Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aluminium radiators originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2012-10-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, thermal equipment

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 8.10.2012  
COM(2012) 580 final 

2012/0281 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION  

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of aluminium radiators 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  anti-dumping  proceeding  concerning 
imports of aluminium radiators 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 were imposed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 402/2012 (OJ L 124, 
11.5.2012, p. 17.). 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND 
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

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. 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
The  attached  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  is  based  on  the  definitive  findings  on 
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest. It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt 
the attached proposal for a Regulation which should be published no later than 10 November 
2012. 

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. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
2012/0281 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION  

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of aluminium radiators 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  Union1  (‘the  basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

PROCEDURE 

1.1. 

Provisional measures 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  402/20122  (‘the  provisional  Regulation’), 
imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  aluminium  radiators 
originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’). 

The proceeding was initiated on 12 August 20113, following a complaint lodged by the 
International  Association  of  Aluminium  Radiator  Manufacturers  Limited  Liability 
Consortium  (AIRAL  S.c.r.l.  -  'the  complainant')  on  behalf  of  producers  representing 
more than 25% of total Union production of aluminium radiators.  

As set out in recital (14) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping 
and  injury  covered  the  period  from  1  July  2010  to  30  June  2011  (‘the  investigation 
period’  or  ‘IP’).  The  examination  of  trends  relevant  for  the  assessment  of  injury 
covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP (‘the period considered’). 

1.2. 

Subsequent procedure 

(4) 

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on  the  basis of 
which  it  was  decided  to  impose  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  ('provisional 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.  
OJ L 124, 11.5.2012, p. 17. 
OJ C 236, 12.8.2011, p. 18. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

2. 

(9) 

disclosure'),  several  interested  parties  made  written  submissions  making  known  their 
views  on  the  provisional  findings.  The  parties  who  so  requested  were  granted  an 
opportunity to be heard.  

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its  definitive  findings.  The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested 
parties  were  considered  and,  where  appropriate,  the  provisional  findings  were 
modified accordingly. 

As  already  mentioned  in  recital  (12)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  one  group  of 
related exporting producers claimed individual examination in accordance with Article 
17(3) of the basic Regulation. The examination of those claims at the provisional stage 
was too burdensome to be carried out and was deferred to the definitive stage. It was 
thus decided to grant an individual examination to the group claiming it, i.e. the Sira 
Group.  In  respect  of  its  operations  in  the  PRC,  the  Sira  Group  is  composed  of  Sira 
(Tianjin)  Aluminium  Products  Co.  Ltd.  and  Sira  Group  (Tianjin)  Heating  Radiators 
Co. Ltd. 

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 aluminium radiators originating in the  People's Republic of China and 
the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty ('final 
disclosure').  All  parties  were  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  make 
comments on this final disclosure.  

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

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

As  set  out  in  recital  (15)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  product  concerned  is 
aluminium  radiators  and  elements  or  sections  of  which  such  radiator  is  composed, 
whether  or  not  such  elements  are  assembled  in  blocks,  excluding  radiators  and 
elements  and  sections  thereof  of  the  electrical  type  (‘the  product  concerned’).  The 
product concerned currently falls within CN codes, ex 7615 10 10, ex 7615 10 90, ex 
7616 99 10 and ex 7616 99 90. 

(10)  After  publication  of  provisional  measures,  one  party  claimed  that  steel  radiators  are 
interchangeable  with  the  product  concerned  and  the  like  product  and  asked  the 
Commission  to  analyse  and  include  the  steel  radiator  market  trend  to  compare  it  in 
particular with the market of aluminium radiators. 

(11)  Based  on  information  available,  it  appears  that  aluminium  radiators  have  different 
technical characteristics, especially as concerning the basic raw material (steel in one 
case  and  aluminium  on  the  other),  the  weight,  the  thermal  inertia  and  the  heat 
conductibility.  Furthermore,  the  information  collected  did  not  point  to  direct 
competition  and  interchangeability  between  the  two  products.  Finally,  the  party  did 
not provide any evidence to support its allegations. Based on the above, the claim was 
rejected. 

(12) 

In  the  absence  of  other  comments  regarding  the  product  concerned  and  the  like 
product, recitals (15) and (23) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
3. 

DUMPING 

3.1. 

Market Economy Treatment and Individual Treatment 

3.1.1.  Preliminary Remark 

(13)  As  already  mentioned  in  recital  (6)  above,  it  was  decided  to  grant  an  individual 
examination to the Sira Group. In respect of its operations in the PRC, the Sira Group 
is composed of Sira (Tianjin) Aluminium Products Co. Ltd. and Sira Group (Tianjin) 
Heating  Radiators  Co.  Ltd.  The  Sira  Group  also  claimed  market  economy  treatment 
('MET') or individual treatment ('IT'). 

3.1.2.  Market Economy Treatment (MET) 

(14) 

It is recalled that, as mentioned in recitals (30) to (31) of the provisional Regulation, 
none of the sampled parties had claimed MET.  

