EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 31.7.2018 SWD(2018) 392 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 36th Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities (2017) {COM(2018) 561 final}



COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 36th Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities (2017) Table of Contents Executive summary 1. Overview of the legislation Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 1.1.1.The international framework 1.1.2.The EU legislation Safeguards 1.2.1.The international framework 1.2.2.The EU legislation Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline services 2. Basic concepts 2.1.Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy

2.1.1.What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies - the material conditions for the imposition of duties? 2.1.2.Procedure 2.1.3.Review of measures 2.1.4.Judicial reviews 2.2.Safeguards 2.2.1.What are safeguard measures? 2.2.2.Procedure 3. General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures 3.1.Measures in place 3.2.Review investigations 4. Overview of activities in 2017 4.1.New investigations 4.1.1.Initiations 4.1.2.Provisional measures 4.1.3.Definitive measures 4.1.4.Details on individual cases with application of new provisional or definitive duties 4.1.5.Investigations terminated without measures 4.1.6.Details on some individual cases of termination without measures

4.2.Review investigations 4.2.1.Expiry reviews 4.2.2.Interim reviews 4.2.3.“Other” reviews 4.2.4.New exporter reviews 4.2.5.Absorption investigations 4.2.6.Anti-circumvention investigations 4.3.Safeguard investigations 5. Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures 5.1.Follow-up of measures 5.2.Monitoring of undertakings 6. Refunds 7. TDI Modernisation 8. Amendment of the EU's AD and AS legislation in 2017 Report on market distortions in the Chinese economy

9. Market economy status (MES) 10. Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts 10.1.Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)56 10.2.Bilateral contacts/information activities – EU economic operators including their key stakeholder associations and third countries56 11. Judicial review: decisions given by the Court of Justice and the General Court56 11.1.Overview of the judicial reviews in 2017.56 11.2.Cases pending56 11.3.New cases56 11.4.Judgments rendered by the General Court57 11.5.Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice63 12. Activities in the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO)69 12.1.Dispute settlement in the field of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards69 12.1.1.Overview of the WTO dispute settlement procedure69 12.1.2.Dispute settlement procedures against the Union70 12.2.Other WTO activities71 13. Conclusion72

LIST OF ANNEXES73 ANNEX A74 ANNEX B75 ANNEX C77 ANNEX D78 ANNEX E79 ANNEX F80 ANNEX G82 ANNEX H84 ANNEX I85 ANNEX J87 ANNEX K88 ANNEX L89 ANNEX M90 ANNEX N91 ANNEX O92 ANNEX P104 ANNEX R107 ANNEX S110

ANNEX T113 Executive summary This report describes the European Union's anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard activities during 2017, pursuant to Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (‘basic anti-dumping Regulation’) and Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 (‘basic anti-subsidy Regulation’). The report, as in previous years, gives an overview of the EU legislation in force with regard to the trade defence instruments: anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards. The report also summarises the developments in general policy. In this respect, two important legislative files merit particular attention. In December 2017, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a regulation introducing a new methodology for calculating dumping margins for countries in which significant distortions occur in the economy owing to state interference. It also introduces changes to strengthen the anti-subsidy legislation. A breakthrough has also been achieved regarding the modernisation of the trade defence instruments, a file introduced by the Commission back in 2013. After a complex legislative process, the European Parliament and the Council reached in December 2017 a compromise, which paved the way for the entry into force of the new rules in June 2018. It should be noted that the reporting provisions in Article 23 and Article 34 of the basic anti-dumping and basic anti-subsidy Regulations respectively were modified in December 2017 as part of substantive changes to those regulations (described in detail under Section 8 below). Given that none of the EUs anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings in 2017 were affected by the changes, this report provides no information in that regard. Worth noting is that the Commission's reporting obligations have been further changed as from 8 June 2018 following the entry into force of the amendments of the basic Regulation modernising trade defence rules. The report also gives an overview of all investigations together with the most essential information such as, for instance, the rate of individual duties imposed. Cases which merit special attention are treated in more detail. Consequently, the report covers the essential facts pertaining to the activity in 2017. The detailed annexes give a complete overview of all case-related information for the past year. These are broken down into various categories e.g. initiations, imposition of measures etc. and are designed to complement the narrative of this report by providing details of all cases including references to publications. With regard to anti-dumping and anti-subsidy, the year 2017 saw a slight decrease in the number of new cases initiated when compared to the previous year (11, as compared to 15 in 2016). However, while only two provisional measures were imposed compared to nine last year, the number of definitive measures imposed reached 12 compared to seven in 2016. Only two investigations were terminated without measures (compared to eight in 2016). As regards review investigations initiated, there was a significant increase in number - from 16 in 2016 to 28 in 2017. These included nine expiry reviews, ten interim reviews, six new exporter reviews and three anti-circumvention investigations. During 2017, 19 expiry reviews were concluded with confirmation of the measures and one interim review was concluded with the measures being amended. One anti-circumvention investigation was concluded with an extension of duty. In short, while the focus of the investigative work may shift somewhat from one year to another, the aforementioned figures show the overall importance and intensity of the Commission's trade defence activity. Moreover, the reality of trade defence work goes beyond a simple comparison of yearly figures. Indeed, some of the investigations such as on tyres and electric bikes from China are technically very complex and affect a wide array of economic interests. As in previous years, this report provides an overview of the Court cases relating to the trade defence policy instruments. In 2017, the Court of Justice and the General Court rendered 29 judgments in total relating to the areas of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy. The relevant activities in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are also reported, including dispute settlement procedures initiated against the EU. In general terms, therefore, the year 2017 has again been a very challenging as well as particularly intense year in the trade defence area. As in previous years, the European Parliament's INTA Committee continued to be informed about major developments in the EU's trade defence activities. The annexes to this report provide easy access to the case information in table form.

This report is also available to the general public under the following link.: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/trade-defence/ 1.Overview of the legislation Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 1.1.1.The international framework On an international level, unfair trading practices such as dumping and the granting of subsidies were identified as a threat to open markets as early as 1947, when the first GATT agreement was signed. The agreement contained specific provisions allowing GATT members to take action against these practices if they caused material injury to the domestic industry of a GATT member. Today's globalised trade environment is characterized by quicker and cheaper communication and transportation, as well as the coexistence of different models of economic governance. In such a world, trade defence instruments are more relevant than ever. Indeed, trade distortions that underlie the application of these instruments are widespread. Since the beginning of the GATT in 1947, considerable efforts have been made to harmonise the rules relating to trade defence instruments. During the last GATT round (the « Uruguay Round »), which led to the creation of the WTO and the detailed Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Agreements, much of the attention was focused on the procedural and material conditions to be fulfilled before measures can be adopted. The EU played an active role in the negotiation of these agreements, which are reflected in its own legislation. The EU applies its anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation with rigour and consistency. Unfortunately, many WTO Members lack this type of restraint, thereby affecting negatively also EU operators. The role that the EU plays as a prudent user has therefore also an exemplary function at WTO level. Against this backdrop, the EU also continues to play a leading active role in any efforts to update the WTO rulebook. 1.1.2.The EU legislation The EU’s anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation was first enacted in 1968 and has since been modified several times. The current basic texts, which form the legal basis of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the EU, entered into force in March 1996 and October 1997 respectively. These are in line with the Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Agreements adopted during the GATT/WTO negotiations. These texts were codified in 2016 to reflect changes previously made. The basic texts are: –Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union – Codified Version –Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union – Codified Version. These regulations will overall be referred to as the "basic Regulation(s)". Both regulations were recently modified by Regulation (EU) 2017/2321 of 12 December 2017 and Regulation (EU) 2018/825 of 30 May 2018. The EU's legislation contains a number of provisions aimed at ensuring a balanced application of the EU’s Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy rules on all interested parties. These provisions include the “EU interest test” and the “lesser duty rule”, which go beyond the Union's WTO obligations. The EU interest test is a public interest clause and provides that measures can only be taken if they are not contrary to the overall interest of the EU. This requires an analysis of all the economic interests involved, including those of the EU industry and its suppliers, downstream users, consumers and traders of the product concerned. The lesser duty rule requires the measures imposed by the EU to be lower than the dumping or subsidy margin, if such lower duty rate is sufficient to remove the injury suffered by the EU industry. Such a “no-injury” rate is usually determined by using the cost of production of the EU industry and a reasonable profit margin. In almost half of the cases the anti-dumping measures for individual exporting companies are set at the level of the injury margin instead of the higher dumping margin. The EU is one of the few investigating authorities on a world-wide level that applies the lesser duty rule in such a coherent and comprehensive way. Safeguards 1.2.1.The international framework The principle of liberalisation of imports was set under the GATT 1947 and strengthened under the 1994 WTO Agreements. As safeguard measures consist of the unilateral withdrawal or suspension of a tariff concession or of other trade liberalisation obligations formerly agreed, they have to be considered as an exception to this principle. Article XIX GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards do not only impose strict conditions for the application of this "escape clause”, but also put in place a multilateral control mechanism under the WTO Committee on Safeguards. Under WTO rules, safeguard action has to be viewed as a temporary defence measure that applies to all imports of the product covered by a measure, irrespective of origin. As regards non-WTO members, safeguard measures may be selective and apply to products originating in a specific country. WTO Accession Protocols may also provide for such selective safeguard mechanisms as was the case in China's Protocol of Accession, although the provision has now expired. WTO safeguards should only be adopted after a comprehensive investigation which provides evidence of the existence of a) unforeseen developments leading to b) increased imports, c) the existence of a serious injury for EU producers and d) a causal link between the imports and the injury. 1.2.2.The EU legislation

