Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) No …/.. imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2008-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, citrus fruit, import, originating product, prepared foodstuff, preserved product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 3.12.2008 
COM(2008)822 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No …/.. 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, 
etc.) originating in the People's Republic of China 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, 
etc.) originating in the People's Republic of China 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Article  5  of  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries 
not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation 
(EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005 (‘the basic Regulation’). 

General context 

This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and 
is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and 
procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 
Provisional measures were imposed by the Commission Regulation No 642/20081 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT 
ASSESSMENT 

Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  already  had  the  possibility  to 
defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic 
Regulation. 

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. 

The  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

On 20 October 2007, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning 
imports  of  certain  prepared  or  preserved  citrus  fruits  (namely  mandarins,  etc.) 
originating in the People's Republic of China. 

1 

OJ L 178, 5.7.2008, p.19   

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The investigation found dumping of the product concerned, which caused injury to the 
Community  industry.  The  investigation  also  found  that  there  was  no  compelling 
Community  interest  against  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures.  On  this  basis, 
provisional  measures  were  imposed  by  means  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 
642/2008. The continuation of the investigation has confirmed the essential provisional 
findings. 

Therefore,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation  in  order  to  impose  definitive  measures  on  imports  of  certain  prepared  or 
preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People's Republic of 
China. 

Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22 December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005. 

Subsidiarity principle 

The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Community. The subsidiarity 
principle therefore does not apply. 

Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons: 

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no 
scope for national decision. 

Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Community, 
national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is 
minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable. 

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument: Regulation. 

Other  means  would  not  be  adequate  because  the  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee 
alternative options. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No …/.. 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, 
etc.) originating in the People's Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community2 (the ‘basic 
Regulation’) and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  Commission  after  consulting  the  Advisory 
Committee, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

A. 

PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

On 20 October 2007 the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official 
Journal  of  the  European  Union  the  initiation  of  an  anti-dumping  proceeding  with 
regard  to  imports  into  the  Community  of  certain  prepared  or  preserved  citrus  fruits 
(namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’)3. On 4 
July  2008,  the  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  642/20084  (‘the  provisional 
Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared 
or preserved citrus fruits originating in the PRC. 

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 6 September 2007 
by the Spanish National Federation of Associations of Processed Fruit and Vegetables 
(FNACV) (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing 100 % of the total 
Community  production  of  certain  prepared  or  preserved  citrus  fruits  (namely 
mandarins  etc.).  The  complaint  contained  evidence  of  dumping  of  the  product 
concerned and of material injury resulting there from, which was considered sufficient 
to justify the initiation of a proceeding 

As set out in recital 12 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and 
injury  covered  the  period  from  1  October  2006  to  30  September  2007  (‘IP’).  The 
examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 
October 2002 to the end of the investigation period (‘period considered’). 

On 9 November 2007, the Commission made imports of the same product originating 
in the PRC subject to registration by Regulation (EC) No 1295/2007 of 5 November 
2007.5 

2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. 
OJ C 246, 20.10.2007, p. 15 
OJ L 178, 5.7.2008, p.19   
OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 22.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

It is recalled that safeguard measures were in force against the same product until 8th 
November  2007.  The  Commission  imposed  provisional  safeguard  measures  against 
imports  of  certain  prepared  or  preserved  citrus  fruits  (namely  mandarins,  etc.)  by 
Regulation (EC) No 1964/2003 of 7 November 2003.6 Definitive safeguard measures 
followed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  658/2004  of  7  April  2004  (the  “Safeguards 
Regulation”).7  Both  the  provisional  and  definitive  safeguard  measures  consisted  of  a 
tariff rate quota i.e. a duty was only due once the volume of duty free imports had been 
exhausted 

B. 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of the product 
concerned  originating  in  the  PRC;  several  interested  parties  submitted  comments  in 
writing. The parties who so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard.  

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its definitive findings. In particular, the Commission completed the investigation with 
regard to Community interest aspects. In this respect, verification visits were carried 
out at the premises of the following unrelated importers in the Community: 

–  Wünsche  Handelsgesellschaft  International  (GmbH  &  Co  KG),  Hamburg, 

Germany – , 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Hüpeden & Co (GmbH & Co), Hamburg, Germany – , 

I. Schroeder KG. (GmbH & Co), Hamburg, Germany – , 

Zumdieck GmbH, Paderborn, Germany –  

Gaston spol. s r.o., Zlin, Czech Republic –  

(8) 

All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on  imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  the  PRC  and  the  definitive 
collection  of  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  duty.  They  were  also 
granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to 
this disclosure. 

(9) 

Some importers proposed a joint meeting of all interested parties, pursuant to Article 
6(6) of the Basic Regulation; however the request was refused by one of them. 

