Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, ceramics, household article, import (EU), originating product

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.4.2013  
COM(2013) 206 final 

2013/0109 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware 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 ceramic tableware and kitchenware 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  1072/2012  (OJ  L 
318, 15.11.2012, p. 28.). 

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 

On  16  February  2012  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  proceeding  concerning 
imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China. 

The  Commission  imposed  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  on  these  imports  by  Regulation 
(EU) No 1072/2012 of 14 November 2012. 

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings which have 
confirmed  the  existence  of  dumping  causing  injury,  and  the  fact  that  the  imposition  of 
measures is not against the overall Union interest. Although the product scope and the final 
duty rates have been amended, the provisional findings were confirmed. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation which 
should be published no later than 14 May 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. 

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 

2013/0109 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware 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 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

1.1. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

1.2. 

(4) 

PROCEDURE 

Initiation 
The Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 1072/20122 (‘the provisional Regulation’), 
imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  ceramic  tableware  and 
kitchenware  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  (‘PRC’  or  ‘the  country 
concerned’). 
The proceeding was initiated on 16 February 20123 following a complaint lodged on 
behalf  of  Union  producers  (‘the  complainants’),  representing  more  than  30%  of  the 
total Union production of ceramic tableware and kitchenware.  

As set out in recital (22) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping 
and  injury  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2011  to  31  December  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’). 

Subsequent procedure 

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 
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.  Two  importers  and  one  exporting  producer  requested  and 
were  afforded  hearings  in  the  presence  of  the  Hearing  Officer  of  the  Directorate-
General for Trade. 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.  
OJ L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 28. 
OJ C 44, 16.2.2012, p. 22. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

1.3. 

(9) 

(10) 

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. 

In addition, as explained in recital (55) below, a verification visit was carried out at a 
Thai producer, the purpose of which was to investigate the suitability of Thailand as 
an appropriate analogue country.  

Subsequently 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  tableware  and  kitchenware  originating  in  the 
PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of provisional duty 
('the final disclosure'). All parties were granted a period within which they could make 
comments on the final disclosure. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Import and 
Export  of  Light  Industrial  Products  and  Arts-crafts  (‘CCCLA’)  and  a  group  of 
importers requested and were granted hearings in the presence of the Hearing Officer 
of the Directorate-General for Trade.  

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

Sampling 

Following  provisional  disclosure  several  interested  parties  challenged  the  sample  of 
exporting producers from the PRC arguing that the sample is not representative, as it is 
based only on the largest exported volumes and thus failed to take into account other 
factors  characterising  the  diversity  and  fragmentation  of  the  ceramic  industry  in  the 
PRC. 

It follows from Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation that the selection of companies to 
be  included  in  the  sample  may  be  limited  to  the  largest  representative  volume  of 
exports  that  can  reasonably  be  investigated  within  the  time  available.  In  view  of  the 
fragmentation  of  the  industry  it  was  considered  that  a  selection  based  on  export 
volumes  would  allow  a  representative  sample  that  could  be  investigated  within  the 
time  available.  In  this  respect  it  should  nevertheless  be  noted  that  the  companies 
selected are located in three different regions in China and have significant production 
of  the  product  concerned  of  different  types  of  ceramic  material,  e.g.  porcelain  and 
stoneware  as  well  as  production  of  a  wide  variety  of  product  types.  Therefore,  this 
claim cannot be accepted. 

(11)  One exporting producer claimed that the use of different methodologies for selecting 
the  sample  for  the  EU  industry  and  importers  as  compared  to  the  sampling  of 
exporting  producers  amount  to  discrimination  and  that  the  same  criteria  should  have 
been used. The use of different methodologies is discriminatory against the exporting 
producers and a breach of equal treatment. 

(12)  The  selection  of  a  sample  of  exporting  producers  serves  only  to  investigate  the 
existence  of  dumping  of  the  product  concerned  from  the  PRC.  In  this  regard,  it  is 
essential  to  cover  the  maximum  volume  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned  in  the 
investigation period. On the other hand, the sample of Union producers was selected 
for  the  purpose  of  determining  whether  the  Union  industry  was  suffering  material 
injury  of  the  basis  of  numerous  different  indicators.  Concerning  importers,  the 
information collected is largely used in the Union interest assessment. It follows that 
for  importers  and  the  Union  producers,  it  is  important  to  collect  information  from  a 

EN 

5 

   EN 

range  of  companies  active  in,  for  example,  different  product  segments.  As  the 
underlying rationale for selecting companies to be included in the samples is different 
for, on the one hand, Union producers and importers and, on the other hand, exporting 
producers, they are not in a similar situation. Therefore, neither the principle of non-
discrimination  nor  equal  treatment  requires  the  use  of  an  identical  methodology  for 
selecting the respective samples. It follows that this claim is wholly unwarranted and 
is therefore rejected.  

(13)  Furthermore, one exporting producer maintained its request, as referred to in recital (8) 
of  the  provisional  Regulation,  that  it  should  have  been  included  in  the  sample.  The 
company  has  however  not  put  forward  any  new  arguments  that  would  justify  its 
inclusion in the sample. Therefore, and taking into account the findings in recital (10) 
above,  the  conclusions  in  recital  (9)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

(14)  The same non-sampled exporting producer claimed that it was not afforded sufficient 
time to submit its comments on the final disclosure and that, in addition, the disclosure 
was  insufficient  since  it  did  not  disclose,  e.g.  figures  for  allowances,  sales  prices, 
adjustments, etc. Therefore, its rights of defence have not been respected.  

(15)  According  to  Article  20(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  an  interested  party  should  be 
afforded a time period of at least 10 days to submit comments on the final disclosure. 
The exporting producer in question received the final disclosure by way of electronic 
mail on 25 February 2013 and was given until 8 March 2013, i.e. 11 days, to submit 
comments. The disclosure document was in addition also sent by registered mail the 
following day. It follows that the party concerned was given sufficient time to submit 
comments and this claim must therefore be rejected. In this respect it is also noted that 
the party’s comments were provided within the given deadline and that no request for 
an extension of the deadline was made. Moreover, having due regard to its obligation 
to  protect  confidential  information,  the  Commission  disclosed  all  essential  facts  and 
considerations on the basis of which it intended to propose the imposition of definitive 
measures. More particularly, the respect for the rights of defence does not require that 
company specific sale figures or allowances made in respect of companies included in 
the sample, used to establish individual dumping margins must be communicated to a 
party for which no individual margin is calculated.  

(16) 

It follows from the above that the claim that the rights of defence were not respected is 
unfounded and is therefore rejected. 

2. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

2.1. 

Introduction 

(17)  As set out in recitals (24) and recitals (56) to (57) of the provisional Regulation, the 
product  concerned  as  provisionally  defined  is  ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware, 
excluding ceramic knives ('the product concerned'), currently falling within CN codes 
ex 6911 10 00, ex 6912 00 10, ex 6912 00 30, ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912 00 90 and 
originating in the People’s Republic of China.  

2.2. 

Claims 

(18)  Following  provisional  disclosure,  no  parties  contested  that  ceramic  (kitchen)  knives 
were fundamentally different from other kinds of ceramic table and kitchenware due to 
differences  in  physical  characteristics,  production  processes  and  end-uses.  All 
comments by parties having been analysed, the claim to exclude ceramic knives from 
the product scope of this investigation is definitively accepted.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

(19)  After publication of provisional measures, several parties claimed that certain ceramic 
condiment and spice mills and their ceramic grinding parts, should be excluded from 
the product scope. 

(20)  This claim is based on the allegation that, in view of their specificities, such mills and 
other types of ceramic tableware and kitchenware could not be considered as forming 
one single product. Those mills have a ceramic material mainly made of alumina for 
the grinding plate which is not used for ’standard’ tableware such as cups and plates 
and for which firing is done at higher temperatures. Their degree of inter-changeability 
with  the  main  categories  of  the  product  under  investigation  would  be  limited.  This 
would  also  apply  to  ceramic  grinding  mechanisms  without  any  housing  which  are 
normally declared under the above-mentioned codes.  

(21)  The  investigation  showed  that  the  ceramic  element  in  these  grinders  normally 
represented  a  minor  part  of  the  mill.  Moreover,  the  investigation  showed  that  mills 
with a ceramic grinding plate, including their ceramic grinding parts, did not have the 
same  basic  physical  characteristics  and  basic  uses  as  ceramic  tableware  and 
kitchenware. The shape, strength and design of the ceramic grinding parts are different 
from ceramic tableware and kitchenware. 

(22)  Some parties submitted that the mills in question should be excluded from the product 
scope on the basis that they have the same physical characteristics, industry design and 
end-use as mills with grinding mechanisms made of metal and that when included in 
certain sets of mills they are normally classified under tariff heading 8210. They also 
claimed that the ceramic elements in these instances generally represent normally up 
to  2%  of  the  value  of  the  product.  Nevertheless,  given  the  numerous  classification 
possibilities  of  mills  and  sets  of  mills,  the  investigation  could  not  retain  these 
arguments  to  determine  whether  ceramic  mills  should  be  excluded  from  the  product 
scope of the investigation. 

(23)  Several parties backed their claim that the mills in question should be excluded from 
the  product  scope  on  the  basis  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  use  ceramic  grinding 
plates,  rather  than  metal,  in  certain  mills,  namely  salt  mills,  as  salt  corrodes  metal 
grinders.  However,  the  investigation  showed  that  salt  mills  do  not  necessarily  use 
ceramic grinding mechanisms. 

(24)  On  the  basis  of  the  considerations  in  the  recitals  above,  the  investigation  concluded 
that  condiment  and  spice  mills  with  ceramic  grinding  elements  are  fundamentally 
different from other kinds of ceramic table and kitchenware due to the differences in 
basic  physical  characteristics  and  uses  of  the  ceramic  material  used  for  the  working 
parts.  Therefore,  the  claim  to  exclude  them,  including  stand-alone  ceramic  grinding 
mechanisms and their parts, from the product scope of this investigation is accepted.  

(25)  After  publication  of  provisional  measures,  some  parties  claimed  that  ceramic  knife 
sharpeners  should  be  excluded  from  the  product  scope  because  of  differences  in  the 
production processes, end-use and the fact that these items are not aimed at retaining 
foodstuff  due  to  their  specific  design  and  physical  characteristics.  The  investigation 
confirmed  these  points.  The  claim  to  exclude  them  from  the  product  scope  of  this 
investigation is therefore granted. 

(26) 

In the same vein it was also investigated whether ceramic peelers should be excluded 
from the product scope. Indeed, the investigation confirmed that ceramic peelers, also, 
are fundamentally different from other kinds of ceramic table and kitchenware due to 
the  differences  in  the  design  and  physical  characteristics  (shape  and  strength)  of  the 

EN 

7 

   EN 

ceramic  material  used  for  the  working  parts, their production processes and end-use. 
Ceramic  peelers  should,  therefore,  also  be  excluded  from  the  product  scope  of  this 
investigation. 

(27)  After publication of provisional measures, a party also claimed that pizza-stones made 
of  cordierite  ceramic  should  be  excluded  from  the  product  scope  because  of  their 
different  physical  properties  (shape  and  hardness),  industrial  design  and  use. 
Cordierite  ceramic  is  a  type  of  alumina  magnesia  silicate  with  specific  properties, 
namely an excellent thermal shock resistance. The investigation confirmed that pizza-
stones  made  of  cordierite  ceramic  have  the  same  physical  properties  (shape  and 
hardness),  industrial  design  and  use  as  bricks  for  furnaces  or  ovens.  Consequently, 
they  are  different  from  other  ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware.  Following  final 
disclosure,  the  complainants  pointed  at  the  similarity  of  pizza-stones  made  of 
cordierite  ceramic  as  compared  to  the  other  products  covered  by  the  proceeding. 
However,  they  could  not  demonstrate  that  pizza-stones  made  of  cordierite  ceramic 
have the same basic physical characteristics and end uses. The claim to exclude them 
from the product scope of this investigation is therefore granted.  

(28)  After  publication  of  provisional  measures,  a  Dutch  association  claimed  that  ceramic 
tableware  and  kitchenware  to  be  used  as  promotional  products  should  be  excluded 
from the product scope on the basis that they are not sold to be used as tableware or 
kitchenware,  that  they  are  an  important  economical  driver  for  the  retail  sector,  that 
they  are  highly  appreciated  by  consumers  and  that  only  producers  in  the  People’s 
Republic of China could offer the quantities needed within a short period. The claim to 
exclude ceramic tableware and kitchenware to be used as promotional products from 
the  product  scope  of  this  investigation  cannot  however  be  granted  because  their 
physical  characteristics,  production  processes  and  end-use  are  the  same  as  those  of 
other kinds of ceramic tableware and kitchenware. 

(29)  Provisional measures having been published and again after final disclosure, a German 
importer and wholesaler and a Chinese co-operating exporting producer claimed that 
specially coated stoneware wares of a kind for sublimation printing and for which the 
coating  of  sublimation  is  removable  through  mechanical  scratching  should  be 
excluded from the product scope on the basis that they are semi-finished products for 
which the photofinishing is carried out in the Union via specific channels, the different 
consumer  perception,  the  fact  that  the  sublimation  coating  exceeds  the  value  of  the 
uncoated  ceramic  items  and  the  inexistency  of  Union  producers  of  this  kind  of 
product. The investigation revealed that the product is visibly identical to other non-
sublimated  tableware  and,  therefore,  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish,  if  at  all.  The 
investigation  further  showed  that  these  products  have  normally  the  same  end-use  as 
other  types  of  ceramic  tableware.  It  was  also  found  that  several  Union  producers  do 
manufacture these products and that Union-made and imported products are in direct 
competition.  In  view  of  the  above,  the  claim  to  exclude  specially  coated  stoneware 
wares of a kind for sublimation printing is rejected.  

(30)  After  the  publication  of  provisional  measures  and  again  after  final  disclosure,  the 
importer  that  had  claimed  the  exclusion  of  underglaze  figurative  hand-painted 
tableware from the product  scope  alleged that  the Commission's provisional analysis 
in  this  respect  was  flawed  because  it  ignored  the  existence  of  market  segments,  the 
differences  in  quality  between  the  different  types  of  tableware,  the  luxury  and  more 
fragile  nature  of  underglaze  figurative  hand-painted  tableware  and  the  limited 
interchangeability  as  a  consequence  of  the  associated  consumer  perception.  It  also 

EN 

8 

   EN 

alleged  that  underglaze  figurative  hand-painted  tableware  may  be  even  used  for 
decoration. 

(31)  As regards the claims concerning the differences in quality between the different types 
of  tableware  and  the  luxury  and  more  fragile  nature  of  underglaze  figurative  hand-
painted tableware, these characteristics are not specific to underglaze figurative hand-
painted  tableware.  Moreover,  as  regards  the  limited  interchangeability  as  a 
consequence  of  associated  consumer  perception,  no  new  argument  was  raised  that 
would  change  the  conclusion  in  recital  (45)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  that  the 
average  consumer  does  not  make  a  difference  between  underglaze  figurative  hand-
painted tableware and other types of ceramic tableware. Finally, the Commission had 
analysed the existence of market segments in recitals (157) to (158) of the provisional 
Regulation. These arguments could not therefore reverse the conclusions in recital (45) 
of the provisional Regulation. 

