Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2011-08-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping measure, building materials, ceramics, import (EU)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.8.2011 
COM(2011) 493 final 

2011/0220 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic of China 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This proposal concerns the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 
30  November  2009  on  protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not 
members  of  the  European  Community  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  proceeding 
concerning imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic of China. 

•  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  are  in  force  and  were  imposed  by  Commission  Regulation 
(EU) No 258/2011 of 16 March 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on 
imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic of China 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

CONSULTATION  OF 
ASSESSMENT 

INTERESTED 

PARTIES  AND 

IMPACT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  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 contain provisions for a general impact assessment but 
contains an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

•  Legal basis 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against 
dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

The  proposal  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  European  Union.  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  Union, 
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 instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: 

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

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

5. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

An anti-dumping investigation on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic 
of China ('China') was initiated on 19 June 2010. 

Provisional  anti-dumping  duties  ranging  between  26.2%  and  73.0%  were  imposed  on  16 
March 2011. 

Following disclosure submissions were received from a number of interested parties. 

The comments did not change the findings of the investigation that imports of ceramic tiles 
originating in the People’s Republic of China were dumped and caused material injury to the 
Union  industry.  Moreover,  the  examination  of  the  various  interests  involved  led  to  the 
conclusion that the application of measures would not be contrary to the interest of the Union. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

Some  of  the  comments,  however,  warranted  a  revision  of  the  level  of  duties.  It  is  therefore 
proposed  to  impose  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  ranging  from  26.3%  to  69.7%  in 
respect of imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China.  

Member  States  were  consulted  during  the  Anti-Dumping  Committee  of  28  July  2011  and  a 
majority of them agreed to the Commission’s proposal. 

It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the  Commission  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Council 
Regulation  with  a  view  to  its  transmission  to  the  Council  and  its  publication  in  the  Official 
latest.
Journal  of 

the  European  Union  on  15  September  2011 

the 

at 

EN 

4 

   EN 

2011/0220 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,  

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 ('the basic 
Regulation') and in particular Article 9, 

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted 
the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

1. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

A. PROCEDURE 

Provisional measures 

The Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 258/2011 (2) ('the provisional Regulation') 
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the 
People's Republic of China ('China'). 

A  corrigendum3  was  published  on  31  May  2011  in  order  to  correct  certain 
typographical  errors,  in  particular  the  names  of  certain  Chinese  exporting  producers 
that were misspelled in Annex I of the provisional Regulation. 

In  addition,  and  following  the  verification  of  certain  claims  received  after  the 
publication of the corrigendum, and which were found to be warranted, it was noticed 
that certain other names were misspelled. The correct names for all companies subject 
to the weighted average duty are listed in Annex I of this Regulation.  

It is recalled that the proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by the 
European ceramic tiles manufacturer's Association (CET) ('the complainant') on behalf 
of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 30% of the total 
Union  production  of  ceramic  tiles.  As  set  out  in  recital  24  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 70, 17.3.2011, p. 5. 
OJ L 143, 31.5.2011, p. 48. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
2009  to  31  March  2010  ('investigation  period'  or  'IP').  With  respect  to  the  trends 
relevant for the injury assessment, the Commission analysed data covering the period 
from 1 January 2007 to the end of the IP ('period considered'). 

2. 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

Subsequent procedure  

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on  the basis of 
which it was decided to impose provisional measures ('provisional disclosure'), several 
interested  parties  made  written  submissions  making  known  their  views  on  the 
provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be 
heard.  In  addition  hearings  with  the  Hearing  officer  were  held  upon  request  of  two 
interested parties. 

The Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its definitive 
findings. 

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  ceramic  tiles  originating  in  China  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. 

(8) 

The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  were  considered 
and taken into account where appropriate. 

3. 

Parties concerned by the proceeding  

3.1. 

Sampling of Chinese exporting producers  

(9)  When selecting the sample of exporting producers, an applicant 'group' of companies 
was  included  due  to  the  fact  that  the  combined  export  volume  of  the  two  producers 
included in the alleged group made them together the 3rd largest exporter by volume 
to  the  Union  market.  These  companies  claimed  a  relationship  based  on  Article 
143(1)(b)  of  Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2454/93  laying  down  provisions  for 
the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2913/92  establishing  the 
Community  Customs  Code  (4)  which  provides  that  parties  shall  be  deemed  to  be 
related  if  "they  are  legally  recognised  partners  in  business".  The  investigation 
subsequently  revealed  that  these  companies  were  not  related  in  this  sense  and,  as 
mentioned  in  recital  (35)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  these  two  producers  were 
treated as separate entities. 

(10)  Several exporting producers made submissions claiming that these companies should 
have  been  excluded  from  the  sample  for  submitting  false  or  misleading  information. 
These  producers  further  claimed  that,  consequently,  the  weighted  average  dumping 
margin  should  have  been  calculated  without  taking  into  account  the  two  sampled 
companies. 

(11) 

In  this  regard,  it  is  noted  that  the  information  provided  by  these  parties  prior  to  the 
selection of the sample was considered sufficient to consider them as related and given 

4 

OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
their  combined  export  sales  volume  to  the  Union  market  they  were  included  in  the 
sample.  Following  the  on-spot  verification  visits  at  the  premises  of  these  two 
companies,  the  issue  of  their  relationship  was  examined  in  detail.  The  information 
provided  by  the  companies  in  support  of  their  claim  to  be  related  was  verified  but 
found to be insufficient for them to be regarded as related, contrary to the companies' 
own view on this matter. As a result, it was concluded that these companies could not 
be  considered  to  be  related  in  the  sense  of  Article  143(1)(b)  of  Commission 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2454/93.  As  the  companies  cooperated  in  the  investigation, 
including  by  providing  information  in  regard  to  their  alleged  relationship,  it  is 
considered  that  there  are  no  grounds  to  exclude  them  from  the  sample.  In  these 
circumstances, this claim is rejected. 

(12)  Moreover,  even  assuming  that  selecting  other  companies  into  the  sample  during  the 
investigation  would  have  led to  a  considerably  larger  volume  of  exports  towards  the 
Union  market  during  the  IP  being  covered,  it  would  have  been  difficult,  within  the 
time available, to investigate any newly selected companies. Therefore, in spite of the 
fact  that  these  companies  have  turned  out  not  to  be  related,  the  sample  continues  to 
comply with the criteria foreseen in the basic Regulation. Finally it is pointed out that 
there was no evidence that the companies deliberately alleged being related in order to 
be selected into the sample. 

(13) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  recitals  (5)  and  (6)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.2. 

Sampling of Union producers 

(14)  Following the imposition of the provisional measures one party claimed that none of 
the  Union  producers  supporting  the  complaint  had  provided  sample  responses  and 
should  therefore  be  regarded  as  not  cooperating  with  the  proceeding.  This  argument 
was maintained following final disclosure.  

(15)  With  respect  to  the  claim  that  the  lack  of  sample  responses  would  indicate  that  the 
Union  producers  supporting  the  complaint  did  not  cooperate,  it  is  recalled  that  CET 
was  the  legal  representative  of  all  complaining  companies.  As  required  CET  also 
provided on behalf of the complainants the complemetary information concerning the 
data for the IP. As detailed in the Notice of initiation, information in view of selecting 
a sample was only required for companies that had not already supplied all necessary 
information. It follows that the complaining producers were fully cooperating as they 
had provided all the necessary information at the complaint stage and as the necessary 
updates  as  regards  the  IP  data  were  provided  on  their  behalf  by  their  legal 
representative during the investigation. 

(16)  One  interested  party  claimed  that  the  division  of  the  Union  industry  into  different 
segments  and  the  geographical  coverage  of  the  sample  meant  that  it  was  not 
statistically valid. In this respect it is recalled that the Union ceramic tiles industry is 
highly  fragmented  with  over  500  producers.  It  was  also  found  that  the  industry  was 
represented in all three industry segments, i.e. large, medium and small companies. In 
order to ensure that the results of large companies did not dominate the injury analysis 
but  that  the  situation  of  the  small  companies,  collectively  accounting  for  the  biggest 
share  of  the  Union  production,  was  properly  reflected,  it  was  considered  that  all 
segments, i.e. small, medium-sized and large companies should be represented in the 

EN 

7 

   EN 

sample.  Within  each  of  the  segments,  the  largest  companies  were  chosen,  provided 
that geographical representativeness could be assured. 

(17)  One  interested  party  also  claimed  that  the  Commission  had  failed  to  show  that  the 
sample remained representative after the withdrawal of the Polish producer and that it 
was  in  any  event  insufficiently  representative  in  terms  of  sales  volume  in  the  Union 
market. 

(18) 

It is correct that one Polish producer decided to cease cooperation and therefore had to 
be excluded from the sample. However, it is not necessary for a sample to reflect the 
exact geographical spread and weight of the producing Member States in order to be 
representative.  Given  the  fact  that  geographical  spread  is  only  one  of  the  factors  to 
take into account to ensure representativeness such an approach would not have been 
administratively  practicable.  Rather,  it  is  sufficient  that  the  sample  largely  reflects 
proportions  of  the  major  manufacturing  countries  involved.  Assessed  against  this 
criterion,  it  was  found  that  the  withdrawal  of  the  Polish  company  did  not  affect  the 
overall representativeness of the sample. On this basis, it is confirmed that the sample 
of Union producers was sufficiently representative within the meaning of Article 17 of 
the basic Regulation. 

(19)  As concerns  the  claim of the overall representativity of the sample it  is  recalled  that 
given the fact that the Union industry is highly fragmented, it is unavoidable that the 
companies  in  the  sample  cover  a  relatively  small  portion  of  the  overall  Union 
production. In any event Article 17 of the basic Regulation sets out that investigations 
may be limited to samples which are either statistically valid, or which constitute the 
largest representative volume of production, sales, or exports which can be reasonably 
investigated, without, however, indicating any specific quantitative threshold as to the 
level  of  such  representative  volume.  In  view  of  the  above  it  is  confirmed  that  the 
sample  selected  was  representative  within  the  meaning  of  Article  17  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(20)  One  interested  party  claimed  that  the  Commission  failed  to  include  in  the  sample 
Union producers which offer low sales prices and which are located in countries like 
Poland  and  the  Czech  Republic;  therefore,  the  sample  so  obtained  would  not  be 
representative of the Union producers' average sales prices.  

(21) 

In response to the above claim, the Commission found that the average sales prices of 
the Union industry's sample were in the same range as the average sales prices in the 
publicly available statistics. In any event, and as explained later in recital (125) below, 
the  investigation  has  shown  that  even  taking  into  consideration  publicly  available 
prices for those countries, the final findings would not change in any meaningful way. 

(22)  A  number  of  parties  made  comments  concerning  the  methodology  used  to  select  the 
Union  industry  sample  as  compared  to  the  selection  of  the  sample  of  Chinese 
exporters, which was solely based on export volume.  

