Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Taiwan, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, semi-metal

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 11.3.2013  
COM(2013) 110 final 

2013/0066 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic 
of China to imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating 
in Taiwan or not 

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 investigation of possible circumvention 
of  the  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  by  Council  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
467/2010 on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China ('the PRC') by 
imports consigned from Taiwan. 

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 and in particular Article 13 thereof. 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

The measures currently in force were imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 
467/2010  imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  silicon  originating  in  the 
People's Republic of China as extended to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of 
Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, following an expiry 
review  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  and  a  partial  interim  revue  pursuant  to  article  11(3)  of 
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. 

Consistency with the 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  provide  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 

The  Commission  has  received  a  request  pursuant  to  Articles  13(3)  and  14(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation to invesigate the possible cirucumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed 
on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China and to make imports of 
silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, subject to 
registration. 

The request was lodged on 15 May 2012 by Euroalliages (Liaison Committee of the Ferro-
Alloy  Industry)  ('the  applicant')  on  behalf  of  producers  representing  100%  of  the  Union 
production of silicon. 

On 5 July 2012, the Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 596/2012, initiated an investigation 
concerning  the  possible  circumvention  of  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  by  Council 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 on imports of silicon originating in the People's 
Republic  of  China  by  imports  consigned  from  Tawain,  whether  declared  as  originating  in 
Taiwan or not.  

The  Commission  had  at  its  disposal  sufficient  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  anti-dumping 
measures  on  imports  of  silicon  were  being  circumvented  by  means  of  transhipment  via 
Taiwan. 

The attached proposal for a Council Implementing Regulation is based on the findings of the 
investigation,  which  has  confirmed  that  transhipment  of  Chinese-origin  silicon  was  taking 
place via Taiwan and that all other criteria for the establishment of circumvention as set out 
in Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation are met.  

It is therefore proposed to extend the anti-dumping measures in force on silicon originating in 
the PRC to imports of the same product consigned from Taiwan. The duty corresponds to the 
country-wide duty on imports of silicon from the PRC (19%). The duty shall be levied from 
the date of initiation of the investigation. 

Three  Taiwanese  companies  came  forward  following  the  initiation,  with  a  request  for 
exemption from the possible extension of the measures as genuine producers in the Taiwan. 
It  is  proposed  not  to  grant  exemption  to  any  of  them.  The  exemption  request  of  the  three 
companies was rejected as during the investigation it was found that they were not producers 
of the product concerned.  

The relevant Council Regulation should be published in the Official Journal of the European 
Union no later than 5 April 2013. 

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 and in particular Article 13 
thereof.  

Subsidiarity principle 

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

Proportionality principle 

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

EN 

3 

   EN 

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

Indication  of  how  the  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Union,  national 
governments,  regional  and  local  authorities,  economic  operators  and  citizens  is  minimised 
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:  The  above-mentioned  basic 
Regulation does not provide for alternative options. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION  

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

2013/0066 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic 
of China to imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating 
in Taiwan or not 

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 13 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

1.1. 

(1) 

1.2. 

(2) 

PROCEDURE  

Existing measures 
By  Regulation  (EU)  No  467/20102  ('the  original  Regulation')  the  Council  imposed  a 
definitive anti-dumping duty of 19% on imports of silicon originating in the People’s 
Republic  of  China  (‘the  PRC’)  for  all  other  companies  than  the  one  mentioned  in 
Article  1(2)  of  that  Regulation,  following  the  expiry  review  and  a  partial  interim 
review  of  the  measures  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  398/20043.  The  original 
Regulation  also  maintained  the  duty  which  was  extended  by  virtue  of  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  42/20074  to  imports  of  silicon  consigned  from  the  Republic  of 
Korea whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not. The measures 
imposed by the original Regulation will hereinafter be referred to as 'the measures in 
force' or 'original measures' and the investigation that led to the measures imposed by 
the original Regulation will be hereinafter referred to as 'the original investigation' 

Request 

On  15  May  2012,  the  Commission  has  received  a  request  pursuant  to  Articles  13(3) 
and 14(3) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-
dumping measures imposed on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic 
of China and to make imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as 
originating in Taiwan or not, subject to registration. 