(32)  The  claim  raised  in  recital  (50)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  was  further  elaborated 
after  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures.  These  claims  were  reiterated  after 
that 
importer  with  production 
definitive  disclosure.  The 
kitchenware/tableware products that are entirely glazed and/or enamelled on 100% of 
their surface with the exception of the base or a part thereof and where 100% of the 
glazed/enamelled surface is coloured with a non-white colour should be excluded from 
the product scope. The claim was duly analysed and the investigation has shown that 
the  physical  characteristics,  production  processes  and  end-uses  of  these  products  are 
the same as those of other glazed and/or enamelled products of ceramic tableware and 
kitchenware. Therefore, the claim is definitively rejected. 

in  China  claimed 

(33)  CCCLA insisted that fine bone china should be excluded from the product scope of the 
investigation  on  the  basis  that  it  is  a  fragile  luxury  product  with  a  low  mechanical 
strength and it also contested that it is chip resistant. Yet it is noted that CCCLA itself 
had previously submitted that fine bone china had a high mechanical strength and was 
chip resistant. These contradictory statements clearly undermined the CCCLA claims. 
In  any  event,  the  arguments  raised  do  not  change  the  conclusions  summarized  in 
recital (28) of the provisional Regulation. Therefore, the claim for the exclusion of fine 
bone china from the product scope is therefore definitively rejected. 

(34)  The same party reiterated that durable porcelain should be excluded from the product 
scope  of  the  investigation.  It  claimed  that  the  statement  that  it  does  not  have 
uncontested  features  was  not  true,  that  it  was  very  robust  due  to  a  clay  aluminium 
content  of  over  24%  and  then  contested  the  Union  manufacturing  capacity  for  this 
product. However, the different submissions on durable porcelain are contradictory as 
regards  for  instance  the  raw  materials  share  and  its  alumina  powder  content. 
Moreover,  it  was  not  contested  that  durable  porcelain  was  also  manufactured  in  the 
Union  and  that  producers  in  the  PRC  made  durable  porcelain  which  was  in  direct 
competition  with  Union  produced  durable  porcelain  as  well  as  with  other  products 
covered  by  the  investigation.  The  claim  to  exclude  durable  porcelain  is  therefore 
definitively rejected. 

(35)  All types of ceramic tableware and kitchenware can be regarded as different types of 
the  same  product.  Therefore,  the  claim  made  after  provisional  and  again  after  final 
disclosure  that  the  investigation  covers  a  large  range  of  like  products  and  that,  as  a 
result, it would be necessary to conduct separate standing, dumping, injury, causation 
and Union interest analyses for each product segment, is found to be unfounded. One 
party that claimed that the product scope was too broad brought forward a comparison 

EN 

9 

   EN 

of  products  with  different  levels  of  decoration,  but  its  statements  as  regards  end-use 
(for  the  garden  and  children  in  one  case,  for  decoration  in  the  other  case)  are 
disputable because there is no clear-cut and can rather be seen as a confirmation of the 
point made in recital (55) of the provisional Regulation. It should also be noted that an 
importer with production in the People’s Republic of China submitted that over 99% 
of  the  ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware  products  sold  in  the  Union  were 
predominantly  or  exclusively  white.  Some  parties  contested  recital  (58)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation  on  the  basis  that  in  the  framework  of  the  investigation  the 
institutions did not carry out any test of whether certain merchandise was not suitable 
for free trade in the Union. However, this fact does not undermine the conclusion in 
recital (63) of the provisional Regulation. 

Conclusion 

In  view  of  the  above,  the  product  scope  is  definitively  defined  as  ceramic  tableware 
and kitchenware, excluding ceramic knives, ceramic condiment or spice mills and their 
ceramic  grinding  parts,  ceramic  peelers,  ceramic  knife  sharpeners  and  cordierite 
ceramic  pizza-stones  of  a  kind  used  for  baking  pizza  or  bread,  originating  in  the 
People's Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 6911 10 00, ex 6912 
00 10, ex 6912 00 30, ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912 00 90. 

2.3. 

(36) 

(37) 

In  the  absence  of  other  comments  regarding  the  product  concerned  and  the  like 
product, all other determinations in recitals (24) to (63) of the provisional Regulation 
are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

DUMPING 

3.1. 

Market Economy Treatment (MET) 

(38)  Following provisional disclosure one exporting producer, one Union producer and one 
importer  claimed  that  the  MET  determination  was  made  out  of  time,  i.e.  after  the 
three-month  period  laid  down  in  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  that  the 
investigation  therefore  should  be  terminated  without  imposition  of  any  anti-dumping 
measures. This claim in relation to the MET determination had already been made at 
the provisional stage and was rejected by the Commission in recitals (72) and (73) of 
the  provisional  Regulation.  After  final  disclosure  five  more  exporting  producers  put 
forward a similar claim. In support of the claim they relied on the Court of Justice's 
judgments in the Brosmann and Aokang Shoes cases4.  

(39)  First,  it  is  recalled  that  the  Brosmann  and  Aokang  cases  are  not  pertinent  for  the 
assessment of the legality of the MET analysis in the investigation at hand since those 
cases,  contrary  to  this  investigation,  relate  to  situations  where  the  MET  assessments 
were not conducted at all. 

(40)  Furthermore,  Brosmann  and  Aokang  cases  are  not  relevant  for  the  assessment  of  the 
legality of the investigation at hand, in the light of the fact that the basic Regulation 
has  meanwhile  been  amended5.  Article  2(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  as  amended, 
provides  that  the  Commission  shall  only  make  MET  determinations  in  respect  of 
companies included in a sample pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation and that 

4 

5 

Court of Justice judgment of 2 February 2012 in case C-249/10 P, Brosmann Footwear HK and Others 
v.  Council  of  the  European  Union  and  Court  of  Justice  judgment  of  15  November  2012  in  case  C-
247/10 P, Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd v. Council of the European Union. 
Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries 
not members of the European Community, OJ L 344, 14.12.2012, p. 1. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
it shall make such a determination within seven months of, but in any event not later 
than eight months after the initiation of the investigation, is applicable to all new and 
pending  investigations  as  from  15  December  2012,  including  therefore  the  present 
one. 

(41) 

In any event, the interpretation of the standing case law that there was no infringement 
per  se  of  the  right  to  a  MET  determination  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  three 
month  time  limit  was  not  respected,  must  be  upheld.  Therefore,  the  conclusion  in 
recital (73) of the provisional Regulation is maintained.  

(42)  Due to the large number of MET claims received and the need at that time to carry out 
numerous verification visits to examine those claims, the MET determination was not 
made  within  seven  months.  However  the  determinations  were  made  within  eight 
months from the date of the initiation as required by the basic Regulation, as amended 
by  Regulation  1168/2012.  The  allegation  that  any  right  in  this  respect  was  removed 
with retroactive effect is not justified as explained above. 

(43) 

In view of the above, the claim that the anti-dumping investigation, due to a failure to 
make  a  MET  determination  within  three  months,  should  be  terminated  without 
imposition of any anti-dumping measures, is rejected.  

(44)  Furthermore, one non-sampled exporting producer that failed to demonstrate that it has 
one  clear  set  of  accounting  records  that  were  independently  audited  in  line  with 
international accounting standards and thus had its MET request rejected, maintained 
the claim that the alleged accounting errors, if any, on the basis of which its request 
was  refused,  were  not  material  and  that,  therefore,  the  decision  to  refuse  MET  was 
disproportionate  and  in  breach  of  the  principle  of  proportionality.  Following  final 
disclosure  this  exporting  producer  maintained  its  claim  but  did  not  put  forward  any 
new arguments. 

(45)  The  arguments  concerning  the  severity  of  the  accounting  records  are  essentially 
identical  to  those  made  during  the  MET  investigation  and  were  rebutted  by  the 
Commission  prior  to  the  MET  determination.  Nevertheless,  with  regard  to  the 
argument  that  the  refusal  to  grant  MET  breaches  the  principle  of  proportionality  it 
should  be  recalled  that  the  MET  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  are  cumulative  and,  unless  they  are  all  fulfilled,  MET  cannot  legally  be 
granted. In addition, since the burden of proof is on the company requesting MET and 
the company failed to demonstrate that it had one clear set of accounts, the only option 
available  to  the  Commission  was  to  refuse  MET.  Therefore,  the  decision  to  refuse 
MET cannot be considered to be in breach of the principle of proportionality. In any 
event, pursuant to Article 2(7)(d) of the basic Regulation, as amended by Regulation 
1168/20126, when the Commission has limited its examination by the use of sampling, 
a determination on MET shall be limited to the parties included in the sample. 

3.2. 

(46) 

Individual Treatment (IT) 

It is recalled that although sixteen exporting producers requested IT, only the claims 
received from the sampled companies were examined pursuant to Article 9(6) of the 
basic Regulation and were, subsequently, accepted. Of the remaining eleven exporting 
producers, seven requested individual examination. 

(47) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  9(5)  and  9(6)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  individual  duties 
shall  be  applied  to  imports  from  any  exporter  or  producer  which  will  be  granted 

6 

Ibid. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
individual  examination,  as  provided  for  in  Article  17(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation. 
Accordingly,  the  four  companies  that  requested  IT  but  not  individual  examination 
could not be granted an individual duty.  

(48)  One exporting producer claimed that it had submitted all information required within 
given deadlines and should therefore have had its IT claim examined and an individual 
margin  established  in  accordance  with  the  Court  of  Justice  ruling  in  the  Brosmann 
case7. 

(49)  This  claim  cannot  be  accepted.  As  the  company  in  question  was  not  included  in  the 
sample  its  claim  for  IT  could  only  be  assessed  in  the  context  of  an  individual 
examination,  should  one  be  carried  out  pursuant  to  Article  17(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

(50) 

In the absence of any further comments on IT, recitals (79) to (81) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

3.3. 

Individual Examination (IE) 

(51)  Claims  for  individual  examination  pursuant  to  Article  17(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
were  submitted  by  seven  exporting  producers,  comprising  ten  legal  entities.  As 
explained  in  recitals  (82)  and  (83)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  no  decisions  were 
taken in respect of these requests at the stage of provisional measures. 

(52)  On 21 December 2012 the exporting producers were informed that their requests for 
individual  examinations could not be accepted  as they would  be unduly burdensome 
and would prevent completion of the investigation in due.  

(53)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  that,  pursuant  to  Article  17(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  an  individual  examination  is  a  statutory  right  and  that  the  Commission's 
refusal to individually examine it is unjustified, since neither the number of companies 
nor the examination required would, in view of the Commission's resources, be unduly 
burdensome  or  prevent  the  completion  of  the  investigation  in  due  time.  Following 
final disclosure this claim was repeated but no further arguments were put forward. 

(54)  The  decision whether or not to accept individual examinations is  taken on  a case  by 
case basis, taking into account the number of claims submitted and the time available 
to  assess  these  claims.  In  this  case,  it  should  be  recalled  that  the  Commission  was 
legally  obliged  to  carry  out  MET  examinations  at  sixteen  legal  entities  in  the  PRC, 
including  companies  not  selected  in  the  sample.  Considering  the  time  constraints 
imposed by legal procedural deadlines no individual examinations could therefore be 
carried  out  prior  to  the  provisional  findings.  In  view  of  the  limited  time  available 
thereafter  and  considering  the  number  of  claims  submitted  and  the  limited  resources 
available  by  the  services  responsible  for  anti-dumping  investigations  in  the 
Commission,  it  was  concluded  that  it  would  be  unduly  burdensome  to  carry  out 
individual examinations in this case.  

3.4. 

Normal Value 

3.4.1.  Choice of analogue country 

(55)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  the  selection  of  an  appropriate 
analogue country was further examined. In this context, a verification visit was carried 
out at the premises of the Thai exporting producer that had submitted a questionnaire 
reply,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (87)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  After  having 

7 

See footnote 4. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
examined  and  verified  the  information  received  from  the  cooperating  producer  in 
Thailand it was however concluded that the Thai producer could not provide data at a 
sufficient level of detail regarding the types of products sold on the domestic market. 
Therefore,  it  was  considered  that  Brazil  should  be  retained  as  the  most  appropriate 
analogue country. 

(56)  Nevertheless,  the  information  obtained  from  Thailand  served  to  support  some  of  the 
findings  made  in  Brazil,  notably  the  level  of  price  difference  between  branded  and 
non-branded products (see recital (91) below). 

(57)  Following  the  final  disclosure  one  industry  association  came  forward  and  contested 
the choice of Brazil as an appropriate analogue country. It essentially argued that the 
only reason to choose Brazil appears to be based on the fact that no other country was 
appropriate. This claim cannot be accepted. It follows clearly from the recitals (84) to 
(88)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  that  Brazil  was  considered  as  an  appropriate 
analogue  country  based  on  the  factual  domestic  market  situation.  The  fact  that  the 
Commission  after  provisional  measures  continued  to  examine  also  other  potential 
analogue  countries  does  not  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  Brazil  is  not  an  appropriate 
choice.  

(58) 

In view of the above and in the absence of any other comments on substance on the 
choice  of  Brazil  as  the  appropriate  analogue  country,  recitals  (84)  to  (88)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are confirmed.  

3.4.2.  Determination of normal value  

(59)  Following  the  provisional  disclosure  several  interested  parties  claimed  that  the 
determination of normal value was flawed in so far as it was allegedly not established 
for the sales of like products in Brazil and, therefore, led to distorted and unfair results, 
particularly  in  respect  of  stoneware  products  and  other  product  types  that  were  not 
produced and sold in the analogue country. Some exporting producers also argued that 
the  methodology  for  establishing  the  constructed  normal  value,  referred  to  in  recital 
(94) of the provisional Regulation, was not properly disclosed. 

(60)  The  comments  received  after  the  provisional  disclosure  show  that  the  methodology 
used to determine the normal value was not fully clear to some interested parties, In 
order  to  address  these  comments,  it  is  further  explained  that  the  methodology  for 
determining the normal value has been the following. 

(61)  Given  that  all  requests  for  MET  are  denied  normal  value  for  all  sampled  exporting 
producers from the PRC was established on the basis of information received from the 
producer in the analogue country, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. 

(62) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission  first 
examined  whether  the  sales  of  the  like  product  in  Brazil  to  independent  customers 
were  representative.  The  sales  of  the  Brazilian  cooperating  producer  of  the  like 
product  were  found  to  be  sold  in  representative  quantities  on  the  Brazilian  domestic 
market  compared  to  the  product  concerned  exported  to  the  Union  by  the  exporting 
producers included in the sample. In this respect it is recalled that according to Article 
1(4) of the basic Regulation, "like product" means a product that is identical, i.e. alike 
in all aspects, to the product under consideration or, in the absence of such a product, 
another  product  which,  although  not  alike  in  all  aspects,  has  characteristics  closely 
resembling those of the product under consideration.  

(63)  The  Commission  subsequently  examined  whether  these  sales  could  be  considered  as 
having been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic 

EN 

13 

   EN 

Regulation.  This  was  done  by  establishing  the  proportion  of  profitable  sales  to 
independent  customers.  The  sales  transactions  were  considered  profitable  where  the 
unit price was equal to, or above, the cost of production. The cost of production of the 
cooperating Brazilian producer was therefore determined. 

(64)  This examination demonstrated that for all product types more than 80% by volume of 
sales  on  the  domestic  market  were  above  cost  and  that  the  weighted  average  sales 
price of all types was equal to, or above, the unit cost of production.  

(65)  Accordingly, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of 
the  actual  domestic  prices  of  all  sales,  irrespective  of  whether  those  sales  were 
profitable or not. It follows that, contrary to what was indicated in recital (94) of the 
provisional  Regulation,  no  constructed  normal  value  has  been  established  for  non-
profitable sales.  