(15)  As  mentioned  above  in  recital  (13),  the  Sira  Group,  which  was  granted  individual 
examination after the imposition of provisional measures, claimed MET and submitted 
MET  claim  forms  for  the  two  companies  involved  in  the  production  and 
commercialisation of the product concerned. 

(16)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  for  imports 
originating in the PRC shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the 
said  Article  for  those  producers  which  were  found  to  meet  the  criteria  laid  down  in 
Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Briefly  and  for  ease  of  reference  only,  these 
criteria are set out in summarised form below:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

business decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant 
State interference, and costs reflect market values,  

firms have one clear set of independently audited accounting records,  

there are no distortions carried over from the non-market economy system,  

bankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty, and  

exchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates.  

(17)  The  information  provided  by  the  two  companies  belonging  to  the  Sira  Group  in  the 
MET  claim  forms  was  duly  analysed  and  further  information  was  requested  and 
obtained.  In  view  of  the  findings  it  was  not  considered  necessary  to  conduct  a 
verification visit at the premises of the companies. 

(18)  The  MET  investigation  demonstrated  that  the  Sira  Group  failed  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  criterion  1  because  of  State  interference  in  decisions  concerning  the 
main raw material, aluminium. The cost of aluminium represents ca. 70% of the cost 
of  production  of  the  product  concerned.  The  investigation  demonstrated  that  both 
producers  in  the  Sira  Group  acquired  the  aluminium  used  for  the  production  of  the 
product concerned on the Chinese domestic market. Prices are based on the quotation 
of  aluminium  in  the  State-controlled  Shanghai  Non-ferrous  Metal  Exchange  market 
('the  Exchange'  or  'SHFE').  The  SHFE  is  a  closed  exchange  for  Chinese-registered 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
companies and Chinese citizens and it is controlled by the State Securities Regulatory 
Commission.  Several  rules  governing  the  functioning  of  the  Exchange  contribute  to 
low volatility and depressed prices at the SHFE: daily price fluctuations are limited to 
4% above or below the settlement price of the previous trading day, trading happens at 
a low frequency (until the 15th day of each month), futures contracts are limited to a 
duration  of  up  to  12  months,  and  transaction  fees  are  charged  by  both  the  Exchange 
and brokers. 

(19)  Moreover, as concerns SHFE transactions, physical  deliveries can  only  take place in 
an  approved  warehouse  within  the  PRC,  unlike  international  exchanges,  where 
delivery can take place worldwide. Moreover, as the SHFE is a platform for physical 
exchanges  only  (no  derivatives  are  sold),  this  completely  insulates  the  Chinese 
aluminium  market.  As  a  consequence,  arbitrage  with  the  worldwide  benchmark,  the 
London Metals Exchange ('LME') or other markets is practically not possible and the 
exchange  works  in  isolation  from  other  world  markets.  Therefore,  an  equalization 
among  these  markets  cannot  take  place.  Aluminium  price  quotation  at  the  LME  was 
on a monthly average basis 14% higher than at the SHFE during the IP.  

(20)  The State also interferes with the price setting mechanisms in the SHFE as it is both a 
seller and a purchaser, via the State Reserve Bureau and other State Bodies, of primary 
aluminium.  In  addition,  the  State  sets  daily  price  limits  via  the  rules  of  the  SHFE 
which  have  been  approved  by  the  State  Regulator,  the  China  Securities  Regulatory 
Commission ('the CSRC').  

(21) 

In  addition,  the  investigation  demonstrated  that  primary  aluminium  for  export  is 
subject to a 17% VAT and is not refundable on export whereas VAT for domestically 
sold  aluminium  and  on  finished  goods  is  refundable  at  13%.  Moreover,  primary 
aluminium for export is subject to a 17% export tax. As a result, the vast majority of 
primary  aluminium  production  is  sold  on  the  Chinese  market  causing  a  price 
depression of the domestic primary aluminium price and an important cost advantage 
for producers of aluminium radiators in the PRC. The Chinese State further interfered 
in the market during the IP as it eliminated the 5% import duty on metals during the 
financial crisis.  

(22)  A further distortion by the Chinese State is in the form of interventions in the market 
by  the  State  Reserves  Bureau  ('SRB')  which  is  part  of  the  National  Development 
Reform Commission ('NDRC'). At the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 the SRB 
started  buying  up  stocks  of  primary  aluminium  from  smelters.  This  was  a  stimulus 
package aimed at limiting the effects of the global financial and economic crisis which 
cut  demand.  Those  State-backed  purchases  absorbed  most  of  the  stocks  in  the 
domestic  market  in  March  and  April  2009,  driving  up  prices  during  the  first  half  of 
2009. The SRB sold primary aluminium back onto the market such as at the start of 
November  2010  when  the  SRB  sold  96  000  tonnes  by  auction  as  reported  by 
Bloomberg4.  The  Xinhua  News  Agency  reported  the  stockpiling  measures  in 
December  2008,  explaining  that  it  was  planned  to  accumulate  300  000  tonnes  of 
aluminium  at  prices  which  were  10%  higher  than  the  market  price  in  a  measure 
designed to prop up prices5. The SRB stockpiling plan involved buying from several 
Chinese  smelters  although  around  half  was  to  be  bought  from  the  Aluminium 

4 
5 

www.bloomberg.com 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/26/content_10564812.htm 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Corporation of China Ltd. Furthermore, the Minister in charge of the NDRC explained 
that  other  parts  of  the  stimulus  package  included  relaxed  export  controls,  electricity 
subsidies, reduced electricity prices and raising loan ceilings. The package is reported 
to have had an immediate effect on prices. The above demonstrates that the Chinese 
State  has  a  primary  role  in  the  setting  of  prices  of  primary  aluminium  and  that  it 
interferes in the market. 