(10)  The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  were  considered 

and taken into account where appropriate.  

C. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(11)  Two  unrelated  EC  importers  argued  that  certain  types  of  mandarins  should  be 
excluded  from  the  definition  of  the  product  concerned  either  because  of  their 
sweetness level or because of their packing when exported. In this respect, it is noted 
that  these  claims  were  not  accompanied  with  any  type  of  verifiable  information  and 
data  proving  that  these  types  have  characteristics  that  differentiate  them  from  the 
product concerned. It is also noted that differences in packing cannot be considered as 
a  critical  element  when  defining  product  concerned,  especially  when  formats  of 
packing were already taken into account when defining the product concerned as set 

6 
7 

OJ L 290, 8.11.2003, p. 3. 
OJ L 104, 8.4.2004, p. 67.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
out  in  recital  (16)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  These  arguments  are  therefore 
rejected. 

1. 

Sampling for exporting producers in the PRC 

D. 

SAMPLING 

(12)  Two  unrelated  EC  importers  disputed  that  the  Chinese  exporting  producers  selected 
for the sample represented 60% of the total exports to the Community. Nevertheless, 
they  were  not  able  to  provide  any  verifiable  information  that  could  undermine  the 
accuracy of the sampling information submitted by the co-operating Chinese exporting 
producers  and  largely  confirmed  in  the  course  of  the  further  investigation.  This 
argument is therefore rejected.  

(13)  Three  Chinese  co-operating  exporting  producers  submitted  representations  claimed 
that  their  related  companies  were  exporting  producers  of  the  product  concerned  and 
should therefore be included in the Annex of co-operating exporting producers. These 
claims  were  considered  warranted  and  it  was  decided  to  revise  the  relevant  Annex 
accordingly. One unrelated EC importer argued that exports made to the EC through 
traders should automatically be allowed to benefit from the measures applicable to the 
Chinese  exporting  producers.  In  this  respect,  it  is  noted  that  anti-dumping  measures 
are  imposed  on  products  manufactured  by  exporting  producers  in  the  country  under 
investigation that are exported to the EC (irrespective of which company trades them) 
and not to business entities engaged only in trading activities. The claim was therefore 
rejected.  

1. 

Market economy treatment (MET) 

E. 

DUMPING 

(14)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  no  comments  were  submitted  by 
the Chinese co-operating exporting producer with respect to the MET findings. In the 
absence of any relevant comments, recitals (29) to (33) of the provisional Regulation 
are hereby confirmed.  

2. 

(15) 

3. 

(16) 

Individual treatment 

In  the  absence  of  any  relevant  comments,  recitals  (34)  to  (37)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation concerning individual treatment are hereby confirmed. 

Normal value 

It is recalled that the normal value determination was based on the data provided by 
the  Community  Industry.  This  data  was  verified  at  the  premises  of  the  co-operating 
Community producers.  

(17)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  all  three  Chinese  sampled  co-
operating exporting producers and two unrelated EC importers questioned the use of 
Community Industry prices for the calculation of normal value. It was submitted that 
normal  value  should  have  been  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  PRC  production  costs 
account  taken  of  any  appropriate  adjustments  relating  to  the  differences  between  the 
EC and the PRC markets. In this respect it is noted that the use of information from a 
non-market economy country and in particular from companies which have not been 
granted  MET  would  be  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. This argument is therefore rejected. It was also argued that data on prices 
from all other importing countries or relevant published information could have been 
used  as  a  reasonable  solution  account  taken  of  the  lack  of  analogue  country  co-

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
operation.  However,  such  general  information,  in  contrast  to  the  data  used  by  the 
Commission,  could  not  have  been  verified  and  cross  checked  with  regard  to  their 
accuracy  in  line  with  the  provisions  of  Article  6(8)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  This 
argument is therefore rejected. No other argument was submitted that could cast doubt 
on the fact that the methodology used by the Commission is in line with the provisions 
of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation and, in particular, the fact that it constitutes 
in  this  particular  case  the  only  remaining  reasonable  basis  for  calculation  of  normal 
value. 