3.4.3.  Export price  

(66) 

In the absence of any comments regarding export prices, recital (95) of the provisional 
Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

3.4.4.  Comparison  

(67)  Following provisional disclosure several interested parties claimed that, generally, the 
methodology used for the comparison of normal value and export price was flawed as 
it did not compare like products and that the basis on which adjustments were made 
was not sufficiently explained. More particularly, one exporting producer claimed that 
for stoneware products, which were not produced and sold by the analogue producer, 
the  Commission  should  have  compared  the  export  price  with  the  domestic  price  for 
earthenware, duly adjusted, rather than constructing a normal value. Moreover, several 
exporting producers argued that for several other product types, which were produced 
and  sold  by  exporting  producers,  a  comparison  between  the  export  price  and  an 
average price per kg for a generic product type sold in Brazil based solely on the type 
of ceramic material used has inevitably lead to a comparison between products that are 
not like and thus to a flawed result. In addition, one exporting producer claimed that 
the  branding  adjustment  under  Article  2(10)(k)  was  underestimated  while  another 
exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  level  of  that  adjustment  was  not  based  on  any 
reliable  or  substantiated  data  and  is  therefore  not  justified.  The  same  exporting 
producer  also  argued  that  its  export  prices  should  be  adjusted  for  differences  in 
quantities  sold  at  different  levels  of  trade.  Finally,  several  interested  parties  claimed 
that  the  methodology  used  for  adjustments  for  differences  in  physical  characteristics 
are not well founded and it is unclear on which data these adjustments were made.  

(68) 

In  view  of  the  comments  received  the  methodology  used  for  price  comparison  and 
adjustments  for  the  purpose  of  price  comparability  pursuant  to  Article  2(10)  of  the 
basic Regulation have been revised. Most notably, for products that at the provisional 
stage  were  compared  on  the  basis  of  the  average  price  per  kg  for  a  generic  product 
based  solely  on  the  ceramic  material  used,  the  comparison  has  been  made  with  the 
closest resembling product (see recital (77) below),which allowed for a more accurate 
and fair price comparison. 

(69)  The normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis. The dumping 
margins were established by comparing the individual ex-works price of the sampled 
exporters  to  the  domestic  sales  price  of  the  analogue  producer  of  the  like  product. 
Some  export  transactions  concerned,  however,  atypical  product  types,  like  serviette 
rings,  knife  rests  or  teapot  stands,  for  which  it  was  not  possible  to  ensure  a  fair 

EN 

14 

   EN 

comparison. Therefore, also taking into account that these transactions were negligible 
as  they  overall  only  accounted  for  less  than  0.5%  of  export  volumes,  they  were 
excluded.  

(70)  For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export 
price,  due  allowances  in  the  form  of  adjustments  was  made  for  differences  affecting 
price and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. 
Adjustments  were  made,  where  appropriate,  in  respect  of  differences  in  physical 
characteristics,  level  of  trade  and  for  other  factors  affecting  price  comparability, 
notably branding.  

(71)  First,  it  was  examined  whether  an  adjustment  under  Article  2(10)(a)  of  the  basic 

Regulation for differences in physical characteristics was warranted.  

(72) 

In cases where the normal value was determined on the basis of the closest resembling 
product  (see  recital  (68)  above),  an  adjustment  was  made  for  differences  in  the 
physical characteristics in order to ensure a fair price comparability between the like 
products.  

(73)  With  regard  to  stoneware  products,  the  export  price  was  compared  to  the  domestic 
sales  price  of  the  closest  resembling  product  produced  and  sold  in  the  analogue 
country, i.e. the sales price of products made of earthenware instead of stoneware but 
identical in all other aspect, as adjusted upwards by 5%, to reflect the price difference 
between stoneware and earthenware.  

(74)  One exporting producer claims that both the production costs and the retail price for 
earthenware  products  is  higher  than  for  stoneware  products.  Accordingly,  the  export 
price  for  its  stoneware  products  should  have  been  adjusted  downwards  rather  than 
upwards. In support of this claim the exporting producer relies essentially on its own 
estimates of the production costs of earthenware and stoneware, respectively, and an 
extract from a price list indicating retail prices of earthenware and stoneware products.  

(75)  This information, which was provided very late in the proceedings, and only after the 
final disclosure, stands in stark contrast to the information that has been provided to 
the  Commission  throughout  the  investigation  from  other  interested  parties,  i.e.  the 
complainant,  the  Union  industry  and  the  producer  in  the  analogue  country  All  these 
parties  have  indicated  that  stoneware  products  are  of  a  higher  quality,  i.e.  more 
durable,  than  earthenware  products  and  are  more  expensive  to  manufacture  as 
stoneware  is  basically  high-fired  clay  and  earthenware  low-fired  clay.  Accordingly, 
stoneware  can  generally  be  sold  at  a  higher  price.  This  information  is  further 
corroborated by publicly available market information.  

(76) 

(77) 

It  should  further  be  noted  that  the  exporting  producer  in  question  does  not  produce 
earthenware  itself  and  has  thus  only  provided  an  estimate  of  the  production  costs 
thereof.  In  addition,  the  submitted  price  list  does  not  demonstrate  conclusively  that 
earthenware  products  are  generally  more  expensive  than  stoneware  products. 
Therefore,  the  evidence  provided  is  not  such  as  to  demonstrate  that  the  adjustment 
made  for  a  fair  price  comparison  between  the  normal  value  and  the  export  price  of 
stoneware products is flawed and the claim is accordingly rejected.  

In  respect  of  other  product  types  for  which  the  comparison  at  provisional  stage  was 
based on the average price per kg and the ceramic material only, the Commission has 
further analysed the product types concerned and compared the export price with the 
closest  resembling  product  type  produced  and  sold  in  the  analogue  country.  Where 
only  one  minor  physical  characteristic  differed,  e.g.  type  of  glazing  or  decoration, 

EN 

15 

   EN 

while all other basic characteristics of the product type were identical, the sales price 
of the closest resembling type was adjusted by the actual price difference found for the 
difference  in  physical  characteristic.  For  other  product  types,  where  more  than  one 
physical  characteristic  differed,  the  export  price  was  compared  to  the  average  sales 
price of the closest resembling product. For these product types, the closest resembling 
product  shared  several  or  all  of  the  following  basic  physical  characteristics;  ceramic 
material, type of ware, basic shape, decoration and glazing.  

(78)  Two  sampled  exporting  producers  claimed  that,  similar  to  the  adjustments  made  in 
cases where only one minor physical characteristic was different, an adjustment should 
also  be  made  where  more  than  one  physical  characteristic  of  the  closest  resembling 
product was different.  

(79) 

It  is  recalled  that  in  cases  where  only  one  minor  physical  characteristic  differed  the 
sales  price  of  the  closest  resembling  product  was  adjusted  to  take  into  account  the 
actual price difference found for the difference in question while, on the other hand, 
where  more  than  one  physical  characteristic  was  different  the  comparison  was  made 
on  the  basis  of  the  average  sales  price  of  the  product  with  identical  physical 
characteristics. Therefore, in the latter case, no price adjustment was required for any 
physical difference between the like products as they shared the same basic physical 
characteristics. Accordingly, this claim cannot be accepted. 

(80)  One of the exporting producers mentioned above also claimed additional adjustments 
for differences in physical characteristics with regard to weight and whiteness of the 
product  concerned.  It  claimed  that  it  uses  raw  material  of  a  low  standard  and  that, 
therefore,  the  cost  and  price  of  its  products  are  lower  than  for  the  like  product 
produced in the analogue country. Its export price should therefore be adjusted with a 
reasonable amount. In this respect it is first recalled that the company was not granted 
market economy status and that its costs of production have thus not been verified. In 
addition, the claim that its products are about 5% heavier than standard products was 
not accompanied by any verifiable or supporting documents and therefore found to be 
unsubstantiated.  Regarding  the  whiteness,  as  this  exporting  producer  admitted  in  its 
submission  that  its  products  are  of  normal  whiteness,  it  failed  to  explain  why  any 
adjustment should be warranted in this respect. Therefore, these claims are rejected. 

(81)  Another exporting producer claimed that the Commission had failed to compare some 
of its export sales with the normal value of the appropriate closest resembling product. 
These  exports  concerned  sales  of  decorated  products  via  an  unrelated  trader,  which 
had, allegedly, provided the decoration (decal) free of charge. As a consequence, the 
export  price  did  not  include  the  cost  for  decoration  and  should  therefore  have  been 
compared  with  the  normal  value  determined  for  undecorated  products  or,  in  the 
alternative, an average normal value of decorated and undecorated goods. 

(82) 

It  is  recalled  that  the  cost  of  production  is  not  a  relevant  factor  for  the  price 
comparability, which is based solely on a comparison between the normal value and 
the  export  price  for  like  products.  It  is  also  clear  from  the  information  provided that 
the  exported  products  in  question  were  indeed  decorated  although  the  exporting 
producer did allegedly not bear the full costs associated with the added value that can 
be  assigned  to  the  decoration.  However,  this  is  not  a  factor  that  can  justify  a  price 
adjustment  for  differences  in  physical  characteristics  with  the  like  product  in  the 
analogue country. In any event, considering the late stage of the proceeding at which 
this  claim  was  made,  the  data  submitted  in  support  of  the  claim  cannot  be  verified. 
Accordingly, the claim is hereby rejected. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

(83) 

In  view  of  the  wide  variety  of  possible  combinations  of  ceramic  tableware  sets 
produced  and  sold  in  the  PRC  and  in  Brazil,  respectively,  it  was  for  the  purpose  of 
achieving  a  fair  price  comparability  considered  necessary  to  group  different  sets 
together  based  on  the  number  and  type  of  items  combined  in  a  set.  The  average 
domestic sales price in the analogue country for the different combinations of sets thus 
grouped  together  was  compared  with  the  export  price  for  set  combinations  falling 
within those groups. 

(84)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  that  due  to  the  wide  variety  of  possible  product 
combinations  making  up  a  set,  the  grouping  methodology  does  not  allow  for  a  fair 
price  comparison,  as  it  fails  to  take  into  account  the  characteristics  of  each  piece 
making  up  a  set.  Therefore,  this  exporting  producer  claimed  that  sets  should  be 
excluded from the dumping margin calculation.  

(85) 

It is recalled that the dumping calculations for sets are based on a comparison of the 
average price per kg and not on a piece by piece basis. It is therefore not necessary to 
establish  the  exact  combination  of  different  pieces  in  each  set  for  a  fair  price 
comparison with regard to sets. The grouping methodology used takes into account the 
basic characteristics of different set combinations in so far as the sets are identified as 
e.g.  coffee  and/or  tea  sets,  dinner  sets  or  other  sets  and  also  the  number  of  pieces 
combined.  In  these  circumstances,  it  is  considered  that  a  fair  comparison  has  been 
made in regard to sets in the sense of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. It follows 
that this claim cannot be accepted.  

(86)  Furthermore,  as  described  in  recital  (99)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the 
investigation  established  that  Chinese  exporting  producers  generally  qualify  their 
product  in  up  to  five  different  grades  ranging  from  A  to  E  with  significant  price 
differences. The vast majority of exports to the Union consist however of A-grade, B-
grade or C-grade or a combination thereof. This grading is however not universal or 
based on any general industry-wide standard but is rather company specific and allows 
for price differentiation. On the other hand, the analogue country producer only sells 
the  equivalent  of  A-grade  on  the  domestic  Brazilian  market  and  price  comparability 
was  therefore  found  to  be  affected.  Accordingly,  the  export  price  was  adjusted 
upwards to Chinese A-grade level in order to be comparable with the product sold by 
the  analogue  producer  on  the  Brazilian  market.  This  level  of  this  adjustment  was 
individually  established  for  each  of  the  sampled  companies,  where  appropriate  and 
based on the actual and verified price difference between the different grades.  

(87)  Following  the  final  disclosure  one  sampled  exporting  producer  came  forward  and 
claimed that parts of its export sales that were sold via an unrelated trader consisted of 
a  combination  of  A-grade  and  B-grade  and  should  therefore  also  be  adjusted  to  the 
price  level  of  A-grade.  It  claimed  that  the  price  difference  amounted  to  25%  and 
provided copies of invoices and price quotations as supporting evidence.  

(88)  However, this information was not provided either during the investigation, including 
the verification visit, or after the disclosure of the Commission’s provisional findings. 
On the  contrary, this  producer has throughout the investigation indicated that  it  only 
exported A-grade products. No full price list was provided, despite being requested to 
do  so  in  the  questionnaire,  to  quantify  the  alleged  price  difference  between  the 
different grades, only a limited number of price quotations. Under such circumstances 
and  considering  the  very  late  stage  in  the  proceedings  at  which  the  information  was 
submitted  the  reliability  thereof  is  questionable  and  cannot  in  any  event  be  verified. 
Accordingly, the claim is rejected. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

(89)  Second,  as  described  in  recital  (98)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  it  was  examined 
whether a level of trade adjustment under Article 2(10)(d) of the basic Regulation was 
warranted. It was found  that  the export price is at a different  level of trade from the 
normal value as Chinese exports were essentially made at wholesale level whereas the 
domestic  sales  in  the  analogue  country  were  also  made  at  a  retail  level.  The 
investigation  further  established  that  on  both  markets  the  different  distribution 
channels  affected  the  price  level,  thus  affecting  fair  price  comparability  between 
export  price  and  normal  value.  Accordingly,  in  order  to  make  a  fair  comparison 
between  the  export  price  and  the  normal  value,  the  latter  was  established  on  a  per 
product type basis and adjusted for each level of trade by using the price differences 
found between the different levels of trade in the analogue country. It is recalled that, 
where  appropriate,  a  further  level  of  trade  adjustment  was  made  in  the  provisional 
Regulation  on  the  basis  of  the  price  difference  found  in  respect  of  quantities  sold  at 
each level of trade (recital (98) of the provisional Regulation). This further adjustment 
was deemed justified as the investigation, at the provisional stage, had indicated that 
while the majority of Chinese export sales were made in large quantities, the majority 
of domestic sales were made in smaller quantities resulting in price differences on the 
same level of trade. However, further investigation and a more detailed analysis of the 
domestic  sales  transactions  in  the  analogue  country  have,  contrary  to  the  provisional 
findings, demonstrated that the ratio of small and large quantities sold by the analogue 
producer  is  similar  to  that  of  the  Chinese  exporting  producers.  Accordingly,  this 
adjustment is no longer considered appropriate or justified.  

(90)  Third,  as  described  in  recital  (100)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  the  investigation 
established  that  the  Brazilian  producer  only  sells  branded  products  on  the  Brazilian 
market  whereas  Chinese  exporting  producers  do  not  export  branded  products  but 
rather  private  label  products  or  generic ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware.  Branded 
products  are  normally  perceived  by  customers  to  be  products  signifying  a  certain 
prestige, assured quality and design thus commanding a higher market price whereas 
generic  and/or  private  label  products,  whilst  having  the  same  physical  and  technical 
characteristics, are usually sold at considerably lower price levels. While the additional 
value  of  a  branded  value  cannot  generally  be  exactly  quantified  in  the  abstract  as  it 
varies from brand to brand and depends on many different factors, such as customer 
perception,  brand  recognition,  and  other  non-quantifiable  factors,  the  Brazilian 
producer has, in this particular case, confirmed that its branded products can be sold at 
significantly  higher  prices  on  the  Brazilian  market  than  other  non-branded  products. 
Furthermore, a report concerning the Brazilian market for tableware and kitchenware 
products  confirmed  that  Brazilian  customers  are  extremely  brand-orientated  and  that 
the  Brazilian  analogue  country  producer  is  a  long  established  and  very  well-known 
producer. In view of these elements, a downward adjustment of 40% of the domestic 
sales  price  was  made  to  the  normal  value  pursuant  to  Article  2(10)(k)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

(91)  With  regard  to  the  above  mentioned  adjustment  it  is  recalled  that  two  exporting 
producers have questioned both the basis on which the adjustment was made as well as 
the  level  of  the  adjustment  (see  recital  (67)  above).  It  is  however  uncontested  that  a 
branded product commands a higher sales price than an identical non-branded product 
and  that  the  price  comparability  is  thus  affected.  Moreover,  in  addition  to  the 
information  provided  by  the  producer  in  the  analogue  country,  actual  and  verified 
price  data  from  a  cooperating  producer  in  Thailand,  as  well  as  information  received 
from  one  Union  producer  after  the  provisional  disclosure,  have  confirmed  that  the 
level of adjustment is appropriate. In particular, the market situation in Thailand was 

EN 

18 

   EN 

found to be comparable with the Brazilian market as also in Thailand, only a few well 
known and long-established brands exist. Therefore, these claims cannot be accepted.  