(23)  That the significant State interference, as described above, is clearly targeted is, inter 
alia, corroborated by the 12th 5 Year Development Plan for Aluminium (2011-15) in 
which the Government of China ('GOC') explicitly states its intention of "adjusting tax 
and export tax rebates and other economic levers, and strictly control the total amount 
of expansion and exports of primary products". This plan continues the policy which 
existed  in  the  previous  Aluminium  Plan.  Furthermore  these  plans  have  been 
implemented  over  many  years  and,  as  demonstrated  above,  during  the  IP  several 
implementing measures were in operation. 

(24)  Thus, the multiple State-induced distortions in the Chinese primary aluminium prices 
affect  the  raw  material  prices.  In  addition,  the  producers  enjoy  an  advantage  from 
these distortions, in the sense that they normally make their purchases in the Chinese 
market  from  local  suppliers  using  Chinese  spot  markets  prices  (or  SHFE)  as  a 
benchmark. During the IP, these prices were around 15% lower than the world market 
prices.  In  theory,  Chinese  companies  can  also  buy  certain  quantities  at  LME  prices 
when prices in the Chinese market are higher as a result of State intervention – whilst 
the opposite is impossible for non-Chinese operators.  

(25)  An  examination  of  the  questionnaire  responses  of  both  Sira  (Tianjin)  Aluminium 
Products  Co.  Ltd.  and  Sira  Group  (Tianjin)  Heating  Radiators  Co.  Ltd.  showed  that 
they purchased primary aluminium products at prices linked to the SHFE price in the 
IP and that their purchase prices had followed the SHFE index over a longer period.  

(26) 

In  addition,  the  investigation  showed  that  one  of  the  two  companies  concerned 
benefited  from  the  'two  free  three  half'  Business  Income  Tax  rebate.  This  rebate 
system of the Chinese State means that once a company starts to realise a profit it pays 
no Business Income Tax for two years and then only pays half for the next three years. 
Such distortions are recorded as negative costs in the profit and loss account thereby 
increasing profitability. 

(27)  Under  such  circumstances,  neither  of  the  companies  has  been  in  a  position  to  prove 
that their business decisions regarding acquisition of raw materials are not subject to 
significant State interference and that costs of major inputs substantially reflect market 
values. Therefore, they could not demonstrate that they fulfil criterion 1.  

(28) 

(29) 

In  view  of  the  above  findings  on  criterion  1,  it  was  considered,  after  consultation  of 
the Advisory Committee, that MET should be rejected for the Sira Group.  

In  view  of  the  above,  the  other  MET  criteria  set  out  in  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic 
Regulation were not further analysed.  

(30)  The Commission officially disclosed the results of the MET findings to the group of 
related companies concerned in the PRC and to the complainant. They were also given 
an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing if there 
were particular reasons to be heard.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(31)  Following  the  MET  disclosure,  the  Sira  Group  commented  on  the  proposed  MET 
findings.  However,  since  the  Sira  Group  labelled  its  comments  as  limited  by  nature, 
the Commission dealt with the issues raised on a bilateral basis by means of a specific 
disclosure  document.  The  comments  did  not  lead  to  changes  in  the  findings 
concerning criterion 1. 

(32)  Further to the above and in the absence of any comments, recitals (30) to (31) of the 

provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.1.3. 

Individual Treatment (IT) 

(33)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a  country-wide  duty,  if  any,  is 
established  for  countries  falling  under  that  Article,  except  in  those  cases  where 
companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of 
the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria were set out 
in recital (32) of the provisional Regulation. 

(34)  Both related exporting producers of the Sira Group claimed IT in case MET would not 
be granted. These claims were examined. The investigation showed that they fulfilled 
all the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.  

(35)  The Sira Group was therefore granted IT. 

(36)  On  28  July  2011,  the  Dispute  Settlement  Body  of  the  WTO  (‘DSB’)  adopted  an 
Appellate Body report and a Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body report on 
the  case  ‘European  Communities  –  Definitive  Anti-Dumping  Measures  on  Certain 
Iron or Steel Fasteners from China’6 (‘reports’). 

(37) 

In  the  reports,  it  was  found,  inter  alia,  that  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  was 
inconsistent  with  Articles  6.10,  9.2  and  18.4  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping  Agreement 
and  Article  XVI:4  of  the  WTO  Agreement.  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
provides that individual exporting producers in non-market economy countries which 
do  not  receive  market  economy  treatment  pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  will  be  subject  to  a  countrywide  duty  rate  unless  such  exporters  can 
demonstrate that they meet the conditions for individual treatment laid out in Article 
9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  (‘the  DSB  finding  on  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation’). 