(18) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  recitals  (38)  to  (45)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Export price  

(19)  Following the imposition of provisional measures, one Chinese sampled co-operating 
exporting producer submitted that its export price should be adjusted in order to take 
into  account  certain  cost  elements  (in  particular  ocean  freight).  In  this  respect  it  is 
noted that this issue was dealt with during the on-the-spot verification both with regard 
to  this  company  as  well  with  regard  to  the  other  companies  in  the  sample.  On  that 
occasion,  each  company  submitted  information  with  regard  to  the  costs  in  question. 
The  amount  claimed  now  by  the  company  is  considerably  higher  than  the  amount 
originally reported. It is noted that this new claim is based simply on a declaration by a 
freight forwarder and does not reflect data relating to a real transaction. None of the 
other sampled exporting producers questioned the figures used with respect to ocean 
freight.  Moreover,  given  the  late  submission,  this  claim  can  not  be  verified.  In 
particular,  the  adjustment  requested  does  not  relate  to  any  data  already  on  the  file. 
Following  this  claim  the  Commission  has  nevertheless  reviewed  the  amount  of  the 
cost  in  question  account  taken  of  the  importance  of  this  particular  cost  to  the  EC 
export  transactions  reported  by  the  company.  As  a  consequence,  the  Commission 
came to the conclusion that it is more appropriate to use the average ocean freight cost 
verified  on-the-spot  for  all  the  sampled  Chinese  companies.  Consequently,  the 
company's export price was adjusted accordingly.  

(20)  One  other  Chinese  sampled  co-operating  exporting  producer  highlighted  two 
computation errors on the calculation of its export price related to its submitted export 
listings. The claim was considered warranted and the producer's relevant export price 
was revised accordingly.  

(21) 

5. 

(22) 

6. 

(23) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  respect,  recital  (46)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

Comparison 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  in  this  respect,  recitals  (47)  and  (48)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Dumping margins 

In light of the above, the definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the 
CIF Community frontier price duty unpaid, are the following:  

- Yichang Rosen Foods Co., Ltd., Yichang, Zhejiang 139,4 % 

- Huangyan No.1 Canned Food Factory, Huangyan, Zhejiang, 

86,5 % 

-  Zhejiang  Xinshiji  Foods  Co.,  Ltd.,  Sanmen,  Zhejiang  and  its  related  producer
Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd., Dangyang City, Hubei Province 136,3 % 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
- Co-operating exporting producers not included in the sample 131% 

All other companies 139,4 %. 

Community production and Community industry 

F. 

INJURY 

In the absence of substantiated comments, the findings set out in recitals (52) to (54) 
of the provisional regulation are confirmed.  

1. 

(24) 

2. 

Community consumption 

(25)  One of the exporting parties argued that there is a discrepancy between the level of the 
consumption set out in the safeguard Regulation No 658/2004 and the level set in the 
provisional Regulation. It is underlined that the difference in the level of consumption 
was basically due to the different product scope in the current investigation and to the 
different  number  of  Member  States  in  those  two  investigations.  No  further  and 
substantiated information was received in this respect. The findings set out in recital 
(55) to (57) of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed. As a corollary, the 
subsequent parts of the analysis which draw on consumption are also confirmed in this 
respect.  

3. 

Imports from the country concerned 

(a) Volume and market share of imports of the product concerned;  

(26) 

In  respect  of  the  market  share  some  interested  parties  opposed  the  Commission 
statement  set  out  in  recital  (58)  that  indicated  an  increase  of  the  market  share  of  the 
dumped  imports.  They  argued  that  contrary  to  the  Commission  findings  the  market 
share  of  imports  from  China  decreased.  The  evaluation  of  imports  from  the  PRC  in 
volume  and  market  share  was  verified.  As  set  out  in  recital  (58)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation  there  was  only  one  year  where  the  market  share  of  the  Chinese  imports 
decreased. For the rest of the period examined the market share of imports from China 
remained  consistently  high.  Therefore  the  findings  presented  at  the  provisional  stage 
are confirmed. 

(27)  Some parties argued that post-IP volumes should also be examined to assess whether 
Chinese  imports  are  increasing.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  trends  on  imports  from  China 
were  evaluated  for  the  period  2002/2003  to  2006/2007  and  a  clear  increase  was 
observed. In accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, post-IP events are 
not  taken  into  account,  except  in  exceptional  circumstances.  In  any  event,  as  stated 
below in recital (48) the level of imports post-IP was examined and was found to be 
significant.  

(b) Price undercutting 

(28)  Three  cooperating  exporting  producers  contested  the  Commission's  findings  on 
undercutting.  One  contested  the  methodology  used  to  calculate  undercutting  and 
requested an adjustment to reflect costs borne by traders for their indirect sales. Where 
justified, calculations  were  adapted. The revised comparison showed that, during the 
IP,  imports  of  the  product  concerned  were  sold  in  the  Community  at  prices  which 
undercut the Community industry's prices by a range of 18,4% to 35,2% based on the 
data submitted by the sampled cooperating exporting producers. 

4. 

Situation of the Community industry 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
(29)  Two  importers  and  the  importers'  association  contested  the  duration  of  the  packing 
season  indicated  in  recital  (79)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  They  argued  that  the 
packing season in Spain lasts only three months instead of four to five as indicated in 
the provisional Regulation. However this allegation is linked to the crop (variable by 
nature)  and  to  the  quantity  produced  and  in  any  case  has  no  impact  on  the  injury 
factors as analysed by the Commission services.  