(92)  Following  the  final  disclosure  no  exporting  producers  maintained  their  objection  to 
this  adjustment  while  the  association  of  complainants  claimed  that  the  branding 
adjustment is too high, in particular with regard to non-porcelain products. In support 
of this claim the complainant referred to price lists and information provided by some 
Union producers. 

(93)  While  the  information  submitted  confirms  the  Commission’s  findings  that  the  added 
value  of  a  brand  on  any  given  market  is  company/brand-specific,  the  information 
provided  is  not  such  as  to  put  into  question  the  level  of  adjustment  that  was 
determined  for  the  branded  products  sold  by  the  analogue  producer  on  the  domestic 
Brazilian  market  as  the  information  provided  only  concerned  the  Union  market.  In 
view of the large number of Union producers, the diversity of the Union market with 
its regional differences, also as regards brand orientation, and the high market share of 
Chinese imports,  the situation of  the Union  market  is quite  different  to  the Brazilian 
one. Therefore, and in light of the considerations in recitals (90) and (91) above, this 
claim cannot be accepted. 

(94)  As described in recital (101) of the provisional  Regulation, further  adjustments were 
made,  where  appropriate,  in  respect  of  transport,  insurance,  handling  and  ancillary 
costs,  packing,  credit,  bank  charges  and  commissions  in  all  cases  where  they  were 
demonstrated to affect price comparability. 

3.5. 

(95) 

Dumping margins 

In  the  absence  of  comments,  the  methodology  used  for  calculating  the  dumping 
margins, as set out in recitals (102) to (105) of the provisional Regulation, is herewith 
confirmed.  

(96)  Following  the  provisional  disclosure,  the  Commission  were  informed  that  some 
trading companies, which do not produce the product concerned, had erroneously been 
named in Annex I to the provisional Regulation and hence subject to the dumping duty 
established  for  cooperating  exporting  producers.  The  Commission  informed  these 
companies of its intention to have them removed from Annex I and granted them the 
opportunity  to  provide  comments.  After  having  examined  the  comments  received, 
several trading companies have been removed from Annex 1. Where appropriate, they 
have been replaced with the related cooperating exporting producer. 

(97)  Taking into account the adjustments made to the normal value and to the export price 
as set out in recitals (67) – (94) above, and in the absence of any further comments, the 
definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, 
duty unpaid, are as follows:  

Company 

Hunan  Hualian  China  Industry  Co.,  Ltd;  Hunan  Hualian  Ebillion 
Industry  Co.,  Ltd;  Hunan  Liling  Hongguanyao  China  Industry  Co., 
Ltd; Hunan Hualian Yuxiang China Industry Co., Ltd 

Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co., Ltd 

CHL Porcelain Industries Ltd 

Duty 

18,3% 

13,1% 

23,4% 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
Shandong  Zibo  Niceton-Marck  Huaguang  Ceramics  Limited;  Zibo 
Huatong  Ceramics  Co.,  Ltd;  Shandong  Silver  Phoenix  Co.,  Ltd; 
Niceton Ceramics (Linyi) Co., Ltd; Linyi Jingshi Ceramics Co., Ltd; 
Linyi Silver Phoenix Ceramics Co., Ltd; Linyi Chunguang Ceramics 
Co., Ltd: Linyi Zefeng Ceramics Co., Ltd 

Guangxi Province Beiliu City Laotian Ceramics Co., Ltd 

Non-sampled cooperating exporting producers 

All other companies 

4. 

INJURY 

4.1. 

Period considered 

17,6% 

22,9% 

17,9% 

36,1% 

(98)  After  final  disclosure,  several  interested  party  reiterated  that  the  period  considered 
should have started in 2009 instead of 2008 as the economic crisis would have started 
in 2008 and the trend between 2009 and 2011 would be clear. As regards this claim, it 
is noted that 2009 does not represent a more appropriate year as the start of the period 
considered in view of the fact that the effects of the economic crisis were fully felt in 
that  year,  resulting  in  a  significant  drop  of  consumption  as  compared  to  2008.  The 
claim is therefore definitively rejected.  

4.2. 

(99) 

Union production and Union industry 

In a joint submission several importers questioned the calculation method of the Union 
production  figure  given  in  recital  (108)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  Several 
interested  parties  repeated  these  comments  after  final  disclosure.  In  particular,  they 
considered  that  the  standing  requirement  would  not  have  been  met  by  the 
complainants as the available PRODCOM statistics would suggest a much higher level 
of EU production of the like product than the 240 200 tonne figure mentioned in the 
said recital, as a result of which the complainants would represent less than 25% of EU 
production of the like product. These parties had calculated an EU production figure of 
313 187 tonnes during the IP and they arrived at this figure by using full PRODCOM 
data for porcelain ceramic tableware and kitchenware and making an 20% downwards 
adjustment  for  non  porcelain  ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware,  by  analogy  to  the 
methodology  applied  by  the  complainant  and  in  the  investigation  for  establishing 
import volumes. 

(100)  In this respect it should firstly be noted that, in the framework of the statutory analysis 
of  an  anti-dumping  complaint  and  in  accordance  with  Article  5(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  the  Commission  services  carried  out  a  thorough  standing  examination 
before initiation. The Commission analysed the data in the complaint and contacted all 
known Union producers and asked them to also provide data on production as well as 
their  position  with  regards  the  complaint  and  to  assist  the  Commission  in  the 
identification of other potential producers, if any. Associations of producers provided 
information on production as well. 

(101)  In respect of this claim it is further noted that the data source and methodology for the 
Union production figure used for each of the years of the period considered was also 
explained in recital (107) of the provisional Regulation, i.e. in line with what had been 
done  at  complaint  stage  it  is  based  on  data  provided  by  the  European  and  national 

EN 

20 

   EN 

associations, cross-checked with data provided by individual producers and also with 
other statistical sources (in particular, PRODCOM).  

(102)  As  explained  by  the  complainants  during  the  investigation,  the  data  provided  by  the 
European association had, as concerns porcelain products, been based on PRODCOM 
data for porcelain tableware and kitchenware as the PRODCOM code for this product 
matched with the porcelain products covered by this investigation. As concerns non-
porcelain  products,  PRODCOM  could  not  be  used  at  it  covered  many  more 
manufactured products than the non-porcelain products covered by this investigation. 
Therefore, for these products, the national associations had collected the relevant data 
based on their in-depth knowledge of their respective markets and this information had 
been cross-checked by the European association before providing the total figures to 
the Commission. Those figures were updated during the investigation. Moreover, a list 
of  all  known  producers  was  contained  in  the  non-confidential  file  and  the 
Commission’s  attention  was  only  drawn  to  the  existence  of  an  additional  three 
producers  in  Romania.  The  disparity  between  the  PRODCOM  statistics  and  the  240 
200 figure derives from the fact that the product scope of this investigation does not 
match with the PRODCOM statistical data codes as concerns non-porcelain products, 
i.e.  it  is  much  narrower.  In  the  case  of  EUROSTAT  import  statistics,  this  difference 
could indeed be accounted for by making a 20% downward adjustment, but this was 
not appropriate in the case of the EU production figures reported in the PRODCOM 
database. In particular the PRODCOM figures of two Member States would appear to 
be grossly overstated if one applied the same methodology.  

(103)  Therefore,  the  methodology  used  by  the  parties  concerned  and  referred  to  in  recital 
(99)  above  is  flawed.  Moreover,  no  evidence  was  provided  that  the  production  as 
reported by any of the EU Member States, including the two Member States referred 
to above, and included in the non-confidential file would be understated. It should also 
be noted that for some Member States the data provided by the European association 
and  used  in  this  investigation  was  significantly  higher  than  if  adjusted  PRODCOM 
data had been used. In view of the above, there is no reason to doubt the production 
figures reported in this investigation and the result of the examination of standing. 

(104)  In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments,  recitals  (107)  and  (108)  of  the  provisional 

Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.3. 

Union consumption 

(105)  In  a  joint  submission  several  importers  contested  the  Union  consumption  figures 
provided  in  recital  (110)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  This  claim  was  based  on  the 
erroneous  use  of  PRODCOM  statistical  data  for  Union  production  and  sales,  as 
explained under point 4.2 above and is therefore dismissed. 

(106)  However, whilst checking again the Eurostat import statistics, it was found that they 
had been updated since the imposition of provisional measures which had resulted in 
some  minor  changes.  Therefore,  for  the  sake  of  completeness,  on  the  basis  of  these 
updated Eurostat import statistics and submissions regarding Union industry sales on 
the Union market, the Union consumption developed as follows: 

Table 1 

Volume (tonnes)  2008 

2009 

2010 

IP 

Union 

826 897 

687 587 

750 828 

727 411 

EN 

21 

   EN 

consumption 

Index 
(2008=100) 

100 

83 

91 

88 

(107)  In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments,  recitals  (109)  and  (111)  to  (112)  of  the 

provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.4. 

Imports from the country concerned 

4.4.1.  Volume, price and market share of dumped imports from the country concerned 

(108)  In a joint submission several importers contested the figures provided in recital (113) 
of  the  provisional  Regulation.  This  claim  was  based  on  the  erroneous  use  of 
PRODCOM statistical data and is therefore dismissed.  

(109)  On  the  basis  of  the  updated  Eurostat  import  statistics  (see  recital  (106)  above),  the 
volume,  market  share  and  average  prices  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned 
developed as set out below: 

Table 2 

2008 

2009 

2010 

IP 

535 593 

449 325 

516 624 

486 170 

Imports from the 
PRC 

Volume  of  imports 
(tonnes) 

Index (2008=100) 

100 

84 

96 

Market share 

64,8 % 

65,3 % 

68,8 % 

Average 
price (EUR/tonne) 

import 

1 274 

1 307 

1 473 

91 

66,8% 

1 498 

Index (2008=100) 

100 

103 

116 

118 

(110)  The updated volumes, values and trends are almost identical to those analysed in the 
provisional Regulation. The market share of Chinese imports increased from 64,8% in 
2008 to 66,8% in the IP. The import price increased by almost 18% during the period 
considered, from 1 274 EUR/tonne to 1 498 EUR/tonne.  

(111)  One  party  alleged  a  complete  lack  of  correlation  between  the  prices  and  volumes  of 
Chinese  imports.  In  this  respect,  in  accordance  with  Article  3(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  consideration  shall  be  given  to  whether  there  has  been  a  significant 
increase  in  dumped  imports,  either  in  absolute  terms  or  relative  to  production  or 
consumption in the Union. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, 
consideration  shall  be  given  to  whether  there  has  been  significant  price  undercutting 
by  the  dumped  imports  as  compared  with  the  price  of  a  like  product  of  the  Union 
industry,  or  whether  the  effect  of  such  imports  is  otherwise  to  depress  prices  to  a 
significant degree or prevent price increases, which would otherwise have occurred, to 
a  significant  degree.  No  one  or  more  of  these  factors  can  necessarily  give  decisive 
guidance.  

(112)  Within the above context, the following should be noted. Firstly, at the time when the 
Union  consumption  recovered  (2009-2010),  there  was  a  significant  price  increase  of 

EN 

22 

   EN 

Chinese  imports  –  which  would  suggest  that  there  is  a  correlation.  But  more 
importantly, the development of Chinese prices during the period considered should be 
assessed in the context of the very significant price difference which already existed in 
2008 and which is illustrated by the average Chinese imports prices (table 2) and the 
average  EU  sales  prices  (table  9)  reported  in  the  provisional  Regulation.  These  high 
price differences are confirmed by the high levels of undercutting during the IP. The 
price  increase,  consequently,  did  not  prevent  Chinese  imports  from  gaining  market 
share  over  the  period  considered.  Indeed,  these  imports  continued  to  exert  a  severe 
pressure  on  prices  of  EU  industry  which  went  down  by  12%  over  the  period 
considered. This comment, therefore, cannot be accepted.  

(113)  As regards the evolution of import price (increasing) and import volume (decreasing) 
from 2008 to 2011 and then 2012 brought forward by one sampled group of Chinese 
exporting  producers,  the  observed  trend  of  increasing  average  import  prices  cannot 
undermine  the  finding  of  injurious  dumping  during  the  IP.  As  concerns  the 
development of Chinese import volumes, and as already highlighted in recital (114) of 
the provisional Regulation and again in recital (109) above, the market share indicator 
shows  an  increase  in  market  share  of  Chinese  imports  by  2  percentage  points. 
Moreover,  and  as  explained  in  more  detail  in  recitals  (116)  and  (117)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation  and  in  recital  (111)  above,  there  was  important  price 
undercutting by the Chinese imports. 

4.4.2.  Price undercutting 

(114)  Following provisional disclosure, several interested parties requested more details on 
the price undercutting calculations than those already provided in recital (116) of the 
provisional Regulation. Insofar as the sensitive nature of this information and the fact 
that  the  EU  producers  had  been  granted  anonymity  would  allow  it,  additional 
information was provided. 

(115)  By  analogy  to  the  decision  made  after  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures  to 
exclude  from  the  export  listings  some  “atypical”  products  for  the  purpose  of 
calculating dumping (see recital (69) above), these products were also excluded from 
the export listings used for the injury calculations. This change had only a minor effect 
on the undercutting margins, which remained therefore in the same range as mentioned 
in recital (117) of the provisional Regulation. 

(116)  In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments,  recitals  (113)  to  (117)  of  the  provisional 

Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.5. 

Situation of the Union industry 

4.5.1.  General 

(117)  Several parties stated that the fact that several injury factors improved between 2009 
or  2010  and  the  IP  demonstrates  that  the  Union  industry  is  developing  positively. 
However, it should be noted that this analysis is incomplete and that it disregards the 
evolution of those factors during the whole period considered. The explanations given 
in recital (23) of the provisional Regulation are also to be taken into consideration in 
this respect.  

(118)  Upon request by an interested party, it is confirmed that the macroeconomic indicators 
were assessed at the level of the whole Union industry, while the microeconomic ones 
were  analysed  at  the  level  of  the  sampled  Union  producers,  which  included  non-
complaining companies. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

(119)  CCCLA  submitted  that  the  micro-  and  macro-economic  indicators  presented  in  the 
provisional  Regulation  were  not  representative  as  the  total  production  in  the  Union 
would be much higher than the figures used in this investigation. However, in view of 
the analysis and conclusions reached under point 4.2 above, this argument is rejected. 

(120)  In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments,  recitals  (118)  to  (121)  of  the  provisional 

Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.5.2.  Macroeconomic indicators 

4.5.2.1.  Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation 

(121)  As mentioned in section 4.1 above, several importers contested the production figures 
provided  in  recital  (122)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  However,  these  figures  have 
been cross-checked and are confirmed. 

(122)  In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments,  recitals  (122)  to  (124)  of  the  provisional 

Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.5.2.2.  Sales volumes and market share 

(123)  The update in Table 2 has no impact on Tables 4 and 5 of the provisional Regulation. 

(124)  In  the  absence  of  relevant  comments  regarding  sales  volumes  and  market  share, 

recitals (125) and (126) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.5.2.3.  Employment and productivity 

(125)  In  a  joint  submission  several  importers  contested  the  employment  and  productivity 
figures provided in recitals (127) and (128) of the provisional Regulation, alleging that 
they were not in line with the picture depicted by certain Eurostat statistics8.  

