruswm//2010s/2013/citruswm-01-24-2013.pdf                           

8

‘Will plastic cups boost Chinese mandarin consumption’, *Foodnews*, 26 July 2013 https://www.agra-net.net/agra/foodnews/canned/canned-fruit/mandarins/will-plastic-cups-boost-chinese-mandarin-consumption--1.htm                           

9

Idem; FSA/USDA Gain Reports on citrus for 2008-2013 (available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Pages/Default.aspx); China customs                              statistics database provided by Goodwill China Business Information Limited.                           

10

OJ L 169, 29.6.2012, p. 50.                           

11

See footnote 9.

12

FSA/USDA Gain Report on citrus dated 12/13/2013 (available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Pages/Default.aspx).

13

European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H, Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 170, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.

14

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation                              (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).