8.9.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 233/27
(59)
The initial investigation was initiated on 16 May 2019 and definitive countervailing duties were imposed on 15 June 2020.
Turkiz Composite was officially established on 1 June 2018 and started production from March 2019 onwards.
Therefore, the date of the start of the production coincides with the date of the initiation of the initial anti-dumping investigation on imports of GFF from China and Egypt, which preceded the initiation of the initial investigation by about three months.
(60)
Moreover, Turkiz Composite substantially increased its export sales in 2020 and during the investigation period compared to 2019.
This substantial increase of the assembly or completion operation coincides with the date of the imposition of the definitive countervailing duties, i.e. on 15 June 2020 (see previous recital).
Moreover, almost all its input materials and in particular 100 % of its main input material (glass fibre rovings) were purchased from its related companies in China and Egypt.
(61)
Therefore, the Commission concluded that the assembly or completion operation started or substantially increased since the initiation of the initial investigation.
2.6.
Value of parts and value added
2.6.1.
Value of parts
(62)
As far as assembly operations are concerned, Article 13(2)(b) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation states that another condition to establish circumvention is that the parts (of Chinese and Egyptian origin, in this case) constitute 60 % or more of the total value of the parts of the assembled product and that the added value of the parts brought in, during the assembly or completion operation, is less than 25 % of the manufacturing cost.
The legal standards contained in Article 13(2) of basic anti-dumping Regulation can by analogy be used in assessing the anti-subsidy case in the context of Article 23(3) of the basic Regulation.
(63)
The main input material to produce GFF is glass fibre rovings.
Turkiz Composite purchased 100 % of the glass fibre rovings it used from related companies in China and Egypt.
Through the sewing-knitting process carried out, which is a completion operation in Turkey, these glass fibre rovings were transformed into GFF.
According to the submitted and verified information by Turkiz Composite, the main input material, namely glass fibre rovings, constitute almost 100 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled/completed product in the sense of Article 13(2)(b) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.
(64)
Following disclosure, Turkiz Composite and LM Wind Power reiterated their claim that the manufacturing of GFF from the imported main raw material glass fibre rovings does not constitute an ‘assembly of parts by an assembly operation’ within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, which is applied by analogy (see above recital (62)), and that glass fibre rovings are not parts but rather materials within the meaning of the Explanatory Note (VII) of the second part of General Rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Harmonised System, providing that parts being assembled shall ‘not be subjected to any further working operation for completion into the finished state’.
In this context, they claimed that glass fibre rovings are not ‘parts’ of GFF and are not ‘assembled’ into GFF, but are processed into GFF by looming and stitching together various types of glass fibre rovings as well as other materials, using complex machinery.
Similar comments were also received from the Egyptian authorities.
(65)
The Commission rejected these claims.
The practice described in recital (63) above can be characterised as a completion operation that falls within the concept of assembly operations under Article 13(2) of the basic antidumping Regulation, as also referred to in recital (62) above.
In addition, other elements were considered, as explained below.
(66)
First, the reference to the Explanatory Note (VII) of the second part of General Rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Harmonised System is irrelevant as the direct legal basis is Article 23 of the basic Regulation and not customs law, as explicitly clarified by the Court of Justice (15).
(15) Judgment of 12 September 2019, Commission/Kolachi Raj Industrial, C-709/17 P, ECLI:EU:C:2019:717, para.
90 and the case-law cited.