The above-mentioned principles are all reflected in the relevant EU regulations, except for the “unforeseen development requirement” (which is not found explicitly in the EU legislation nor in the WTO Agreement on Safeguards but has been confirmed as a self-standing condition by WTO jurisprudence). Additionally, the adoption of measures in the EU requires an analysis of all interests concerned, i.e. the impact of the measures on producers, users and consumers. In other words, safeguard action can only be taken when it is in the EU’s interest to do so. The current EU safeguard instruments are covered by the following regulations: - Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common rules for imports (codification), - Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (recast), - Regulation (EU) 2015/936 on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific EU import rules (recast). The first two regulations are referred to as the "basic safeguard Regulation(s)". Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline services Regulation No 868/2004 dealing with the effect of subsidisation and unfair pricing for air services from third countries was adopted by the EP and the Council in 2004. However, the Regulation has never been used in practice. Therefore, following public consultations in 2013 and a study the following year, the Commission presented, in June 2017, a proposal for a new regulation, aiming at addressing, in a more effective way, practices affecting competition on air transport market. The Commission proposal is now under discussion by the Council and the Parliament as co-legislators. 2.Basic concepts 2.1.Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 2.1.1.What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies - the material conditions for the imposition of duties? 2.1.1.1.Dumping and subsidies Dumping is traditionally defined as selling below cost of production, plus profit. The EU’s anti-dumping legislation (mirroring relevant WTO rules) defines anti-dumping as selling a product in the EU at a price below its “normal value”. This “normal value” is usually the actual sales price on the domestic market of the exporting country. Therefore, a country is selling at dumped prices if the prices in its home market are higher than its export prices (i.e. price discrimination). This price discrimination can have many different causes and is normally only possible if the domestic market of the exporting producer is in some way segregated from its overseas market, e.g. by the existence of high import duties into the country of origin or non-tariff barriers. As a result, exporters are shielded, at least to a certain extent, from international competition on their home market and can hence charge higher prices. Another case in point is the existence of state-induced distortions of the cost of production through the main production factors, i.e. the cost of capital, raw materials, labour or energy, or other kinds of intervention into the operation of market forces, such as the lack of appropriate enforcement of bankruptcy procedures. These distortions have the potential to alter cost and price structures and therefore make it impossible to establish in a meaningful manner the normal value on the domestic market and justify the use of out-of-country benchmarks to establish the normal value. Where sales in the domestic market are not representative, for instance, because they have only been made in small quantities, the normal value may then be established on another basis, such as the cost of production, plus profit. In the latter case, a company is selling at dumped prices if its export prices are below the cost of production, plus profit. Subsidies can have similar effects to sales at dumped prices in that they allow exporters to operate from a distorted home base. Subsidies involve a direct support from a government or a government-directed private body which has the effect of conferring a benefit to producers or exporters (e.g. grants, tax and duty exemptions/reductions, preferential loans at below commercial rates, export promotion schemes, etc.). This allows exporters to sell at low prices in the EU. Only subsidies which are “specific”, i.e. targeted at individual companies or certain sectors of the economy, can be subject to trade defence measures. Both anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures are only second-best solutions in the absence of internationally agreed and enforced rules that ensure full market integration (for instance like in the EU internal market). Indeed, while such measures can re-establish a level playing field on the EU market, they leave the unfair competition unaddressed in the exporter's home country market and third country markets. 2.1.1.2.Material injury and causation For measures to be taken against these unfair trading practices, it is not sufficient that companies are exporting their products to the EU at dumped or subsidised prices. Measures can only be taken if these exports cause material injury to EU producers. Typical indicators of injury are that the dumped and/or subsidised import volumes increase over a certain period and import prices undercut the sales prices of the EU industry. As a consequence, the latter is forced to decrease production volumes and sales prices thus losing market shares, making losses or having to make employees redundant. In extreme cases, exporters may try to eliminate viable EU producers by using a predatory, below cost, pricing strategy. In any event, the injury analysis requires that all relevant factors be taken into account before deciding whether the EU industry is in fact suffering “material injury”. A further condition for the imposition of measures is the need for “a causal link”: the injury must be caused by the dumping or the subsidy. This condition is often fulfilled when the injury to the EU industry coincides with the increase in dumped and subsidised imports. It is important to note that the dumped or subsidised imports do not have to be the only cause of the injury.

2.1.1.3.EU interest Finally, it has to be established whether there are compelling reasons according to which measures would be contrary to the overall interest of the EU. In this respect, the interests of all relevant economic operators which might be affected by the outcome of the investigation must be taken into account. These interests typically include those of the EU industry and their suppliers, industrial users, consumers and traders of the product concerned and the analysis assesses the positive impact measures will have on some operators as opposed to the negative impact on others. Measures should not be imposed only if it can be clearly concluded that their negative impact would be disproportionate. 2.1.2.Procedure Investigations are carried out in accordance with the procedural rules laid down in the basic Regulations. These rules guarantee a transparent, fair and objective proceeding by granting significant procedural rights to interested parties. In addition, the results of an investigation are published in the Official Journal of the European Union (hereafter “Official Journal”), and the EU is obliged to justify its decisions in this publication. Each case is decided on its merits and the Commission does not hesitate to terminate a case if the conditions to impose measures are not met. Whereas each investigation is different depending on the products and countries involved, all cases follow the same procedural rules. However, certain preferential rules apply to candidate countries, such as Turkey. The rules relating to a new case (as opposed to a review investigation) are summarised below. Initiation A case normally starts with a sufficiently substantiated complaint from the EU industry manufacturing the same or a similar product to the one referred to in the complaint. Then, the Commission assesses whether the complaint contains sufficient evidence to allow for the initiation of the case. A case is opened by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal. In this notice, all interested parties, including users, exporting country authorities in anti-subsidy investigations in particular and, where appropriate, consumer organisations are invited to participate and co-operate in the proceedings. Detailed questionnaires are sent to producers in the exporting countries, in anti-subsidy investigations also to the exporting country authorities, and in the EU to the producers, traders (in particular importers) and other interested parties, such as users. These questionnaires cover all different conditions to be fulfilled, i.e. dumping/subsidy, injury, causation and EU interest. The parties are also informed that they can request a hearing and ask for access to the non-confidential files which will help them defend their case. The investigation up to the provisional measures Following receipt of the replies to the questionnaire, on-spot verifications are carried out by Commission officials at the premises of the co-operating parties. The main purpose of these visits is to verify whether the information given in the questionnaires is reliable. The verified information is subsequently used to calculate or determine the dumping margin and the injury factors, in particular the price undercutting margin and injury elimination level, as well as for the EU interest analysis. The respective calculations and analysis often involve the processing of thousands of transactions, the complex examination of production costs and the assessment of the economic situation of numerous economic operators. The results of the calculations and other findings are summarised in a draft implementing act, on the basis of which it is decided whether to impose provisional measures, whether to continue the investigation without proposing duties or whether to terminate the proceedings. In either eventuality the decision is the Commission's responsibility. The investigation up to the definitive stage Following the publication in the Official Journal of a Commission regulation imposing provisional duties, interested parties, which so request, receive a full disclosure which allows them to review the Commission’s findings and to submit comments. Comments can also be made at a hearing. Any submissions and comments in reaction to provisional disclosure are taken into account in a second, so-called final disclosure. After final disclosure, the Commission assesses the comments of interested parties and subsequently sends a draft implementing act to Member States. After receiving the opinion of the Member States via the Trade Defence Instruments Committee, the Commission decides whether or not to adopt definitive measures. At definitive stage, Member States can block the adoption of a draft implementing act by qualified majority. The Commission may also accept undertakings offered by exporters, which undertake to respect minimum prices. In the latter case, no duties are generally imposed on the companies from which undertakings are accepted. The Commission regulation imposing definitive duties/accepting undertakings, and deciding on the collection of the provisional duties, is published in the Official Journal. As set out above, throughout the process and at various specific steps, the procedure - consisting e.g. of requests for information, hearings, access to the file and disclosure - ensures that the rights of defence of interested parties are fully respected in this quasi-judicial process. In this regard it is important to note that the interested parties can avail themselves of a Hearing Officer for trade proceedings. This official, independent from the investigating service, can hear the parties, verify that their procedural rights have been respected and issue recommendations to the investigating service. If one or more of the conditions for imposing measures are not met, the Commission will decide to terminate a case without the imposition of measures. The same procedure (disclosure, comments, hearing, draft implementing act) as described above applies. The termination of the case is made by a Commission Decision after consultation of the Member States. Timing The procedure described above is subject to strict statutory time limits. A decision to impose provisional duties must be taken within nine months of the initiation and the total duration of an investigation is limited to fifteen months in anti-dumping cases and to thirteen months in anti-subsidy cases. This leads to significant time constraints, taking into account, inter alia, internal consultations and the necessity to publish regulations and decisions in all EU languages at the same time. Anti-dumping or countervailing measures will normally remain in force for five years, and may consist of duties or undertakings concluded with exporters. Measures are taken on a countrywide basis, but individual treatment, i.e. the application of a company-specific duty, can be granted to exporters which have co-operated throughout the investigation. During the five-year period, interested parties may, under certain conditions, request a review of measures or the refund of anti-dumping duties paid. Measures may also be suspended for a certain period, subject to criteria set out in the basic Regulations. 2.1.3.Review of measures

