L 316/54
(18)
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
8.12.2022
In accordance with Article 27(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned, and the Turkish authorities were consulted on the selection of the sample. 1.6.
Comments on the sample selection
(19)
The Commission received comments from the cooperating exporters Selina Balık İşleme Tesisi İthalat İhracat ve Ticaret A.Ş, (‘Selina Balik’) and Kılıç Deniz Ürünleri Üretimi İhracat İthalat ve Ticaret A.Ş. (‘Kilic Deniz’) requesting to be included in the sample.
(20)
The Commission dealt with these requests in a Note that was placed on the open file on 22 October 2021.
As the Note explained, both requests were denied because the sample had been selected on the basis of the largest representative quantity of exports that could reasonably be investigated in the time available.
(21)
Selina Balik and Kilic Deniz were not among the largest exporting producers and thus adding these companies to the sample would also not have increased significantly the representativity of the sample, but could have prevented the timely completion of the investigation.
(22)
On 11 November 2021, the Danish Aquaculture Organisation (‘the DAO’) representing Union producers of rainbow trout sent a submission requesting that the Commission include in the sample smaller trout farmers from Türkiye, as the subsidy schemes had changed to benefit smaller farmers more than larger ones.
The DAO noted in this respect that the changes to the direct subsidy schemes, in particular the imposition of production caps, have effectively increased the subsidisation of smaller farmers.
(23)
The DAO requested the Commission thus to change the sample selection methodology, away from the largest quantity of exports that could reasonably be investigated, and to instead select a statistically valid sample that in their view would accurately represent the diversity of Turkish trout producers.
The DAO, however, did not propose any specific cooperating exporter that should be included in the sample.
(24)
The Commission rejected this request since the sampling information requested from the exporters did not contain information that would allow the Commission to select the a sample in that manner.
(25)
The changes in the direct subsidy schemes, as set out in section 4 below, were reflected in the calculation of the benefit. 1.7.
Requests for an individual amount of countervailable subsidisation for companies not included in the sample (‘individual examination’)
(26)
The Commission received two requests for an individual amount of countervailable subsidisation following the initiation of the investigation under Article 27(3) of the basic Regulation.
These requests were made in the form of a completed questionnaire reply.
(27)
The first request came from the company Selina Balik.
(28)
The Commission accepted their request for individual examination because it was already reviewing the company’s situation in a parallel interim review concerning the same product.
This interim review was initiated on 5 February 2021 (7).
However, Selina Balik withdrew their request for review and the Commission then terminated it on 10 March 2022 (8).
(29)
Selina Balik had submitted a full questionnaire reply with the same review investigation period as the RIP (calendar year 2020) of this interim review.
The company agreed that the information provided was to be used in the current review.
The Commission had already largely checked the information submitted and only the remote cross-check had not been performed.
(30)
Therefore, full information was already available at the initiation of this investigation and it could not be considered too burdensome to investigate Selina Balik’s situation for the purpose of the current review.
(7) OJ C 40, 5.2.2021, p. 12. (8) OJ L 83, 10.3.2022, p. 60.