1 
2 
3 
4 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 131, 29.5.2010, p. 1. 
OJ L 66, 4.3.2004, p. 15. 
OJ L 13, 19.1.2007, p. 1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

1.3. 

(6) 

1.4. 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

The  request  was  lodged  by  Euroalliages  (Liaison  Committee  of  the  Ferro-Alloy 
Industry)  ('the  applicant')  on  behalf  of  producers  representing  100%  of  the  Union 
production of silicon. 

The applicant argued that there is no genuine production of silicon in Taiwan and the 
request contained sufficient prima facie evidence that following the imposition of the 
measures in force, a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from 
the  PRC  and  Taiwan  to  the  Union  occurred,  for  which  there  was  no  sufficient  due 
cause or justification other than the imposition of the measures in force. This change 
stemmed allegedly from the transhipment of silicon originating in the PRC via Taiwan 
to the Union. 

Furthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of the measures 
in  force  were  being  undermined  both  in  terms  of  quantity  and  price.  The  evidence 
showed that these increased imports from Taiwan were made at prices below the non-
injurious  price  established  in  the  original  investigation.  Finally,  there  was  evidence 
that  the  prices  of  silicon  consigned  from  Taiwan  were  dumped  in  relation  to  the 
normal  value  previously  established  for  the  product  concerned  during  the  original 
investigation. 

Initiation 

Having  determined,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  that  sufficient  prima 
facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 13(3) 
and  14(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission  initiated  an  investigation  by 
Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  596/20125  (‘the  initiating  Regulation’)  of  the 
possible  circumvention  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  on  imports  of  silicon 
originating in the PRC and also directed the custom authorities to register imports of 
silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan, or not. 

Investigation 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  authorities  of  the  PRC  and  Taiwan,  the 
exporting  producers  in  these  countries,  the  importers  in  the  Union  known  to  be 
concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation. 

Exemption  forms  were  sent  to  the  producers/exporters  in  Taiwan  known  to  the 
Commission  and  through  the  Mission  of  the  country  concerned  to  the  European 
Union. Questionnaires were sent to the producers/exporters in the PRC known to the 
Commission  and  through  the  Mission  of  the  PRC  to  the  European  Union. 
Questionnaires were also sent to the known importers in the Union. 

Interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in  writing 
and  to  request  a  hearing  within  the  time  limit  set  in  the  initiating  Regulation.  All 
parties were informed that non-cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 
of the basic Regulation and to findings being based on the facts available. 

(10)  Three  Taiwanese  producers/exporters,  belonging  to  one  group,  and  three  unrelated 
importers  in  the  Union  made  themselves  known  and  submitted  replies  to  the 
exemption forms and to the questionnaires, respectively. 

(11)  The Commission carried out verification visits at the premises of the three following 

related companies part of the Group refferred to above in recital (10): 

5 

OJ L 176, 6.7.2012, p. 50. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
- Asia Metallurgical Co. Ltd. (Taiwan) 

- Latitude Co. Ltd. (Taiwan) 

- YLB Co. Ltd. (Taiwan)  

1.5. 

Reporting period and investigation period 

(12)  The investigation period covered the period from 1 January 2008 to 30 June 2012 (‘the 
IP’). Data were collected for the IP to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change in the 
pattern of trade. More detailed data were collected for the reporting period from 1 July 
2011 to 30 June 2012 (‘the RP’) in order to examine the possible undermining of the 
remedial effect of the measures in force and existence of dumping. 

2. 

2.1. 

(13) 

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

General considerations 

In  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  assessment  of  the 
existence of circumvention was made by analysing successively whether there was a 
change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, Taiwan and the Union; if this change 
stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause 
or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty; if there was evidence 
of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the 
prices  and/or  quantities  of  the  product  under  investigation;  and  whether  there  was 
evidence  of  dumping  in  relation  to  the  normal  values  previously  established  for  the 
product  concerned  in  the  original  investigation,  if  necessary  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation. 

2.2. 