The basic Regulations provide for administrative reviews and distinguish between interim reviews, newcomer reviews and expiry reviews. The expiry review can be initiated at the end of the five year life-time of the measures. Initiation of such a review requires a request by the EU industry evidencing that the expiry of the measures would lead to the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Expiry reviews are subject to strict deadlines, i.e. they should normally be concluded within 12 months of the date of initiation of the review, but in all cases not later than within 15 months. During the five year life-time of measures, the Commission may conduct an interim review. In such procedure, the Commission will consider whether the circumstances with regard to subsidy/dumping and/or injury have changed significantly or whether existing measures are achieving the intended results in removing the injury. The deadline for concluding an interim review is set at 12 months, but no later than 15 months. Finally, the basic Regulations provide that a review shall be carried out to determine individual margins for new exporters in the exporting country concerned. The deadline for conclusion of newcomer reviews is nine months. Last but not least, anti-absorption and anti-circumvention investigations need to be mentioned here as they are special types of reviews. During these reviews, the main procedural rules outlined in chapter 2.1.2 are also applicable. However, in reviews there is no provisional stage. 2.1.4.Judicial reviews The procedural rights of the parties, including hearings and access to non-confidential files, as well as the substantive rules, are to be respected in the course of the proceeding, and a system of judicial review is in place to ensure their correct implementation. The competence to review anti-dumping and anti-subsidy cases lies with the General Court ('GC') and the Court of Justice ('CJ') in Luxembourg. Furthermore, WTO members may have recourse to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. 2.2.Safeguards 2.2.1.What are safeguard measures? Safeguard measures allow temporary protection against the adverse effects of import surges. Under the EU legislation implementing the WTO Safeguards Agreement, they can be applied under the following conditions: if, as a result of unforeseen developments, a product is being imported into the EU in such increased quantities and/or on such terms and conditions as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to EU producers of like or directly competitive products. Safeguard measures may only be imposed to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy the injury. 2.2.2.Procedure Investigations are carried out in accordance with the procedural rules laid down in the basic safeguard Regulations. These rules guarantee a transparent, fair and objective proceeding. In addition, the results of safeguard investigations are published in the Official Journal, and the EU is obliged to justify its decisions in this publication. Initiation One or more Member States should inform the Commission if trends in imports of a certain product appear to call for safeguard measures. This information must contain evidence available, of the following criteria: a) the volume of imports, b) the price of imports, c) trends in certain economic factors of the Union industry such as production, capacity utilisation, stocks, sales, market share, prices, profits, employment, etc. Where there is a threat of serious injury, the Commission must also examine whether it is clearly foreseeable that a particular situation is likely to develop into actual serious injury. This information is passed on by the Commission to all other Member States. If there is sufficient evidence to justify an investigation, the Commission publishes a notice of initiation in the Official Journal within one month of receipt of the information and commences the investigation, acting in co-operation with the Member States. Provisional measures Provisional measures may be imposed at any stage of the investigation. They shall be applied in critical circumstances where delay would cause damage which would be difficult to repair, making immediate action necessary, and where a preliminary determination provides clear evidence that increased imports have caused, or are threatening to cause, serious injury. The duration of the provisional measures can, however, not exceed 200 days (i.e. slightly more than six months). Definitive measures

If, at the end of the investigation, the Commission considers that definitive safeguard measures are necessary, it will take the necessary decisions no later than nine months from the initiation of the investigation, at which stage the results of the investigation are published in the Official Journal. In exceptional circumstances, this time limit may be extended by a further maximum period of two months. Safeguard measures shall be applied only to the extent to prevent or remedy serious injury, thereby maintaining as far as possible traditional trade flows. As to the form of the measures, the EU will choose the measures most suitable in order to achieve these objectives. These measures could consist of quantitative quotas, tariff quotas, duties, etc. Duration and review of the measures The duration of safeguard measures must be limited to the period of time necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustments on the part of the EU producers, but should not exceed four years, including the duration of the provisional measures, if any. Under certain circumstances, extensions may be necessary but the total period of application of safeguard measures should not exceed eight years (including provisional measures). If the duration of the measures exceeds one year, the measures must be progressively liberalised at regular intervals during the period of application. If the duration of the measures exceeds three years, the Commission will examine, mid-way through their duration, the appropriateness of further liberalisation and necessity for their continued application. This will be done either on the Commission's own initiative or at the request of a Member State. Where the Commission considers that the application of the measure is still necessary, it shall inform the Member States accordingly. Where the Commission considers that any surveillance or safeguard measure should be revoked or amended, it shall do so after having received the approval of the Member States. 3.General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures The number of new investigations initiated in 2017 somewhat decreased compared to the previous year, with 11 initiations compared to 15. In addition, however, the Commission reopened two cases to implement findings following judicial review (see "Other reviews"). The number of definitive measures imposed in 2017 increased substantially when compared to 2016 (12 as compared to seven). Two provisional measures were imposed. In other words, in 2017 an important number of investigations have come to a conclusion. Below are details on new investigations and review investigations. 3.1.Measures in place At the end of 2017, the EU had 97 definitive anti-dumping measures (which were extended in 29 cases) and 13 countervailing measures in force (which were extended in three cases). The anti-dumping measures covered 67 products and 17 countries (see Annex O); the countervailing measures covered 13 products and four countries (see Annex P). The large majority of measures was in the form of duties. However, in a number of cases, undertakings were in place. Of the 97 anti-dumping measures and 29 extensions in force at the end of 2017, the main countries affected were China (85), Russia (nine), India (five), Indonesia and USA (four each), Republic of Korea (three), Belarus, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia and Ukraine (two each), Argentina, Brazil, Iran, Japan, South Africa and Turkey (one each). Of the 13 anti-subsidy measures and three extensions in place, half concerned imports from China (eight) whereas India was subject to five measures, USA to two measures and Turkey to one measure. Information about the number of measures becomes more meaningful if it is complemented by the total trade volume of the products subject to measures. It should be noted that in 2017, 0.31% of total imports into the EU was affected by anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures. It should also be noted that the trade volume can vary considerably from one measure to another. This is not, however, a criterion which is taken into account when assessing cases – all decisions on cases are exclusively based on the compliance with substantive and procedural conditions. Although comprehensive data are not available, the expiry review investigations show in many cases that the imposition of measures leads to a significant reduction of the imports of the product concerned. 3.2.Review investigations Anti-dumping measures, including price undertakings, may be subject, under the basic anti-dumping Regulation, to five different types of reviews: expiry reviews (Article 11(2)), interim reviews (Article 11(3)), newcomer investigations (Article 11(4)), absorption investigations (Article 12) and anti-circumvention investigations (Article 13). Also anti-subsidy measures may be subject, under the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, to five different types of reviews: expiry reviews (Article 18), interim reviews (Article 19), absorption investigations (Article 19(3)), accelerated reviews (Article 20) and anti-circumvention investigations (Article 23). These reviews continue to represent a major part of the work of the Commission's TDI services. In the period from 2013 to 2017, a total of 135 review investigations were initiated. These review investigations represented 64% of all investigations initiated in that period. In 2017, 28 reviews were initiated. These comprised nine expiry reviews, ten interim reviews, six new exporter reviews and three anti-circumvention investigations. An overview of the review investigations in 2017 can be found in Annexes F to K. Table 1 below provides statistical information for the years 2013 – 2017. TABLE 1