(38)  Any  exporting  producer  in  the  PRC  which  considers  that  this  Regulation  should  be 
reviewed in the light of the legal interpretations regarding Article 9(5) contained in the 
reports is invited to request a review on the basis of Article 2 of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1515/2001 on the measures that may be taken by the Community following a 
report  adopted  by  the  WTO  Dispute  Settlement  Body  concerning  anti-dumping  and 
anti-subsidy matters7 (‘the WTO enabling Regulation’). 

(39)  The relevant Union institution may repeal, amend or maintain the measures reviewed 
in order to reflect the review findings. Parties requesting a review should be aware that 

6 

7 

WTO, report of the Appellate Body, AB-2011-2, WT/DS397/AB/R, 15 July 2011. WTO, report of the 
Panel,  WT/DS397/R,  29  September  2010.  The  reports  can  be  downloaded  from  the  WTO's  website 
(http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_ e/ds397_e.htm). 
OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p. 10. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
if  the  findings  relating  to  them  require  an  amendment  of  the  measures,  such 
amendment may result in a decrease or an increase in the level of the measures. 

(40)  Further  to  the  above,  no  comments  were  received  concerning  the  granting  of  IT  and 

recitals (32) to (34) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.2. 

Analogue country 

(41) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  regarding  analogue  country,  recitals  (35)  to  (41)  of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.3. 

Normal value 

(42)  The same methodology was used for establishing normal value for the Sira Group as 
the one described in recitals (42) to (46) of the provisional Regulation. In the absence 
of  any  comments  regarding  normal  value,  recitals  (42)  to  (46)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.4. 

Export price 

(43)  The  Sira  Group  export  price  was  calculated  in  line  with  Article  2(9)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  because  exports  were  made  at  transfer  prices  which  were  deemed 
unreliable. Export prices were therefore calculated on the basis of the resale prices to 
the first independent customers on the Union market, with appropriate deductions for 
costs  and  profit  being  made  to  adjust  the  export  price  to  an  ex  works  level. 
Adjustments were made to the resale price to the first independent buyer in the Union 
for  all  costs  including  duties  and  taxes,  incurred  between  importation  and  resale,  as 
well as a reasonable margin for SG&A and profits. With respect to the profit margin, 
the profit realised by the cooperating unrelated importer of the product concerned was 
used since the actual profit of the related importer was not considered reliable because 
of the relationship between the exporting producer and the related importer. 

(44) 

In respect of the sampled exporters, in the absence of any comments regarding export 
price, recital (47) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

3.5. 

Comparison 

(45)  Certain  comments  were  made  concerning  the  comparison  between  the  normal  value 

and the export price. 

(46)  Metal Group Ltd. contested the comparison between the normal value and the export 
price on the grounds that the comparison made was not fair because of the matching 
methodology used and the company claimed differences in physical characteristics. 

(47)  Regarding the comparison made, Metal Group suggested an alternative method based 
simply on weight. This methodology was rejected because it ignores other important 
fields  included  in  the  product  type  comparison  system,  e.g.  power,  which  therefore 
ensures better comparability.  

(48)  The  claim  for  physical  differences  made  by  Metal  Group  Ltd.  was  threefold  and 
submitted  after  the  deadline  for  submitting  comments  had  passed.  None  of  the  three 
claims  in  this  respect  had  been  mentioned  in  the  questionnaire  response  (which 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
specifically  asked  for  such  claims  to  be  made).  Furthermore,  these  claims  were  not 
raised during the verification visit which would have given the investigation team the 
opportunity to verify their validity and magnitude.  

(49)  The  first  claim  involved  the  type  of  aluminium  alloy  used  in  production.  In  this 
respect, it was claimed that the Chinese standard of this alloy was not the same as the 
alloy of the same name used in the Union. Whilst it is clear that these alloys are not 
identical, no evidence was submitted to prove that any difference in cost existed.  

(50)  The second claim involved the use of an alleged cheaper version of finishing powder. 
Again, no  evidence was submitted to prove this  claim and it must be stated that this 
finishing powder constituted such a low percentage of the full cost of production that it 
would have only a marginal impact.  

(51)  The  third  claim  was  that  no  internal  anti-corrosion  coating  was  applied  by  the 
company in contrast to the product produced in the EU. As in the two cases above, no 
evidence was submitted to prove this claim. 

(52) 

In view of the above, the claim for differences in physical characteristics was rejected. 

(53) 

In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments,  recitals  (48)  to  (50)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.6. 

Dumping margins 

(54) 

In respect of the  Sira Group,  the dumping margin was calculated on the basis of the 
methodology  mentioned  in  recital  (51)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  and  was  set  at 
23,0%.  

(55) 

In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments,  recitals  (51)  to  (54)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. 

INJURY 

4.1. 

Total Union production 

(56) 

In  the  absence  of  comments  concerning  the  total  Union  production,  recitals  (55)  to 
(57) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.2. 