(23)  As to the different methodologies used for selecting a sample of Union producers on 
the  one  hand  and  Chinese  exporting  producers  on  the  other  hand,  it  should  be  noted 
that the methodologies were used according to the objectives of the sampling exercise. 
Concerning  the  Union  industry,  the  Commission  has  to  assess  the  situation  of  the 
whole  industry  and  therefore,  the  criteria  that  would  ensure  the  most  representative 

EN 

8 

   EN 

picture of the entire sector were chosen. As far as the Chinese exporters are concerned, 
it  was  considered  appropriate  to  choose  a  sample  based  on  the  largest  volume  of 
exports  of  the  product  concerned  therefore  the  largest  exporters  were  sampled.  It  is 
also  noted  that  there  is  no  obligation  in  Article  17  of  the  basic  Regulation  that  both 
samples be selected on the basis of the same criteria. Furthermore, in this case, before 
finalising the sample of Chinese exporting producers, the cooperating parties in China 
as  well  as  the  Chinese  authorities  were  given  the  opportunity  to  comment  on  the 
proposed  sample.  Comments  were  received  in  regards  to  the  composition  of  the 
sample but not in regard to its representativity. 

(24)  Following the final disclosure, an importers' association claimed that Article 17 of the 
basic Regulation implied that samples of Union producers and of exporting producers 
should be made on the basis of the same criteria. Several Chinese parties continued to 
claim following final disclosure that there was discrimination between the treatment of 
Chinese exporting producers and Union producers in choosing the respective samples. 

(25) 

In response to the claim following the final disclosure that the same criteria should be 
applied  in  the  selection  of  the  samples  of  Union  producers  and  exporting  producers, 
for the reasons outlined in recital (23) above, it is considered that these samples may 
be made on the basis of different criteria. In these circumstances, this claim is rejected. 

(26)  With regard to the fact that, as mentioned in recital (23), no comments were received 
in relation to the representativity of the sample these parties claimed that, at the time 
of selecting the samples, the Chinese parties were not informed that different selection 
criteria were being used for the selection of the samples and so could not comment on 
this fact.  

(27)  Concerning the fact that the Chinese parties were not informed of the different criteria 
used in selecting the samples, it is standard practice, in line with Article 17(2) of the 
basic Regulation, to consult parties on the composition of proposed samples for their 
own category, e.g. exporting producers will only be consulted on the proposed sample 
of  exporting  producers.  In  these  circumstances,  these  parties'  claim  regarding  the 
inability to comment on the different selection criteria for the different samples at the 
time of selection of the samples is disregarded.  

(28)  Following  final  disclosure,  one  interested  party  claimed  that  by  taking  the  different 
segments  into  account  for  the  selection  of  the  sample,  the  Commission  breached 
Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation that lays down that the analysis should be made in 
relation  to  the  Union  industry  as  a  whole  and  not  to  certain  groups  or  types  of 
companies.  

(29)  The claim that the division of the sample in three segments is in breach of Article 4(1) 
of the basic Regulation cannot be upheld. As can be derived from recital (23) above, 
the  sample  selected  represented  the  whole  Union  industry  and  not  only  a  specific 
group of companies, as alleged by the party concerned. Furthermore, Article 17(1) of 
the  basic  Regulation  specifically  allows  for  selecting  a  sample  in  order  to  determine 
injury. This claim was therefore unfounded and rejected. 

(30)  Following  the  final  disclosure  the  same  interested  party  challenged  the  fact  that  the 
geographical  spread  had  been  taken  into  account  for  the  selection  of  the  sample 

EN 

9 

   EN 

arguing that the Union is a single market and that Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation 
can only allow for a sample to be selected based on the largest representative volume. 

(31)  As for the claim on the use of the criterion of geographical spread, it is observed that 
this is a fragmented industry and in order to assess representativeness of the selected 
companies,  the  producers’  geographical  spread  amongst  Member  States  is  used,  to 
reflect the different situations that can be encountered in the Union. The sample covers 
Member  States  where  ca.  90%  of  the  Union  production  is  manufactured;  after  the 
withdrawal  of  the  Polish  company,  this  level  remained  high  at  ca.  80%.  Thus,  the 
methodology applied by the Commission ensured that the sample is representative of 
the  Union  production  as  a  whole  and  complies  with  Article  17(1)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. Therefore, the claim was rejected. 

(32)  Following  final  disclosure  one  interested  party  claimed  that  only  medium  and  small 
sized companies were selected in the sample of Union producers which allegedly had 
higher costs and prices than the large sized Chinese companies. 

(33)  This argument was not supported by any evidence. It is noted that the sample included 
companies from all segments. Furthermore other factors beyond size of the company 
may  have  an  impact  on  costs,  such  as  raw  material  costs,  depreciation  or,  capacity 
utilization. 

4. 

Rights of parties  

4.1. 

Confidentiality  of  the  name  of  the  complainants  and  companies  supporting  the 
complaint 

(34)  One interested party claimed that the lack of information regarding the identity of the 
complainant did not allow interested parties to exercise their rights of defence fully. It 
was  also  argued  that  since  some  producers  had  not  requested  to  have  their  name 
withheld, the request for anonymity was not justified. 

(35)  One  party  reiterated  its  claim  that  there  had  not  been  grounds  to  allow  for 
confidentiality as concerned the names of most of the complaining producers as well 
as supporters of the complaint. In particular it was claimed that no evidence in support 
of  the  confidentiality  requests  had  been  included  in  the  file  open  for  inspections  by 
interested parties. It was further claimed that the lack of knowledge of the identity of 
the  sampled  companies  had  meant  that  other  interested  parties  had  been  unable  to 
comment on the correctness of the assessment of the micro indicators. 

(36) 

(37) 

In  response  to  the  final  disclosure  the  same  party  questioned  whether  all  related 
companies of the sampled producers had submitted a questionnaire response.  

It  is  recalled  that  Article  19  of  the  basic  Regulation  allows  for  the  protection  of 
confidential  information  in  circumstances  where  disclosure  would  be  of  significant 
competitive  advantage  to  a  competitor  or  would  have  a  significantly  adverse  effect 
upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom that person has 
acquired the information. A vast majority of the complainants wanted their identity to 
remain confidential and provided sufficient evidence showing that there indeed was a 
significant  possibility  of  retaliation  inter  alia  in  the  form  of  lost  sales  for  these 
producers  should  their  names  be  disclosed.  The  request  of  these  companies  was 
consequently accepted by the Commission services. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

(38)  Regarding the claim that some producers had not requested the confidential treatment 
of  their  name,  it  should  be  noted  that  this  fact  does  not  prejuge  the  right  of  other 
companies  to  ask  for  this  treatment,  when  sufficient  reasons  are  shown.  The 
asessement for such requests was done on a case by case basis, therefore the claim is 
rejected.  

(39)  As to whether all related companies of the sampled Union producers had submitted a 
questionnaire reply, it should be noted that as a matter of principle the lack of response 
from  arelatedUnion  producer  as  such  would  not  necessarily  prevent  the  Commission 
from reaching reliable conclusions on injury provided that the questionnaire responses 
that are submitted can be verified. This would be the case in particular in cases where 
the related companies are separate legal entities with separate accounting. 

5. 

Scope of investigation. Inclusion of imports from Turkey 

(40)  One  party,  representing  the  interests  of  exporting  producers,  claimed  that  imports  of 
the  product  concerned  from  Turkey  should  have  been  included  in  the  scope  of  the 
present investigation. 

(41)  Concerning  the  non-inclusion  in  the  complaint  of  imports  originating  in  Turkey,  it 
should be noted that at initiation stage, there was no evidence of dumping, injury and 
causal link from this country to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding on 
such  imports.  The  claim  that  Turkey  should  have  been  included  in  the  scope  of  the 
investigation is therefore rejected. 

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND THE LIKE PRODUCT 

(42)  Following  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  measures,  one  interested  party  indicated 
that there had been changes in the CN codes covering the product concerned contained 
in the Regulation imposing provisional measures as compared to those of the notice of 
initiation and enquired concerning the reasons for these differences and whether they 
entailed a change in product scope. 

(43) 

In this context it is underlined that the differences between the CN codes indicated in 
the  Regulation  imposing  provisional  measures  and  those  mentioned  in  the  notice  of 
initiation  are  not  linked  to  a  change  of  the  product  definition  or  the  scope  of  the 
investigation.  The  amendments  do  not  change  the  types  of  tiles  covered  but  relate 
simply  to  the  need  to  take  account  of  the  general  changes  to  the  Combined 
Nomenclature  as  provided  for  by  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  861/2010  and 
which became applicable on 1 January 2011 (5).  

(44)  An  interested  party  asked  that  certain  ceramic  mosaics  should  be  excluded  from 
the product scope. The party alleged that, in case of measures, this category of product 
concerned  would 
it 
is substitutable  and  that ,  in  any  event, dumping  is  not  taking  place  in  this  particular 
segment. 

lose  competitiveness  against  other  products with  which 

(45)  Concerning  this  claim,  the  investigation  revealed  that a s ceramic  mosaics  and  other 
types  of  ceramic  tiles  have  the  same  basic  physical and technical characteristics, 

5 

OJ L 284, 29.10.2010, p 1. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
a revision of the product scope is not warranted. As for the absence of dumping in this 
segment,  which  was  not  supported  by  any  evidence,  the  analysis  of  dumping  and 
injury  has 
these 
to  mirror 
circumstances, this claim is rejected. 

the  situation for the  entire product  concerned. In 

(46) 

In view of the above and in the absence of any further comments regarding the product 
concerned  and  the  like  product,  recitals  25  to  32  of  the  Regulation  imposing 
provisional measures are hereby confirmed. 

1. 

Market Economy Treatment (MET)  

C. DUMPING 

(47) 

In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments  or  findings  regarding  Market  Economy 
Treatment, the conclusions set out in recitals (33) to (40) of the provisional regulation 
are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Individual Treatment (“IT”) 

(48)  No comments were received with regards to the decision on granting or denying IT to 

individual companies. 

(49)  However  two  importers  questioned  the  validity  as  a  whole  of  the  Commission's  IT 
analysis, claiming that the EU annually distributes subsidies by ways of the Structural 
Funds scheme. 

(50) 

In  this  regard,  it  is  noted  that  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  sets  out  the 
conditions  to  be  met  in  order  to  benefit  from  IT  status.  The  alleged  existence  of 
subsidisation  in  the  EU  is  irrelevant  to  that  examination.  Therefore,  this  claim  is 
rejected  and  the  conclusions  as  set  out  in  recitals  (41)  to  (44)  of  the  provisional 
regulation are maintained. 

3. 

Individual Examination (“IE”) 

(51)  Claims for IE were submitted by eight cooperating exporting producers under Article 
17(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  It  was  decided  to  carry  out  IE  for  one  exporting 
producer,  Kito  Group,  as  it  was  not  unduly  burdensome  to  do  so.  This  group 
represented by far the largest export volume of the eight producers claiming IE. 

(52)  This  group  claimed  IT.  After  examination  of  this  claim,  it  was  initially  proposed  to 
grant IT to the Kito Group as no reasons were found why this group should not have 
IT. 

(53)  Following  final  disclosure,  the  complainant  argued  that  Article  17(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  did  not  appear  to  allow  for  a  limited  number  of  requests  for  individual 
examination to be made in situations where numerous requests had been received. The 
complainant claimed that this view was supported by numerous previous anti-dumping 
investigations.  In  this  regard,  it  is  noted  that  the  benchmark  in  Article  17(3)  of  the 
basic Regulation for whether or not to examine requests for individual examination is 
whether  these  examinations  would  be  unduly  burdensome  and  would  prevent  the 
completion  of  the  investigation  in  good  time.  In  the  investigation  at  hand  and  as 
mentioned  in  recital  (51)  above,  to  examine  one  of  the  eight  claims  for  IE  was  not 

EN 

12 

   EN 

unduly  burdensome.  Concerning  previous  investigations  where  claims  for  IE  were 
addressed, it is noted that the extent of the burdensome nature of such requests and the 
need for the timely completion of an investigation must be assessed on a case-by-case 
basis. In light of the above, the complainant's claims are rejected. 