Reviews of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations during the period 1 January 2013 - 31 December 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Reviews in progress at the beginning of the period 26 23 18 15 7 Reviews initiated during the period 36 22 33 16 28 Reviews in progress during the period 62 45 51 31 35 Total reviews concluded during the period 39 27 36 24 29 Reviews in progress at the end of the period 23 18 15 7 6 4.Overview of activities in 2017 4.1.New investigations 4.1.1.Initiations In 2017, nine new anti-dumping investigations and two new anti-subsidy investigations were initiated. The anti-dumping investigations involved five different products (most of which were related to chemicals and allied sectors) from seven different countries. Details of these investigations are given in Annex A. The country most affected by the anti-dumping investigations was China, with three investigations. The anti-subsidy investigations also concerned China. The most noteworthy cases against imports from China were related to transport equipment, with one case on tyres and one case on electric bikes. No safeguard investigation was initiated in 2017. In the five-year period from 2013 to 2017, 65 new investigations were initiated on imports from 19 countries. The sectors concerned by the investigations were: 'iron and steel' – 29 investigations, 'chemical and allied industries' – 15 investigations, 'other metal products' – five investigations, 'textiles and allied industries' – three investigations, the 'mechanical engineering' sector and the 'wood and paper' sector – one investigation each, and finally 'other products' – 11 investigations. A breakdown of the product sectors is available in Annex B(A). The breakdown of the countries concerned by initiations during the period from 2013 to 2017 include China – 29 investigations, India – six, Russia – five, Turkey – four, Brazil and Korea – three each, Taiwan and Ukraine – two each, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Iran, Georgia, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Serbia, USA and Vietnam – one each. A table showing all the investigations initiated over the last five years broken down by country of export is available at Annex B(B). Table 2 below provides statistical information on the developments regarding new investigations for the years 2013 – 2017. TABLE 2 Evolution of new anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations during the period 1 January 2013 - 31 December 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Investigations in progress at the beginning of the period 28 11 20 20 20 Investigations initiated during the period 9 16 14 15 11 Investigations in progress during the period 37 27 34 35 31 Investigations concluded : - imposition of definitive duty or acceptance of undertakings - terminations 15 11 3 4 11 3 7 8 12 2 Total investigations concluded during the period 26 7 14 15 14 Investigations in progress at the end of period 11 20 20 20 17 Provisional measures imposed during the period 6 2 10 9 2 The list of cases initiated in 2017 can be found below, together with the names of the complainants. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex A. Product – Type of investigation (AD or AS) Country of origin Complainant Low carbon ferrochrome (AD) China, Russia, Turkey Euroalliages Ferro-silicon (AD) Egypt, Ukraine Euroalliages New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries (AD) China Coalition against unfair tyres imports Electric bicycles (AD) China European Bicycle Manufacturers Association Silicon metal (silicon) (AD) Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil Ferroatlántica and Ferropem New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries (AS) China Coalition against unfair tyres imports Electric bicycles (AS) China European Bicycle Manufacturers Association 4.1.2.Provisional measures

In 2017, provisional duties were imposed in two anti-dumping investigations. No provisional measures were imposed in anti-subsidy investigations. It has to be noted that the latter run often in parallel to anti-dumping investigations, where the provisional anti-dumping duty already provides some relief to the Union industry. The list of cases where provisional measures were imposed during 2017 can be found below, together with the measures imposed. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex C. Product Originating from Type and level of measure Corrosion resistant steels China AD 17,2 – 28,5% Cast iron articles China AD 25,3 – 42,9% 4.1.3.Definitive measures During 2017, definitive duties were imposed in 11 anti-dumping investigations and in one anti-subsidy investigation. The list of cases where definitive measures were imposed during 2017 can be found below, together with the measure(s) imposed. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex D. Product Originating from Type and level of measure Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings China, Taiwan AD: China 30,7 – 64,9% Taiwan 5,1 – 12,1% Heavy plates China AD: 65,1 – 73,7% Hot-rolled flat products China AD: 18,1 – 35,9% Hot-rolled flat products Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine AD: Brazil 53,4 – 65% Iran 57,5% Russia 17,6 – 96,5% Ukraine 60,5% Thermal paper Rep. of Korea AD: 104,46 EUR per tonne Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm China AD: 29,2 – 54,9% Rebars Belarus AD: 10,6% Hot-rolled flat products China AS: 4,6 – 35,9% 4.1.4.Details on individual cases with application of new provisional or definitive duties Hot-rolled flat products from China (AD) In February 2016, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy originating in China, following a complaint lodged by the European Steel Association (Eurofer) on behalf of producers representing more than 90 % of the total Union production of the product concerned. In October 2016 the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on the product. In the further course of 2016, the Commission also initiated the following two investigations on the basis of a complaint lodged by Eurofer: 1) an anti-subsidy investigation on imports of the same product originating in China; 2) an anti-dumping investigation on imports of the same product originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine (see below). Dumping As no market economy treatment claim was introduced, the normal value for China was determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an analogue country, namely the US, in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. The Commission then compared the normal value and the export price (adjusted to ensure fair comparison). The definitive dumping margins are as follows: a) Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd: 97,3%; b) Hesteel Group Co., Ltd: 95,5 %; c) Jiangsu Shagang Group: 106,9 %, d) Other cooperating companies: 100,5 %; e) All other companies: 106,9 %. Threat of Injury and causation On the basis of the analysis of the relevant economic parameters the Commission concluded that the Union industry was in a weak situation at the end of the investigation period but not to the extent that the Union industry has suffered material injury. In these circumstances, the Commission then examined whether a threat of material injury was present. While the Union industry was recovering during 2014 and the first two quarters of 2015, almost all injury indicators started to fall dramatically during the second half of 2015. This negative trend continued during the first half of 2016. As a result, all factors assessed, in particular the significant rate of increase of dumped imports in 2015 at further decreasing prices, the huge excess capacity in China and the negative developments in profitability of the Union industry pointed to the conclusion that there was a threat of a clearly foreseeable and imminent injury to the Union industry at the end of the investigation period. Regarding the causality analysis, it was found that despite the relatively small market share of the Chinese imports, a causal link existed between the Chinese dumped imports and the threat of material injury of the Union industry. The Commission distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports. The other identified factors were not found to break the causal link between the threat of material injury and the Chinese dumped imports. Union interest and definitive measures The Commission examined whether it could clearly conclude that it was not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this case. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, and users.