Union consumption  

(57) 

In the absence of comments concerning the Union consumption, recitals (58) to (61) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.3. 

Imports from the country concerned  

4.3.1.  Prices of imports and price undercutting 

(58)  After  disclosure  of  the  provisional  findings,  one  party  claimed  that  the  price 
undercutting margin of 6.1% found during the IP was low and could not have caused 
material injury to the Union industry. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(59)  The undercutting practiced by Chinese exporters should, however, be seen in the light 
of  the  pressure  it  has  exercised  on  the  Union  market  and  the  impact  it  had  on  the 
Union industry price  level. The  investigation showed  that price  pressure due  to  low-
priced  dumped  imports  did  not  allow  the  Union  industry  to  set  prices  at  a  level 
allowing  it  to  cover  for  the  costs  and  to  achieve  a  reasonable  margin  of  profit,  in 
particular during the IP.  

(60)  As mentioned in recital (65) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation confirmed 
that  the  import  prices  from  the  PRC  were  dumped  and  were  always  below  the  sale 
prices of the Union industry during the period considered. The constant undercutting 
practised  by  the  Chinese  exporters  allowed  their  sales  volume  and  market  share  to 
expand in particular during the IP. Moreover, it was found that the price difference on 
certain types of radiators was considerably higher than the average undercutting found. 
Hence,  the  negative  impact  of  the  undercutting  found  on  the  Union  market  and  the 
Union industry cannot be understimated. The claim was thus rejected. 

(61)  The same party reiterated that the Chinese radiators were of inferior quality compared 
to the ones produced in the Union and that they therefore could not be the cause of any 
injury to the Union industry.  

(62)  This claim was, however, not substantiated and the investigation did not reveal facts 
which could support this claim. As stated in recital (23) of the provisional Regulation, 
the investigation showed that the aluminium radiators produced in and exported from 
the  PRC  and  the  aluminium  radiators  produced  and  sold  in  the  Union  by  the  Union 
producers  have  the  same  basic  physical  and  technical  characteristics  as  well  as  the 
same basic uses. Moreover, they are also completely interchangeble and look identical 
in  particular  to  the  public.  They  are  therefore  considered  to  be  alike  within  the 
meaning of the Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.  

(63) 

It  is  noteworthy  that  the  price  undercutting  and  the  injury  elimination  level  are 
determined  on  the  basis  of  a  detailed  comparison  of  Chinese  and  Union  products 
types.  Hence,  any  alleged  difference  between  the  various  types  of  radiators  is  taken 
into  account  in  the  detailed  price  comparison.  Based  on  the  above,  the  claim  was 
rejected. 

(64) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning imports from the country concerned, 
recitals (62) to (67) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

4.4. 

Economic situation of the Union industry  

(65) 

In the absence of other comments concerning the preliminary remarks, recitals (68) to 
(71) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.4.1.  Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation 

(66) 

In the absence of comments concerning production, production capacity and capacity 
utilisation, recitals (72) to (74) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

4.4.2.  Sales volume and market share 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(67) 

In the absence of comments concerning the development of sales volume and market 
share  of  the  Union  industry,  recital  (75)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is  hereby 
confirmed. 

4.4.3.  Growth 

(68) 

In  the  absence  of  comments  concerning  growth,  recital  (76)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4.4.4.  Employment 

(69) 

In  the  absence  of  comments  concerning  employment,  recitals  (77)  and  (78)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.4.5.  Average unit prices in the Union and cost of production  

(70) 

In the absence of comments concerning average unit prices in the Union and cost of 
production, recitals (79) and (80) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.4.6.  Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital 

(71) 

In the absence of comments concerning profitability, cash flow, investments, return on 
investments  and  ability  to  raise  capital,  recitals  (81)  to  (83)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.4.7.  Stocks 

(72) 

In  the  absence  of  comments  concerning  stocks,  recital  (84)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4.4.8.  Magnitude of the actual dumping margin 

(73) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  magnitude  of  the  actual  dumping 
margin, recital (85) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4.4.9.  Conclusion on injury 

(74)  The  investigation  confirmed  that  most  of  the  injury  indicators  showed  a  declining 
trend during the period considered. Therefore, the conclusion reached in recitals (86) 
to (89) of the provisional Regulation that the Union industry suffered material injury 
within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation is confirmed.  

5. 

CAUSATION 

5.1. 

Introduction 

(75) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  to  recital  (90)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  that 
recital is hereby confirmed. 

5.2. 

Effect of the dumped imports 

(76) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the effect of the dumped imports, recitals 
(91) to (95) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
5.3. 

Effect of other factors 

5.3.1. 

Imports from third countries 

(77) 

In the absence of any comments concerning imports from third countries, recital (96) 
of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

5.3.2.  Economic crisis 

(78)  One party claimed that the cause of the injury, if any, suffered by the Union industry 
was  the  economic  crisis  which  prevailed  in  the  construction  and  housing  sector,  and 
particularly in certain Member States such as Spain and Italy, considered by this party 
as the main sales markets for the Union industry.  