(30) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  substantiated  information  or  argument  concerning  the 
situation of the Community industry, recitals (63) to (86) of the provisional Regulation 
are hereby confirmed. 

5. 

Conclusion on injury 

(31)  Following  disclosure  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  some  importers  and  some 
exporting producers claimed, with reference to recitals (83) to (86) of the provisional 
Regulation, that data used by the Commission to establish the injury level was neither 
correct nor objectively evaluated. They argued that almost all injury-related indicators 
showed positive trends and that therefore no evidence of injury can be found. 

(32) 

In this regard, it is noted that even if some indicators show small improvements, the 
situation  of  the  Community  industry  has  to  be  evaluated  as  a  whole  and  in 
consideration  of  the  fact  that  safeguard  measures  were  in  place  until  the  end  of  the 
investigation period. This matter was explored at length in recitals (51) to (86) of the 
provisional regulation. The deep restructuring process which these measures allowed 
for, resulting in a large reduction in production and capacity, would have under normal 
circumstances led to a significant improvement in the Community producers’ overall 
situation, including production, capacity utilisation, sales, and price/cost differentials. 
Instead,  volume  indicators  have  remained  weak,  stocks  have  increased  substantially 
and financial indicators have continued to be in the red—some even worsening.  

(33)  On  this  basis,  it  is  considered  that  the  conclusions  regarding  the  material  injury 
suffered  by  the  Community  industry  as  set  out  in  the  provisional  Regulation  are  not 
altered. In the absence of any other substantiated information or arguments, they are 
therefore definitively confirmed. 

1. 

Effect of the dumped imports  

G. 

CAUSATION 

(34)  Some  parties  argued  that  the  volume  of  the  Chinese  imports  had  been  stable  since 
1982  and  that  therefore  they  could  not  have  caused  injury  as  explained  in  the 
provisional  Regulation  (see  recital  58).  Indeed,  as  explained  above  in  recital  (26), 
imports  from  China  during  the  period  examined  have  increased  significantly  to  the 
detriment of the EU industry market share. Moreover, the argument refers to the trend 
in  imports  that  exceed  well  above  the  period  in  question  therefore  the  argument  is 
rejected.  

(35)  As mentioned in recital (28) above, it is definitively concluded that during the IP, the 
prices of imports from the sampled Chinese exporting producers undercut the average 
Community  industry  prices  by  percentages  ranging  from  18,4%  to  35,2%.  The 
revision of the undercutting margin leaves unaffected the conclusions on the effect of 
the dumped imports set out in recitals (100) and (101) of the provisional Regulation. 

2. 

Exchange rate fluctuations 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(36)  After  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  duties  some  importers  further  argued  the 
negative  influence  of  the  exchange  rate  on  the  price  level.  They  argued  that  the 
exchange  rate  level  is  the  main  factor  that  caused  injury.  Nevertheless,  the 
Commission’s assessment refers merely to  a difference between price levels with no 
requirement to analyse the factors affecting the level of those prices. As a consequence 
a  clear  causal  link  between  the  high  dumping  level  and  the  injury  suffered  by  the 
Community  industry  was  found  and  therefore  recital  (95)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation can be confirmed. 

3. 

Supply and price of raw materials 

(37)  Some interested parties argued that injury is not caused by dumped imports but rather 
by the scarce supply of fresh fruit i.e. the raw material for canned mandarins. .  

(38)  However,  official  data  from  the  Spanish  Ministry  for  Agriculture  confirm  that  the 
quantity  available  for  the  canning  industry  is  more  than  sufficient  to  cover  all  the 
production capacity of the Spanish producers. 

(39)  Producers  compete  to  a  certain  extent  for  fresh  fruit  with  the  direct  fresh  produce 
consumer market. However, this competition does not break the causal link. A clear, 
significant  reason  for  the  Community  industry’s  relatively  low  production,  sales  and 
market share is rather to the pressure of the massive imports from China at very low 
prices. In this situation, and considering that the market price is dictated by the imports 
covering  more  than  70%  of  the  market,  which  engage  in  price  undercutting, 
suppression  and  depression,  it  would  be  uneconomic  to  produce  more  without 
reasonable expectations for selling the product at prices allowing for a normal profit. 
Therefore  the  Spanish  industry  could  reasonably  provide  significantly  higher 
quantities under the condition that the market price would not penalise their economic 
results. 

(40)  Another  fact  confirming  this  analysis  is  the  consistent  existence  of  a  significant 
amount  of  stocks  by  Community  producers,  underlining  that  the  Community 
industry’s injurious situation occured not because of insufficient production, but due to 
production that cannot be sold due to the pressure of Chinese imports. 