The Union industry underwent already significant restructuring in the (recent) past. If no measures were imposed, the threat of imminent injury at the end of the investigation period was likely to materialise. Some Union producers might have to close down/reduce their hot-rolled flat steel products activities, dismiss employees and leave many Union users with limited sources of supply. As regards the interest of unrelated importers and users, the Commission concluded that the imposition of measures would have only a limited impact. More specifically, the prices, their profitability and the employment in the user's industry would not be disproportionately affected. Hence, the imposition of measures at the proposed level would only have a limited impact on the prices of the supply chain and the performance of users. The level of measures would lead to a level playing field but still allow for imports from the country concerned, at fair prices. Weighing and balancing the strong interests of an important Union industry to be protected against unfair practices, on the one hand, and the limited likely effects of measures on unrelated importers and users, which continue to benefit from a wide array of supply in the Union, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons not to impose measures on imports from China. Hot-rolled flat products from Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine (AD) In July 2016, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports into the Union of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine, following a complaint lodged by the European Steel Association (Eurofer) on behalf of more than 90 % of the total Union production of the product concerned. In February 2016, the Commission already initiated an anti-dumping investigation on imports of the same product originating in China on the basis of a complaint lodged by Eurofer. Registration of imports The complainant submitted a request for registration of imports of the product concerned. Accordingly, on 6 January 2017, the Commission made the imports originating in Brazil and Russia (the only countries for which the conditions for registration were fulfilled) subject to registration as of 6 January 2017 onwards. Dumping The normal value was determined on the basis of the sales done on the domestic market or when there were no or insufficient sales of a product type of the like product in the ordinary course of trade or where a product type was not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation. Then the Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the exporting producers on an ex-works basis. On this basis the following dumping margins were calculated: a) Brazil: between 16,3% and 73%; b) Iran: 17,9%; c) Russia: between 5,3% and 33%; d) Serbia: 38,7%; e) Ukraine: 19,4%. Injury and causation The injurious effect of imports from Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine was examined cumulatively for the purposes of the injury determination. By contrast, it was found that the Serbian exports to the Union were negligible. In addition, the analysis of the price setting, combined with the negligible volume, suggested that the Serbian exporting producer is rather a price follower than a price setter for the product concerned. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the imports from Serbia should not be cumulatively assessed with the imports from the four other countries. In addition and as a consequence of the finding that imports from Serbia were negligible, protective measures were considered unnecessary. Thus, the proceeding was terminated with regard to the imports from Serbia. Regarding the injury analysis related to the remaining four countries concerned (Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine), their imports increased significantly during the period considered, while the average unit price of the dumped imports decreased by 27%. At the same time, the Union industry's economic indicators declined. These developments coincided in time with an increase of consumption and increasing dumped imports in the Union market, which highlighted the deterioration of the competitive position of the Union steel producers. Despite the concrete actions by the Union industry to improve efficiency, its economic situation deteriorated significantly: losses increased during the investigation period and despite a 5% increase in the Union consumption, the sales volumes of the Union industry decreased, its market share went down by more than 8%, sales unit prices dropped by more than 20%, and production decreased by 2%. As a consequence, also the other injury indicators developed negatively. The Commission concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury. The Commission then examined whether the injury to the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports from Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine and also whether other known factors could at the same time have injured the Union industry. The Commission ensured that any possible injury caused by other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports. It was found that the increasing volumes and the sharp decrease in the prices of imports from the countries concerned caused injury to the Union industry. This is because, faced with the aggressive pricing strategy of the exporting producers, Union producers had no choice but to also decrease prices and to sell at a loss (or otherwise lose even more sales) which impacted their profitability. The other factors considered by the Commission for the assessment of the causality were: the economic crisis, Union producers not being sufficiently competitive, imports from third countries, the export sales performance of the Union producers, the "overcapacity" of the European steel industry, and the correlation between the prices in the Union market, on the one hand, and raw material and the product concerned prices worldwide, on the other hand. The Commission concluded that these factors combined or separately could not break the causal link between dumped imports and the material injury found to the Union industry and that the dumped imports from the countries concerned remained the main cause of injury. With regard to the imports from China, the Commission concluded that it is likely that the imports from China have contributed to the material injury suffered by the Union industry. However, it did not break the causal link between the injury caused to the Union industry and the dumped imports of the four other countries because of their significant volumes and comparatively low prices. Union interest and definitive measures The specific circumstances of this case (steep increase of prices of the product concerned and a shortage on the market of certain product types) explain the Commission's decision to, exceptionally, investigate post-IP developments in the context of its assessment of Union interest. The most important consumption/uses of the product concerned relate to the following segments: the steel tube industry (32 %), construction (20 %), automotive (15 %) and mechanical engineering (15%). Given that the profitability of the users in the steel tube businesses was modest during and after the investigation period the Commission concluded that there was a considerable risk that duties in the form of ad-valorem duties would drive the steel tube sector into losses while the impact on other sectors would be less significant. After a careful analysis the Commission considered it in line with the Union interest to change the form of the measures to adequately strike the balance between the interests of Union producers and users in this particular case. Therefore, the Commission decided to impose ad valorem duties, capped by a Minimum Import Price (MIP) which takes into account the rise in raw material prices after the investigation period. In view of the dumping margins found and the resulting injury, definitive anti-dumping duties ranging between 17,6% and 96,5% were imposed. The MIP was fixed at 472,27euro/tonne. The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of the product concerned originating in Serbia was terminated as these imports were considered negligible. As all the necessary conditions were not met, the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/5 of 5 January 2017 making imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Russia and Brazil subject to registration was definitively repealed without the retroactive collection of duties. Lightweight thermal paper from the Republic of Korea (AD)

The investigation was initiated in February 2016 following a complaint lodged by the European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) on behalf of producers representing more than 25% of the total Union production of certain lightweight thermal paper (LWTP). In November 2016, the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports originating in the Republic of Korea. Dumping For one of the exporting producers the normal value was based on its domestic sales while for the second one the normal value was calculated on the basis of its cost of production as there were product types with no or unrepresentative domestic sales. The dumping margin established for the exporting producers was a weighted average of the dumping margins established for the sales of different types of rolls. The weighting was based on the exporting producer's Union sales volume to related and unrelated customers during the investigation period. The definitive weighted average dumping margin was 10,3 %. The residual dumping margin was set at the same level. Injury and causation The Union producers experienced a deterioration of their economic situation that coincided in time with the surge of imports from the Republic of Korea. The Union industry sales volume on the Union market remained relatively stable, but since this occurred in the context of a significant increase in the Union consumption, the Union producers' market share was actually declining. The volume of imports from the country concerned during the investigation period was well above negligible levels and their market share increased from 0,7 % in 2012 to 13,6 % in the investigation period. The Commission concluded that over the period considered, the Union industry's injury was material. Due to the drop in selling prices, concrete actions to improve efficiency and a tight grip on costs could not prevent Union producers from becoming loss-making in the investigation period. The Commission examined and concluded that the dumped imports from the country concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. The effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry were distinguished and separated from the injurious effects of the dumped imports. The other identified factors such as the export performance of Union producers, the anti-dumping duties in the USA, higher costs and a series of rationalisation processes were carefully analysed. The Commission concluded that the material injury to the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned and the other factors considered individually or collectively, did not break the causal link. Union interest and definitive measures The Government of Korea claimed that measures are not in the Union interest on the grounds that many European converters and importers expressed their objections at the hearing in September 2016 to imposition of measures. However, the investigation did not find that there is a majority of converters and importers in the Union against measures. Hansol Group (an exporting producer) claimed that the Union downstream industries are almost unanimously against the imposition of measures and that at least 36 unrelated converters and end-users expressed their strong opposition. The claim was rejected as many Union downstream industries remained silent during the investigation and no downstream industry made any representation following provisional or definitive disclosure. The investigation also revealed that in terms of purchase volume of the product concerned the converters that came forward and expressed to be in favour of measures represented a larger consumption of the product concerned than the ones that did not express views or were opposing the measures. The Hansol Group claimed also that the measures are against the interest of European businesses because the Union market can be defined as a "duopoly/oligopoly" and competition should be promoted. The claim was rejected as the mere existence of a few producers in the Union is irrelevant, there is no evidence on file of any anti-competitive practices and there are several sources of supply inside and outside the Union. Therefore, after analysis of the different interests at stake, the Commission concluded that the impact of anti-dumping duties on the parties opposing measures did not outweigh the positive effect of measures to the Union industry. Hence, there were no compelling reasons that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of the concerned product originating in the Republic of Korea. The Commission concluded that it would be more appropriate that the anti-dumping duty should be imposed as a fixed amount per tonne instead of an ad valorem duty as provisionally imposed. The definitive fixed anti-dumping duty was 104,46 euro per tonne. Rebars from Belarus (AD) In March 2016, the Commission initiated an investigation following a complaint lodged by the European Steel Association (EUROFER) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of rebars. In December 2016, the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods originating in the Republic of Belarus Sampling It was considered necessary to sample Union producers and unrelated importers. The first sample consisted of five Union producers accounting for 22,4 % of the total Union production of the product concerned. The sampled companies are located in France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain, covering a broad geographic variety. With regard to unrelated importers, a sample of three operators was selected on the basis of the largest volume of imports into the Union representing 80 % of the unrelated imports of the product concerned originating in Belarus. Dumping According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, Belarus is not considered as a market-economy country. Therefore, the normal value in respect of Belarusian exports to the Union was determined on the basis of data obtained from a producer in a market-economy third country. The Commission concluded that the USA is an appropriate analogue country for this investigation. The only known Belarusian manufacturer cooperated with the investigation and replied to the questionnaire. The Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the exporting producer on an ex-works basis. The resulting level of definitive dumping margin is 58,4%. Injury and causation Import volumes from Belarus almost tripled over the investigation period for injury and their market share increased from 1,8 % in 2012 to 5 % in 2015. During the investigation period the prices of imports from Belarus were lower than prices of the Union producers and average prices of imports from any of the other major third countries present on the Union market. The Commission considered that the data of one of the sampled Union producers is not reliable for the purpose of the injury analysis as a result of price-fixing (the product concerned was subject to an antitrust investigation on the Italian market). As a result, the Commission excluded the data pertaining to the Italian market from its investigation.

