L 88/68
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
16.3.2022
(353) The absence of sufficient cooperation did not allow the Commission to collect all the information it considered relevant for its findings in this investigation.
Due to the non-cooperation of the nickel miners, the Commission was also prevented from collecting additional documents and asking additional information, namely on licensing agreements between the miners and the GOID, including the underlying conditions, royalties, and references to the legislative context regulating to them.
Consequently, with regard to the alleged government provision of nickel ore for less than adequate remuneration, the GOID did not provide the necessary information and evidence as requested by the Commission in its questionnaire and during the RCC.
(354) Therefore, in the absence of information to the contrary received from the GOID, the Commission partially relied on facts available for its findings regarding those aspects of the investigation in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.
(355) In the comments on final disclosure, the GOID explained that it submitted GAG Nikel’s articles of association as part of the deed of establishment, which was provided by letter of 19 November 2021.
The Commission confirmed that the articles of association are part of the deed of establishment.
However, the Commission noted that this submission occurred very late in the investigation, and more importantly that the articles were submitted only in Bahasa.
Therefore the Commission was not able to use them.
(356) Moreover, the GOID stated that the translation of the articles of association of PT.
Ceria Hugraha required time.
In any event, the GOID claimed that the Commission did not require the translation of all the documents into English and, as such, the lack of translation should not impede the investigation.
As for the file format, the GOID asserted that this was not specified.
(357) The Commission noted that in the instructions for the anti-subsidy questionnaire, to which the annex for inputs supplier was attached, it is clearly stated ‘Please provide an English translation for all documents and source material that you submit in response to this questionnaire’.
Moreover, the anti-subsidy questionnaire was sent to the GOID on 18 May 2021, therefore the GOID had more than sufficient time at its disposal for the translation of the articles of association of PT.
Ceria Hugraha.
As for the file format, the Commission made the remark on the format of the document in recital (344) because it did not allow a computer-based translation, therefore the document could not be used.
This claim was therefore rejected.
(358) With regard to the RKABs, the GOID recalled that it submitted them as attachments to the letter of 8 December 2021.
The Commission recalled that in the letter of 19 November 2021 (which was the deadline for the GOID to submit the RCC exhibits), the GOID had informed the Commission that, based on an internal decision, GAG Nickel had decided not to provide the RKABs.
The letter of 8 December 2021 was sent in response to the Article 28 letter.
The Commission noted that this date was way too late in the investigation for the Commission to take into account new documents.
More importantly, the Article 28 process and the comments that interested parties may submit relate to the failure to submit information and cannot be used by the parties as an opportunity to submit new information that should have been submitted in the earlier stage of the investigation, or as part of the deficiency process.
The Commission therefore rejected this argument.
(359) The GOID explained also that it blackened the text not related to the volume of production data to simplify the reading of the text.
(360) The Commission noted that the GOID was requested to submit complete documents and not to blacken any part of the text.
The Commission would have needed to have access to all the text to properly assess the complete information contained in the RKABs for its findings.
This argument was therefore rejected.
(361) With regard to the statistical data on consumption, the GOID claimed that, since the Commission employed sampling, it could not reconcile the national consumption data with nickel ore purchased by IRNC.
The Commission highlighted and clarified that the quantity of nickel ore purchased by IRNC was significantly higher compared to the national consumption data reported by the GOID.
Therefore, the data submitted by GOID seem to significantly underestimate the national production of nickel ore.
The GOID did not provide any facts to rebut these findings.
This claim was therefore rejected.