(126)  However, the figures for both indicators were cross-checked and deemed accurate. The 
figures brought forward by the parties were too broad and not related to the production 
of the like product. In the absence of any further comments regarding employment and 
productivity,  recitals  (127)  to  (128)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

4.5.2.4.  Magnitude of the dumping margin 

(127)  In  the  absence  of  any  comments  regarding  the  magnitude  of  the  dumping  margin, 

recital (129) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4.5.3.  Microeconomic indicators 

4.5.3.1.  Stocks 

(128)  In a joint submission several importers contested the stock figures provided in recital 
(130)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  and  their  relevance  as  compared  to  publicly 
available  data  regarding  certain  Union  producers.  They  also  disagreed  with  the 
statement that the Union industry basically works on orders.  

(129)  As  regards  working  on  orders,  the  investigation  confirmed  that  that  was  indeed  the 
case  for  sampled  Union  producers  and  that  is  a  normal  practice  in  the  sector. 
Moreover,  the  stock  figures  provided  in  the  provisional  Regulation  concerned  the 
verified stock figure from the sampled Union producers which is considered the most 
reliable figure. 

8 

Eurostat  statistics  on  employment  linked  to  the  manufacturing  of  textiles,  wearing  apparel, 
leather/wood/cork/straw/paper (products) and printing and reproduction of recorded media. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
(130)  After  final  disclosure  the  above  comments  were  reiterated,  however,  no  new 
arguments  were  brought  forward.  In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments  regarding 
stocks, recital (130) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4.5.3.2.  Sales prices 

(131)  In  the  absence  of  any  comments  regarding  the  sales  prices  figures  as  given  in  the 
provisional  Regulation,  recital  (131)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is  hereby 
confirmed. 

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

wages 

(132)  After disclosure, a clerical error was discovered in the calculation of the net profit of 
the Union industry and the return on investment (ROI). This error was corrected and 
the revised figures are as follows: 

Table 3 

2008 

3,8% 

2009 

2,8% 

2010 

IP 

-0,5% 

3,2% 

of 
to 

profit 
sales 

Net 
Union 
unrelated 
customers  (%  of 
sales 
net 
turnover) 

Index (2008=100) 

100 

74 

-13 

84 

16,4% 

6,3% 

-6,8% 

20,5% 

ROI  (net  profit  in 
%  of  net  book 
value 
of 
investments)  

Index (2008=100) 

100 

38 

-41 

125 

(133)  The  above  correction  does  not  materially  affect  the  provisional  findings  as  regards 
these  two  indicators.  However,  the  weighted  average  profit  level  of  the  sampled 
producers  was,  during  the  period  considered,  slightly  lower  as  provisionally 
established as it went down from 3,8% to 3,2% (instead of from 4,2% to 3,5%). Return 
on investment largely followed the trend observed for profit, but, as also pointed at by 
several interested parties after final disclosure, over the period considered it developed 
overall positively instead of negatively.  

(134)  One interested party questioned the fragile state of the Union industry at the beginning 
of the period considered, as mentioned in recital (134) of the provisional Regulation. 
This party claimed that only injury caused by dumping may be taken into account and 
that  no  dumping  has  been  established  for  any  period  other  than  2011.  However,  the 
reference to the state of the Union industry in that recital was only made in order to 
analyse whether the profit achieved in the beginning of the period considered could be 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
taken into account as representing the profit that the industry would normally achieve 
– quod non. 

(135)  Several parties questioned the benchmark profit level referred to in recital (135) of the 

provisional Regulation and/or proposed other (lower) benchmarks. 

(136)  A group of Chinese exporting producers stated that the profit level during the IP was a 
good profitability rate. However, this claim was not substantiated. Another party also 
stated  that  the  profit  levels  displayed  in  the  provisional  Regulation  could  be  deemed 
normal  levels  and  this  party  based  itself  on  the  publicly  available  profit  data  of  a 
German producer between 1999 and 2007. Yet another interested party stated that the 
IP profit level displayed in the provisional Regulation could be deemed “normal” on 
the basis on the conclusions of a study by the Commission9 which included profit data 
of  a  German  producer  between  2004  and  2007.  Similar  claims  were  received  after 
final disclosure. 

(137)  In this respect, it is recalled that the provisional Regulation concluded that the profit 
achieved in the beginning of the period considered cannot be considered as a normal 
profit as the Union industry was then, already, in a fragile state as explained in recital 
(134)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  In  addition,  it  was  found  that  the  publicly 
available 1999-2007 profit data of a German producer referred to above concerned not 
only  manufacturing  activities  of  ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware,  but  also  other 
important  segments.  As  concerns  the  Commission  study  referred  to  in  recital  (136) 
above, in the light of the scope, the aim and the time of that study, this was found not 
to be a pertinent basis for the determination of profitability. For instance, in relation to 
the product concerned it only referred to the profit situation of one company. Finally, 
all  three  submissions  referred  to  in  recital  (136),  which  are  contradicted  by  the 
submission  mentioned  in  recital  (141)  below,  are  not  sufficiently  substantiated.  It  is 
therefore  confirmed  that  the profit  rate  of  3,2%  observed  during  the  IP  could  not  be 
deemed acceptable for this product.  

(138)  One  interested  party  claimed  that  the  profit  levels  of  the  home  interior  design, 
furniture and/or food of the Swedish retailing sectors should be used as a benchmark. 
However, given, inter alia, the disparity in the investment levels for the manufacturing 
and the retailing sectors concerned, this claim should be rejected. 

(139)  After  final  disclosure,  a  party  submitted  that  to  consider  the  6%  profit  as  found 
reasonable in the footwear investigation also a normal profit level in the current case 
was  not  appropriate  as  it  had  been  established  in  2006,  when  the  economic 
circumstances  were  much  more  favourable  than  in  2013.  This  argument  cannot  be 
accepted. First of all, the party refers to economic circumstances in general and not to 
the specific situation on the tableware market. It is true that the consumption dropped 
significantly  in  2009  but  it  has  recovered  since  to  a  considerable  extent.  More 
importantly,  the development  of  consumption  should  not  be  seen  in  isolation.  Given 
the  high  volume  of  dumped  imports  (market  share  of  66,8%),  the  level  of  dumping 
(dumping  margins  ranging  from  13,1%  to  36,1%)  and  the  level  of  undercutting 
(ranging from 26,5% to 47,6%), the competitive situation on the Union market would 
have  been  very  different  in  case  imports  had  been  made  at  non-dumped  prices.  This 
argument should therefore be dismissed.  

9 

Competitiveness of the Ceramics Sector, final report 13 October 2008, p. 29. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

                                                 
(140)  Some  other  parties  suggested  the  benchmark  used  in  another  anti-dumping 
investigation,  i.e.  the  investigation  concerning  ceramic  tiles10.  After  final  disclosure, 
similar  comments  were  received.  However  it  is  noted  that  ceramic  tiles,  contrary  to 
leather footwear and tableware, cannot be considered a consumer product in the same 
way.  For  instance,  the  rate  at  which  households  buy  or  replace  ceramic  tableware 
items  and  the  way  it  is  marketed  and,  eventually,  sold  to  the  consumers  is  closer  to 
leather footwear than to ceramic tiles. The claim to use the target profit also applied in 
the ceramic tiles investigation is therefore dismissed. 

(141)  The complainants stated that the benchmark profit level should be rather in excess of 
10%  because  the  manufacturing  of  table-  and  kitchenware  products  is  a  capital 
intensive  activity  which  in  addition  requires  a  high  degree  of  new  investment  and 
innovation.  Although  it  is  confirmed  that  indeed  the  industry  concerned  is  capital 
intensive  and  that  it  requires  a  continuous  need  for  investment,  the  information 
submitted  to  substantiate  this  claim  could  not  change  the  benchmark  provisionally 
used.  The  investigation  could  not  conclude  that  that  benchmark  would  be  the  most 
appropriate for all Union producers. 

(142)  A group of importers contested the profitability figures in the provisional Regulation 
and  calculated,  based  on  the  cost  of  production  figures,  EU  sales  price  and  volume 
figures and the export sales prices figures in the provisional Regulation, profitability 
and reached the conclusion that the EU industry actually made a profit of 6% during 
the  IP.  However,  this  computation  was  erroneous  as  it  combined  data  from  different 
sources (the sampled Union producers, the Union industry as a whole and Eurostat). 

(143)  In  the  absence  of  any  further  relevant  comments,  recitals  (132)  to  (137)  of  the 

provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.5.3.4.  Cost of production 

(144)  In a joint submission, several importers deemed that the cost of production figures in 
recital  (138) of  the  provisional  Regulation did not follow the labour and energy cost 
evolution  shown  in  Eurostat.  The  parties  highlighted  that  labour  costs  increased  in 
EU27. Equally, the evolution of the cost of energy in the Union would not support a 
decrease in the cost of production.  

(145)  In this respect it is noted that the labour and energy cost provided by the parties was 
too broad. Moreover, the fact that the Union industry managed to decrease the cost of 
production during a period where the general trend was the opposite demonstrates the 
extraordinary effort made by the Union industry to cut costs and remain competitive. 

(146)  The  cost  of  production  figures  provided  in  the  provisional  Regulation  represent  the 
verified cost of production for sampled Union producers. In the absence of any further 
comments, recital (138) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4.5.3.5.  Conclusion on injury 

(147)  Several  parties  contested  the  conclusion  on  injury  put  forward  in  the  provisional 
Regulation on the basis that several injury indicators improved in the very last part of 
the period considered. However, this issue cannot undermine the fact that most injury 
indicators  deteriorated  during  the  period  considered.  This  deterioration  of  injury 
indicators  can  be  observed  for  most  macro-economic  indicators,  such  as  production 
volume, capacity, sales to unrelated customers, employment as well as for the injury 

10 

OJ L 238, 15.09.2011, p.1 

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                 
indicators  related  to  the  financial  performance  of  the  Union  industry  such  as 
profitability and investments.  

(148)  In the absence of other comments, recitals (139) to (143) of the provisional Regulation 

are hereby confirmed. 

5. 

CAUSATION 

5.1. 

Introduction 

(149)  In  the  absence  of  any  comments  to  recital  (144)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  that 

recital is hereby confirmed. 

5.2. 

Effect of the dumped imports 

(150)  Several  parties  contested  the  conclusion  stated  in  recital  (148)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation.  However,  even  though  some  of  the  percentages  that  were  highlighted  in 
recitals  (145)  and  (147)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  have  been  slightly  revised  as 
explained  above,  this  does  not  alter  the  facts  and  conclusions  contained  in  recitals 
(145) to (148) of the provisional Regulation. 

(151)  Indeed, given the development of the market share of the Chinese dumped imports, it 
is  clear  that  there  is  no  contradiction  between  recital  (147)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation,  in  particular  as  regards  the  statement  that  the  decrease  in  sales  prices  of 
the  Union  industry  on  the  Union  market  and  its  profitability  can  be  attributed  to  the 
price depression caused onto the Union market by dumped imports from China and the 
Union industry’s market share movements, as alleged by one party.  

(152)  Furthermore,  the  fact  that  prices  of  imports  from  the  PRC  increased  over  the  period 
considered,  as  pointed  out  by  several  parties,  does  not  undermine  the  finding  of 
undercutting and injurious dumping during the IP. 

(153)  In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  as  regards  the  effect  of  the  dumped  imports, 

recitals (145) to (148) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.3. 

Effect of other factors 

5.3.1. 

Imports from third countries other than the country concerned 

(154)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (106)  above,  following  the  imposition  of  provisional 
measures,  the  Eurostat  data  concerning  imports  had  been  updated.  Whilst  cross-
checking  these  new  data  with  the  previous  data  contained  in  the  provisional 
Regulation, a clerical error in the computation of the import figures from Thailand and 
Turkey was detected. This has been corrected and, consequently, the definitive figures 
concerning  the  imports  of  the  like  product  from  third  countries,  based  on  Eurostat 
data, are as follows:  

Table 4 

2008 

2009 

2010 

IP 

100 972 

81 464 

81 595 

89 146 

Volume  of  imports  from  all 
other third countries (tonnes) 

Index (2008=100) 

100 

81 

81 

88 

Market share 

12,2% 

11,8% 

10,9% 

12,3% 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
Average 
(EUR/tonne) 

import 

price 

2 378 

2 354 

2 590 

2 519 

Index (2008=100) 

100 

99 

109 

106 

Volume  of 
Turkey (tonnes) 

imports 

Index (2008=100) 

from 

26 978 

25 303 

25 485 

29 336  

100 

3,3% 

94 

94 

3,7% 

3,4% 

109 

4% 

import 

price 

2 776 

2 649 

2 802 

2 855 

Index (2008=100) 

100 

95 

101 

103 

Volume  of 
Thailand (tonnes) 

imports 

Index (2008=100) 

from 

25 916 

20 660 

20 600 

25 213  

100 

3,1% 

80 

3% 

79 

97 

2,7% 

3,5% 

import 

price 

1 246 

1 183 

1 403 

1 356 

Market share 

Average 
(EUR/tonne) 

Market share 

Average 
(EUR/tonne) 

Index (2008=100) 

100 

95 

113 

109 

(155)  The imports from third countries decreased by 12% over the period considered, while 

the market share of these imports remained rather stable. 

(156)  It should be noted that average import prices from other third countries increased by 
6%  during  the  period  considered,  remaining  consistently  higher  than  the  average 
selling price of Chinese export sales (by 68% during the IP). 

(157)  Before  the  publication  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  CCCLA  observed  that  imports 
from Turkey would have increased by 8% between 2010 and 2011, the import prices 
from Turkey being allegedly only around 20% higher than import prices from China. 
Then several parties contested the conclusion of the provisional Regulation as regards 
Turkish imports.  

(158)  Bearing  in  mind  that  there  was  a  material  manifest  error  in  the  reporting  of  Turkish 
imports in the provisional Regulation and the updated data as displayed above, nothing 
suggests that Turkish imports, given their prices and their market share, can break the 
causal link between Chinese exports of the product concerned and the injury suffered 
by  the  Union  industry.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  non-inclusion  of  imports 
originating  in  Turkey  in  the  complaint  cannot  be  described  as  discriminatory  as,  at 
initiation stage, sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and causal link was not present 
as far as imports from Turkey were concerned. 

(159)  The  market  share  of  imports  from  Thailand  was  never  more  than  3,5%  during  the 

investigation period.  

EN 

29 

   EN 

(160)  For the above reasons, it is concluded that imports from other third countries did not 
materially affect the situation of the Union industry to the extent breaking the casual 
link  between  the  dumped  imports  from  PRC  and  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Union 
industry. 

5.3.2.  Market segments 

(161)  In  the  absence  of  any  new  comments  as  regards  market  segments,  recitals  (156)  to 

(158) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.3.3.  Consumption and demand 

(162)  A party suggested that injury could be attributed to a long term reduction in demand 
for  Union  produced  products.  Yet  the  investigation  did  not  confirm  such  trend,  as 
already explained in recital (112) of the provisional Regulation.  

(163)  In the absence of any further comments as regards consumption and demand, recitals 

(159) to (166) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.3.4.  Exports by Union industry 

(164)  A party pointed out that average EU export prices were lower than the average sales 
prices on the Union market during the period considered. This could have affected the 
ability  of  the  Union  industry  to  make  new  investments  or  hire  new  staff.  A  similar 
argument was reiterated after definitive disclosure. However, as already mentioned in 
recital  (169)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  most  of  the  injury  indicators  cannot  be 
affected by the performance on the export sales. Moreover, it could also be argued that 
these  sales  were  a  way  of  compensating,  partly,  the  injury  suffered  on  the  Union 
market. Further, as the average prices have been calculated by dividing the total value 
of the sales of the like product by the total volume of such sales, a different product 
mix of the sales on the EU market as compared to the export sales can also result in 
significant  differences  in  average  sales  values  overall.  Finally,  these  export  sales 
represented less than 37% of the EU industry's overall sales volumes, i.e. the dominant 
market for the Union industry was still, by far and large, the Union home market. The 
argument  that  these  export  sales  injured  the  Union  industry  to  the  extent  breaking  a 
causal  link  between  the  imports  from  PRC  and  injury  suffered  by  EU  industry  is 
therefore rejected. 