Product concerned and product under investigation 

(14)  The  product  concerned  by  the  possible  circumvention  is  silicon  metal,  originating  in 
the People’s Republic of China, currently falling within CN code 2804 69 00 (silicon 
content  less than 99,  99%  by weight) (‘the product concerned’). Purely by reason of 
the  current  classification  set  out  in  the  Combined  Nomenclature,  it  should  be  read 
"silicon".  Silicon  with  a  higher  purity,  that  is  containing  by  weight  not  less  than 
99, 99% of silicon, used mostly in the electronic semi-conductor industry, falls under a 
different CN code and is not covered by this proceeding. 

(15)  The product under investigation is the same as that defined above, but consigned from 
Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, currently falling within the 
same CN code as the product concerned ('the product under investigation’). 

(16)  The investigation showed that silicon, as defined above, exported from the PRC to the 
Union  and  silicon  consigned  from  Taiwan  to  the  Union  has  the  same  basic  physical 
and technical characteristics and has the same use, and is therefore to be considered as 
like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

2.3. 

Findings 

2.3.1.  Level of cooperation 

(17)  As stated in recital (10) above, only three Taiwanese companies belonging to the same 
group of companies submitted an exemption form reply. A comparison of their exports 
into  the  Union  to  the  Eurostat  import  data,  showed  that  the  cooperating  companies 
were representing 65% of the Taiwanse exports of the product under investigation to 
the Union in the RP. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

(18)  There  was  no  cooperation  from  the  exporting  producers  of  silicon  in  the  PRC. 
Therefore, findings in respect of imports of silicon from the PRC into the Union and 
exports from the PRC into Taiwan had to be made on the basis of data from Eurostat 
import  data,  Taiwanese  import  statistics  and  data  gathered  from  the  cooperating 
Taiwanese companies. 

2.3.2.  Change in the pattern of trade  

Imports of silicon into the Union 

(19)  Table 1  shows  imports  of silicon  from  the  PRC  and Taiwan into  the  Union between 

2004 and the end of the RP. 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

PRC 

1 268 

27 635 

1 435 

9 671 

Taiwan 

0 

2.7 

0.2 

340 

2008 

5 353 

3 381 

2009 

6 669 

5 199 

2010 

2011 

RP 

11 448 

13 312 

5 488 

11 042 

5 367 

2 707 

Source : Eurostat 

(20)  The data from Eurostat clearly show that there were no imports from Taiwan into the 
Union at all in 2004. They went up with more than 300% in 2008 and remained very 
high.  The imports  doubled  again in 2010, following the  imposition of  new measures 
against the PRC. 

(21) 

In 2011, the imports into the Union from Taiwan decreased. This development may be 
attributable  to  an  anti-fraud  investigation  which  was  launched  by  OLAF  around  that 
time. The Commission was informed that the Taiwanese issuing authority, the Bureau 
of Foreign Trade of Taiwan (BOFT) withdrew the certificates of origin of silicon from 
all  Taiwanese  producers  in  2011.  This  decision  to  withdraw  the  certificates  was 
appealed by the three Taiwanese exporters referred to in recitals (10) and (11) above 
(Group of exporters). The board of appeal quashed the decision of the BOFT, and the 
certificates  in  question  were  re-issued  to  these  three  Taiwanese  producers/exporters, 
but not to the other Taiwanese producers.  

(22) 

In  this  context,  the  Commission  also  observes  that  the  presentation  of  a  non-
preferential  certificate  of  origin  is  not  required  for  the  customs  formalities  at 
importation into the EU and that in the event of serious doubt, such a certificate cannot 
serve  as  proof  of  the  non-preferential  origin  of  the  declared  product  (Article  26  of 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2913/92  of  12  October  1992  establishing  the  Community 
Customs Code6).  

(23)  The imports of silicon from the PRC into the Union have been increasing since 2008. 
In particular, it is observed that these imports are still increasing after the imposition 
of the measures in 2010. This development can be explained by the fact that the anti-
dumping duty went down significantly in 2010, namely from 49% to 19%. 