(79)  The investigation, however, revealed that the Union industry also sold large volumes 
of radiators in other Member States than Spain and Italy. Furthermore, the market of 
the product concerned and the like product goes beyond the construction and housing 
markets  of  Spain  and  Italy.  Nevertheless,  even  if  it  cannot  be  excluded  that  the 
economic  crisis  had  an  impact  on  the  Union  market,  the  presence  of  increasing 
volumes  of  low-priced  Chinese  dumped  imports  intensified  any  negative  effects  the 
economic  downturn  may  have  had  during  the  period  considered  and  prevented  the 
Union  industry  from  benefitting  from  the  general  economic  recovery  during  the  IP. 
The claim was therefore rejected. 

(80) 

In  the  absence  of  other  comments  concerning  the  economic  crisis,  recitals  (97)  to 
(100) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.3.3.  Development of the Union industry cost of production 

(81) 

It  was  claimed  that  the  increase  in  the  price  of  aluminium  which  constitutes  a  large 
share of the cost to produce the like product was the cause of the injury suffered by the 
Union industry.  

(82)  However, it is rather considered that in a market governed by fair competition, prices 
can  be  set  at  a  level  as  to  cover  costs  and  to  achieve  a  reasonable  profit  margin.  As 
confirmed  in  recital  (60)  above,  the  average  import  prices  from  the  PRC  were 
continuously  undercutting  the  Union  industry  prices  during  the  period  considered. 
When costs increased, the Union industry could not increase its prices accordingly in 
view of the continued price pressure. Hence, this claim was rejected. 

(83) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  development  of  the  Union 
industry  cost  of  production,  recitals  (101)  to  (103)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

5.3.4.  Export performance of the sampled Union industry 

(84)  One party claimed  that the level  and  the decrease in the  Union industry export  sales 
had  a  major  influence  on  its  overall  economic  performance  during  the  period 
considered. 

(85)  The  investigation  showed,  however,  that  although  the  Union  industry  export  sales 
decreased during the period considered , they remained an important part, accounting 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
for 51% of the Union industry total sales in the EU in the IP and for 27% of the Union 
industry total production in the IP. Thus, as stated in recital (106)  of the provisional 
Regulation, export sales gave the Union industry the possibility to achieve economies 
of  scale  and  could  therefore  not  be  considered  to  have  caused  the  material  injury 
suffered by the Union industry during the period considered. The trend and the level of 
the  Union  industry  export  sales  are  not  such  as  to  break  the  causal  link  between  the 
injury  and  the  low-priced  dumped  imports  from  the  PRC.  Therefore,  the  claim  was 
rejected.  

(86)  The same party has requested disclosure of the Union industry exports' values and thus 
prices,  since  only  exports'  volumes  were  published  in  the  provisional  Regulation. 
However, this data cannot be disclosed since they are considered confidential. 

(87) 

In the absence of other comments concerning the export performance of the sampled 
Union  industry,  recitals  (104)  to  (106)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

5.4. 

Conclusion on causation 

(88)  One  party  claimed  that  the  decision  of  the  Union  industry  to  increase  production 
capacity in 2008 combined with the difficult economic situation which also prevailed 
in  the  following  years  are  the  main  causes  of  the  decrease  of  the  Union  industry's 
capacity  utilisation  and  its  negative  profitability.  It  was  thus  claimed  that  injury  was 
caused  by  various  domestic  factors,  such  as  the  economic  crisis  and  the  wrong 
investment decisions made by the Union industry. 

(89)  However,  an  injury  analysis  is  assessed  taking  into  account  all  the  injury  factors 
together, of which capacity utilisation and profitability are only two. The investigation 
of injury showed in particular that the Union industry sales volume decreased by 16% 
over  the  period  considered,  while  imports  from  the  PRC  increased  by  77%  over  the 
period  considered  and  the  market  share  increased  from  13%  to  24%  over  the  period 
considered.  Even  during  the  IP,  when  consumption  increased  compared  to  2009,  the 
Union industry market share kept shrinking. Notwithstanding the deterioration of other 
injury  factors, another  sign of the difficult  economic  situation  suffered  by  the  Union 
industry is illustrated by the Union industry stock levels which increased significantly 
over the period considered. Therefore, the increased production capacity of the Union 
industry in 2008 should be analysed together with all these other elements, in order to 
have a complete picture. 

(90)  Although  the  economic  crisis  had  a  certain  negative  impact  on  the  Union  industry's 
situation, it cannot be ignored that the low-priced Chinese dumped imports increased 
significantly  over  the  period  considered  and  thus  intensified  any  negative  effects  the 
economic  downturn  may  have  had  during  the  period  considered  and  prevented  the 
Union industry from benefitting from the general economic recovery during the IP.  

(91)  The investigation showed that there was a 9% increase in consumption between 2009 
and  the  IP,  while  the  Union  industry  market  share  kept  decreasing  and  even  with  a 
better general economic situation, the Union industry was unable to recover, because it 
was always under pressure of the low-priced dumped imports from the PRC. Based on 
the above, the claim was thus rejected. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(92) 

In  the  absence  of  other  comments  concerning  the  conclusion  on  causation,  recitals 
(107) to (110) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6. 