The investigation showed that the Union industry did not benefit from the increase in consumption, but to the contrary, suffered a drop in its sales volumes and market share. At the same time the volume of Belarusian imports and their market share increased rapidly. The Union production volume also decreased. The costs of the Union industry decreased by 20% which however was less than the decrease in prices during the same period. As a result, over the period considered profitability of the Union industry deteriorated. These trends correlate with the highest volumes of the imports from Belarus and its lowest price level. On this basis it was concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from Belarus within the meaning of the basic Regulation. The Commission has found that the only other factor that may have had an impact on the situation of the Union industry was imports from third countries. However, the Commission concluded that those imports could not break the causal link between Belarusian dumped imports and the material injury found to the Union industry because the individual market shares of the other third countries increased only marginally with the exception of Ukraine where the increase in market share was substantial in relative terms but in absolute terms remained negligible. In addition, the prices of imports from third countries other than Belarus were on average always higher than the prices of the Union industry. The only exporting country with lower average prices than the Union industry was Belarus. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the dumped imports from Belarus remained the main cause of injury. Union interest and definitive measures The Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of measures on imports of the product concerned from Belarus. Any potential negative effects on the unrelated users and importers are mitigated by the availability of alternative sources of supply. When considering the overall impact of the anti-dumping measures on the Union market, the positive effects, in particular on the Union industry, appeared to outweigh the potential negative impacts on the other interest groups. Therefore, a definitive anti-dumping duty of 10,6% was imposed. Hot-rolled flat products from China (AS) In May 2016, the Commission initiated an anti-subsidy investigation with regard to imports into the Union of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the China. The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged by the European Steel Association (Eurofer) on behalf of Union producers representing more than 90 % of the total Union production. In February 2016 the Commission had already initiated an anti-dumping investigation on imports of the same product originating in China (the parallel anti-dumping investigation) and in April 2017 a definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed. In July 2016, the Commission also initiated , an anti-dumping investigation on imports of the same product originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine. Sampling The final sample of Union producers consisted of six operators located in five different Member States. It accounted for over 45 % of Union production. The Commission selected a sample of four groups of exporting producers on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union, which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sampled companies represented 68% of the total imports of the product concerned to the Union. Subsidisation The following subsidies and subsidy programmes were investigated: 1) Preferential policy loans, credit lines, other financing, and guarantees; 2) De facto guarantee on the continuity of operations for companies in the hot rolled flat steel industry that face difficulties to repay loans; 3) Grant Programmes; 4) Direct Tax Exemption and Reduction programmes; 5) Indirect Tax and Import Tariff Programmes; 6) Government provision of goods and services for less than adequate remuneration; 7) "Foreign Trade Transformation and Upgrading Demonstration Bases" and "Common Service Platforms"; 8) Subsidisation of the provision of hot-rolled flat products to the EU during the investigation period. Given the partial non-cooperation from the Government of China and the sampled exporting producers the Commission had to use the best facts available in relation to Government preferential lending and grants. The investigation showed that the following subsidies and subsidy programmes were countervailable subsidies: 1) preferential lending: all sampled exporting producers benefited from it during the investigation period; 2) land provision and acquisition in China: the situation is non-transparent and the prices are arbitrarily set by the authorities. There is no functioning market for land and the use of an external benchmark demonstrates that the amount paid for land-use rights by the sampled exporting producers was well below the normal market rate; 3) Enterprise Income Tax (EIT) privileges: allows companies to deduct the income earned from manufacturing from its taxable income; 4) EIT offset for research and development expenses: entitles companies to preferential tax treatment for their R&D activities in certain high technology priority areas determined by the State and when certain thresholds for R&D spending are met; 5) Land use tax: two of the sampled companies benefited from rebates or exemptions, even though they did not fall under any of the exempted categories; 6) VAT exemptions and import tariff rebates: equipment imported in order to develop domestic or foreign investment projects in line with the policy of encouraging foreign or domestic investment projects may be exempted from payment of the VAT and/or import duty. Some of the sampled companies were found to benefit from these exemptions; 7) Tax exemption for policy-based relocation: some sampled companies benefited from this scheme as they relocated for environmental reasons; 8) Grant programmes: some of the sampled companies were found to benefit from energy saving and conservation programmes and from grants related to technological upgrading or transformation. Threat of injury and causation A detailed description of the situation in terms of threat of injury and causation could be found above, under the section dealing with the anti-dumping investigation into hot-rolled flat products from China. Union interest and definitive measures Weighing and balancing the strong interests of an important Union industry to be protected against unfair practices, on the one hand, and the limited likely effects of measures on unrelated importers and users, which continue to benefit from a wide array of supply in the Union, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on subsidised imports of the product concerned. The definitive countervailing duty rates ranged between 4,6% and 35,9%. As the anti-subsidy investigation was carried out in parallel with an anti-dumping investigation and in view of the use of the lesser duty rule, the Commission amended the definitive anti-dumping duty up to the relevant injury elimination level. 4.1.5.Investigations terminated without measures In accordance with the provisions of the respective basic Regulations, investigations may be terminated without the imposition of measures if a complaint is withdrawn or if measures are unnecessary (i.e. no dumping/no subsidies, no injury resulting from dumped or subsidised imports, measures not in the interest of the Union). In 2017, two new proceedings (both were anti-dumping investigations) were terminated without measures, as compared to eight in 2016. The list of cases which were terminated without the imposition of measures during 2017 can be found in the following table. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex E.





Product (type of investigation) Originating from Main reason for termination Purified terephthalic acid (AD) Rep. of Korea Dumping margin below 2% Hot-rolled flat products (AD) Serbia Lack of material injury 4.1.6.Details on some individual cases of termination without measures Hot-rolled flat products from Serbia (AD) Regulation 2017/1795 has already been discussed above under chapter 4.1.4. 4.2.Review investigations 4.2.1.Expiry reviews Article 11(2) and Article 18 respectively of the basic Regulations provide for the expiry of measures after five years, unless an expiry review demonstrates that they should be maintained in their original form. In 2017, five anti-dumping measures (and no anti-subsidy measure) expired automatically. The references for these measures are available in Annex N. Since the expiry provision of the basic Regulations came into force in 1985, a total of 508 measures have expired automatically. 4.2.1.1.Initiations During 2017, nine expiry reviews of anti-dumping measures in place were initiated (none concerning anti-subsidy measures). The list of the expiry reviews initiated in 2017 can be found in the following table, together with the name of the complainant. It should be noted that some expiry reviews may be carried out in parallel with interim reviews. Where there are interim reviews and expiry reviews ongoing at the same time, these are indicated by an asterisk in the table below. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is available in Annex F.



Product (type of investigation – AD or AS) Originating from Complainant Steel ropes and cables China Liaison Committee of E.U. Wire Rope Industries Oxalic acid China, India Oxaquim S.A. Tartaric acid China Distillerie Bonollo S.r.l., Caviro Distillerie S.r.l., Industria Chimica Valenzana S.p.a., Alvinesa Alcoholera Vinicola SA, and Comercial Quimica Sarasa SL Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel Russia Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel Ukraine Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union Lever arch mechanisms China Lever Arch Mechanism Manufacturers Association Aluminium Radiators China Association of Aluminium Radiator Manufacturers Limited Liability Consortium Chamois leather China UK Leather Federation 4.2.1.2.Expiry reviews concluded with confirmation of duties During 2017, 19 expiry reviews were concluded with confirmation of the duties for a further period of five years. The list of the measures which were renewed during 2017, together with the results of the investigations, can be found below. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex F.