(41)  As  an  agricultural  product,  the  price  of  the  raw  material  is  subject  to  seasonal 
fluctuations  due  to  its  agricultural  nature.  Nevertheless,  in  the  five-year  period 
analysed,  which  included  harvests  with  lower  and  higher  prices,  the  Commission 
observes that injury (e.g. in the form of financial losses) occurs irrespectively of these 
fluctuations  and  therefore  the  economic  results  of  the  Community  industry  are  not 
directly correlated to such seasonal fluctuations.  

4. 

Quality differences 

(42)  Some  parties  claimed  that  the  Chinese  product  was  of  a  higher  quality  than  the 
Community production. However, any price differences resulting therefrom were not 
sufficiently  substantiated,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  alleged  consumer 
preference  for  Chinese  products  would  be  so  intense  as  to  be  the  cause  of  the 
deteriorated  situation  for  the  Community  industry.  In  any  case  such  alleged  price 
the 
differences 
undercutting/underselling  level.  In  the  absence  of  any  further  new  and  substantiated 
information  or  argument,  recital  (99)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is  hereby 
confirmed.  

increasing 

product, 

Chinese 

favour 

would 

the 

5. 

Cost increases  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(43)  Some parties argued that extraordinary cost increases by some producers were at the 
root  of  the  injury.  These  allegations  were  not  sufficiently  substantiated.  The 
Commission  analysis  did  not  detect  any  such  events  which  could  reverse  the 
assessment of causation or affect the calculation of the injury elimination level.  

(44)  Some parties submitted comments on the increased costs of production and inability of 
the  Community  industry  to  reduce  them.  Certain  cost  items  (such  as  energy)  have 
increased, but their impact is not such as to break the causal link in a context where a 
very  significant  amount  of  dumped  Chinese  exports  are  depressing  sales  and 
production (thereby increasing the Community industry’s unit costs) and suppressing 
and depressing Community industry prices. 

6. 

(45) 

7. 

(46) 

(47) 

Aid schemes  

It was alleged that the EC aid schemes caused artificial growth of processing in the EC 
and then encouraged reduced levels of raw material supply for the product concerned. 
This allegation was of a general nature and was not sufficiently substantiated. In any 
event, the schemes in question were modified in 1996 when the aid was allowed to the 
farmers  instead  than  to  the  processors  of  the  product  concerned.  The  Commission's 
analysis  has  not  detected  any  residual  effects  during  the  investigation  period  which 
could break the causal link. Regarding supply, reference is made to recitals (40) and 
(41) above.  

Conclusion on causation 

In the absence of any further new and substantiated information or arguments, recitals 
(87) to (101) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

In  the  light  of  the  above,  the  provisional  finding  of  the  existence  of  a  causal  link 
between  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry  and  the  dumped 
Chinese imports is confirmed. 

1. 

Developments after the investigation period 

H. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(48)  As from 9 November 2007 imports from the PRC were subject to registration pursuant 
to  the  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1295/2007  of  5  November  2007  making 
imports  of  certain  prepared  or  preserved  citrus  fruits  (namely  mandarins,  etc.) 
originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  subject  to  registration  ('Registration 
Regulation').8 This was done with a view to the possible retroactive imposition of anti-
dumping duties. Consequently and exceptionally, developments after the IP have also 
been analysed. Eurostat data confirms that imports from China remain significant and 
this  has  been  corroborated  by  certain  importers.  The  volume  for  the  last  ten  months 
after the IP reached a level of 74.000 tonnes at stable low prices. 

2. 

Ability of Community producers to supply the Community market 

(49)  A  number  of  parties  commented  on  the  low  level  of  the  Spanish  production,  which 
they  claimed  is  unable  to  fully  supply  the  community  market.  While  it  is  correct  to 
state that in the present situation the Community industry does not supply the overall 
EU market, it should be noted that this fact is linked to the effect of injurious imports, 
as explained above. In any event, the intended effect of the measures is not to close the 
Community  market  to  Chinese  imports,  but  to  remove  the  effects  of  injurious 

8 

OJ L 288 6.11.2007, p. 22. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
dumping.  Given  inter  alia,  the  existence  of  only  two  sources  of  supply  of  these 
products,  it  is  considered  that  in  the  event  definitive  measures  are  imposed,  Chinese 
products would continue to enjoy a significant demand in the Community. 

3. 

Interest of the Community industry and suppliers 

(50)  One  importers'  association  alleged  that  any  anti-dumping  measures  without  any 
limitation  of  quantities  would  not  help  protect  the  Spanish  industry  but  would 
automatically trigger illegal trading activities. This is an argument which rather points 
to  the  need  for  the  institutions  to  ensure  proper  monitoring  of  the  enforcement  of 
measures,  rather  than  against  the  benefit  measures  could  have  for  Community 
producers.  