UNION INTEREST 

(93)  There was no cooperation from users in this investigation and despite the efforts after 

publication of provisional findings no, users came forward.  

(94)  Based on information available, it was found that the  main  purchasers  of aluminium 
radiators are large building companies, distributors and wholesalers, which resale them 
to  specialised  chains  or  retailer  shops  for  sales  to  smaller  construction  companies  or 
end  users.  An  assessment  of  the  possible  impact  the  imposition  of  definitive  duties 
may have on the parties concerned revealed that even with a potential price increase 
per  element  of  aluminium  radiator  imported  of  61%,  which  is  the  highest  anti-
dumping  duty  proposed,  this  price  increase  seems  to  be  quite  low,  since  the  product 
concerned is usually part of  large projects, where its  price is only a small portion of 
the total business costs. Therefore, even taking into account the worst case scenario, it 
seems  that  the  resulted  price  increase  could  be  easily  absorbed  in  the  chain  of 
downstream sales. 

(95) 

In the absence of comments concerning the Union interest, recitals (111) to (118) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

7. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

7.1. 

Injury elimination level 

(96) 

(97) 

(98) 

It was claimed that the profit margin used to calculate the amount of duty necessary to 
remove  the  effects  of  the  injurious  dumping  was  too  high.  It  was  argued  that  the 
margin  of  7,4%,  achieved  by  the  sampled  Union  producers  in  the  year  2008,  was 
exceptional and unrealistic. The economic crisis which hit the market in the following 
years made it impossible to reach such a level of profit. 

It should be noted that this profit margin was verified during the investigation as the 
profit  margin  reached  by  the  sampled  companies  under  normal  market  conditions, 
namely in the absence of injurious dumping. It cannot be concluded that the economic 
crisis  had  no  impact  on  the  Union  industry's  situation,  but  the  volume  of  low-priced 
dumped  imports  from  the  PRC  undercutting  the  prices  of  the  Union  industry  kept 
increasing  over  the  whole  period  considered  to  the  detriment  of  the  Union  industry 
prices  and  market  share.  It  is  therefore  clear  that  the  dumped  imports  from  the  PRC 
have  intensified  any  effect  of  the  economic  downturn  on  the  Union  industry. 
Therefore, this claim was rejected. 

It  was  also  claimed  that  the  post-importation  cost  used  to  calculate  undercutting  and 
injury  margins  (0,2%,  including  all  the  costs  necessary  to  release  the  goods  for  free 
circulation  into  the  EU,  such  as  the  handling  cost  and  customs  clearance  fee,  but 
excluding  the  import  duty)  was  underestimated.  According  to  this  party,  the  post-
importation cost should include the handling cost, customs clearance fee and in-land 
freight estimated to 3,5%. In order to calculate undercutting and underselling, the price 
at the EU border is compared with the ex-works price of EU industry producers. The 
price  at  EU  border  must  include  all  the  costs  necessary  to  release  the  goods  for  free 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
circulation into the EU, (i.e. customs clearance fee and handling costs), but not any in-
land freight, as claimed by the party. Therefore, this claim was rejected. 

(99) 

In  the  absence  of  other  comments  concerning  the  injury  elimination  level,  the 
methodology  described  in  recitals  (119)  to  (123)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is 
hereby confirmed. 

7.2. 

Form and level of the duties 

(100)  In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 9(4) of 
the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports 
of  the  product  concerned  at  the  level  of  the  lower  of  the  dumping  and  the  injury 
margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. Accordingly, all duty rates should be 
set at the level of the injury margins found. 

(101)  The proposed definitive anti-dumping duties are the following: 

Country  Company 

Dumping 
margin 

Injury 
margin 

Definitive 
duty % 

PRC 

Zhejiang 
Products Co., Ltd 

Flyhigh  Metal 

23,0% 

12,6% 

12,6% 

Metal Group Co., Ltd 

70,8% 

56,2% 

56,2% 

(Sira 

Sira  Group 
(Tianjin) 
Aluminium  Products  Co.  Ltd. 
(Tianjin) 
and  Sira  Group 
Heating Radiators Co. Ltd.) 

23,0% 

14,9% 

14,9% 

Other cooperating companies 

32,5% 

21,2% 

21,2% 

All  other  companies  (country-
wide dumping margin) 

76,6% 

61,4% 

61,4% 

(102)  The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  they 
reflect  the  situation  found  during  that  investigation  in  respect  to  these  companies. 
These  duty  rates  (as  opposed  to  the  country-wide  duty  applicable  to  'all  other 
companies')  are  thus  exclusively  applicable  to  imports  of  the  products  originating  in 
the  PRC  and  produced  by  the  companies  and  thus  by  the  specific  legal  entities 
mentioned. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not 
specifically  mentioned  in  the  operative  part  of  this  Regulation  with  its  name  and 
address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from 
these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’. 

(103)  In order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty 
rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper 
application  of 
the 
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  to  this 

the  anti-dumping  duties.  These  special  measures 

include 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the 
residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporters. 