Exports of silicon from the PRC to Taiwan 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

RP 

16 530 

16 600 

7 101  

10 514 

3 675 

15 893 

16 007 

17 912 

9 177 

10 507 

Source : Chinese export statistics 

6  

OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(24)  Table 2 shows imports from the PRC into Taiwan. The data from the Chinese exports 
database show that imports were at their highest in 2010 following the imposition of 
the  original  measures.  The  decrease  in  2011  can  be  explained  by  the  anti-fraud 
investigation as explained in recital (21). 

Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade  

(25) 

It  is  considered  that  there  is  a  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  since  there  were  no 
imports  of  silicon  from  Taiwan  into  the  Union  at  all  in  2004.  They  really  started  as 
from 2007 and became very important in 2008. They remain at a very high level up to 
the  RP,  with  a  reduction  in  2011  because  of  the  possible  reason  which  is  explained 
above in recital (21).  

2.3.3.  Nature  of  the  circumvention  practice  and  insufficient  due  cause  or  economic 

justification 

(26)  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  requires  that  the  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade 
stems  from  a  practice,  process  or  work  for  which  there  is  insufficient  due  cause  or 
economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or 
work includes, inter alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures via third 
countries. The Commission takes the view that in the present case, the change in the 
pattern of trade stems from the consignment of the product subject to measures via a 
third country. 

(27)  The  Commission  first  of  all  notes  that  there  is  no  production  of  silicon  in  Taiwan. 
None of the producers/exporters have denied the fact that they import the silicon they 
export from the PRC. 

(28)  Secondly, with the exception of the group of exporters referred to in recitals (10) and 
(11), the producers/exporters have not provided any economic justification other than 
the imposition of the duty for their activity. 

(29)  The  Group  of  exporters  referred  to  in  recitals  (10)  and  (11)  above  alleged  that  they 
import silicon lumps of very low quality in bags from the PRC. They pretend that the 
silicon lumps are then tumbled, crushed, sieved and packed in bags again before being 
exported to the Union market. After that operation, they alleged that the product is of a 
higher quality.  

(30)  They claim that this operation constitutes a unique purification method, developed in 
cooperation  with  the  University  of  Taipei,  which  allegedly  eliminates  80%  of  the 
impurities  in  the  silicon  metal  lumps  imported  from  the  PRC..  During  the  onsite 
verification,  it  was    however  observed  that  their  process  was  a  simple    tumbling, 
sieving  and  crushing  operation  which  removes  some  surface  impurities  such  as 
oxidation and dust, but which did not remove in particular the main impurities inside 
the  silicon  lumps.  The  processed  product  thus  kept  the  same  physical  and  technical 
basic characteristics as the product concerned. 

(31)  The evidence collected and verified during the investigation, in particular the purchase 
invoices,  the  sales  invoices  and  the  accompanying  documents  such  as  the  bill  of 
lading, and other customs documents, showed that the products purchased and sold for 
export by the Group of exporters were in most cases of the same specifications. The 
records  relating  to  the  stocks  in  the  warehouses  of  the  Group,  located  close  to 
harbours, also showed that there was not always time to process all batches of silicon 
purchased  in  China  with  the  method  that  they  claimed  to  apply.  Furthermore,  the 
information available, in particular from producers in the Union, show that in order to 
remove  the  inner  impurities  of  the  silicon  lump,  either  a  crushing  followed  by  a 

EN 

9 

   EN 

(32) 

chemical  treatment  or  a  melting  process  is  necessary.  Neither  of  these  processes  has 
been used by the Group of exporters.   

It  is  also  noteworthy  that  in  2010,  acting  upon  a  reference  for  a  preliminary  ruling 
under  Article  234  EC  from  Finanzgericht  Düsseldorf  (Hoesch  Metals  and  Alloys 
GmbH  v.  Hauptzollamt  Aachen),  in  a  matter  relating  to  the  AD  measures  against 
silicon  from  China,  the  European  Court  of  Justice  ruled:  "The  separation,  crushing 
and  purification  of  silicon  metal  blocks  and  the  subsequent  sieving,  sorting  and 
packaging of the silicon grains resulting from the crushing, as carried out in the main 
proceedings,  do  not  constitute  origin-conferring  processing  or  working  for  the 
purposes  of  Article  24  of  the  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2913/92  of  12  October 
1992 establishing the Community Customs Code." The purification process as carried 
out by the Group of exporters is considered to be similar to the one as described in this 
ruling. 