Product Originating from Result of the investigation/ Type and level of measure Sodium gluconate China Confirmation of duty (AD). Individual duty rates: 5,6 – 27,1% Residual: 53,2% Aluminium road wheels China Confirmation of duty (AD) Duty rate: 22,3% High tenacity yarn of polyester China Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rates: 5,1 – 9,8% Residual: 9,8% Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) China Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rates: 27,3 – 64,9% Residual: 53,4% Confirmation of duty (AS) Individual duty rates: 3,5 – 11,5% Residual: 11,5% Graphite electrode systems India Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rate: 9,4% Residual: 8,5% Confirmation of duty (AS) Individual duty rates: 6,3 – 7% Residual: 7,2% Okoume plywood China Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rates: 6,5 – 23,5% Residual: 66,7% Filament glass fibre products China Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rates: 14,5 – 19,9% Residual: 19,9% Tungsten carbide China Confirmation of duty (AD) Duty rate: 33% Stainless steel bars and rods India Confirmation of duty (AS) Individual duty rates: 3,3 – 4% Residual: 4% Melamine China Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rate: 1 153 EUR per tonne Residual: 415 EUR per tonne Coated fine paper China Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rates: 8 – 35,1% Residual: 27,1% Confirmation of duty (AS) Individual duty rates: 4 – 12% Residual: 12% Barium carbonate China Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rates: 6,3 – 8,1% Residual: 56,4% Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres China Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rates: 48,4 – 62,9% Residual: 62,9% Ceramic tiles China Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rates: 13,9 – 36,5% Residual: 69,7% Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts China Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rates: 54,1 – 70,8% Residual:70,8% Trichloroisocyanuric acid China Confirmation of duty (AD) Individual duty rates: 3,2 – 40,5% Residual: 42,6%

4.2.1.3.Details on some individual cases concluded by confirmation of duty Aluminium road wheels from China (AD) Following an anti-dumping investigation (the original investigation), the Council imposed, by means of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 964/2010 a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in China. In October 2015, the Commission initiated an expiry review of the measures imposed. The request was lodged by Association of European Wheels Manufacturers (EUWA) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production. Sampling The Commission selected a sample of four groups of exporting producers on the basis of the largest declared production and sales volume which cover around 40% of the total Chinese exports to the Union. With regard to Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of seven operators on the basis of the largest representative volume of sales and production, taking also into account the geographical spread. The sample accounted for over 30 % of total Union production. Dumping and continuation of dumping As no market economy treatment claim was introduced, the normal value for China was determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an analogue country, namely Turkey, in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. Turkey has the second largest production volume of aluminium wheels among the potential analogue countries identified by the Commission (Turkey, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, Korea and Malaysia) and has a satisfactory level of competition on its domestic market. Two Turkish exporting producers offered cooperation. The Commission found dumping margins ranging between 8,9% and 25,9%. The Commission further analysed whether there was a likelihood of continuation of dumping should the measures lapse. All four sampled Chinese exporting producers were found to be dumping during the review investigation period. Moreover, given the significant spare capacities found in China as well as the attractiveness of the Union market compared to some of the third markets and the domestic market it was considered likely that Chinese exporting producers would (re)enter the Union market with significant quantities of aluminium wheels at dumped prices in case the measures would be allowed to lapse. Injury and likelihood of recurrence of injury In a context of an increasing consumption, the Union industry was able to recover from the past dumping thanks to the anti-dumping measures in place. During the investigation almost all injury indicators showed a positive trend. The Union industry increased its sales volumes, production volumes, sales prices and improved its profitability. On this basis, the Commission concluded that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the investigation period. Therefore it was assessed whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury should the measures against China be allowed to lapse. The Chinese prices to the other third country markets were on average around 30% lower than the Union industry prices in the Union market. As mentioned above, there are large spare capacities in China of the product concerned which cannot be absorbed by the Chinese domestic market. Trade defence measures for Chinese aluminium wheel imports had already been imposed in other important markets (Australia, India). Therefore, the Union market without measures would be an attractive target of Chinese exports because it would yield high profits due to higher prices than elsewhere combined with possible large sales volumes. In short, the incentive to re-direct these exports to the Union market should measures be repealed was high. On this basis the Commission concluded that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in a recurrence of injury to the Union. Union interest and definitive measures With regard to the interest of importers, the investigation showed that countries other than China delivered aluminium wheels to the Union market and it was considered that there were no indications that maintaining the measures would have a significant negative impact on the importers. After careful analysis, it was also concluded that maintaining the measures would not have any significant negative impact on the situation of users. As a consequence, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons that it was not in the Union interest to maintain measures on imports of aluminium wheels originating in China. Therefore, the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in China, imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 964/2010 were maintained. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price before duty, remained at 22,3%. Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) from China (AD) Following an anti-dumping investigation (the original investigation), the Council imposed in December 2013 by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from China. The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 27,3 % and 64,9 %. In December 2015, the Commission initiated an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures requested by EU ProSun on behalf of Union producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production. The request was ultimately supported by Union producers whose collective output constituted more than 50 % of the total production. At the same time, the Commission initiated ex officio a partial interim review limited to the examination of whether or not it is in the Union interest to maintain measures currently in force on cells of the type used in crystalline silicon photovoltaic module or panels. Sampling A sample of eight Union producers was selected, accounting for 38,8% of the total EU sales and 55% of total Union production of modules and for 76,6% of the total EU sales volume and 77% of the total Union production of cells. The identity and location of some sampled producers were not revealed for reason of confidentiality. With regard to exporting producers, the Commission selected a sample of three groups on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union. One interested party argued that the sample of the exporting producers is inappropriate as it differs significantly from the sample of Union producers in terms of the sampled companies' production and production capacity. According to Article 17 of the basic Regulation, the sample used is to be statistically valid on the basis of information available at the time of the selection, or include the largest representative volume of production, sales or exports which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. Therefore, the sample of exporting producers is to be representative of the exporting producers and not of their Union counterparts. As confirmed by the jurisprudence of the CJ, the sample of exporting producers does not have to mirror that of Union producers. Dumping and likelihood of continuation of dumping

As no market economy treatment claim was introduced, the normal value for China was determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an analogue country. The Commission compared the normal value with the average export price for the sampled exporting producers and the dumping margin so established ranged from 23,5 % to 31,5%. In light of the estimated significant spare capacity in China, combined with the attractiveness of the Union market in terms of size and sales price, in particular with regard to the price level of the Chinese exports to third countries, and the records of past circumvention practices, the Commission concluded that there is a strong likelihood that the repeal of the anti-dumping measures would result in continuation of dumping. Injury and likelihood of continuation of injury In overall terms, the Union industry continued to suffer from injury during the investigation period given the short period after the imposition of the original measures and the magnitude of dumping and the level of injury found in the previous investigation. In addition, the circumvention practices found have also contributed to the continuation of injury. However, from mid-2013 (the provisional measures entered into force on 6 June 2013), and especially during 2014 (the first full year with anti-dumping measures in force) and during the investigation period the Union industry started gradually to recover from the past dumping by the Chinese exporters. However, this recovery was only partial, despite the efforts made and all the positive trends that resulted therefrom. The Commission found that there was significant spare capacity in China for both modules and cells, that the Union market remains attractive in terms of size and sales price, particularly in comparison with the price level of the Chinese exports to third countries, further proven by the records of past circumvention practices. Consequently, the Commission found that there was a strong likelihood that the repeal of the anti-dumping measures would lead to the continuation of dumping resulting in the continuation of injury of the Union industry. Causation Several interested parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by several other factors: 1) the abolition of the incentive schemes by many of the Member States, 2) the fact that the Union industry has not achieved yet economies of scale in order to be economically viable and to have an impact on the global market, 3) the injury is caused by imports from other countries as their prices were 25 % lower than the Chinese import prices, 4) the injury is caused by the fact that the prices of modules of the Union producers are constantly lower than the import prices of the Chinese producers. The Commission established that these claims were factually incorrect or unsubstantiated and these factors did not break the causal link between the injury and the Chinese imports. Union interest Weighing and balancing the competing interests, the Commission analysed whether the negative effect on unrelated importers, upstream and downstream industries and other effects would be disproportionate when compared to the positive effect on the Union manufactures of the product under review. The key consideration was to assess the likely impact of continued measures on the future of Union demand for solar modules. If the measures would significantly curb demand, it could be argued that protecting a relatively small Union industry might disproportionally affect significantly larger downstream and upstream industries. However, it was concluded that the measures had only a limited impact on the Union demand for solar modules. The Commission considered, on the basis of the evidence available, that when balancing the likely negative effects on the upstream and downstream industry as well as the consumers against the benefits which Union industry would derive from the measures, a prolongation of the measures to 18 months constituted an appropriate resolution between the competing interests. Overall, the Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons to terminate the measures on Union interest grounds. Definitive measures In view of the conclusions reached with regard to the likelihood of continuation of dumping and continuation of injury, it was concluded that the measures in force should be maintained. In view of the conclusions reached that there are no compelling reasons to terminate the measures on cells on Union interest grounds, the partial interim review initiated pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was terminated. As the measures may have more impact on the demand in the future, once the transition of renewable support policies will be completed, the fiscal situation of self-consumption clarified and grid parity will be achieved across wider parts of Europe. This justified that the measures were exceptionally prolonged for 18 months only. Partial interim review regarding to maintaining cells in the product scope On the date of initiation of the present expiry review, the Commission initiated ex officio a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation limited to the examination of whether or not it is in the Union interest to maintain measures currently in force on cells of the type used in crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels. The review was opened as there was prima facie evidence that the circumstances on the basis of which the original measures were imposed had changed. The interests of the cell manufacturers, importers, and downstream industry were analysed. The Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons to terminate the measures on cells on Union interest grounds. In particular, it found that the measures were effective in retaining and to some extent restoring cell production in the Union. Partial interim review regarding the form and the adjustment of the evel of measures During this investigation it was concluded that it is also appropriate to open an ex officio interim review on the form of the measure and the adjustment mechanism associated with it. In March 2017, the Commission initiated an interim review in order to examine whether the level of the measures should be gradually decreased. The original form of the measures was an ad valorem anti-dumping and countervailing duty. A price undertaking was offered by a group of cooperating exporting producers and accepted by the Commission. One of the core elements of the undertaking was a MIP which is subject to a quarterly adjustment mechanism. Under the price undertaking accepted by the Commission, the MIP for the modules and cells was adjusted quarterly by reference to international spot prices of modules including Chinese prices as reported by the Bloomberg database.