(165)  In  the  absence  of  any  new  comments  as  regards  the  exports  by  the  Union  industry, 

recitals (167) to (170) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.3.5.  Elimination of the import quotas  

(166)  Following  provisional  measures,  another  party  suggested  that  the  elimination  of 
import  quotas  would  have  had  an  impact  on  Union  producers  during  the  period 
considered.  However,  no  new  facts  were  brought  forward  that  could  alter  the 
conclusion in recital (173) of the provisional Regulation. 

(167)  In the absence of any new substantiated comments as regards the elimination of import 
quotas, recitals (171) to (173) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.3.6.  Anti-competitive practices on the Union market 

(168)  Subsequent to the imposition of provisional measures, several parties insisted that the 
cartel investigation launched by the German authorities referred to in recital (175) of 
the provisional Regulation or the cartel fine referred to in the same recital had not duly 
been taken into account. Concerning these claims, the following can be said further to 
what is already stated in recitals (174) and (175) of the provisional Regulation. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

(169)  The  German  cartel  investigation,  which  investigates  alleged  price  fixing  from  July 
2005  to  February  2008,  is  still  on-going.  As  the  EU  producers  have  been  granted 
confidentiality  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  final  results  of  the  German  on-going 
investigation have not publicly been released yet, it is not possible to comment on the 
details  of  the  analysis  carried  out.  However  it  can  be  confirmed  that  none  of  the 
sampled  Union  producers  is  subject  to  this  on-going  investigation.  The  investigation 
also  concluded  that  the  micro-economic  indicators  have  not  been  affected  by  the 
investigated practices and the macro-economic indicators only to a very limited extent, 
if any. 

(170)  As concerns the cartel findings concerning bathroom fixtures and fittings, it is recalled 
that this price fixing cartel was found active between 1992 and 2004 and that only one 
of the fined producers is also active in the tableware and kitchenware sector. The data 
provided by this producer in the framework of standing and injury are not influenced 
by  the  cartel  practices  as  only  the  data  concerning  the  tableware  and  kitchenware 
section of this producer have been used and not its consolidated data. Therefore, also 
the fine relating to this cartel has not affected the data provided by this producer. It is 
further  recalled  that  the  price  fixing  period  was  well  before  the  period  considered. 
Since the Union producers’ identities are confidential, it cannot be disclosed whether 
or  not  this  company  is  included  in  the  sample.  However,  should  a  sampled  Union 
producer have recorded in its accounts any items (e.g. a cartel fine) distorting its injury 
picture  for  the  purpose  of  this  investigation,  the  investigating  authority  would  have 
isolated them in order for the relevant injury factors not to be distorted.  

(171)  Consequently,  the  allegations  concerning  the  impact  of  the  above-mentioned  cartel 

investigations on the injury and causation analysis are hereby rejected.  

(172)  One  interested  party  mentioned  that  there  would  be  illegal  price  arrangements  and 
market allocations between Union producers, however it did not provide any evidence 
for this allegation and the claim is therefore rejected. 

(173)  In  the  absence  of  any  new  comments  concerning  anti-competitive  practices  on  the 
Union  market,  recitals  (174)  to  (176)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

5.3.7.  Production methods 

(174)  In the absence of any new comments concerning production methods, recitals (177) to 

(178) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(175)  An  importer  repeated  similar  claims  after  definitive  disclosure,  arguing  about  the 
difference  in  production  methods  used  by  Union  producers  as  compared  to  more 
artisanal  methods  of  Chinese  factories.  However,  no  substantive  argument  was 
brought  forward  that  could  alter  the  conclusion  reached  in  recital  (178)  of  the 
provisional Regulation and the claim is therefore definitively rejected. 

5.3.8.  Second-hand markets 

(176)  In the absence of any new comments as regards second-hand markets, recitals (179) to 

(180) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.3.9.  Economic crisis 

(177)  A  party  stated  that  recital  (183)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  provides  a  wrong 
analysis of the situation during the economic recovery period between 2010 and 2011 
and that the impact of the economic crisis was underestimated. These comments were 
repeated after final disclosure. However, the claims were unsubstantiated. It must also 

EN 

31 

   EN 

be stressed that the recital cited stated that dumped imports from China intensified the 
effect of the economic downturn. As regards the impact of the economic crisis, recital 
(184) of the provisional Regulation is clear about the fact that the economic crisis may 
have contributed to the Union’s industry poor performance, even though it could not 
break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injurious situation  of that 
industry suffered during the IP. 

(178)  In the absence of any new comments regarding the economic crisis, recitals (181) to 

(184) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.3.10.  Other factors 

(179)  In  a  joint  submission,  several  importers  alleged  that  the  drop  in  employment  was  a 
normal  development  in  the  consumer  goods  industry.  However,  this  claim  was  not 
substantiated. Moreover, even if such trend would be normal in this sector, it could not 
break  the causal link  between  the  dumped imports  from  the  PRC  and  the  significant 
jobs losses in the sector. This claim is, therefore, rejected. 

(180)  A  party  claimed  that  the  remaining  structural  deficits  of  the  Union  industry  in 
conjunction  with  existing  overcapacity  as  shown  in  Table  3  of  the  provisional 
Regulation  could  break  the  causal  link  between  dumped  imports  from  the  PRC  and 
injury suffered by Union manufacturers. As regards this argument, although the Union 
industry  was  already  in  a  fragile  state  in  the  beginning  of  the  period  considered  and 
had gone through a restructuration, the investigation confirmed that it was competitive 
and properly coping with demand from all markets. As to Table 3 of the provisional 
Regulation,  the  drop  in  production  must  be  seen  in  conjunction  with  the  pressure 
stemming  from  the  high  volume  of  low-priced  imports  from  the  PRC,  as  exports  by 
the Union industry remained stable. Therefore, the claim could not be accepted. 

(181)  A party considered that the Commission had failed to consider the cumulative effect of 
each of the other injurious factors. This claim was also raised by several parties after 
definitive disclosure. However, given the results of the investigation in relation to the 
various other factors invoked, it is not conceivable that their cumulative effect could 
have broken the causal link. Indeed, for most of the other factors raised, their impact 
was small, if any. 

(182)  A  party  considered  that  the  investigating  authority  had  failed  to  distinguish  between 
co-occurrence  and  causality.  Yet  the  supporting  information  provided  was  far  from 
being conclusive in this respect and the claim is therefore rejected. 

(183)  In the absence of any new comments as regards other factors, recitals (185) to (190) of 

the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.4. 

Conclusion on causation 

(184)  In  the  absence  of  any  new  comments,  recital  (191)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is 

hereby confirmed. 

6. 

UNION INTEREST 

6.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(185)  In  the  absence  of  any  comments  to  recital  (192)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  that 

recital is hereby confirmed. 

6.2. 

Interest of the Union industry 

EN 

32 

   EN 

(186)  A  Polish  non-complainant  producer  welcomed  the  measures,  whereas  a  UK  non-
complainant manufacturer with importing interests of the product concerned opposed 
them.  The  second  party  deems  that  duties  would  have  a  negative  effect  on  those 
producers that complement their product range with imports from the PRC and have 
adapted to globalisation via a business model where high value-added work is done in 
the  Union.  In  addition  customers  would  be  less  inclined  to  purchase  their  products 
because they would not offer a full range of products anymore. 

(187)  As far as the claim of the second party is concerned, the situation of that company was 
examined. It was found that Chinese imports of tableware constituted a minor part of 
their total imports. The company claimed however, without further specifying it, that 
these  imports  were important for  them. The  company did  not give any figures about 
their own production. According to the financial statements, the company had in 2011 
a  pre-tax  profit  on  total  turnover  of  more  than  10%,  most  of  it  achieved  on  non-EU 
markets  (no  figure  was  provided  for  the  product  concerned).  On  this  basis,  it  is  not 
expected that the imposition of measures endangers the viability of this company. As 
far as the claim that many other companies would also encounter difficulties as a result 
of the measures, no specific evidence was provided. Moreover, according to the replies 
received  during 
the  pre-initiation  standing  phase  and  submissions  received 
subsequently, there is no indication that there is a significant number companies is in 
such a situation.  

(188)  The impact of duties on the manufacturing activities of the Union industry would be 
positive.  In  fact,  since  the  recent  imposition  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties, 
several positive developments in this respect have been reported.  

(189)  The above-mentioned positive developments confirm the complainants’ statement that 
Union production could be substantially increased at very short notice by using plants, 
machinery  and  workforce  already  available,  whereas  larger  increases  would  be 
feasible  in  the  longer  run.  Redressing  unfair  price  practices  in  the  market  therefore 
benefits them since a new pricing level would makes it more attractive to manufacture 
more  products  in  the  Union,  be  it  in  large  or  small  orders,  special  designs  or 
mainstream unbranded products. It results in the creation of new jobs involving skills 
of different kinds and relevant idle workforce can be put back to work.  

(190)  As  to  the  impossibility  of  offering  a  full  range  of  products,  this  statement  cannot  be 
upheld because consumers require ever-changing ranges of products and the existence 
of several supply sources. 

(191)  In the absence of any others comments as regards the interest of the Union industry, 

recitals (193) to (198) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6.3. 

Interest of unrelated importers 

(192)  The two largest importers in the sample contested their level of co-operation as regards 
full profitability data and the margin between purchase and resale prices to unrelated 
customers, whereas one of them questioned having denied access to its accounts and 
argued that nothing would have changed if access would have been given. The parties 
claimed  that  their  size  and  business  model  did  not  allow  them  to  provide  data  as 
detailed as requested. At definitive stage, it is confirmed that one of them denied again 
access to its importer’s accounts and that both, despite having endeavoured to do so, 
did not manage to provide full and usable profitability data and information about the 
margin between purchase and resale prices to unrelated customers in such a way that it 
could be used by the institutions in the analysis of the situation of unrelated importers. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

The  limited  information  provided  by  both  companies  on  their  purchase  and  resale 
prices, be it overall inconclusive, was fully in line, however, with the general mark-up 
information obtained and summarized in recital (202) of the provisional Regulation. 

(193)  In  recital  (203)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  interested  parties  had  been  invited  to 
submit additional, comprehensive and verifiable data to further analyse the impact of 
measures on the supply chain.  

(194)  Subsequent to  provisional measures, new replies  to  the importers questionnaire were 
sent  by  two  unrelated  importers.  Also  submissions  on  Union  interest  were  received 
from  other  non-sampled  importers,  an  association  of  European  and  International 
Commerce  (Foreign  Trade  Association),  a  Swedish  association  of  importers, 
wholesalers  and  retailers  (Svensk  Handel),  CCCLA  and  a  Union  producer  with 
importing  interests.  None  of  the  submissions  contained  conclusive  data  as  to  the 
impact of measures on the supply chain. 

(195)  A  party  claimed  that  the  downstream  employment  figure  affected  by  the  duties  was 
understated  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Eurostat  statistics  show  that  overall  distributive 
trade enterprises employ more people (33 million) than manufacturing companies (31 
million).  However,  the  figures  provided  related  to  the  importing  and  manufacturing 
business in general and could not be used for the purpose of this investigation. 

(196)  In  a  joint  submission,  several  importers  claimed  that  the  five  sampled  importers 
employed  more  than  10  000  jobs  relating  to  the  product  concerned  and  not  350  as 
mentioned  in  recital  (200)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  The  figures  have  been 
checked  again.  It  should  be  underlined  that  within  the  analysis  of  the  interests  of 
importers,  the  number  of  jobs  relating  to  the  importation  and  resale  of  the  product 
concerned,  including  supporting  functions,  is  taken  into  account.  The  employment 
related  to  other  products  or  origins,  or  relating  to  activities  like  wholesaling  or 
retailing should, obviously, not be included in such number. It is recalled that, earlier 
in the proceeding, a group of 14 importers had estimated the relevant number of jobs 
involved  at  importers’  level,  overall,  at  7  000.  That  figure  seems  to  be  in  the  right 
order of magnitude based on an extrapolation of the situation of the sampled importers 
to the extent that their figures could be used. 

(197)  Several  parties  complained  about  the  high  gross  margin  figure  contained  in  recital 
(202)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  alleging  it  would  be  misleading.  However,  the 
investigation  has  shown  that  the  vast  majority  of  the  importers  which  replied  to  the 
importers'  sampling  questions  reported  a  gross  margin  between  purchase  and  resale 
price  ranging  between  50%  and  200%  and  the  sampled  importers  were  in  a  similar 
situation.  Moreover,  following  provisional  disclosure,  the  complainants  submitted 
several  examples  supporting  the  information  given  by  the  publication  referred  to  in 
recital  (202)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  confirming  the  import  price  –  retail 
price ratio of the product concerned.  

(198)  A UK manufacturer with importing interests explained that those margins are needed 
to cover certain costs incurred in the Union. No data was provided which would have 
allowed for a calculation of those margins on the basis of turnover. 

(199)  As  from  only  three  of  the  sampled  importers  usable  profit  data  on  the  importing 
activities  relating  to  the  product  concerned  could  be  obtained  and  verified  and  these 
three importers represented only some 3% of the imports of the product concerned, the 
weighted  average  profit  figure  concerned  was  not  considered  conclusive  and  had, 
therefore,  not  been  mentioned  in  the  provisional  Regulation.  However,  it  should  be 

EN 

34 

   EN 

noted  that  this  weighted  average  profit  was  healthy  (between  6%  and  10%  -  range 
given for confidentiality reasons).  

(200)  An importer claimed that there is not enough production of coloured stoneware in the 
Union and that it had no alternative but importing from the PRC. The same claim was 
made after disclosure. Yet the investigation established that coloured stoneware can be 
procured  from  several  sources,  including  Union  producers.  Moreover,  Union 
producers have the production capacity to sell more on the Union market.  

(201)  The  information  collected  in  the  course  of  the  investigation  did  not  allow  a  proper 
quantification  as  to  what  extent  importers  would  be  able  to  pass  on  purchase  price 
increases  as  a  result  of  the  proposed  duty  levels.  However,  should  imports  from  the 
PRC be subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty and given the information about the 
gross  and  net  margins,  there  is  nothing  to  suggest  that  the  viability  of  importers' 
business  is  endangered.  An  importer  also  suggested  that  large  market  operators  and 
importers whose core business is not ceramic tableware and kitchenware would not be 
negatively affected.  

(202)  It is therefore concluded that  the imposition of measures at the proposed levels does 
not have a significantly adverse impact on the situation of unrelated importers of the 
product concerned as a whole. 

(203)  In  the  absence  of  any  additional  new  comments  as  regards  the  interest  of  unrelated 

importers, recitals (199) to (211) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6.4. 

Interest of other economic sectors 

(204)  Further to the invitation contained in recital (203) of the provisional Regulation, on the 
day  of  the  publication  of  provisional  measures  the  Commission  contacted  directly 
relevant retailers and associations of retailers, importers with possible retailing activity 
and  also  designers  that  were  known  to  the  Commission  and  invited  them  to  fill  in 
relevant  questionnaires.  Some  recipients  that  had  initially  claimed  to  be  retailers 
replied that they were not concerned by the investigation because they were not active 
in  the  business.  The  Commission  eventually  received  seven  new  replies  to  the 
retailers’  questionnaire.  These  seven  retailers  accounted  for  1%  of  imports  from  the 
PRC during the IP. Most of these replies were deficient in many respects but they were 
nevertheless  analysed  as  far  as  possible.  No  replies  were  received  to  the  designers’ 
questionnaire.  

(205)  The information thus obtained did not, in substance, provide any new evidence on the 
interest of other economic sectors that could contest the conclusion reached in recital 
(217) of the provisional Regulation. 