(104)  Should  the  exports  by  one  of  the  companies  benefiting  from  lower  individual  duty 
rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, 
such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the 
pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) 
of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met an 
anti-circumvention  investigation  may  be  initiated.  This  investigation  may,  inter  alia, 
examine  the  need  for  the  removal  of  individual  duty  rates  and  the  consequent 
imposition of a country-wide duty. 

(105)  Any  claim  requesting  the  application  of  an  individual  anti-dumping  duty  rate  (e.g. 
following  a  change  in  the  name  of  the  entity  or  following  the  setting  up  of  new 
production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission8 forthwith with all 
relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked 
to  production,  domestic  and  export  sales  associated  with,  for  instance,  that  name 
change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  this 
Regulation  will  then  be  amended  accordingly  by  updating  the  list  of  companies 
benefiting from individual anti-dumping duty rates. 

(106)  In  order  to  ensure  a  proper  enforcement  of  the  anti-dumping  duty,  the  country-wide 
duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also 
to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP. 

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

7.3. 

Definitive collection of provisional anti-dumping duties 

(108)  In  view  of  the  magnitude  of  the  dumping  margins  found  and  given  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 to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties 
imposed. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of aluminium radiators 
and  elements  or  sections  of  which  such  radiator  is  composed,  whether  or  not  such 
elements  are  assembled  in  blocks,  excluding  radiators  and  elements  and  sections 
thereof  of  the  electrical  type,  currently  falling  within  CN  codes  ex  7615  10  10,  ex 

European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H, Office: NERV-105, 08/020, 1049 
Brussels, BELGIUM. 

1. 

8 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7615 10 90, ex 7616 99 10 and ex 7616 99 90 (TARIC codes 7615 10 10 10, 7615 10 
90  10,  7616  99  10  91,  7616  99  90  01  and  7616  99  90  91)  and  originating  in  the 
People's Republic of China. 

2. 

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

Company 

Flyhigh 
Zhejiang 
Metal  Products  Co., 
Ltd. 

Metal  Group  Co. 
Ltd.  

Sira 
(Tianjin) 
Aluminium  Products 
Co. Ltd.  

Sira  Group  (Tianjin) 
Heating  Radiators 
Co. Ltd. 

Companies  listed  in 
Annex 1 

Definitive 
duty  

TARIC 
additional 
code 

12,6% 

B272 

56,2% 

B273 

14,9% 

B279 

14,9% 

B280 

21,2% 

All other companies 

61,4% 

B999 

3. 

4. 

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 Annex II. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable 
to all other companies shall apply. 

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

Article 2 

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Commission 
Regulation (EU) No 402/2012 on imports of aluminium radiators originating in the People's 
Republic  of  China,  shall  be  definitively  collected.  The  amounts  secured  in  excess  of  the 
definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released.  

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article 3 

Where  any  new  exporting  producer  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  provides  sufficient 
evidence to the Commission that: 

– 

– 

– 

it  did  not  export  to  the  Union  the  product  described  in  Article  1(1)  during  the 
investigation period (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011), 

it  is  not  related  to  any  of  the  exporters  or  producers  in  the  People’s  Republic  of 
China which are subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation, 

it  has  actually  exported  to  the  Union  the  product  concerned  after  the  investigation 
period  on  which  the  measures  are  based,  or  it  has  entered  into  an  irrevocable 
contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union, 

the  Council,  acting  by  simple  majority  on  a  proposal  submitted  by  the  Commission  after 
consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  amend  Article  1(2)  by  adding  the  new  exporting 
producer  to  the  cooperating  companies  not  included  in  the  sample  and  thus  subject  to  the 
weighted average duty rate of 21,2 %. 

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

Article 4  

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX I 

PRC COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED 

Name 

TARIC additional code 

Jinyun Shengda Industry Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Ephriam Radiator Equipment Co.,Ltd 

Ningbo Everfamily Radiator Co., Ltd 

Ningbo Ningshing Kinhil Industrial Co.,Ltd. 

B274 

B275 

B276 

B277 

Ningbo Ninhshing Kinhil International Co., Ltd. 

B278 

Yongkang Jinbiao Machine Electric Co., Ltd . 

Yongkang Sanghe Radiator Co., Ltd. 

Zhejiang Aishuibao Piping Systems Co.,Ltd 

Zhejiang Botai Tools Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang East Industry Co.,Ltd 

Zhejiang Guangying Machinery Co.,Ltd 

Zhejiang Kangfa Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. 

B281 

B282 

B283 

B284 

B285 

B286 

B287 

Zhejiang Liwang Industrial and Trading Co., Ltd 

B288 

Zhejiang Ningshuai Industry Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Rongrong Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Zhejiang  Yuanda  Machinery  &  Electrical 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd 

B289 

B290 

B291 

EN 

21 

   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 aluminium radiators and elements or 
sections of which such radiator is composed, sold for export to the European Union 
covered  by  this  invoice,  was  manufactured  by  (company  name  and  registered  seat) 
(TARIC  additional  code)  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China.  I  declare  that  the 
information provided in this invoice is complete and correct. 

Date and signature". 

EN 

22 

   EN