(51)  Another importer argued that imposition of anti-dumping measures would not improve 
the situation of the Spanish producers, due to the existence of large stocks built by the 
importers in the EU, which would be able to satisfy the market demand in the nearest 
future.  The  size of the  stocks  and the phenomenon of stockpiling were supported by 
another  importer.  These  comments  confirm  the  Commission  analysis  in  the 
provisional Regulation and elsewhere in this Regulation.  However, it is recalled  that 
measures are intended to provide relief from injurious dumping over a period of five 
years—not only one. 

(52) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  new  and  substantiated  information  or  argument  in  this 
respect,  the  conclusion  made  in  recitals  (103)  to  (106)  and  (115)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation regarding the interest of the Community industry are hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Interest of unrelated importers/traders in the Community 

(53)  Cooperating  importers  expressed  a  general  interest  in  maintaining  two  sources  of 
supply  of  the  product  concerned,  namely  Spain  and  China,  in  order  to  maintain  the 
security of supply at competitive prices. 

(54)  Nevertheless  the  majority  of  the  importers,  should  definitive  measures  be  imposed, 
would  prefer  a  measure  which  contains  also  quantitative  elements.  This  is  not 
considered adequate, as explained below in recital (68). 

(55)  Data  from  the  sampled  cooperating  importers  were  verified  and  confirmed  that  the 
canned mandarins sector represents less than 6% of their total turnover and that they 
achieved,  on  average,  a  level  of  profitability  exceeding  10%  during  both  the 
investigation period and the period of 2004-2008. 

(56)  The  foregoing  underlines  that,  on  balance,  the  potential  impact  of  measures  on 
importers/traders  would  not  be  disproportional  to  the  positive  effects  emanating 
therefrom.  

5. 

Interest of users/retailers 

(57)  One user, representing less than 1% of consumption, submitted generic comments on 
the  reduced  availability  of  mandarins  in  the  EU  and  on  the  superior  quality  of  the 
Chinese  product.  He  was  invited  to  further  cooperate  providing  individual  data  but 
declined  and  did  not  substantiate  his  allegations.  Another  retailer,  a  member  of  the 
main importer's association, generally opposed a price increase. No other submission 
concerning  the  interest  of  users/retailers  was  received  in  the  course  of  the 
investigation.  In  this  situation  and  in  absence  of  any  substantiated  comments  from 
users/retailers,  the  conclusions  made  in  recitals  (109)  to  (112)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
6. 

Interest of consumers 

(58)  Contrary  to  what  was  claimed  by  one  importer,  the  interest  of  consumers  was  taken 
into consideration at the  provisional stage. The Commission's findings  were outlined 
in recitals (113) and (114) of the provisional Regulation. Other parties suggested that 
the impact on consumers would be significant. However, no information was provided 
that  could  cast  doubt  on  the  findings  in  the  aforementioned  recitals.  Even  if  duties 
were to lead to an increase in consumer prices, no party has disputed the fact that this 
product is a very small part of household food expenditure. Therefore in the absence of 
any comments from consumers and of any further new and substantiated information 
these recitals are confirmed.  

7. 

Conclusion on Community interest 

(59)  The  additional  analysis  above  concerning  the  interests  at  stake  has  not  altered  the 
provisional  conclusions  in  this  respect.  Data  of  the  sampled  cooperating  importers 
were verified and confirmed that the canned mandarins sector represents for them less 
than 6% of their total turnover and that they achieved, in average terms a comfortable 
result during both the investigation period and the period of 2004-2008 examined, so 
the impact of the measures on importers will be minimal. It has been also ascertained 
that the financial impact on the final consumer would be negligible, considering that 
marginal  quantities  per  capita  are  bought  in  the  consumer  countries.  It  is  considered 
that  the  conclusions  regarding  the  Community  interest  as  set  out  in  the  provisional 
Regulation have not changed. In the absence of any other comments, these conclusions 
set out in the provisional Regulation are therefore definitively confirmed. 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

I. 

DEFINITIVE MEASURES 

(60)  One importer claimed that the profit margin at the level 6,8% used as reference at the 
provisional stage is overestimated. In this respect it should be noted that the same level 
was  used  and  accepted  for  safeguard  measures  as  the  actual  profit  achieved  by  the 
Community  industry  in  the  period  1998/  99  to  2001/02.  It  refers  to  profits  of  the 
Community  producers  in  a  normal  trading  situation  before  the  increase  in  imports 
which led to injury in the industry. The argument is therefore rejected. 