(33)  The investigation also revealed that the purification process amounts to less than 5% 
of the total cost of the Group. It was furthermore confirmed that the price of the silicon 
sold into the EU by the Group of exporters and the price of the silicon purchased in the 
PRC by the Group during the IP, never showed a difference of more than 11%.  

(34) 

(35) 

In the light of these considerations, it is concluded that also for the Group of exporters 
the import from the PRC and the subsequent export to the EU of the Silicon is to be 
considered as a transshipment and thus circumvention in the sense of Article 13 of the 
Basic Regulation. 

It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  investigation  did  not  bring  to  light  any  other  due 
cause  or  economic  justification  for  the  transhipment  than  the  avoidance  of  the 
measures in force on the product concerned, namely the 19% anti-dumping duty on the 
PRC.  No  elements  were  found,  other  than  the  duty,  which  could  be  considered  as  a 
compensation  for  the  costs  of  transhipment,  in  particular  regarding  transport  and 
reloading, of silicon originating in the PRC via Taiwan. 

2.3.4.  Evidence of dumping 

(36) 

(37) 

In  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  it  was  examined  whether 
there  was  evidence  of  dumping  in  relation  to  the  normal  value  established  in  the 
original investigation. 

In the original Regulation, the normal value was established on the basis of prices in 
Brasil,  which  in  that  investigation  was  found  to  be  an  appropriate  market  economy 
analogue country for the PRC. In line with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was 
considered appropriate to use the normal value as previously established in the original 
investigation. Two PCNs from the previous investigation matched with the two PCNs 
of the exporting companies. Export prices were established in accordance with Article 
2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely the prices actually paid or payable for export of 
the product under investigation into the Union. 

(38)  For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due  allowance,  in  the  form  of  adjustments,  was  made  for  differences  which  affect 
prices  and  price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. Accordingly, adjustments were made to the export price for transport and 
insurance  in  order  to  bring  prices  at  the  same  level  of  trade.  In  accordance  with 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Articles  2(11)  and  2(12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  dumping  was  calculated  by 
comparing  the  adjusted weighted average normal value as established in the original 
Regulation  and  the  corresponding  weighted  average  export  prices  of  the  Taiwanese 
import during this investigation’s RP, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the 
Union frontier duty unpaid. 

(39)  The  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  and  the  weighted  average 
export price as established in the investigation showed the existence of dumping. 

2.3.5.  Undermining  the  remedial  effects  of  the  anti-dumping  duty  in  terms  of  prices  and 

quantities 

(40)  The  comparison  of  the  injury  elimination  level  as  established  in  the  original 
Regulation  and  the  weighted  average  export  price  showed  the  existence  of 
undercutting and underselling. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of 
the measures in force are being undermined in terms of prices and quantities. 

3. 

MEASURES 

(41)  Given the above, it was concluded that the original mesure, namely the definitive anti-
dumping duty imposed on imports of silicon originating in the PRC, was circumvented 
by  transhipment  via  Taiwan  within  the  mening  of  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(42) 

In  accordance  with  the  first  sentence  of  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  the 
measures in force on imports of the product concerned are to be extended to imports of 
the  product  under  investigation,  i.e.  the  same  product  as  the  product  concerned  but 
consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in the Taiwan or not.  

(43)  The  measures  established  in  Article  1(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  467/2010  for  "all 
other  companies"  from  the  PRC,  should  therefore  be  extended  to  imports  from 
Taiwan. The level of duty should be set at 19% applicable to the net, free-at-Union-
frontier price, before duty. 

(44) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  13(3)  and  14(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  which  provide 
that  any  extended  measure  should  apply  to  imports  which  entered  the  Union  under 
registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those 
registered imports of silicon consigned from Taiwan. 

4. 

REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION 

(45)  As explained in the recital (10), three companies located in Taiwan, belonging to one 
group,  submitted  exemption  form  responses  requesting  an  exemption  from  the 
possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation 

(46) 

In view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade, the lack of real 
production in Taiwan and the export under the same customs code as set out in recitals 
(19)  to  (29),  the  exemptions  as  requested  by  these  three  companies  could,  in 
accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, not be granted. 