However, when reviewing the interests of unrelated importers and non-vertically integrated Union module manufactures in the expiry review investigation, the Commission received complaints about the heavy administrative burden put on them, while the Union producers complained about ongoing circumvention. The Commission accepted these points and considered that a variable duty in the form of a MIP (‘variable duty MIP’) is a more appropriate form of measures than the previous ad valorem duty coupled with the price undertaking (‘undertaking MIP). The variable duty MIP means that eligible imports with a declared value at, or above, the MIP would not be subject to duties and customs authorities will levy duties immediately if the product is imported at a price below the MIP. Graphite electrode systems from India (AD) The Council, following an anti-dumping investigation, by Regulation (EC) No 1629/2004, imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain graphite electrodes systems originating in India. In December 2015, the Commission initiated an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to these imports. The request was lodged by SGL Carbon GmbH, TOKAI Erftcarbon GmbH and GrafTech Switzerland SA representing more than 25 % of the total Union production. Sampling The Commission selected a sample of four Union producers on the basis of the largest representative volume of sales which could reasonably be investigated within the time available, considering also the geographical location. The sampled Union producers accounted for more than 80 % of the total Union production. Dumping and likelihood of continuation of dumping The expiry review investigation showed that (i) Indian imports continued to enter the Union market at significant dumped prices and in significant quantities; (ii) both Indian producers are export-oriented and have spare capacity which could be used to increase export volumes to the Union at dumped prices; (iii) consumption worldwide is following a decreasing trend, thus reducing the possibilities of Indian exporters to other third markets; (iv) the introduction of anti-dumping measures in Russia against Indian graphite electrode systems further restricts the export possibilities. As a consequence, it was concluded that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping should the measures be repealed. Injury and likelihood of recurrence of injury The investigation showed that despite the measures in force most of the injury indicators developed negatively and the economic and financial situation of the Union industry deteriorated. While these negative developments may in part be explained by the decrease in consumption, Indian imports were still strongly present on the Union market at prices lower than the Union industry's prices. The Commission concluded that the Union industry was in an extremely fragile situation. To establish the likelihood of recurrence of injury, the following elements were analysed: the production capacity and spare capacity in India, the exports from India to other third countries and the attractiveness of the Union market. The Indian spare capacity was estimated to be between 29% and 36% of the Union consumption. The access to Russia (the third main export market) for Indian exporting producers was restricted via the imposition of anti-dumping measures. The attractiveness of the Union market was demonstrated by the fact that despite the anti-dumping and countervailing duties in force, Indian graphite electrode systems continued to enter the Union market. Therefore, should measures in the Union be repealed it is indeed likely that a large part of the available spare capacity will be used for export to the Union market. This would further deteriorate the economic situation of the Union industry. Based on the above, the Commission concluded that that there is a strong likelihood of recurrence of injury caused by dumped imports from India should the measures be repealed. Union interest and definitive measures The Commission analysis showed that the Union industry would be likely to experience a deterioration of its situation in case the measures were allowed to lapse. Therefore, it was concluded that the continuation of the measures would benefit the Union industry. As no importers cooperated or made themselves known in the current investigation, there were no indications that maintaining measures would have a negative impact on the importers outweighing the positive impact of the measures. The users did not submit any information showing that there have been difficulties in finding the necessary supply and none of them put forward any argument against maintaining of the measures. On this basis the Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons of Union interest against the extension of the current anti-dumping measures. A definitive anti-dumping duty (between 0% and 9,4%) was hereby imposed on imports of graphite electrodes imported from India. Filament glass fibre products from China (AD) In 2011, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 248/2011, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in China. In March 2016 the Commission initiated an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to these imports. The request was lodged by the European Glass Fibre Producers Association (‘APFE’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production. Sampling The Commission sampled three exporting producers, based on the largest volume of exports. The Commission also sampled three company groups of Union producers representing around 74% of the total sales on the Union market. A sample of three importers was selected on the basis of the largest volume of imports into the Union. Dumping The Commission examined whether dumping was currently taking place and whether dumping was likely to continue or recur upon a possible expiry of the measures. As no market economy treatment claim was introduced and according to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country. For this purpose, the Commission selected Japan. The Commission did not receive a reply to the questionnaire from any of the sampled exporting producers in China. As a consequence of non-cooperation, pursuant to Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission established the export price on Eurostat imports statistics (COMEXT) and compared it with the normal value established in Japan. On this basis, the Commission found a dumping margin of above 70%. The excess capacity in China during the review investigation period was estimated at around 150 thousand metric tonnes (more than 15 % of the total Union consumption). The level of prices on the Union market and its importance for exports from China allowed the Commission to conclude that the Union market is attractive for the Chinese producers. In addition, India and Turkey extended their anti-dumping duties on imports of glass fibre from China. The Commission considered the existence of anti-dumping measures in other third countries to be an additional indication of dumping practices by the Chinese exporting producers.

On this basis, the Commission concluded that the Chinese dumped exports would resume in larger volumes and exercise increased price pressure on the Union market should the current measures be repealed, i.e. that there was a likelihood of a continuation of dumping should measures be repealed. Injury and likelihood of recurrence of injury The investigation established a dumping margin of more than 70%. The Union industry started to benefit more fully from the anti-dumping measures since they were increased in 2014. As a result of the measures, Chinese imports stabilised and enabled the Union industry to maintain its market share. However, prices of the Union industry remained low. On this basis the Commission concluded that the Union industry, following the increase of measures in 2014 partially recovered from the injury caused by the past dumping and did not suffer material injury in the review investigation period. However, its situation remained vulnerable and is characterised by a persistence of depressed prices, volatile costs of production and high capital requirements. On this basis, should the anti-dumping measures be repealed and countervailing duty remains at a level which already proved ineffective to restrict the arrival of large quantities of imports at undercutting prices, the Commission concluded that there is a likelihood of recurrence of injury. Union interest and definitive measures The Commission examined the different interests at stake and concluded that it is in the interest of the Union industry to maintain the measures. The importers and traders have access to a large number of supply sources inside and outside the Union. The Commission's analysis also showed that the renewal of the measures would only have a limited impact on the situation of the users. The Commission concluded that on balance, no compelling reasons existed against the continuation of the current anti-dumping measures. Therefore the anti-dumping measures were maintained. Coated fine paper originating from China (AD) In 2011, following an anti-dumping investigation (the original investigation), by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 451/2011, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain coated fine paper originating in China. In May 2016, the Commission initiated an expiry review of these measures. The request was lodged by five Union producers (Arctic Paper Grycksbo AB, Burgo Group SpA, Fedrigoni SpA, Lecta Group and Sappi Europe SA), representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of coated fine paper. Sampling There was no cooperation from the exporting Chinese producers. With regard to the Union producers the Commission selected three operators (with the biggest volume of sales and production), accounting for over 30 % of the total Union production. Dumping and likelihood of recurrence of dumping The Commission examined whether dumping was currently taking place and whether or not the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping. As no Chinese exporting producer cooperated in the investigation, the Commission resorted to t