(61)  Community  producers  claimed  that  provisional  duties  did  not  take  into  account  the 
peculiar  situation  of  the  canned  mandarins  market,  where  the  production  is 
concentrated  in  only  one  country  and  the  vast  majority  of  sales  and  of  imports  are 
concentrated  in  another  European  country.  For  that  it  was  requested  that  final 
calculations  take  into  account  the  transport  cost  from  the  producer  country  to  the 
consumer  country.  The  claim  was  justified  and  warranted  and  calculations  were 
adapted  accordingly  to  reflect  the  concentration  of  sales  in  the  relevant  areas  of  the 
Community. 

(62)  One  party  made  comments  on  the  undercutting  and  underselling  calculation.  Where 

warranted adjustments were made at definitive stage. 

(63)  The resulting injury margins, taking into account, when warranted, the requests from 
interested  parties,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  total  cif  import  value  of  each 
sampled Chinese exporter were less than dumping margins found, as follows:  

– 

– 

 Yichang Rosen Foods Co., Ltd., Yichang, Zhejiang 100,1% 

 Huangyan No. 1 Canned Food Factory, Huangyan, Zhejiang 48,4% 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

 Zhejiang  Xinshiji  Food  Co.,  Ltd.,  and  related  producer  Hubei  Xinshji  Foods 
Co.,  Ltd., Sanmen 92,0% 

 Co-operating exporting producers not included in the sample 90,6% 

All other companies 100,1% 

2. 

Retroactivity 

(64)  As specified in recital (4), on 9 November 2007 the Commission made imports of the 
product  concerned  originating  in  the  PRC  subject  to  registration  on  the  basis  of  a 
request  by  the  Community  industry.  This  request  has  been  withdrawn  and  therefore 
the matter has not been further examined. 

3. 

(65) 

Definitive measures 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  injury,  causation  and 
Community  interest,  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the  lowest  of  the 
dumping  and  injury  margins  found,  in  accordance  with  the  lesser  duty  rule.  In  this 
case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the injury found. 

(66)  On  the  basis  of  the  above  and  in  line  with  corrigendum  published  in  the  Official 

Journal L 2589 the definitive duty should amount as follows: 

– 

– 

– 

 Yichang Rosen Foods Co., Ltd., Yichang, Zhejiang 531,2 Eur/ton 

 Huangyan No.1 Canned Food Factory Huangyan, Zhejiang, 
Euro/ton 

361,4 

 Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd., Sanmen, Zhejiang and its related producer 
Hubei  Xinshiji  Foods  Co.,  Ltd.,  Dangyang  City,  Hubei  Province  490,7 
Euro/Ton 

– 

 Co-operating exporting producers not included in the sample 499,6 Euro/Ton 

All other companies 531,2 Euro/Ton 

4. 

Form of the measures 

(67)  A number of parties requested measures which combined price and quantity elements, 
whereby  for  an  initial  import  volume  no  duty  or  a  reduced  duty  would  be  paid.  In 
certain cases, this was linked to a license system.  

(68)  This option was considered but rejected for, in particular, the following reasons. Anti-
dumping duties are imposed because the export price is lower than the normal value. 
The amounts exported to the Community are relevant for the analysis whether dumped 
imports cause injury. However, these amounts are, normally, irrelevant for the level of 
the  duty  that  should  be  imposed.  In  other  words,  if  it  is  found  that  dumped  imports 
cause  injury,  the  dumping  may  be  offset  by  a  duty  which  applies  as  of  the  first 
shipment imported after the entry into force of the duty. Finally, to the extent that it 
would  be  found  that  it  is  in  the  Community's  interest  that  during  a  certain  period, 
products  may  be  imported  without  imposing  anti-dumping  duties,  art.  11(4)  of  the 
basic regulation allows for suspension under certain conditions.  

(69)  Some parties have alleged that any form of measures without a quantitative limitation 
will  lead  to  duty  avoidance.  Parties  made  reference  again  to  the  stockpiling  which 

9 

OJ L 258, 26.09.2008, p.74 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
occurred in the wake of the enlargement of the European Union on 1st May 2004. The 
Commission services' analysis has confirmed that this was a clear attempt to avoid the 
duties. Given these statements and the facts described in the provisional regulation in 
recitals (123) and (125), the Commission will monitor developments in order to take 
the necessary actions to ensure proper enforcement of measures.  

(70)  Other  parties  have  argued  that  measures  should  exclude  volumes  already  subject  to 
existing  sales  contracts.  This  would  in  practice  amount  to  an  exemption  of  duties 
which  would  undermine  the  remedial  effect  of  measures,  and  is  therefore  rejected. 
Reference is also made to recitals (51) and (52) above.  