(54)  Following  final  disclosure,  information  and  evidence  were  received  that  the  Kito 
Group may not have disclosed all related companies of the group with the result that 
the findings for the group may be incomplete. The group was given the opportunity to 
comment on this information and was informed that Article 18 of the basic Regulation 
may have to be applied. In reply, they confirmed that indeed they did not disclose two 
related companies in their reply to the anti-dumping questionnaire but argued that, as it 
was  a  mere  oversight  without  consequence  since  they  were  not  involved  in  the 
production  and/or  commercialisation  of  the  product  concerned,  it  should  have  no 
bearing on the findings. However, the fact that the existence of these two companies 
was  not  disclosed  did  not  allow  a  proper  assessment  and  verification  of  the  group's 
activities in relation to the product concerned. In these circumstances, it is concluded 
that the group did not provide the necessary information within the appropriate time-
limits  and  consequently  the  findings  for  the  company  are  made  on  the  basis  of  facts 
available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. .  

4. 

Normal value 

4.1. 

Choice of the analogue country  

(55)  Two importers submitted comments against the choice of the United States of America 
("USA")  as  analogue  country,  claiming  that  the  USA  is  inappropriate  as  analogue 
country due to its insignificant own production, and its lack of competitiveness in the 
world  market.  They  further  claimed  that  the  USA  was  selected  in  an  unreasonable 
manner, claiming that the lack of alternative analogue countries was caused by undue 
pressure  by  the  Union  producers'  association  on  producers  from  other  possible 
analogue  countries  in  order  to  discourage  their  possible  cooperation.  Two  importers 
argued  that  information  from  a  number  of  possible  cooperating  countries  was 
disregarded  by  the  Commission  and  that  publicly  available  data  from  national  or 
transnational associations of producers in third countries was not considered. 

(56)  To  take  the  last  argument  first,  it  is  recalled  that  company  specific  information  is 
required in order to carry out the investigation of the level of dumping. Therefore this 
argument was rejected. 

(57)  Regarding  the  allegations  of  undue  pressure  by  the  Union  producers'  association  in 
order  to  discourage  cooperation  ,  it  is  noted  that  no  evidence  is  provided.  Therefore 
these comments had to be disregarded.  

(58)  These importers further claimed that, the annual production volume of ceramic tiles in 
the USA was circa 60 million m² per year, and not 600 million m² as stated in recital 
(51) of the provisional Regulation. This was verified and found to be correct. 

(59)  With  regard  to  the  suitability  of  the  USA  as  analogue  country  in  light  of  the 
significantly lower level of production, it should be emphasised that the USA market 
is  highly  competitive  –  there  are  several  local  production  companies  and  import 
quantities are significant. Furthermore, as mentioned in recital (52) of the provisional 
Regulation, there is no evidence of any non-tariff barriers that would be a substantial 

EN 

13 

   EN 

hindrance  to  competition  on  the  market.  In  these  circumstances,  despite  the  lower 
production  volume,  the  overall  conclusion  that  the  USA  is  an  appropriate  analogue 
country remains unchanged.  

(60)  Two  importers  argued  that  unit  sales  prices  of  USA  produced  tiles  in  the  USA 
domestic market were much higher than in the Union market and when compared to 
export prices give rise to the existence of dumping practices. This argument was found 
to  be  irrelevant  for  the  purpose  of  this  proceeding,  since  any  such  allegations, 
assuming that there would be prima facie evidence for them, could only be thoroughly 
examined in a separate anti-dumping proceeding related to the USA. It was therefore 
disregarded. 

(61)  These importers further claimed that the USA cooperating producer was owned by or 
affiliated with Union producers, and thus the investigation was flawed as data obtained 
were not independent.  

(62) 

It is recalled that the data submitted by the USA cooperating producer was verified on 
spot. Therefore this claim was found to be irrelevant and was disregarded. 

(63)  These  importers  further  claimed  that  USA  export  volumes  were  limited.  This 
argument  was  considered  to  be  irrelevant  to  the  selection  of  the  analogue  country, 
since  the  analogue  country  data  are  used  to  determine  normal  value  and  not  export 
prices. It was therefore rejected. 

(64)  Finally  these  same  importers  claimed  that  maintaining  confidentiality  over  the 
identity, volume, value and quality of the output of the cooperating analogue producer 
was not justified. It is recalled that the cooperating analogue producer had requested 
confidentiality  for  fear  of  commercial  retaliation,  and  this  request  was  found  to  be 
justified. Moreover, it can  not be  excluded that furnishing any of the data which  the 
importers  request,  even  in  ranges,  could  lead  to  the  identification  of  the  analogue 
country producer. Therefore the importers' claim was disregarded. 

(65)  Following final disclosure, the above-mentioned two importers repeated a number of 
their  above-mentioned  claims  without,  however,  providing  any  further  substantiated 
evidence. In these circumstances, their claims remain rejected.  

(66)  Furthermore, these two importers also claimed that, as the cooperating US producer is 
allegedly  controlled  by  an  Union  producer,  the  choice  of  this  US  company  as  a 
suitable analogue country producer is flawed. In particular, they claimed that the US 
company  is  not  economically  independent  and  so  cannot  serve  as  a  benchmark  for 
dumping.  The  importers  cite  Article  2(1),  third  and  fourth  paragraphs  of  the  basic 
Regulation as justification for this claim. In reply to this claim, it must first of all be 
stated  that,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (23)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  and  in  recital 
(69) below, the cooperating US producer has requested anonymity and this request has 
been  granted.  In  these  circumstances,  whether  a  relationship  exists  between  the  US 
company and an Union producer cannot be confirmed or denied. However, it is noted 
that the above-mentioned provisions of the basic Regulation concern how to treat the 
sales  prices  of  a  company  under  investigation  when  it  sells  to  a  related  party.  These 
provisions  do  not  concern  the  matter  of  a  possible  relationship  between  an  analogue 
country producer and an Union producer. In these circumstances, the claim is rejected. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

(67)  Following  final  disclosure,  an  importers'  association  made  numerous  claims.  Firstly, 
they claimed that the allegedly low volume of sales of US producers on their domestic 
market  compared  to  Chinese  exports  to  the  EU  rendered  the  US  as  an  unsuitable 
analogue country market. In this regard, in examining possible analogue countries, the 
level of competition in those countries is, inter alia, one of the elements examined. To 
have  similar  levels  of  domestic  sales  of  the  domestic  industry  and  imports  from  the 
country under investigation is not a precondition for deeming a country to be a suitable 
analogue  country.  As  regards  these  claims,  for  this  investigation,  and  as  stated  in 
recital  (59)  above,  the  US  market  was  found  to  be  sufficiently  competitive  to  be  a 
suitable choice. In these circumstances, this claim is rejected. 

(68)  The  importers'  association  also  claimed  that  it  did  not  consider  that  the  fact  that 
imports  into  the  US  market  are  significant  was  relevant  to  choosing  the  US  as 
analogue country. As regards this claim, it should be noted that the level of imports is 
indeed  one  of  the  important  factors  examined  when  selecting  a  suitable  analogue 
country.  The  combination  of  domestic  production  and  high  volumes  of  imports 
contribute  to  a  competitive  market  as  mentioned  in  recital  (59)  above.  In  these 
circumstances, this claim is rejected. 

(69)  The  importers'  association  also  asked  what  evidence  had  been  provided  by  the 
cooperating analogue country producer to prove the risk of commercial retaliation as 
mentioned in recital (64) above. In this regard, the US company pointed out that there 
are  numerous  Chinese  exporting  producers  of  ceramic  tiles  on  the  US  market  with 
which the US company competes for the same customers. In these circumstances, the 
US  company  stated  that  it  feared  commercial  retaliation  if  its  identity  were  to  be 
revealed. Regarding the evidence provided to prove the risk of retaliation, it should be 
noted that the possible risk arising from the fact that the US company as well as the 
Chinese  exporting  producers  active  on  the  US  market  are  competing  for  the  same 
customers was found to be plausible. In these circumstances, the company's request for 
anonymity was accepted.  

(70)  The association also claimed that, as the average domestic sales price in the US of the 
domestically produced ceramic tiles was allegedly several times higher than the price 
of  EU  imports  from  China,  the  US  product  is  not  a  "like  product"  to  the  imported 
product from China. In this regard, the fact that these two prices differ is not a reason 
to  consider  that  the  US  product  is  not  alike  to  the  product  concerned.  As  stated  in 
recital (32) of the provisional Regulation, it was found that the product concerned and, 
inter alia, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of the USA have the 
same  basic  physical  and  technical  characteristics  as  well  as  the  same  basic  uses.  In 
these circumstances they are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) 
of the basic Regulation. The association's claim is therefore rejected.  

(71)  Finally,  the  association  asked  why  the  EU  was  not  considered  as  an  appropriate 
analogue  country  in  the  absence  of  cooperation  from  third  countries  other  than  the 
USA.  In  this  regard,  given  that  the  USA  has  been  found  to  be  a  suitable  analogue 
country,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (59)  above,  the  need  to  examine  possible  other 
suitable markets did not arise. Therefore, the association's claim is rejected.  

(72) 

In  the  absence  of  further  comments,  it  is  confirmed  that  the  choice  of  the  USA  as 
analogue country was appropriate and reasonable in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of 

EN 

15 

   EN 

the basic Regulation, and recitals (45) to (54) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
confirmed. 

4.2. 

Determination of normal value 

(73)  Two importers argued that without information regarding the USA producer's output 
in  terms  of  volume,  interested  parties  could  not  verify  whether  due  to  economies  of 
scale,  there  could  be  significant  difference  in  the  production  costs  of  the  USA 
producer compared to the sampled Chinese producers which produced annually more 
than  10  million  m²  of  ceramic  tiles.  These  importers  further  claimed  that  the 
production  volumes  of  the  analogue  producer  and  the  Chinese  producers'  were  not 
comparable,  given  the  lower  production  volume  of  the  analogue  producer  or  in  the 
analogue country. It is recalled that the production volume of the cooperating analogue 
producer  is  confidential  and  cannot  thereof  be  disclosed.  It  is  also  recalled  that  the 
Chinese  industry  is  highly  fragmented  and  mostly  composed  of  SMEs.  Therefore, 
these arguments were found to be unsubstantiated.  

(74)  These  importers  pointed  out  that,  as  Article  2(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  2nd  sub-
paragraph,  required  that  normal  value  be  based  on  the  prices  of  "other  sellers  or 
producers",  to  establish  normal  value  on  the  basis  of  one  single  company's  data  was 
flawed. 

(75) 

In this regard, it is recalled that this proceeding concerns imports from a non market 
economy country where the normal value needs to be established in accordance with 
the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation. Thus, this claim was rejected. 

(76)  Following  final  disclosure,  an  importers'  association  stated  that  it  considered  that 
normal  value  in  an  analogue  country  could  not  be  based  on  data  provided  by  one 
company. However, for the reasons set out in recital (75) above, this claim is rejected. 

