12

Recitals 34 to 47 of the provisional regulation, concerning ‘market economy treatment (“MET”)’, are worded as follows: ‘(34) Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports from [China], normal value shall be determined in accordance with Article 2(1) to (6) of the basic regulation for those exporting producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation. (35) Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below: (1) business decisions are made in response to market conditions and without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values; (2) firms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited, in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes; (3) there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system; (4) legal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws; and (5) currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate. (36) Ten cooperating companies requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic regulation and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadlines. Pursuant to Article 2(7)(d) of the basic regulation, a[n] MET verification was carried out to the companies which were included in the sample [, including the applicant]. (37) It follows that a[n] MET determination was made in respect of the following four companies or groups of companies: – Sampled companies: – …; – [the applicant] and Xinyi Solar (Hong Kong) …; – … – Company subject to individual examination: – … (38) The Commission sought all the information deemed necessary and verified all the information submitted in the MET claims at the premises of the companies in question. (39) In case of related parties, the Commission shall examine whether the group of the related companies as a whole fulfils the conditions for MET. Therefore, in cases where a subsidiary or any other company related to the applicant in [China] is involved, directly or indirectly, in the production or sales of the product concerned, the MET examination is carried out in respect of each company individually as well as to the group of companies as a whole. (40) Accordingly, the MET claims of four exporting producers (groups of companies), comprised of 11 legal entities, were investigated. (41) The investigation established that all four exporting producers (groups of companies) claiming MET failed to demonstrate that they fulfilled all of the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation. (42) ... (43) [A]ll four exporting producers, either individually or as a group, failed to demonstrate that they were not to subject to significant distortions carried over from the non-market economy system. Accordingly, these companies, or group of companies, did not fulfil MET criterion 3. More specifically, all four exporting producers, or groups of exporting producers, benefited from preferential tax regimes. (44) ... (45) The Commission disclosed the results of the MET investigation to the companies concerned, the [Chinese] authorities … and the complainant and invited them to comment. (46) The comments received were not such as to alter the Commission’s preliminary findings. After having consulted the Member States in accordance with Article 2(7)(c), all applicants were individually and formally notified, on 13 September 2013, of the Commission’s final determination with regard to their respective MET claim. (47) Accordingly, [none] of the four cooperating exporting producers or groups of exporting producers in [China] that had requested MET could show that they fulfilled all the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation and their MET claims were therefore rejected.’