EN
L 12/120
Official Journal of the European Union
19.1.2022
Table 3-bis Chinese imports (EUR/cable-km) 2017
2018
2019
IP
Average price
854
720
593
320
Index
100
84
69
38
Representativeness (%)
94
35
59
62
(614) This shows a significant, continuous price drop by Chinese exports.
In other words, when sales of the same product types are compared on a year by year basis, there is a clear and discernible price drop of Chinese import prices in each year, which were well below the prices of the Union producers during the period 2018-IP (Table 7-bis).
(615) Against this backdrop, the Commission determined the price undercutting during the investigation period by comparing: — the weighted average sales prices per product type of the sampled Union producers charged to unrelated customers in the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level; and — the corresponding weighted average prices per product type of the imports from the sampled Chinese producers to the first independent customer in the Union market, established on a Cost, insurance, freight (CIF) basis, with appropriate adjustments for post-importation costs.
(616) The price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary.
The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers’ turnover during the investigation period.
It showed a weighted average undercutting margin for the two sampled exporting producers were 30,0 % and 33,2 %, giving an overall undercutting margin of 31,5 %.
As described in recital (673) , the analysis of tenders confirms the existence of price undercutting at the level of tenders.
(617) This is in line with the prices identified in recitals (613) and (614).
(618) In its comments on final disclosure, the ZTT Group also argued that the Commission gave no explanation on the aggregated PCN groups which were therefore arbitrary.
CCCME claimed that the use of these groups implied there was a problem of matching and comparability of Union industry and Chinese prices.
CCCME referred to the Panel report in China – X-Ray Equipment (142) which held that an investigation authority was under an obligation to ensure that the products that it was comparing in its price undercutting and suppression analysis were actually comparable and argued that the Commission failed to ensure such price comparability.
(619) The Commission disagreed with this claim for two reasons.
First, these groups were not used for the purpose of undercutting and underselling calculations.
Second, they were used to make a price comparison on a type-by-type basis set out in recital (613) precisely to ensure that price trends over time were not polluted by significant changes in product mix over the period, thus enhancing the accuracy of comparability over time, based on groups which as explained above were representative of the product concerned.
(620) The Commission noted that when assessing undercutting and underselling margins, the models exported to the Union from the country concerned constituted the reference for comparison.
It lies in the nature of comparing export sales of exporting producers with sales of the Union industry that not all models exported were sold by the Union industry.
In the current case, the matching rate was around 70 % for the sampled Chinese exporting producers, which the Commission considered amply sufficient to ensure a broad and fair comparison of the exported models and those sold by the Union industry.
(142) Panel Report, China – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on X-Ray Security Inspection Equipment from the European Union, WT/DS425/R, para.
7.67.