(77)  Finally,  these  importers  claimed  that  the  analogue  producer's  product  lacked 
representativeness  as,  they  assume,  it  exclusively  served  the  high-priced  segment. 
Because  the  request  for  confidentiality  of  the  analogue  producer  was  granted,  this 
allegation  is  neither  confirmed  nor  denied.  In  any  case,  even  if  the  allegation  was 
correct,  as  explained  in  recital  (61)  of  the  provisional  regulation,  adjustments  were 
made where warranted to the constructed normal value in order to take into account all 
types  of  tiles,  including  re-sale  branding.  Therefore  this  claim  was  found  not  to  be 
warranted and was therefore rejected. 

4.3. 

Export price  

(78)  Following final disclosure, one exporting producer claimed that sales of certain types 
of ceramic tiles to the EU in the IP had been misclassified by the Commission services 
and  that  the  company's  dumping  margin  should  be  corrected  accordingly.  In  this 
regard, it was determined during the verification visit at the company's premises that 
the  company  had  wrongly  classified  certain  ceramic  tiles  and  the  company  was 
informed thereof. These were then correctly re-classified for the purposes of making 
an  accurate  dumping  calculation.  In  these  circumstances,  the  company's  claim  is 
rejected. 

(79)  Following  final  disclosure,  the  same  exporting  producer  claimed  that  certain  export 
sales  transactions  to  the  EU  in  the  IP  had  been  disregarded  in  calculating  the 

EN 

16 

   EN 

company's  dumping  margin.  In  this  regard,  it  was  found  that  these  transactions  had 
been  disregarded  as  the  invoice  dates  fell  after  the  end  of  the  IP.  In  these 
circumstances, the company's claim is rejected. 

(80) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  with  regard  to  export  prices,  recital  (59)  of  the 
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4.4. 

Comparison 

(81)  Comments  were  made  concerning  the  comparison between the  normal value and  the 

export price. 

(82)  One exporting producer claimed that for the calculation of its CIF value, the fact that 
export  sales  were  made  through  unrelated  traders should be taken into account. This 
claim  was  found  to  be  warranted  and  subsequently  the  CIF  values  for  this  exporter 
were  recalculated.  Following  final  disclosure,  the  complainant  claimed  that  this 
recalculation of export prices should not have been made as the information provided 
by the unrelated traders was not reliable given that allegedly only some of the traders 
through which the exporting producer sells had provided information. In this regard it 
was  found  that  all  unrelated  traders  through  which  the  exporting  producer  sold  had 
provided price information. In these circumstances, the claim is rejected. 

(83)  Another exporting producer claimed that the cost of insurance had not been correctly 
taken  into  account  when  calculating  its  CIF  value.  This  claim  was  found  to  be 
warranted and the CIF values of this exporter were corrected accordingly.  

(84)  One group of exporting companies claimed that the cost of insurance included in their 
CIF  values  was  wrongly  calculated.  This  claim  was  found  to  be  warranted,  and  the 
CIF  values  were  thus  recalculated.  In  addition,  it  was  found  that  for  one  of  the 
companies  of  the  group  the  handling  cost  had  not  been  taken  into  account  when 
establishing the ex-works value. This was also corrected. 

(85)  Two importers claimed that the calculation of the export prices should have taken into 
account  the  USD  exchange  rate  developments  during  the  IP.  It  is  however  recalled 
that, according to the Commission's standard practice, for currency conversions during 
the IP monthly exchange rates were used, thus exchange rate developments during the 
IP are indeed taken into account. 

(86)  Following final disclosure, one exporting producer claimed that, as normal value was 
based  on  data  from  one  producer  in  the  analogue  country  and  consequently  precise 
data could not be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality, it was imperative to ensure 
that adjustments were made where appropriate to ensure product comparability for the 
purposes of the dumping calculations. In this regard, as mentioned in recital (61) of the 
provisional  Regulation,  adjustments  were  made  where  necessary  to  ensure  a  fair 
comparison between normal value and export price. 

(87)  Following  final  disclosure,  two  importers  claimed  that  the  cooperating  US  producer 
exclusively  serves  the  high-priced  ceramic  tiles  sector  while  the  Chinese  exporting 
producers  serve  the  low-priced  segment.  In  terms  of  ensuring  a  fair  comparison 
between  normal  value  and  export  price,  these  importers  claim  that  the  necessary 
adjustments under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation were not disclosed to them. In 

EN 

17 

   EN 

this  regard,  it  is  noted  that  recital  (61)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  explains  the 
adjustments that were made to ensure a fair comparison.  

4.5. 

Dumping margins for cooperating sampled exporters  

(88)  The  definitive  dumping  margins  for  the  cooperating  sampled  producers,  taking  into 
account all above comments, and expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier 
price, duty unpaid, are as follows: 

Company/group name 

Definitive 
dumping margin 

Shandong Yadi Co. Ltd. 

Xinruncheng Group 

Wonderful Group 

Heyuen Becarry Co Ltd  

36.5% 

29.3% 

26.3% 

67.7% 

4.6. 

Dumping margins for all other cooperating exporting producers 

(89)  As a result of the changes in the calculation of the dumping margins as mentioned in 
recital  (88)  above,  the  weighted  average  dumping  margin  of  the  sample,  which  is 
based on the dumping margins of the four sampled cooperating exporting producers is 
30.6 %. In this context, it is noted that for Heyuan Becarry Co Ltd, which was granted 
neither  MET  nor  IT,  a  dumping  margin  was  calculated  in  the  manner  described  in 
recital  (88)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  In  accordance  with  Article  9(6),  first 
sentence,  of  the  basic  Regulation,  this  dumping  margin  was  used  for  calculating  the 
weighted average dumping margin of the parties in the sample, applied to co-operating 
exporters not chosen into the sample. Furthermore, since Heyuan Becarry Co. Ltd. was 
not  granted  MET  and  furthermore  it  was  found  that  its  export  sales  decisions  were 
subject to significant state interference, the company is itself made subject to the duty 
for co-operating exporters not chosen into the sample. 

(90) 

In regard to the method of calculation of the dumping margin for Heyuan Becarry Co, 
which,  as  was  just  mentioned,  is  a  cooperating  exporting  producer  included  in  the 
sample  but  not  granted  individual  treatment  as  referred  to  in  recital  (65)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation,  the  reference  in  that  recital  to  recital  (64)  of  that  regulation 
should rather refer to recital (62). 

4.7. 

Dumping margin for company claiming individual examination 

(91)  For  the  company  mentioned  in  recitals  (51)  to  (54)  above  that  was  individually 
examined,  in  view  of  the  application  of  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
countrywide dumping margin will apply. 

4.8. 

Dumping margins for all other non cooperating exporting producers 

(92) 

In the absence of any comments with regard to the calculation of the dumping margin 
for all other exporting producers, recitals (66) to (67) of the provisional Regulation are 
hereby confirmed. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

(93)  Taking into account the above comments expressed in recitals (81) to(85), the country-

wide margin of dumping is established at 69.7%. 

4.9. 

Submissions concerning the list of cooperating exporters 

(94)  A number of allegations were received that 13 of the exporting producers included in 
the  Annex  in  the  provisional  Regulation  of  companies  benefiting  from  the  weighted 
average  provisional  duty  were  only  traders  and  not  producers,  and  consequently 
should not have been included in the Annex. 

(95)  After further examination, it was found that these allegations were correct in the case 
of 5 companies. These companies were informed of the intention to remove them from 
the  relevant  Annex  and  were  given  the  opportunity  to  comment.  Three  of  these 
companies  did  not  submit  further  comments,  while  two  companies  made  further 
claims on this matter. These further claims did not contain sufficient evidence to show 
that these companies were in fact exporting producers of the product concerned and so 
were  rejected.  These  5  companies  were  accordingly  removed  from  the  list  of 
companies benefiting from the weighted average definitive duty. 

4.10. 

Post IP events 

(96)  Since disclosure of the provisional findings, the relationship between a group of two 
cooperating  exporting  producers  has  allegedly  been  severed  due  to  changes  in  the 
shareholding  structure.  As  a  result,  one  of  these  companies  requested  to  have  an 
individual duty independent from that of the other company. 

(97)  From the information provided, it appears that the links between these two companies 
were severed after the IP. The impact of this alleged split in the group structure as well 
as the claim by one of the companies to have an individual duty rate established would 
need  to  be  reviewed  in  detail.  In  this  regard,  should  one  or  both  of  these  companies 
request a review of their situation following this alleged split, this can be considered in 
due  time  in  line  with  the  provisions  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In  these  circumstances, 
the  company's  claim  to  have  an  individual  duty  established  in  this  investigation  is 
rejected.  

(98)  Following final disclosure, the complainant claimed that one of the above-mentioned 
related  exporting  producers  should  have  a  separate  duty  calculated  for  it  on  the 
grounds that there was evidence that it was dumping at a higher level than the other 
exporting producer. In this regard, it should be noted that for exporting producers that 
are  related  during  the  IP  of  an  investigation  not  to  calculate  one  weighted  average 
dumping margin and duty for them would leave scope for circumvention of duties by 
the  exporting  producer  subject  to  the  higher  duty.  As  the  two  exporting  producers 
concerned  in  this  investigation  were  found  to  be  related  during  the  IP,  there  are  no 
grounds for the establishment of separate duties for each of them. As stated in recital 
(97) above, should one or both of these companies request a review of their situation 
following their alleged split, this can be considered in line with the provisions of the 
basic Regulation. In these circumstances, the complainant's claim is rejected. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

1. 

Union production and Union industry 

D. INJURY 

(99) 

In the absence of any comments or new findings regarding the Union production and 
Union industry, the conclusions in recitals 68 to 70 of the provisional Regulation are 
hereby confirmed.  

1.1. 

Union Consumption 

(100)  In  the  absence  of  any  comments  or  findings  regarding  the  Union  consumption,  the 

conclusions in recitals 71 and 72 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Imports from China 

(101)  One  interested  party  questioned  the  analysis  of  the  imports  claiming  that  both  the 
complaint  and  the  provisional  Regulation  lacked  data  concerning  the  volume  of 
imports,  alleging  that  a  measurement  in  m2  is  a  measurement  of  area  and  not  of 
volume. 

(102)  Another interested party claimed that the developments in price and volume of imports 
from  China  simply  showed  normal  trade  fluctuations  and  could  therefore  not  be  an 
indication of the Chinese exporters' behaviour in terms of dumping. 

(103)  After  final  disclosure,  one  party  questioned  the  reliability  of  the  Eurostat  statistics 
claiming  that  actual  Chinese  import  prices  are  higher  and  therefore  comparable  to 
import  prices  from  other  third  countries.  In  addition,  it  was  claimed  that  this  would 
have an effect of the dumping margins found. 

(104)  Another  interested  party  claimed  that  their  own  analysis  of  the  Eurostat  statistics  in 
terms  of  market  share  and  import  price  were  slightly  different  to  those  of  the 
provisional Regulation and that these findings should be amended accordingly. 

(105)  Another interested party claimed that the Commission servcices had failed to take into 

account the increase in the prices of Chinese imports that occurred post IP, in 2010. 