(206)  Following  the  publication  of  provisional  measures,  submissions  on  Union  interest  as 
regards  other  economic  sectors  were  received  from  both  sampled  and  non-sampled 
importers  (including  a  Polish  importer  active  in  the  promotional  items  sector),  an 
association  of  European  and  International  Commerce  (Foreign  Trade  Association),  a 
Swedish  association  of  importers,  wholesalers  and  retailers  (Svensk  Handel),  several 
retailers, CCCLA and eight coffee roasting companies (seven of them located in Italy, 
one with its headquarter in Austria). 

(207)  Coffee  roasting  companies  claimed  that  due  to  the  very  small  number  of  Union 
producers serving their market (maximum 5), most of which would be importing from 
the  PRC  either  directly  or  through  sister  companies,  and  the  very  large  number  of 
coffee  roasters  (1  500  –  3  000),  measures  at  the  level  proposed  at  provisional  stage 
could  impede  them  from  sourcing  the  exactly  same  items  in  the  future.  This  claim 

EN 

35 

   EN 

cannot be accepted. First, the definitive measures are lower than provisional measures. 
Second, the investigation revealed that Union producers were in a position to further 
deploy their production potential and further serve the coffee roasting industry, should 
the  injury  caused  by  dumped  imports  from  the  PRC  be  removed.  Given  the  large 
number of Union producers, it is very likely that the number of Union producers that 
could take in orders from coffee roasting companies would be more than five. 

(208)  The coffee roasting companies argued that anti-dumping measures would damage their 
exports because of a loss of competitiveness and a possible retaliation by the Chinese 
authorities.  However,  there  is  no  evidence  to  indicate  that  the  level  of  measures 
imposed  would  entail  such  loss  of  competitiveness,  also  bearing  in  mind  that  other 
WTO  members  have  anti-dumping  measures  affecting  this  kind  of  product.  The 
retaliatory action allegation was also found to be unsubstantiated. 

(209)  The  coffee  roasting  companies  stated  that  the  anti-dumping  measures  would 
unavoidably lead to a general reduction in their business, to a decrease of their sales, to 
a  general  increase  of  the  coffee  price  in  the  HORECA  (hotels,  restaurants  and 
catering) sector and to a decrease in the quality of the products and services. All this 
would,  allegedly,  put  at  risk  a  considerable  number  of  direct  and  indirect  jobs. 
However, bearing in mind what the core business of the coffee roasting companies is 
and  the  conclusions  as  regards  the  effects  of  measures  on  the  supply  chain,  these 
allegations cannot be upheld. It is also noted that providing the total number of jobs 
linked to the worldwide operations of a coffee roasting company cannot be deemed an 
appropriate calculation basis for the number of jobs that would be at risk because of 
the imposition of anti-dumping measures. 

(210)  Two retailers claimed that there is not enough production of new bone china and bone 
china in the Union and that they had no alternative but importing from the PRC. The 
same  claim  was  made  by  an  association  of  importers  after  disclosure.  Firstly  and  in 
general it should be noted that anti-dumping measures aim at restoring fair trade and 
not  at  blocking  imports.  In  this  case,  the  level  of  measures  cannot  be  considered 
prohibitive. Secondly, the investigation established that these products can be procured 
from  several  sources,  including  Union  producers.  Finally,  Union  producers  have  the 
production capacity to sell more on the Union market and could further exploit their 
potential, should anti-dumping measures be definitively imposed.  

(211)  One  retailer  claimed  that  measures  would  have  a  negative  impact  on  certain  objects 
serving  the  tourist  market.  Yet,  no  substantive  information  could  support  that  claim. 
Also the weight of the objects in question in the sector is limited. 

(212)  An importer and wholesaler alleged that  the  imposition  of  measures  would  lead  to  a 
vertical consolidation of the market by some large players. However, given the current 
number of players, this would be unlikely in the short-to-medium term. 

(213)  Further to the issues already dealt with in the provisional Regulation, it is noted that 
several  parties  found  that  the  interest  of  smaller  companies,  such  as  retailers, 
distributors and businesses dealing with promotional items, had not been sufficiently 
taken  into  consideration.  This  claim  was  reiterated  after  definitive  disclosure  by 
several parties. It must be recognised that, overall, micro and small businesses could 
be more vulnerable to any price increase as a result of anti-dumping duties. However 
there is no evidence that the level of measures imposed will have a significant negative 
effect  on  the  other  economic  actors  that  qualify  as  SMEs.  The  claim  is  therefore 
definitively rejected. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

(214)  In the absence of any additional comments as regards the interest of other economic 

sectors, recitals (212) to (217) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6.5. 

Interest of consumers (households) 

(215)  Despite having been contacted by the Commission, no parties directly representing the 

interests of end-buyers such as associations of consumers made any representations. 

(216)  Several parties contested the conclusion of recital (222) of the provisional Regulation 
as regards higher prices. Similar claims were made after definitive disclosure.  

(217)  In the unlikely event that the duty is fully passed onto consumers and, assuming that 
import  levels  and  prices  remain  the  same,  the  anti-dumping  duties  would  mean  a 
yearly extra cost per household of less than 1 Euro. Such calculation is based on the IP 
import  volumes  and  values,  the  proposed  level  of  the  duties  and  the  number  of 
households in the Union. 

(218)  Such  effect  cannot  be  deemed  enough to outweigh the  positive impact on the  Union 

industry derived from limiting the injury caused by dumped imports from the PRC.  

(219)  A  party  alleged  that  as  a  consequence  of  measures  there  would  be  a  shortage  of 
cheaper tableware. This claim was reiterated after definitive disclosure. Yet this claim 
cannot be upheld because, as stated in recital (157) of the provisional Regulation, the 
Union industry serves all markets (including cheaper tableware). 

(220)  In  the  absence  of  any  additional  comments  as  regards  the  interest  of  consumers 
(households),  recitals  (218)  to  (226)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

6.6. 

Conclusion on Union interest  

(221)  In  view  of  the  above,  the  assessment  in  the  provisional  Regulation  is  hereby 

confirmed. 

(222)  Therefore, recitals (227) to (229) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

7. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

7.1. 

Injury elimination level 

(223)  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. This claim was rejected as 
explained in section 4.5.3.3 above.  

(224)  Several  parties  questioned  the  target  profit  used  for  the  calculation  of  the  injury 
margin. These comments are addressed in recitals (135) to (142) above. On the basis 
of the analysis of those comments it is concluded that the target profit of 6% should be 
maintained. 

(225)  In  the  absence  of  other  comments  concerning  the  injury  elimination  level,  the 
methodology  described  in  recitals  (230)  to  (234)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is 
hereby confirmed. 

7.2. 

Definitive measures 

(226)  In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  injury,  causation  and 
Union interest, and 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 

EN 

37 

   EN 

duty  rule.  Accordingly,  all  duty  rates  should  be  set  at  the  level  of  the  dumping 
margins. 

(227)  The small adjustment referred to in recitals (115) and (132) above resulted in slightly 
revised  underselling  margins  as  reflected  in  the  injury  margins  listed  below.  The 
proposed definitive anti-dumping duties are the following: 

Company 

Dumping 
margin 

Injury 
margin 

Definitive 
duty rate 

Hunan  Hualian  China  Industry  Co.,  Ltd; 
Hunan  Hualian  Ebillion  Industry  Co.,  Ltd; 
Hunan  Liling  Hongguanyao  China  Industry 
Co., Ltd and Hunan Hualian Yuxiang China 
Industry Co., Ltd  

18,3% 

44,8% 

18,3% 

Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding 
Co., Ltd  

13,1% 

92,6% 

13,1% 

CHL Porcelain Industries Ltd  

23,4% 

110,1% 

23,4% 

Shandong  Zibo  Niceton-Marck  Huaguang 
Ceramics  Limited;  Zibo  Huatong  Ceramics 
Co., Ltd; Shandong Silver Phoenix Co., Ltd; 
Niceton  Ceramics  (Linyi)  Co.,  Ltd;  Linyi 
Jingshi  Ceramics  Co.,  Ltd;  Linyi  Silver 
Phoenix  Ceramics  Co.,  Ltd;  Linyi 
Chunguang  Ceramics  Co.,  Ltd,  and  Linyi 
Zefeng Ceramics Co., Ltd  

17,6% 

79,1% 

17,6% 

Guangxi  Province  Beiliu  City  Laotian 
Ceramics Co., Ltd 

22,9% 

45,7% 

22,9% 

All other co-operating exporting producers 

17,9% 

79,0% 

17,9% 

All other companies 

36,1% 

110,1% 

36,1% 

(228)  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, 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’. 

(229)  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 
the 
application  of 
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 

38 

   EN 

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

(230)  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. 

(231)  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 Commission11 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. 

(232)  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. 

(233)  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. 

(234)  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  tableware  and  kitchenware  originating  in  the  PRC  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 the final disclosure.  

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

and taken into account where appropriate. 

7.3. 

Definitive collection of provisional anti-dumping duties 

(236)  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, 

11 

European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H, Office: NERV-105, 08/020, 1049 
Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/ BELGIË. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

                                                 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1.  A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  ceramic  tableware  and 
kitchenware,  excluding  ceramic  knives,  ceramic  condiment  or  spice  mills  and  their  ceramic 
grinding parts, ceramic peelers, ceramic knife sharpeners and cordierite ceramic pizza-stones 
of a kind used for baking pizza or bread, currently falling within CN codes ex 6911 10 00, ex 
6912 00 10, ex 6912 00 30, ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912 00 90 (TARIC codes 6911 10 00 90, 
6912  00  10  11,  6912  00  10  91,  6912  00  30  10,  6912  00  50  10  and  6912  00  90  10)  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 
listed below, shall be as follows: 

Company 

Duty 

TARIC 
additional 
code 

Hunan Hualian China Industry Co., Ltd; 

18,3% 

B349 

Hunan Hualian Ebillion Industry Co., Ltd; 

Hunan Liling Hongguanyao China Industry Co., Ltd; 

Hunan Hualian Yuxiang China Industry Co., Ltd. 

Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co., Ltd 

13,1% 

B350 

CHL Porcelain Industries Ltd 

23,4% 

B351 

Shandong Zibo Niceton-Marck Huaguang Ceramics Limited; 

17,6% 

B352 

Zibo Huatong Ceramics Co., Ltd;  

Shandong Silver Phoenix Co., Ltd;  

Niceton Ceramics (Linyi) Co., Ltd; 

Linyi Jingshi Ceramics Co., Ltd; 

Linyi Silver Phoenix Ceramics Co., Ltd;  

Linyi Chunguang Ceramics Co., Ltd; 

Linyi Zefeng Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Guangxi Province Beiliu City Laotian Ceramics Co., Ltd 

22,9% 

B353 

Companies listed in Annex I 

All other companies 

17,9% 

36,1% 

B999 

3.  The  application  of  the  individual  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  for  the  companies 
mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall be 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.  

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

Article 2 

1. The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation 
(EU)  No  1072/2012  on  imports  of  ceramic  condiment  or  spice  mills  and  their  ceramic 
grinding parts, ceramic peelers, ceramic knife sharpeners and cordierite ceramic pizza-stones 
of  a  kind  used  for  baking  pizza  or  bread  and  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China 
shall be released. 

2. The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Regulation 
(EU)  No  1072/2012  on  imports  of  ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware,  excluding  ceramic 
knives,  ceramic  condiment  or  spice  mills  and  their  ceramic  grinding  parts,  ceramic  peelers, 
ceramic knife sharpeners and cordierite ceramic pizza-stones of a kind used for baking pizza 
or bread and 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. 

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 January 2011 to 31 December 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, 

Article  1(2)  may  be  amended  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 
17,9%. 

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 

41 

   EN 

 
 
Co-operating Chinese exporting producers not sampled 

Annex I 

Name 

TARIC additional code 

Amaida Ceramic Product Co., Ltd. 

Asianera Porcelain (Tangshan) Ltd. 

Beiliu Changlong Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Beiliu Chengda Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Beiliu City Heyun Building Materials Co., Ltd. 

Beiliu Jiasheng Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Beiliu Quanli Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Beiliu Shimin Porcelain Co., Ltd.  

Beiliu Windview Industries Ltd. 

Cameo China (Fengfeng) Co., Ltd. 

Changsha Happy Go Products Developing Co., Ltd. 

Chao An Huadayu Craftwork Factory 

Chaoan County Fengtang Town HaoYe Ceramic Fty 

Chao'an Lian Xing Yuan Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaoan Oh Yeah Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaoan Shengyang Crafts Industrial Co., Ltd 

Chaoan Xin Yuan Ceramics Factory 

Chao'an Yongsheng Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Baodayi Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Baode Ceramics Co., Ltd, 

Chaozhou Baolian Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Big Arrow Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Boshifa Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Cantake Craft Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Ceramics Industry and Trade General Corp. 

Chaozhou Chaofeng Ceramic Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Chengxi Jijie Art & Craft Painted Porcelain Fty. 

Chaozhou Chengxinda Ceramics Industry Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Chenhui Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Chonvson Ceramics Industry Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Daxin Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou DaXing Ceramics Manufactory Co., Ltd 

B357 

B358 

B359 

B360 

B361 

B362 

B363 

B364 

B365 

B366 

B367 

B368 

B369 

B370 

B371 

B372 

B373 

B374 

B375 

B376 

B377 

B378 

B379 

B380 

B381 

B382 

B383 

B384 

B385 

B386 

B387 

B388 

EN 

42 

   EN 

Chaozhou Dayi Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Dehong Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Deko Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Diamond Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Dongyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Dragon Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Fairway Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Feida Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Fengxi Baita Ceramics Fty. 

Chaozhou Fengxi Dongtian Porcelain Fty. No.2 

Chaozhou Fengxi Fenger Ceramics Craft Fty. 

Chaozhou Fengxi Hongrong Color Porcelain Fty. 

Chaozhou Fengxi Jiaxiang Ceramic Manufactory 

Chaozhou Fengxi Porcelain Industrial Trade Imp & Exp. Corp 

Chaozhou Fengxi Shengshui Porcelain Art Factory 

Chaozhou Fengxi Zone Jinbaichuan Porcelain Crafts Factory 

Chaozhou Fromone Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Genol Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Good Concept Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Grand Collection Ceramics Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 

Chaozhou Guangjia Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Guidu Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Haihong Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Hengchuang Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Henglibao Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Hongbo Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Hongjia Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Hongye Ceramics Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Hongye Porcelain Development Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Hongyue Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Hongzhan Ceramic Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Hua Da Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Huabo Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Huade Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Huashan Industrial Co., Ltd. 

B389 

B390 

B391 

B392 

B393 

B394 

B395 

B396 

B397 

B398 

B399 

B400 

B401 

B402 

B403 

B404 

B405 

B406 

B407 

B408 

B409 

B410 

B411 

B412 

B413 

B414 

B415 

B416 

B417 

B418 

B419 

B420 

B421 

B422 

B423 

EN 

43 

   EN 

Chaozhou Huayu Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Huazhong Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Huifeng Ceramics Craft Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou J&M Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Jencymic Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Jiahua Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Jiahuabao Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou JiaHui Ceramic Factory 

Chaozhou Jiaye Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Jiayi Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Jiayu Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Jin Jia Da Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Jingfeng Ceramics Craft Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Jinqiangyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Jinxin Ceramics Making Co., Ltd 

Chaozhou Jinyuanli Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Kaibo Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Kedali Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou King's Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Kingwave Porcelain & Pigment Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Lemontree Tableware Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Lianfeng Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Lianjun Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Lianyu Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

ChaoZhou Lianyuan Ceramic Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Lisheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Loving Home Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Maocheng Industry Dve. Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou MBB Porcelain Factory 

Chaozhou Mingyu Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou New Power Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Ohga Porcelain Co.,Ltd. 