(47)  Without  prejudice  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  potential  exporters/ 
producers in Taiwan which did not come forward in this proceeding and did not export 
the product under investigation during the IP, which intend to lodge a request for an 
exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) 
of  the  basic  Regulation  will  be  required  to  complete  an  exemption  form  in  order  to 
enable the Commission to assess such a request. Such exemption may be granted after 
the  assessment  of  the  market  situation,  production  capacity  and  capacity  utilisation, 

EN 

11 

   EN 

procurement and sales and the likelihood of continuation of practices for which there 
is insufficient due cause or economic justification and the evidence of dumping. The 
Commission would normally also carry out an on-spot verification visit. Provided that 
the  conditions  set  in  Articles  11(4)  and  13(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  are  met,  an 
exemption may be warranted. 

(48)  Where  an  exemption  is  warranted,  the  Commission  may,  after  consultation  of  the 
Advisory Committee, authorise by decision, the exemption of imports from companies 
which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EU) No 
467/2010, from the duty extended by this regulation. 

(49)  The request should be addressed to the Commission, with all relevant information, in 
particular  any  modification  in  the  company's  activities  linked  to  the  production  and 
sales. 

5. 

(50) 

DISCLOSURE 

 All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to 
the above conclusions and were invited to comment. They were also granted a period 
to submit comments subsequent to that disclosure.  

6. 

COMMENTS 

(51) 

 Following disclosure, comments were received from the Group of exporters and from 
two importers.  

(52)  The main argument concerned the claim that the purification carried out by the Group 
of exporters referred to in recitals (10) and (11) was origin-conferring in the sense of 
Article  24  of  Regulation  (EEC)  Nr.  No  2913/92.  The  importers  presented  a  report 
concerning sample tests performed by the University of Taipei and an analysis report 
of  an  independent  expert.  The  report  concerning  sample  test  shows  a  percentage  of 
slag reduction of 90.8% after the purification process. The analysis of the independent 
expert  claims  that  only  after  purification,  the  silicon  can  be  used  for  certain  melting 
purposes. 

(53) 

It is noted these two studies are contradicted by the findings of the Commission during 
the on-site verification, as described above in recital (31). In particular, it is recalled 
that  according  to  the  invoices,  the  products  purchased  and  sold  for  export  by  the 
Group of exporters were in most cases of the same specifications.  

(54) 

If the claims made by the importers were true, this should also result in a much higher 
difference between the price at which the silicon is imported from PRC and the price 
at which the silicon is exported to the EU. 

(55)  Based  on  the  on-site  inspection  of  the  tools  used  for  the  alleged  purification  of  the 
silicon, the Commission also concludes that the tools are not such as to allow for any 
of the two methods of purification described above in recital (31) at the end. 

(56)  Finally,  the  analysis  report  of  the  independent  expert  also  ignores  the  fact  known  to 

the Commission that the users process their silicon before use. 

(57)  For these reasons, the comments submitted by the parties have not been able to alter 

the conclusions provisionally reached by the Commission before disclosure.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1.  The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  "all  other  companies"  imposed  by  Article 
1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 on imports of silicon currently falling within CN code 
2804 69 00 and originating in the People's Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports 
of silicon consigned from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, currently 
falling within CN code ex 2804 69 00 (TARIC code 2804 69 00 20). 

2. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned 
from Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Taiwan or not, registered in accordance with 
Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 596/2012 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1225/2009. 

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

Article 2 

1. Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing in one 
of the official languages of the European Union and must be signed by a person authorised to 
represent  the  entity  requesting  the  exemption.  The  request  must  be  sent  to  the  following 
address: 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Directorate H 
Office: N-105 08/20 
1049 Brussels 
Belgium 
Fax (32 2) 295 65 05 

2. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 the Commission, after 
consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  authorise,  by  decision,  the  exemption  of  imports 
from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation 
(EU) No 467/2010, from the duty extended by Article 1. 

Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established 
in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 596/2012. 

Article 3 

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

Article 4 

EN 

13 

   EN 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

14 

   EN