(106)  Regarding  the  claim  on  the  unit  of  measure  used  to  determine  import  volumes,  the 
term "volume" of Article 3.2 of the basic Regulation refers to "quantity", rather than 
"cubic volume". For each product, the most representative unit of measure should be 
used.  As  to  the  product  concerned,  operators  in  the  world  market  consistently  use 
square meters (m²); therefore, this unit has been considered as the most appropriate for 
the purpose of this investigation and the claim in this respect was rejected. 

(107)  As concerns the developments in price and volume of imports from China it holds true 
that  the  variations  are  limited  when  considered  in  absolute  terms.  Chinese  imports 
decreased by 3% in the period considered. However, the conclusion as to the volume 
of Chinese imports had to be put in the context of an overall decrease in consumption 
in  the  Union  market.  The  fact  that  the  Chinese  imports  dropped  only  by  3%  in  this 
period  when  the  overall  consumption  fell  by  29%  clearly  had  an  impact  on  their 
presence  in  the  Union  market.  Keeping  imports  stable  thus  allowed  the  Chinese 
imports to gain market share in a period where other operators lost out. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

(108)  As for the evolution of Chinese prices, the average import prices indicated in recital 73 
of  the  provisional  Regulation  were  based  on  Eurostat  statistics.  Questions  have  been 
rasied as concerns the exactitude of the average import prices to certain Member States 
but  no  changes  to  official  statistics  have  been  confirmed.  In  any  event,  it  is  recalled 
that the Eurostat data was used only to establish the general trends and that even if the 
Chinese import prices were to be adjusted upwards the injury picture as a whole would 
still  remain  the  same  with  high  margins  for  undercutting  and  underselling.  In  this 
context it should be noted that for the calculation of both injury and dumping margins 
Eurostat data was not used. Only verified data from visited companies have been used 
in order to determine the level of the margins. Therefore, even if the discrepancies to 
the  statistics  were  to  be  found,  this  would  not  have  any  impact  on  the  level  of  the 
margins disclosed. 

(109)  As  concerns  the  claim  that  the  Commission  services  failed  to  take  into  account 
Eurostat  data  from  2010  this  argument  cannot  be  upheld  as  the  figure  for  the  IP 
included  the  first  quarter  2010.  As  concerns  the  second  to  fourth  quarter  of  2010  it 
should  be  noted  that  these  figures  relate  to  the  post–IP  period  which  should  not  be 
taken into consideration. Furthermore, even if these were to be taken into account, the 
import statistics show that also imports prices from third countries increased indicating 
that this was a general trend and not specifically isolated to the Chinese imports. 

3. 

Price undercutting 

(110)  It  is  recalled  that  at  the  provisional  stage  as  outlined  in  recital  76  of  the  provisional 
Regulation undercutting was defined as the weighted average sales prices of the Union 
producers to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level, 
compared  per  product  type  to  the  corresponding  weighted  average  prices  of  the 
imports from China to the first independent customer on the Union market, established 
on  a  CIF  basis,  with  appropriate  adjustments  for  the  existing  customs  duties,  post-
importation costs and level of trade. 

(111)  One  party  claimed  that  the  calculations  disclosed  to  the  parties  regarding  the 
calculation of the export price did not correspond to the explanation given in recital 76 
of  the  provisional  Regulation.  Upon  verification,  it  is  confirmed  that  there  was  a 
textual error in the recital. Indeed at provisional stage, the adjustment of the level of 
trade  was  made  to  the  ex-works  sales  prices  of  the  Union  producers  to  unrelated 
customers on the Union market and no adjustment for post importation cost was made 
in  the  calculation  of  the  average  export  price.  At  definitive  stage,  the  CIF  Union 
frontier prices of exporting producers of the country concerned were adjusted for the 
existing  custom  duties  and  for  post  importation  costs  (costs  incurred  at  EU  port  for 
importation,  transportation  and  warehouse  expenses  which  are  incurred  before  the 
reselling  by  importers),  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by  the  cooperating 
unrelated importers.  

(112)  Another  party  held  that  when  adjusted  downwards  to  take  into  account  the  cost  of 
distribution/marketing,  the  prices  would  be  similar  to  those  of  the  Chinese  exports. 
However, 
these  adjustments; 
included 
the  provisional  calculation  already 
consequently, this claim was unfounded and therefore rejected.  

(113)  The  investigation  revealed  undercutting  levels  between  43.2%  and  55.7%,  which 
slightly  differ  from  what  was  provisionally  found  (see  recital  77  of  the  provisional 

EN 

21 

   EN 

Regulation). The reason for this change is the calculation of a new CIF value for the 
exporting  producer  mentioned  in  recitals  (83)  to  (85)  and  the  calculation  of  an 
individual  CIF  export  price  for  the  exporting  producer  Kito  Group,  mentioned  in 
recital (51).  

4. 

Imports from third countries other than China 

(114)  In the absence of any comments or findings regarding the imports from third countries 
other than China the conclusions in recitals 78 to 80 of the provisional Regulation is 
hereby confirmed. 

5. 

Situation of the Union industry 

5.1. 

Macro-economic indicators 

5.1.1.  Production, Capacity and capacity utilisation 

(115)  In  the  absence  of  any  comments  or  findings  regarding  Production,  Capacity  and 
capacity utilisation the  conclusions  in  recitals 84  to 85 of the provisional Regulation 
are hereby confirmed. 

5.1.2. 

Sales volumes and market share 

(116)  In the absence of any comments or findings regarding Sales volume and market share 
the  conclusions  in  recitals  86  to  87  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

5.1.3.  Employment and productivity 

(117)  In  the  absence  of  any  comments  or  findings  regarding  the  Employment  and 
productivity  the  conclusions  in  recitals  88  to  89  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

5.1.4.  Magnitude of dumping margin 

(118)  The dumping margins are specified above in the dumping section. It is confirmed that 
all  margins  established  are  significantly  above  the  de  minimis  level.  Given  the 
volumes and the prices of dumped imports, it is therefore confirmed that the impact of 
the actual margin of dumping cannot be considered negligible. 

5.2. 

Micro-economic indicators 

5.2.1. 

Stocks 

(119)  One  party  challenged  the  correctness  of  the  data  provided  in  recitals  93  to  95  of  the 
provisional Regulation. The party claimed that the value of stocks as a percentage of 
production  over  the  entire  period  under  consideration  was  considerably  lower  than 
what was listed in table 10 of the same Regulation. Those calculations were reviewed 
and  it  was  found  that  only  the  percentage  data  for  2009  and  IP  were  wrongly 
calculated,  and  that  in  those  periods  the  percentage  of  stocks  was  indeed  slightly 
higher  than  what  previously  indicated.  A  correct  version  of  this  calculation  is 
contained in Table 1. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

(120)  The same party alleged that if the Union industry was forced to increase its stock level 
up to six months of production, as stated in recital  94 of the provisional Regulation, 
that would represent a stock percentage of 50% over the total production, rather than 
59% as shown in table 10 of the provisional Regulation. 

(121)  In this respect it should be underlined that the analyses made in recitals 93 and 94 of 
the  provisional  Regulation  were  complementary  but  not  identical.  The  first  analysis 
showed the percentage of stocks of the sampled companies measured in square metres 
compared to the production of the sampled companies, also expressed in square metres 
(61%  for  the  IP).  The  second  analysis,  also  for  the  sampled  companies,  showed  the 
number of months of production stocked in relation to the twelve months of the year 
(50% for the IP). 

(122)  Further analysis allowed for fine-tuning the assessment of the evolution on the number 
of months of production being stocked. In this respect, in 2007 the sampled producers 
kept  around  5  months  of  production  (43%)  but  the  pressure  of  the  dumped  imports 
forced them to increase stocks to more than 7 months of production (corresponding to 
61%  of  total yearly production) during the IP. Table 1 expresses the stocks volumes 
also under the form of quantitiy of months over the yearly production.  

(123)  Table 1 

Stocks 

Stock (thousands m²) 
Index (2007=100) 
Stocks as percentage of production 
Index (2007=100) 
Number of months stocked compared 
to annual production 

Index (2007=100) 
Percentage of months stocked (base 
12 months) 

2007 
48.554  
100  
43% 
100  
5,2  

100  
43% 

2008 
50.871  
105  
49% 
113  
5,9  

2009 
39.689  
82  
56% 
130  
6,7  

IP 
41.887  
86  
61% 
142  
7,4  

113  
49% 

130  
56% 

142  
61% 

(124)  The  conclusion  that  the  trend  of  stocks  shows  an  injurious  situation  is  therefore 

confirmed.  

5.2.2. 

Sales prices 

(125)  One  interested  party,  as  already  mentioned  in  recital(20),  challenged  the  findings  in 
recitals  96  to  99  of  the  provisional  Regulation  regarding  the  Union  industry's  sales 
prices, claiming that the Commission did not include in its determination of the Union 
unit price producers in Poland and Czech Republic and were not consistent with actual 
public data.  

(126)  Regarding  this  claim,  a  simulation  was  made  including  the  sales  prices  registered  in 
Poland, which accounts for ca. 10% of total Union production. No simulation had been 
done for the Czech Republic, whose production amounts to less than 3% of the total in 
the Union. The simulation showed that, even taking into consideration Polish prices, 
the final findings do not change in any meaningful way. Finally, consistently with its 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
methodology, the Commission calculated the Union industry sales prices after making 
the  relevant  adjustments  to  obtain  the  prices  to  the  first  independent  customer,  to 
ensure comparability with Chinese sales prices. 

(127)  One interested party held that the reasoning in recital 97 of the provisional Regulation 
explaining  that  the  Union  industry  was  forced  to  sell  lower  quantities  and  a  larger 
variety was wrong as the Union industry in such case allegedly should have lost much 
more than a 2% market share. 

(128)  It should be observed that the focussing on sales of lower batches does not necessarily 
entail the loss of a larger share of the market. Firstly, the Union industry has not been 
completely  ousted  from  the  market  for  larger,  uniform  batches  of  product, 
notwithstanding the fact that the pressure of low-priced Chinese imports is particularly 
strong in that sector. Secondly, the Union industry was able to maintain its presence on 
the whole market by means of a compression of its sales prices and the production of a 
costlier  product-mix,  which  led  to falling profitability  as  mentioned in recital 100 of 
the provisional Regulation. Therefore, the fact that Union industry did not lose a larger 
portion  of  the  market  is  explained  by  the  choice  to  keep  a  presence  on  the  market 
despite price pressure from China. 

5.2.3.  Profitability, cash flow, return on investments and wages 

(129)  One party held that there are large differences in profitability between large and small 
companies. For this reason it was claimed that the average profit had to be considered 
as unrepresentative as the sample only contained data from one large company. 

(130)  Another party claimed that the large Union producers are in good financial condition. 
The  same  party  argued  that  since  there  were  no  losses  even  when  adding  the  small 
companies in the average profit margin of the Union industry as shown in recital 101 
and table 12 of the provisional Regulation, no overall injury could be demonstrated. 

(131)  It  should  be  noted  that  in  order  to  ensure  the  consistency  of  the  findings  with  the 
representativeness  of  the  sampling,  all  the  injury  indicators  (including  profit)  have 
been weighted against the share of each segment in the total Union production. On the 
other hand, the representativeness of the large company of the situation of the larger 
segment is confirmed. Therefore, the overall indicators as obtained from the analysis 
of  the  sampled  companies  are  representative  of  the  situation  of  the  whole  Union 
industry and the abovementioned claim had to be rejected. 