(71)  The  provisional  Regulation  imposed  an  anti-dumping  duty  in  the  form  of  a  specific 
duty for each company resulting from the application of the injury elimination margin 
to  the  export  prices  used  in  the  calculation  of  the  dumping  during  the  IP.  This 
methodology is confirmed at the level of definitive measures. 

5. 

Undertakings 

(72)  At  a  late  stage  in  the  investigation  several  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  offered 
price  undertakings.  These  were  not  considered  to  be  acceptable  given  the  significant 
price volatility of this product, the risk of duty avoidance and circumvention for this 
product (see recitals (124) and (125) of the provisional regulation), and the fact that,
no  guarantees  were  contained  in  the  offers  on  the  part  of  the  Chinese 
authorities to  allow  for  adequate  monitoring  in  a  context  of  companies  not  having 
been granted  market economy treatment. 

J. 

DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY 

(73) 

In  view  of  the  magnitude  of  the  dumping  margin  found  and  given  the  level  of  the 
injury caused to the Community industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts 
secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by  the  provisional 
Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of provisional 
duties imposed. As for the exporting producers for whom the definitive duty is slightly 
higher than the provisional duty, amounts provisionally secured should be collected at 
the level determined in the provisional Regulation, in accordance with Article 10(3) of 
the basic Regulation. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

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

The  amount  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping duty  applicable  for  products  described  in 

2. 
paragraph 1 produced by the companies below shall be as follows: 

Company 

EUR/tonne 
net 
product  
weight 

TARIC 
additional
code 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
Yichang Rosen Foods Co., Ltd., Yichang, Zhejiang 

531,2 

A886 

Huangyan No.1 Canned Food Factory, Huangyan, Zhejiang,  

361,4 

A887 

Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd., Sanmen, Zhejiang and its related 
producer Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd., Dangyang City, Hubei 
Province 

490,7 

A888 

Co-operating exporting producers not included in the sample as set 
out in the Annex 

499,6 

A889 

All other companies 

531,2 

A999 

Article 2 

1. 
In  cases  where  goods  have  been  damaged  before  entry  into  free  circulation  and, 
therefore,  the  price  actually  paid  or  payable  is  apportioned  for  the  determination  of  the 
customs  value  pursuant  to  Article  145  of  Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2454/9310  the 
amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis of Article 1 above, shall be reduced by a 
percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.  

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

2. 
apply. 

Article 3 

1. 
Amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2008 on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus 
fruits  (namely  mandarins,  etc.)  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  shall  be 
definitively collected at the rate of the provisional duty.  

2. 
For  the  co-operating  exporting  producers  that  were  erroneously  not  listed  under  the 
Annex  of  co-operating  exporting  producers  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  642/2008, 
namely  Ningbo  Pointer  Canned  Foods  Co.,  Ltd.,  Xiangshan,  Ningbo,  Ninghai  Dongda 
Foodstuff  Co.,  Ltd.,  Ningbo,  Zhejiang  and  Toyoshima  Share  Yidu  Foods  Co.,  Ltd.,  Yidu, 
Hubei,  the  amounts  secured  in  excess  of  the  provisional  duty  applicable  to  co-operating 
producers not included to the sample shall be released.  

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  following  its  publication  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union. 

Article 4 

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 

10 

OJ L 253, 11.1.1993, p. 3.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 
[…] 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Co-operating exporting producers not included in the sample (TARIC additional code A889) 

ANNEX  

Hunan Pointer Foods Co., Ltd., Yongzhou, Hunan 

Ningbo Pointer Canned Foods Co., Ltd., Xiangshan, Ningbo  

Yichang Jiayuan Foodstuffs Co., Ltd., Yichang, Hubei 

Ninghai Dongda Foodstuff Co., Ltd., Ningbo, Zhejiang 

Huangyan No.2 Canned Food Factory, Huangyan, Zhejiang 

Zhejiang Xinchang Best Foods Co., Ltd., Xinchang, Zhejiang 

Toyoshima Share Yidu Foods Co., Ltd., Yidu, Hubei 

Guangxi Guiguo Food Co., Ltd., Guilin, Guangxi 

Zhejiang Juda Industry Co., Ltd., Quzhou, Zhejiang 

Zhejiang Iceman Group Co., Ltd., Jinhua, Zhejiang 

Ningbo Guosheng Foods Co., Ltd., Ninghai 

Yi Chang Yin He Food Co., Ltd., Yidu, Hubei 

Yongzhou Quanhui Canned Food Co., Ltd., Yongzhou, Hunan 

Ningbo Orient Jiuzhou Food Trade & Industry Co., Ltd., Yinzhou, Ningbo 

Guangxi Guilin Huangguan Food Co., Ltd., Guilin, Guangxi 

Ningbo Wuzhouxing Group Co., Ltd., Mingzhou, Ningbo 

EN 

19 

   EN