Chaozhou Oubo Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Pengfa Ceramics Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Pengxing Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

B424 

B425 

B426 

B427 

B428 

B429 

B430 

B431 

B432 

B433 

B434 

B435 

B436 

B437 

B438 

B439 

B440 

B441 

B442 

B443 

B444 

B445 

B446 

B447 

B448 

B449 

B450 

B451 

B452 

B453 

B454 

B455 

B456 

B457 

B458 

EN 

44 

   EN 

Chaozhou Qingfa Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Ronghua Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Ronglibao Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Rui Cheng Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Rui Xiang Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Ruilong Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Sanhua Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Sanming Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Santai Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Shuntai Ceramic Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Songfa Ceramics Co.,Ltd. 

Chaozhou Sundisk Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Teemjade Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Thyme Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Tongxing Huajiang Ceramics Making Co., Ltd 

Chaozhou Totye Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Trend Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Uncommon Craft Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Weida Ceramic Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Weigao Ceramic Craft Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Wingoal Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Wood House Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Xiangye Ceramics Craft Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Xin Weicheng Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Xincheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Xinde Ceramics Craft Factory 

Chaozhou Xingguang Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Xinhui Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Xinkai Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Xinlong Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Xinyu Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Xinyue Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Yangguang Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Yaran Ceramics Craft Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Yinhe Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

B459 

B460 

B461 

B462 

B463 

B464 

B465 

B466 

B467 

B468 

B469 

B470 

B471 

B472 

B473 

B474 

B475 

B476 

B477 

B478 

B479 

B480 

B481 

B482 

B483 

B484 

B485 

B486 

B487 

B488 

B489 

B490 

B491 

B492 

B493 

EN 

45 

   EN 

Chaozhou Yongsheng Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Yongxuan Domestic Ceramics Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Yu Ri Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Yuefeng Ceramics Ind. Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Yufeng Ceramics Making Factory 

Chaozhou Zhongxia Porcelain Factory Co., Ltd. 

Chaozhou Zhongye Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Dabu Yongxingxiang Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Dapu Fuda Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Dapu Taoyuan Porcelain Factory 

Dasheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. Dehua 

De Hua Hongshun Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Dehua Hongsheng Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Dehua Jianyi Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. 

Dehua Kaiyuan Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. 

Dehua Ruyuan Gifts Co., Ltd. 

Dehua Xinmei Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Dongguan Kennex Ceramic Ltd. 

Dongguan Shilong Kyocera Co., Ltd. 

Dongguan Yongfuda Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Evershine Fine China Co., Ltd. 

Excellent Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Fair-Link Limited (Xiamen) 

Far East (Boluo) Ceramics Factory Co., Ltd. 

Far East (chaozhou) Ceramics Factory Co., Ltd. 

Fengfeng Mining District Yuhang Ceramic Co. Ltd. ("Yuhang") 

Foshan Metart Company Limited 

Fujian De Hua Jiashun Art&Crafts Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Chengyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Five Continents Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Fujue Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Full Win Crafts Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Fusheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Gentle Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Guanhong Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

B494 

B495 

B496 

B497 

B498 

B499 

B500 

B501 

B502 

B503 

B504 

B505 

B506 

B507 

B508 

B509 

B510 

B511 

B512 

B513 

B514 

B515 

B516 

B517 

B518 

B519 

B520 

B521 

B522 

B523 

B524 

B525 

B526 

B527 

B528 

EN 

46 

   EN 

Fujian Dehua Guanjie Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Hiap Huat Koyo Toki Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Hongda Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Hongsheng Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Hongyu Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Huachen Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Huaxia Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Huilong Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Jingyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Jinhua Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Jinzhu Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Lianda Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Myinghua Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Pengxin Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Rongxin Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Shisheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Will Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Xianda Ceramic Factory 

Fujian Dehua Xianghui Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Xingye Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Yonghuang Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Yousheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua You-Young Crafts Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Zhenfeng Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Dehua Zhennan Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Jackson Arts and Crafts Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Jiamei Group Corporation 

Fujian Profit Group Corporation 

Fujian Province Dehua County Beatrot Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Fujian  Province  Yongchun  County  Foreign  Processing  and 
Assembling Corporation 

Fujian Quanzhou Longpeng Group Co., Ltd. 

Fujian Quanzhou Shunmei Group Co., Ltd. 

Fung Lin Wah Group 

Ganzhou Koin Structure Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

B529 

B530 

B531 

B532 

B533 

B534 

B535 

B536 

B537 

B538 

B539 

B540 

B541 

B542 

B543 

B544 

B545 

B546 

B547 

B548 

B549 

B550 

B551 

B552 

B553 

B554 

B555 

B556 

B557 

B558 

B559 

B560 

B561 

B562 

EN 

47 

   EN 

Global Housewares Factory 

Guangdong  Baofeng  Ceramic  Technology  Development  Co., 
Ltd. 

Guangdong Bening Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd. 

Guangdong Daye Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Guangdong Dongbao Group Co., Ltd. 

Guangdong Huaxing Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Guangdong Quanfu Ceramics Ind. Co., Ltd. 

Guangdong Shunqiang Ceramics Co., Ltd 

Guangdong Shunxiang Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Guangdong Sitong Group Co., Ltd. 

Guangdong Songfa Ceramics Co.,Ltd. 

GuangDong XingTaiYi Porcelain Co., Ltd 

Guangdong Yutai Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Guangdong Zhentong Ceramics Co., Ltd 

Guangxi Baian Ceramic Co. Ltd 

Guangxi Beiliu City Ming Chao Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Guangxi Beiliu Guixin Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Guangxi Beiliu Huasheng Porcelain Ltd. 

Guangxi Beiliu Newcentury Ceramic Llc. 

Guangxi Beiliu Qinglang Porcelain Trade Co., Ltd. 

Guangxi Beiliu Rili Porcelain Co.,Ltd. 

Guangxi Beiliu Xiongfa Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Guangxi Beiliu Yujie Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Guangxi Beiliu Zhongli Ceramics Co., Ltd 

Guangxi Nanshan Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd. 

Guangxi Yulin Rongxing Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Guangzhou Chaintime Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Haofa Ceramics Co., Ltd. of Dehua Fujian 

Hebei Dersun Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Hebei Great Wall Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Henan Ruilong Ceramics Co., Ltd 

Henghui Porcelain Plant Liling Hunan China 

Huanyu Ceramic Industrial Co., Ltd. Liling Hunan China 

B563 

B564 

B565 

B566 

B567 

B568 

B569 

B570 

B571 

B572 

B573 

B574 

B575 

B576 

B577 

B578 

B579 

B580 

B581 

B582 

B583 

B584 

B585 

B586 

B587 

B588 

B589 

B590 

B591 

B592 

B593 

B594 

B595 

B596 

EN 

48 

   EN 

Hunan Baihua Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Hunan Eka Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Hunan Fungdeli Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Hunan Gaofeng Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Hunan Huari Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd 

Hunan Huawei China Industry Co., Ltd 

Hunan Huayun Ceramics Factory Co., Ltd 

Hunan Liling Tianxin China Industry Ltd. 

Hunan Provincial Liling Chuhua Ceramic Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Hunan Quanxiang Ceramics Corp. Ltd. 

Hunan Rslee Ceramics Co., Ltd 

Hunan Taisun Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Hunan Victor Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 

Hunan Wing Star Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Hunan Xianfeng Ceramic Industry Co.,Ltd 

Jiangsu Gaochun Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Jiangsu Yixing Fine Pottery Corp., Ltd. 

Jiangxi Global Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Jiangxi Kangshu Porcelain Co.,Ltd. 

Jingdezhen F&B Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Jingdezhen Yuanjing Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. 

Jiyuan Jukang Xingxing Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Joyye Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. 

Junior Star Ent's Co., Ltd. 

K&T Ceramics International Co., Ltd. 

Kam Lee (Xing Guo) Metal and Plastic Fty. Co., Ltd. 

Karpery Industrial Co., Ltd. Hunan China 

Kilncraft Ceramics Ltd. 

Lian Jiang Golden Faith Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Liling Gaojia Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd 

Liling GuanQian Ceramic Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Liling Huahui Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Liling Huawang Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Liling Jiahua Porcelain Manufacturing Co., Ltd 

Liling Jialong Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd 

B597 

B598 

B599 

B600 

B601 

B602 

B603 

B604 

B605 

B606 

B607 

B608 

B609 

B610 

B611 

B612 

B613 

B614 

B615 

B616 

B617 

B618 

B619 

B620 

B621 

B622 

B623 

B624 

B625 

B626 

B627 

B628 

B629 

B630 

B631 

EN 

49 

   EN 

Liling Jiaxing Ceramic Industrial Co., Ltd 

Liling Kaiwei Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Liling Liangsheng Ceramic Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Liling Liuxingtan Ceramics Co., Ltd 

Liling Minghui Ceramics Factory 

Liling Pengxing Ceramic Factory 

Liling Quanhu Industries General Company 

Liling Rongxiang Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Liling Ruixiang Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Liling Santang Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Liling Shenghua Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Liling Spring Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd 

Liling Tengrui Industrial and Trading Co.,Ltd. 

Liling Top Collection Industrial Co., Ltd 

Liling United Ceramic-Ware Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Liling Yonghe Porcelain Factory 

Liling Yucha Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Liling Zhengcai Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd 

Linyi Jinli Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Linyi Pengcheng Industry Co., Ltd. 

Linyi Wanqiang Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Linyi Zhaogang Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Liveon Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Long Da Bone China Co., Ltd. 

Meizhou Gaoyu Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Meizhou Lianshunchang Trading Co., Ltd. 

Meizhou Xinma Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Meizhou Yuanfeng Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd. 

Meizhou Zhong Guang Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Miracle Dynasty Fine Bone China (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 

Photo USA Electronic Graphic Inc. 

Quanzhou Allen Light Industry Co., Ltd. 

Quanzhou Chuangli Craft Co., Ltd. 

Quanzhou Dehua Fangsheng Arts Co., Ltd. 

Quanzhou Haofu Gifts Co., Ltd. 

B632 

B633 

B634 

B635 

B636 

B637 

B638 

B639 

B640 

B641 

B642 

B643 

B644 

B645 

B646 

B647 

B648 

B649 

B650 

B651 

B652 

B653 

B654 

B655 

B656 

B657 

B658 

B659 

B660 

B661 

B662 

B663 

B664 

B665 

B666 

EN 

50 

   EN 

Quanzhou Hongsheng Group Corporation 

Quanzhou Jianwen Craft Co., Ltd. 

Quanzhou Kunda Gifts Co., Ltd. 

Quanzhou Yongchun Shengyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Raoping Bright Future Porcelain Factory ("RBF") 

Raoping Sanrao Yicheng Porcelain Factory 

Raoping Sanyi Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Raoping Suifeng Ceramics and Glass Factory 

Raoping Xinfeng Yangda Colour Porcelain FTY 

Red Star Ceramics Limited 

Rong Lin Wah Industrial (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 

Ronghui Ceramic Co., Ltd Liling Hunan China 

Shandong Futai Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Shandong Gaode Hongye Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Shandong Kunlun Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Shandong Zhaoding Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Shantou Ceramics Industry Supply & Marketing Corp. 

Sheng Hua Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Shenzhen Baoshengfeng Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 

Shenzhen Bright Future Industry Co., Ltd. ("SBF") 

Shenzhen Donglin Industry Co., Ltd. 

Shenzhen Ehome Enterprise Ltd 

Shenzhen Ever Nice Industry Co., Ltd. 

Shenzhen Fuliyuan Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Shenzhen Full Amass Ind. Dev. Co. Ltd 

Shenzhen Fuxingjiayun Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Shenzhen Good-Always Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd 

Shenzhen Gottawa Industrial Ltd. 

Shenzhen Hiker Housewares Ltd. 

Shenzhen Hua Mei Industry Development Ltd 

Shenzhen Mingsheng Ceramic Ltd. 

Shenzhen Senyi Porcelain Industry Co. Ltd. 

Shenzhen SMF Investment Co., Ltd 

Shenzhen Tao Hui Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Shenzhen Topchoice Industries Limited 

B667 

B668 

B669 

B670 

B671 

B672 

B673 

B674 

B675 

B676 

B677 

B678 

B679 

B680 

B681 

B682 

B683 

B684 

B685 

B686 

B687 

B688 

B689 

B690 

B691 

B692 

B693 

B694 

B695 

B696 

B697 

B698 

B699 

B700 

B701 

EN 

51 

   EN 

Shenzhen Trueland Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Shenzhen Universal Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Shenzhen Zhan Peng Xiang Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Shijiazhuang Kuangqu Huakang Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Shun Sheng Da Group Co., Ltd. Quanzhou Fujian 

Stechcol Ceramic Crafts Development (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 

Taiyu Ceramic Co., Ltd. Liling Hunan China 

Tangshan Beifangcidu Ceramic Group Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Boyu Osseous Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Chinawares Trading Co., Ltd 

Tangshan Daxin Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Golden Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Haigelei Fine Bone Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Hengrui Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Huamei Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Huaxincheng Ceramic Products Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Huyuan Bone China Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Imperial-Hero Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Jinfangyuan Bone China Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Keyhandle Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Longchang Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Masterwell Ceramic Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Redrose Porcelain Products Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Shiyu Commerce Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Xueyan Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Yida Industrial Corp. 

Tao Yuan Porcelain Factory 

Teammann Co., Ltd. 

The China & Hong Kong Resources Co., Ltd. 

The Great Wall Group Holding Co., Ltd. Guangdong 

Tienshan (Handan) Tableware Co., Ltd. ("Tienshan") 

Topking Industry (China) Ltd. 

Weijian Ceramic Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Weiye Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Winpat Industrial Co., Ltd. 

B702 

B703 

B704 

B705 

B706 

B707 

B708 

B709 

B710 

B711 

B712 

B713 

B714 

B715 

B716 

B717 

B718 

B719 

B720 

B721 

B722 

B723 

B724 

B725 

B726 

B727 

B728 

B729 

B730 

B731 

B732 

B733 

B734 

B735 

B736 

EN 

52 

   EN 

Xiamen Acrobat Splendor Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Xiamen Johnchina Fine Polishing Tech Co., Ltd. 

Xiangqiang Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Liling City Hunan 

Xin Xing Xian XinJiang Pottery Co., Ltd. 

Xinhua County Huayang Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Xuchang Jianxing Porcelain Products Co., Ltd. 

Yangjiang Shi Ba Zi Kitchen Ware Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Yanling Hongyi Import N Export Trade Co., Ltd. 

Ying-Hai (Shenzhen) Industry Dev. Co., Ltd. 

Yiyang Red Star Ceramics Ltd. 

Yong  Feng  Yuan  Industry  Co.,  Ltd.  ("Yong  Feng  Yuan 
Industry") 

Yongchun Dahui Crafts Co., Ltd. 

Yu Yuan Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Yuzhou City Kongjia Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Yuzhou Huixiang Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Yuzhou Ruilong Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Zeal Ceramics Development Co., Ltd, Shenzhen, China 

Zhangjiakou Xuanhua Yici Ceramics Co., Ltd. ("Xuanhua Yici") 

Zhejiang Nansong Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Zibo Boshan Shantou Ceramic Factory 

Zibo CAC Chinaware Co., Ltd. 

Zibo Fortune Light Industrial Products Co., Ltd. 

Zibo Fuxin Porcelain Co., Ltd. 

Zibo GaoDe Ceramic Technology & Development Co., Ltd. 

Zibo Hongda Ceramics Co., Ltd. 

Zibo Jinxin Light Industrial Products Co., Ltd. 

Zibo Kunyang Ceramic Corporation Limited 

B737 

B738 

B739 

B740 

B741 

B742 

B743 

B744 

B745 

B746 

B747 

B748 

B749 

B750 

B751 

B752 

B753 

B754 

B755 

B756 

B757 

B758 

B759 

B760 

B761 

B762 

B763 

EN 

53 

   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) 

(2) 

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

The  following  declaration:  “I,  the  undersigned,  certify  that  the  (volume)  of  ceramic 
tableware  and  kitchenware  sold  for  export  to  the  European  Union  covered  by  this 
invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) 
in  (country  concerned).  I  declare  that  the  information  provided  in  this  invoice  is 
complete and correct.” 

(3) 

Date and signature. 

EN 

54 

   EN