(132)  In relation to the claim that the large companies suffered no injury, it should be noted 
that  in  accordance  with  Article  4  (1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  the  analysis  should  be 
made in relation to the Union industry as a whole and not to certain groups or types of 
companies.  As  mentioned  already  above  in  recital  (130),  the  fact  that  no  losses  are 
made in the investigation period does not mean per se that no injury occurred. 

5.2.4.  Cost of production  

(133)  One  interested  party  challenged  the  conclusion  that  the  cost  of  production  of  Union 
industry  had  risen  by  14%  as  a  consequence  of  the  increase  in  stocks  and  change  in 
product  mix.  According  to  this  party,  this  conclusion  would  not  hold  true  as  stock 
levels as well as product mix are not part of the cost of production. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

(134)  This claim has to be rejected since high stock levels represent a considerable financial 
cost, which is included in the analysis of the cost of production. On the other hand, the 
repeated change in product mix entails additional production costs as the producer has 
to frequently revise the production process: this operation can be costly since it causes 
idle times and sub-optimal utilisation of the machineries. 

6. 

Conclusion on injury 

(135)  One  interested  party  questioned  the  conclusion  in  recital  107  of  the  provisional 
Regulation  that  the  decrease  in  consumption  had  a  negative  effect  on  the  Union 
industry.  According  to  this  party  there  could  be  no  injury  as  a  consequence  of  the 
decrease in consumption as the overall market share remained the same. 

(136)  As for the comment on the stability of Union producers' market share despite falling 
consumption, it should be noted that market share is not the only relevant indicator of 
injury. The Union producers managed to keep their share in the Union market only to 
the  detriment  of  profitability,  which  fell  during  the  period  under  consideration.  It 
cannot therefore be concluded that the stability of the Union producers' market share 
excludes the presence of injury.  

(137)  Considering the above, the conclusions on injury as set out in recitals 107 to 111 of the 

provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

E. CAUSATION 

(138)  The Commission received comments on the provisional findings concerning causation. 
Those comments were a repetition of comments already addressed in the provisional 
Regulation in recitals 128 to 132 concerning self-inflicted injury. No further evidence 
was  submitted  that  would  change  the  provisional  conclusions.  Therefore,  the 
conclusions as set out in recitals 135 and 136 of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
confirmed. 

1. 

Impact of the imports from China 

(139)  In accordance with articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation, at provisional stage it 
was  examined  whether  the  dumped  imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in 
China had caused material injury to the Union industry. 

(140)  Some parties claimed that the decline in Union industry's production and sales was a 
result of decreasing consumption. It was also held that the effects of Chinese imports 
must have been limited given that the Chinese market share only increased by 1.6 % 
out of which no more than 1% could have related to Union industry market share.  

(141)  In  this  context  it  is  recalled  that  the  investigation  revealed  a  coincidence  in  time 
between  the  increased  market  share  of  the  Chinese  imports  and  the  decrease  of  the 
Union industry's profits and an increase of stock levels. Furthermore, it is not only an 
increased market share that has put pressure on the Union industry but even more so 
the  pricing  behaviour  and  the  high  undercutting  levels  of  the  Chinese  exporting 
producers.  

(142)  As  recalled  in  recital(113),  the  investigation  revealed  significant  levels  of  price 
undercutting. It also showed that the Union industry and importers to a large extent are 

EN 

25 

   EN 

selling  to  the  same  customers  which  meant  that  the  Union  industry  is  in  direct 
competition with the dumped imports for orders.  

(143)  Overall this shows that it was the price pressure and not only the volumes of imports 
that caused the fall of the Union industry profitability figures and the deterioration of 
most injury indicators. 

2. 

Lack of competition between tiles produced in the Union and the dumped tiles 
imported from China 

(144)  Several interested parties claimed that imports of ceramic tiles from China could not 
have caused injury to the Union industry as they are not comparable. In this context it 
was  held  that  ceramic  tiles  from  China  cater  the  market  for  homogeneous  products 
while  the  Union industry  produces  to  order, in smaller batches. It was also held that 
the  Chinese  and  the  Union  industry  are  not  in  competition  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
Chinese operate in the low- to mid-end segment while the Union industry operates in 
the mid- to high-end segment. The limited loss of market share by the Union industry 
was put forward as evidence in this respect. 

(145)  While no substantive evidence has been supplied in support of the above claims, it was 
nevertheless carefully considered whether Chinese imports are indeed competing with 
the tiles produced in the Union.  

(146)  In  this  context  it  should  be  noted  that  the  Commission  made  comparisons  on  a  very 
detailed  level,  allowing  a  distinction  between  hundreds  of  different  types  of  tiles.  In 
the  present  case,  the  investigation  showed  a  significant  level  of  matching  types 
between the Union industry and the exporters. This clearly shows that Union industry 
and  the  Chinese  imports  are  competing  in  terms  of  product  types.  It  is  also  recalled 
that it has been established in the investigation that Union industry and the exporting 
producers are in direct competition as they share the same client base.  

(147)  In respect of the claim that ceramic tiles from China cater the market for homogeneous 
products while the Union industry produce to order, in smaller batches, it is recalled – 
see recital 95 of the provisional Regulation – that it was the exactly the pressure from 
the Chinese imports that forced the Union industry to move towards smaller batches of 
products with larger varieties in terms of colours and size. The Union industry still has 
a  presence  in  all  segments  of  the  market  and  unlike  what  was  claimed  above,  the 
pattern  showing  that  Union  industry  had  to  focus  on  specific  product  types  must  be 
seen as an indication that direct competition was at hand.  

(148)  In view of the above, the argument that there the Chinese imports did not cause injury 

to the Union industry as they are not competing cannot be upheld. 

3. 

Effects of other factors 

3.1. 

Impact of Imports from other third countries 

(149)  Some parties maintained the argument that the impact of the Turkish imports had to be 
considered as significant. In terms of prices one party challenged the conclusion that 
the increase of 19% of Turkish prices was substantial. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

(150)  This argument was discussed in recital 118 of the provisional Regulation and no new 
evidence was found which would invalidate the conclusion made at provisional stage. 
In this context it is confirmed that the increase of 19% of the Turkish prices must be 
considered  as  substantial.  It  is  furthermore  recalled  as  indicted  in  recital  (41)  above 
that  there  was  no  evidence  of  dumped  imports  that  caused  injury  to  Union  industry 
from this country and therefore this argument cannot be upheld. 

3.2. 

Impact of decrease in consumption 

(151)  One interested party claimed that the decrease in consumption affected mainly Spain 
and Italy where allegedly injury was most present. Conversely, the main destination of 
the Chinese exports was the northern Member States that did not show a decrease in 
consumption and where Union producers were allegedly less injured. The same party 
also held that the Spanish ceramic tiles industry has recovered in 2010 which shows 
that there is no link between Chinese exports and the production and sales figures of 
Union industry. 

(152)  One party claimed that the increase of stocks registered by the Union industry should 

be attributed to a fall in Union consumption, and not to the dumped Chinese imports. 

(153)  The  claims  that  the  Northern  European  Member  States  were  not  affected  by  the 
decrease in consumption and that imports from China would have been directed only 
towards  northern  Europe,  was  not  supported  by  any  substantiated  evidence. To  the 
contrary,  data  from  the sampled  Chinese  exporting  producers  shows  that these  sales 
are evenly spread across the Union. Furthermore, Spain and Italy collectively account 
for  28%  of  these  sales,  only  slightly  below  sales  to  Germany  (32%).  On  this  basis, 
these claims were rejected. 

(154)  With regards to the claim that the increase of stocks registered by the Union industry 
should  be  attributed  to  a  fall  in  Union  consumption,  the  Commissions  recalls  the 
reasoning contained in recital (108) of the provisional Regulation, i.e. that the pressure 
of Chinese imports was very strong especially in the sector of sales of big batches and 
that this had a clear impact on the Union producers' stocks. The growth of the stock 
ratio over the period considered cannot be explained only by the difficulty in selling 
the products, but also by the necessity to keep an extremely high variety of products 
available in the stocks. The conclusion on the injurious effect of Chinese imports on 
stocks is therefore confirmed. 

3.3. 

Impact of the Economic crisis 

(155)  Several interested parties maintained that the economic crisis was the real cause of the 
difficulties  facing  Union  industry.  This  was  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  main 
deteriorations  took  place  between  2008  and  2009  i.e.  in  the  year  that  the  crisis  hit, 
while the trend was less sharp in the following period. It as also pointed out that the 
period considered included the high and low peaks of a cycle with the high point being 
characterised  by  the  boom  in  the  constructions  section  and  the  low  point  by  the 
financial crisis and the decrease in exports due to the establishment of new production 
sites in third world countries. 

(156)  After  final  disclosure,  one  interested  party  maintained  that  the  deterioration  of  a 
number  of  injury  indicators  was  due  to  the  economic  crisis  rather  than  the  dumped 

EN 

27 

   EN 

imports. According to this party, the effect of the recession was to increase the demand 
of large bulk of low priced products. As a result, the Union industry had to focus more 
into the production for large bulk orders, a segment where the Chinese were already 
operating,  with  an  increase  in  stock  level  as  a  result.  Furthermore,  the  recession 
allegedly  caused inflation in  the Union,  comparatively  higher than in China, causing 
the  increase  in  costs  of  production  of  the  Union  producers  which  allegedly  led  the 
Union industry to sell at prices below costs of production. 

(157)  Another party claimed that the profit of the Union industry had gone up significantly 
in the last quarter of the IP and that this showed that the Union industry had recovered 
after the economic crisis. This party requested that profit for the IP should be given per 
quarter which would likely indicate a significantly higher profitability towards the end 
of the IP. 

(158)  The  fact  that  the  economic  downturn  did  have  an  effect  on  the  performance  of  the 
Union industry was already acknowledged in recital 120 of the Regulation imposing 
provisional measures. In this context it should be recalled that in order for causation to 
be established, the relevant legal standard stipulates that the dumped imports need to 
have caused material injury to the Union Industry. Dumped imports however need not 
have been the sole cause of injury. 

(159)  Furthermore  the  investigation  showed  that  the  Chinese  trend  of  increasing  exports 
could  continue  despite  the  economic  crisis.  China  was  indeed  the  only  actor  in  the 
market that was able to maintain its market share in the difficult economic situation.  

(160)  As for the structural change in the Union demand mentioned in recital (156) above, no 
evidence was brought forward in support to this claim. To the contrary, it is recalled 
that  as  explained  in  recital  (106)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  the  investigation 
revealed that the Union industry had to change its product mix by supplying a larger 
variety of products in terms of types, colour and size and had to increase its stocks in 
order to be able in a short time to very specific orders. This claim has therefore to be 
rejected. 

(161)  Concerning  the  impact  of  inflation  in  the  costs  of  production,  it  is  observed  that  the 
inflation  rate  in  the  Union  has  not  been  on  average  higher  than  in  China  during  the 
period under consideration and that it cannot therefore explain the difficulties of Union 
producers  in  selling  at  sustainable  prices.  Given  the  level  of  undercutting  it  can 
furthermore not be concluded that a downward pressure on Chinese import prices has 
been caused  by the Union industry. On this basis, the claim brought forward by this 
party had to be rejected. 

(162)  As concerns the situation of the Union industry on the other hand, it is recalled that the 
provisional Regulation (recital 126) showed that the aggressive pricing behaviour by 
the Chinese exporters  affected the Union industry  profitability over the period  under 
consideration  already  before  the  world  economic  downturn.  This  shows  that  even  in 
the  absence  of  the  crisis,  the  pressure  of  low-priced  imports  from  China  was  on  its 
own sufficient to be able to cause material injury to the Union industry.  

(163)  This  fact,  if  considered  together with dumped prices, strengthens the conclusion that 
the causal link between Chinese exports and Union industry's injury is not broken by 
the economic downturn. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

(164)  Concerning  the  request  that  profit  for  the  IP  be  given  per  quarter,  this  was  not 
considered  to  be  relevant  in  the  current  investigation  because  even  if  such  a  more 
pronounced improvement of the profit had occurred, it would have to be compared to 
the target profit of 3.9%. 

3.4. 

Impact of the Union industry's failure to restructure 

(165)  One interested party claimed that injury to the Union producers should be attributed to 
their failure to restructure as the market contraction of 29% had been met only with a 
7% capacity cut and a 16% cut in employment. 

(166)  In  this  sector,  the  dismissal  of  production  capacity  is  a  difficult  process,  as  the 
recuperation of the capacity in case of an eventual recovery of the market is extremely 
costly for the producers. The cut in employment seen in the period concerned was in 
the same order of magnitude as the decrease of the market. The trend for employment 
does not have to perfectly mirror the trend of the output, since not all jobs are directly 
linked to actual production. In conclusion, the fact that the dismissal of capacity and 
working force in the industry did not exactly match the contraction of the market does 
not point to a failure to restructure. Contrary to the claims and taking into account the 
structure  of  the  industry,  a  7%  capacity  cut  and  a  16%  cut  in  employment  must 
therefore be considered significant.  

3.5. 

Effect of Union industry's performance on export markets 

(167)  One  interested  party  claimed  that  it  was  the  high  prices  and  not  the  effect  of  the 
Chinese exports that had caused the decline in the union industry export sales. 

(168)  In respect of this claim it is recalled that the Union industry export performance has 
recovered after the economic crisis. The claim that the export performance would have 
had a significantly detrimental effect on the results of Union industry can therefore not 
be accepted. 

4. 

Conclusion on causation 

(169)  None of the arguments submitted by the interested parties demonstrates that the impact 
of  factors  other  than  dumped  imports  from  China  is  such  as  to  break  the  causal  link 
between the dumped imports and the injury found. The conclusions on causation in the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

F. UNION INTEREST 

(170)  In  view  of  parties'  comments  the  Commission  conducted  further  analysis  of  all 
arguments  pertaining  to  the  Union  interest.  All  issues  have  been  examined  and  the 
conclusions of the provisional Regulation confirmed. 

1. 

Interest of Union industry 

(171)  In  the  absence  of  comments  regarding  the  interest  of  the  Union  industry,  the 
conclusions in recitals 137 to 141 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

2. 

Interest of importers 

(172)  One party claimed that the imposition of measures threatened the economic existence 
of  importers  as  they  would  be  able  to  only  partially  pass  over  the  extra  costs  of  the 
duties to their customers. 

(173)  Following  final  disclosure  two  parties  opposed  the  conclusion  that  importers  can 
easily switch from Chinese supplies to other sources of supply, in particular because 
qualities and prices were not comparable. 

(174)  Regarding this claim, it is recalled that a large part of imports is not affected by duties 
as  it  is  of  non-Chinese  origin.  The  characteristics  of  the  product,  being  produced  all 
over the world in comparable qualities suggests that these products are interchangeble 
and that therefore a number of alternative sources are available, despite the allegations 
made. Even for importers that rely on Chinese imports, which the investigation found 
to  be  dumped  and  sold  at  prices  which  significantly  undercut  those  of  the  products 
originating  in  the  Union,  the  investigation  found  that  importers  can  apply  to  their 
selling  prices  mark-ups  in  excess  of  30%. This,  together  with  the  fact  that  importers 
have been found to have realised profits of around 5% and their possibility to pass on 
at least part of potential cost increases to their customers, suggests that they are in a 
position to cope with the impact of measures.  

(175)  Furthermore  and  as  concluded  in  recital  144  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the 
imposition  of  measures  would  not  hamper  Union  importers  from  increasing  their 
import shares of products from the other non-dumped sources available to them both 
in the Union and in other third countries.  

(176)  One importer alleged that for a certain product type, Chinese prices would currently be 
higher that those of the Union industry and that measures would therefore not allow to 
export this specific type in the future. 

(177)  This  claim  was  not  supported  by  any  evidence.  Furthermore,  according  to  the 
information  available,  this  product  type  only  rpresented  a  minor  proportion  of  the 
market and would not affect significantly the  supply  situation  in  the  Eu  market.  The 
claim was therefore rejected. 

3. 

Interest of users 

(178)  Some  interested  parties  claimed  that  the  impact  on  users  would  be  significant.  In 
particular  it  was  held  that  even  the  minimum  price  increase  of  32.3%  will  prevent 
customers' quality purchases. It was also held that while it may be true that the impact 
on  large  diversified  Do-It-Yourself  shops  might  be  limited,  small  specialist  shops 
would be significantly affected. 

(179)  As  for  the  impact  on  final  users,  the  Commission  confirms  what  provisionally 
concluded  in  the  Commission  regulation  imposing  provisional  duties,  under  recitals 
152 and 153, i.e. that the price effect will be limited.  

(180)  The  construction  sector,  one  of  the  larger  customers  of  ceramic  tiles'  producers, 
decided  not  to  cooperate  in  the  investigation.  After  the  imposition  of  provisional 
measures, the European Construction Industry Federation - FIEC was again invited to 

EN 

30 

   EN 

provide statistics showing to what extent, if any, it would be affected by the imposition 
of measures. FIEC confirmed that, although there is no information directly available, 
the  cost  impact  of  the  measures  on  their  overall  business  is  very  low.  They  also 
explained  that  the  low  interest  by  their  members  should  be  seen  as  supporting  the 
Commission proposal.  

(181)  Finally,  regarding  small  specialist  shops,  the  Commission  could  not  obtain  any 
conclusive  data  that  would  confirm  the  magnitude  and  the  extent  of  impact  of  anti-
dumping measure. Parallel to what happens to importers, it should be remembered that 
ceramic  tiles  are  produced  in  the  Union  and  in  many  non-dumping  third  countries; 
therefore a serious risk of shortage of supply for retail shops can be excluded. 

4. 

Interest of final consumers 

(182)  Efforts  were  directed  towards  obtaining  a  more  detailed  impact  assessment  from 

consumers. The investigation showed that the impact is likely to be limited.  

(183)  First  of  all,  the  absolute  value  of  the  measures  is  calculated  on  the  import  price, 
therefore  on  a  basis  which  is  much  lower  than  the  final  retail  price  of  the  product 
concerned. This value can be diluted in the various steps (importers, wholesalers and 
retailers) before reaching the final customer. And even if the importers and re-sellers 
would transfer the whole burden of the duty to the customers, it is recalled that there is 
a  large  offer  of  products  in  the  market  not  subject  to  measures,  produced  both  by 
Union producers and third countries producers. 

(184)  The  Commission  calculated  the  impact  of  the  anti-dumping  duties  on  prices  to 
consumers  by  assessing  the  amount  of  duties  to  be  paid,  according  to  the  actual 
imports  from  China,  and  allocating  this  amount  directly  to  the  consumers,  assuming 
that importers, wholesalers and retailers would pass all the additional cost on to final 
consumers. The cost impact so calculated is significantly lower than € 0.5 per m². It is 
recalled  that  the  provisonal  Regulation  concluded  that  the  average  yearly  average 
consumer  consumption  is  around  2.2  m²  per  person  in  the  Union.  Given  the  low 
impact  of  the  duty  per  square  metre,  the  cost  increase  will  therefore  probably  be 
limited  even  if  the  consumer  was  to  buy  a  considerable  quantity  of  the  product 
concerned for construction or renovation works.  

5. 

Conclusion on Union interest 

(185)  The effects of the imposition of measures can be expected to assist the Union industry, 
with consequent beneficial effects on the competitive conditions on the Union market 
and the reduction of the threat of closures and reductions in employment.  

(186)  Furthermore, the imposition of the measures can be expected to have a limited impact 
on the users/importers, which would be able to source from a wide range of suppliers 
in the Union market and in other third countries. 

(187)  In  the  light  of  the  foregoing,  it  can  not  be  clearly  concluded  that  the  imposition  of 

measures would be against the Union interest.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

G. DEFINITIVE MEASURES 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

1.1. 

Disclosure 

(188)  Two  interested  parties  held  that  the  Commission  should  have  disclosed  the 
underselling margin in the provisional Regulation and one of them claimed that failure 
to disclose this data meant that interested parties were not able to assess whether the 
lesser duty rule had been correctly applied.  

(189)  In response to the above, the provisional margins were as follows: 

Company 

Group Wonderful 
Group Xinruncheng 
Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd. 
Heyuan Becarry Ceramic Co. Ltd. 
All other co-operating producers 
Residual 

1.2. 

Injury margin 

Injury margin 
52,6% 
95,8% 
72,1% 
73,9% 
66,0% 
95,8% 

(190)  One  party  claimed  that  the  Commission  used  an  inconsistent  approach  for  the 
determination  of  injury  and  should  have  based  its  conclusions  on  weighted  average 
data of the whole industry. 

(191)  In respect to this claim, it is noted that the findings on the injury elimination level are 
based on verified company specific data which was considered the most reliable basis 
in  order  to  take  into  account  all  pertinent  facts  for  comparison  purposes.  This  claim 
had therefore to be rejected. 

(192)  In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting injury, causation 
and  Union  interest,  measures  should  be  imposed  in  order  to  prevent  further  injury 
being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports from China. 

(193)  For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  level  of  these  duties,  account  was  taken  of  the 
dumping  margins  found  and  the  amount  of  duty  necessary  to  eliminate  the  injury 
sustained by the Union industry. 

(194)  It was therefore found appropriate to calculate the underselling margin on the basis of 
the  prices  identified  from  the  data  submitted  by  Union  producers  and  Chinese 
exporters. 

(195)  When calculating the amount of the anti-dumping duty necessary to remove the effects 
of  the  injurious  dumping,  it  was  considered  that  the  duty  should  be  so  calculated  to 
allow  the  Union  industry  to  cover  its  costs  of  production  and  achieve  a  reasonable 
profit.  It  was  considered  that  this  reasonable  profit,  before  tax,  shall  be  what  was 
achieved by an industry of this type under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the 
absence of dumped imports, on sales of the like product in the Union. This profit has 
been  assessed  by  reference  to  the  profitability  of  3.9%  that  the  Union  industry 
achieved in 2007 as detailed in table 12 in the provisional Regulation. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

(196)  The injury margins established are as follows: 

Company 

Group Wonderful 
Group Xinruncheng 
Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd. 
Heyuan Becarry Ceramic Co. Ltd. 
All other co-operating producers 

Residual 

Injury margin 
58,5% 
82,3% 
66,6% 
58,6% 
65,0% 

82,3% 

(197)  It is noted that the injury margin for "all other co-operating producers" was determined 
without using data from the Kito Group, since the Kito Group did not form part of the 
sample, and in order to be coherent with the way the dumping margin for "all other co-
operating  producers"  is  calculated.  (See  Article  9(6)  first  sentence  of  the  basic 
Regulation). For the Kito Group, in view of the application of Article 18 of the basic 
Regulation as mentioned in recital (54) above, the residual injury margin will apply. 

(198)  It is also noted that the underselling margins are higher than the margins of dumping 
established above in recitals (88)to (93) (93)and therefore the dumping margin should 
serve as the basis to establish the level of the duty in accordance with the lesser-duty 
rule. 

(199)  In  order  to  ensure  equal  treatment  between  any  new  exporting  producers  and  the 
cooperating  companies  not  included  in  the  sample,  mentioned  in  Annex  I  of  this 
Regulation, provision should be made for the weighted average duty imposed on the 
latter  companies  to  be  applied  to  any  new  producers  which  would  otherwise  not  be 
entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, as Article 11(4) 
does not apply where sampling has been used. 

2. 

Custom declaration 

(200)  Statistics  of  the  product  concerned  are  frequently  expressed  in  square  meters. 
However, there is no such supplementary unit for the product concerned specified in 
the Combined Nomenclature laid down in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 
2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common 
Customs Tariff6. It is therefore necessary to provide that not only the weight in kg or 
tonnes but also the number of square meters of the product concerned for imports is 
entered in the declaration for release for free circulation. 

3. 

Definitive collection of provisional duty 

(201)  In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the  injury  caused  to  the  Union  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the  amounts 
secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by  the  provisional 
Regulation be definitively collected. 

(202)  Where  the  definitive  duties  are  higher  than  the  provisional  duties,  only  the  amounts 
secured at the level of the provisional duties should be definitively collected, while the 

6 

OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
amounts  secured  in  excess  of  the  definitive  rate  of  anti-dumping  duties  should  be 
released. 

4. 

Form of measures 

(203)  One interested party suggested that measures take the form of minimum import price 
(MIP) instead of ad-valorem duties. However, an MIP is not suitable for the product 
concerned  as  it  exists  in  a  multitude  of  product  types,  for  which  prices  vary 
significantly,  thus  posing  a  substantial  risk  of  cross-compensation.  In  addition,  it  is 
expected that the product types will further evolve in design and finishing and the MIP 
would no longer provide the appropriate basis for the level of the duty. Therefore, the 
request to impose measures under the form of MIP is rejected. 

(204)  Another  party  requested  that  measures  should  take  the  form  of  import  quotas. 
However,  import  quotas  are  neither  in  line  with  the  basic  Regulation  nor  with  the 
internationally agreed rules. Therefore the request had to be rejected. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Article 1 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of glazed and unglazed 
ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles; glazed and unglazed ceramic mosaic 
cubes  and  the  like,  whether  or  not  on  a  backing,  currently  falling  within  CN  codes 
6907 10 00, 6907 90 20, 6907 90 80, 6908 10 00, 6908 90 11, 6908 90 20, 6908 90 
31,  6908  90  51,  6908  90  91,  6908  90  93  and  6908  90  99,  and  originating  in  the 
People’s Republic of China. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-Union-
frontier  price,  before  duty,  of  the  products  described  in  paragraph  1  and 
manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows: 

Company 

 Dongguan City Wonderful Ceramics 
Industrial Park Co., Ltd.; Guangdong Jiamei 
Ceramics Co., Ltd.; Qingyuan Gani 
Ceramics Co. Ltd.; Foshan Gani Ceramics 
Co. Ltd. 
 Guangdong Xinruncheng Ceramics Co. Ltd. 
Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co Ltd 

Companies listed in Annex I 
All other companies 

Duty 

26,3% 

29,3% 
36,5% 

30,6% 
69,7% 

TARIC Additional Code 
B011 

B009 
B010 

B999 

The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in 
paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the 
Member  States  of  a  valid  commercial  invoice,  which  shall  conform  to  the 
requirements  set  out  in  the  Annex  II.  If  no  such  invoice  is  presented,  the  duty 
applicable to all other companies shall apply.  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
4. 

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

Article 2 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EU)  No  258/2011  imposing  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of 
ceramic tiles currently falling within CN codes 6907 10 00, 6907 90 20, 6907 90 80, 6908 10 
00, 6908 90 11, 6908 90 20, 6908 90 31, 6908 90 51, 6908 90 91, 6908 90 93 and 6908 90 99 
and originating in the People's Republic of China shall be definitively collected. The amounts 
secured in excess of the amount of the definitive anti-dumping duties shall be released.  

Article 3 

Where any producer from the People's Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the 
Commission  that  it  did  not  export  the  goods  described  in  Article  1(1)  originating  in  the 
People's  Republic  of  China  during  the  period  of  investigation  (1  April  2009  to  31  March 
2010), that it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this 
Regulation and that it has either actually exported the goods concerned or has entered into an 
irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community after the 
end of the period of investigation, the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal by the 
Commission,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  amend  Article  1(2)  in  order  to 
attribute to that producer the duty applicable to cooperating producers not in the sample, i.e. 
30.6%. 

Where  a  declaration  for  release  for  free  circulation  is  presented  in  respect  of  the  products 
mentioned  under  Article  1,  the  number  of  square  meters  of  the  products  imported  shall  be 
entered in the relevant field of that declaration.  

Article 4 

Article 5 

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

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 
[…] 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX I 

Chinese cooperating producers not sampled or not granted individual treatment : 

Name 

TARIC additional code 

Dongguan He Mei Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Dongpeng Ceramic (Qingyuan) Co. Ltd  

Eagle Brand Ceramics Industrial (Heyuan) Co. Ltd  

Enping City Huachang Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Enping Huiying Ceramics Industry Co. Ltd  

Enping Yungo Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Foshan Aoling Jinggong Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Foshan Bailifeng Building Materials Co. Ltd  

Foshan Bragi Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Foshan City Fangyuan Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Foshan Gaoming Shuncheng Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Foshan Gaoming Yaju Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Foshan Guanzhu Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Foshan Huashengchang Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Foshan Jiajun Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Foshan Mingzhao Technology Development Co. Ltd  

Foshan Nanhai Jingye Ceramics Co. Ltd  

B132 

B133 

B134 

B135 

B136 

B137 

B138 

B139 

B140 

B141 

B142 

B143 

B144 

B145 

B146 

B147 

B148 

Foshan Nanhai Shengdige Decoration Material Co. Ltd  

B149 

Foshan Nanhai Xiaotang Jinzun Border Factory Co. Ltd  

B150 

Foshan Nanhai Yonghong Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Foshan Oceanland Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Foshan Oceano Ceramics Co. Ltd  

B151 

B152 

B153 

Foshan Sanshui Hongyuan Ceramics Enterprise Co. Ltd 

B154 

EN 

36 

   EN 

Foshan Sanshui Huiwanjia Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Foshan  Sanshui  New  Pearl  Construction  Ceramics 
Industrial Co. Ltd  

Foshan Shiwan Eagle Brand Ceramic Ltd  

Foshan Shiwan Yulong Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Foshan Summit Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Foshan Tidiy Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Foshan VIGORBOOM Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Foshan Xingtai Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Foshan Zhuyangyang Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Fujian Fuzhou Zhongxin Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Fujian Jinjiang Lianxing Building Material Co. Ltd  

Fujian Minqing Jiali Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Fujian Minqing Ruimei Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Fujian Minqing Shuangxing Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Gaoyao Yushan Ceramics Industry Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Bode Fine Building Materials Co. Ltd  

B155 

B156 

B157 

B158 

B159 

B160 

B161 

B162 

B163 

B164 

B165 

B166 

B167 

B168 

B169 

B170 

Guangdong Foshan Redpearl Building Material Co. Ltd  

B171 

Guangdong Gold Medal Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Grifine Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Homeway Ceramics Industry Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Huiya Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Juimsi Ceramics Co. Ltd  

B172 

B173 

B174 

B175 

B176 

Guangdong Kaiping Tilee’s Building Materials Co. Ltd  

B177 

Guangdong Kingdom Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Monalisa Ceramics Co. Ltd  

B178 

B179 

Guangdong  New  Zhong  Yuan  Ceramics  Co.  Ltd  Shunde  B180 

EN 

37 

   EN 

Yuezhong Branch  

Guangdong Ouya Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Overland Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Qianghui (QHTC) Ceramics Co. Ltd 

Guangdong Sihui Kedi Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Summit Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Tianbi Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Winto Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Guangdong Xinghui Ceramics Group Co. Ltd  

Guangning County Oudian Art Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Guangzhou Cowin Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Hangzhou Nabel Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Hangzhou Nabel Group Co. Ltd  

Hangzhou Venice Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Heyuan Becarry Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Heyuan Wanfeng Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Hitom Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Huiyang Kingtile Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Jiangxi Ouya Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Jingdezhen Tidiy Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Kim Hin Ceramics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd  

Lixian Xinpeng Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Louis Valentino (Inner Mongolia) Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Louvrenike (Foshan) Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Nabel Ceramics (Jiujiang City) Co. Ltd  

Ordos Xinghui Ceramics Co. Ltd  

B181 

B182 

B183 

B184 

B185 

B186 

B187 

B188 

B189 

B190 

B191 

B192 

B193 

B194 

B195 

B196 

B197 

B198 

B199 

B200 

B201 

B202 

B203 

B204 

B205 

EN 

38 

   EN 

Qingdao Diya Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Qingyuan Guanxingwang Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Qingyuan Oudian Art Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Qingyuan Ouya Ceramics Co. Ltd  

RAK (Gaoyao) Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Shandong ASA Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Shandong Dongpeng Ceramic Co. Ltd  

Shandong Jialiya Ceramic Co. Ltd 

Shanghai Cimic Tile Co. Ltd  

Sinyih Ceramic (China) Co. Ltd  

Sinyih Ceramic (Penglai) Co. Ltd  

Southern  Building  Materials  and  Sanitary  Co.  Ltd  of 
Qingyuan  

Tangshan Huida Ceramic Group Co. Ltd  

Tangshan Huida Ceramic Group Huiquin Co. Ltd  

Tegaote Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Tianjin (TEDA) Honghui Industry & Trade Co. Ltd  

Topbro Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Xingning Christ Craftworks Co. Ltd  

Zhao Qing City Shenghui Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Zhaoqing Jin Ouya Ceramics Company Limited 

Zhaoqing Zhongheng Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Zibo Hualiansheng Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Zibo Huaruinuo Ceramics Co. Ltd  

Shandong Tongyi Ceramics Co. Ltd 

B206 

B207 

B208 

B209 

B210 

B211 

B212 

B213 

B214 

B215 

B216 

B217 

B218 

B219 

B220 

B221 

B222 

B223 

B224 

B225 

B226 

B227 

B228 

B229 

EN 

39 

   EN 

ANNEX II 

A  declaration  signed  by  an  official  of  the  entity  issuing  the  commercial  invoice,  in  the  following 
format, must appear on the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3): 

1. The name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice. 

2. The following declaration: 

"I,  the  undersigned,  certify  that  the  (volume)  of  ceramic  tiles  sold  for  export  to  the  European  Union 
covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and registered seat) (TARIC additional 
code)  in  (country  concerned).  I  declare  that  the  information  provided in  this  invoice  is  complete  and 
correct. 

Date and signature" 

EN 

40 

   EN