9.8.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 199/37
(21)
Connect Com claimed that the use of average price per cable-km was not a meaningful indicator to check whether the anti-dumping duties have been absorbed because cables with high number of fibres were more expensive per cable-km than cables with low number of fibres.
Connect Com argued that the fall of average price per cable-km was caused by the change of product mix sold before and after the imposition of anti-dumping duties.
(22)
The Commission recalled that the applicant relied on import prices from the TARIC database of Eurostat for the product under investigation, which is the usual practice because the statistical data is gathered based on the product description as a whole, rather than individual product types.
The Commission considered it sufficient to reopen the reinvestigation on this basis.
Furthermore, it was noted that Connect Com did not submit any evidence showing that the decrease in import price was due to a change in product mix.
During the reinvestigation, the Commission collected more detailed data at product type level based on product control numbers (‘PCNs’) and was able to compare prices of the same product types as explained in recital (40).
The claim was therefore rejected.
(23)
Connect Com also stated that the unit of measurement ‘kg’ or ‘tonnes’ was not common in the cable business.
The usual units of measurement for cables were meters or kilometres.
(24)
The Commission observed that, like for all other products in the TARIC database of Eurostat, import volumes of the product under investigation are also available in tonnes/kg, in addition to cable-km.
The applicant’s request indicated the (relevant) import volumes in both units with the relevant price per each unit.
The claim was therefore rejected.
(25)
Connect Com claimed that the consideration of prices only until the end of the first half of 2022, as indicated in the request, led to a distorted result because the prices rose again in June 2022 and were expected to continue to rise in the second half of 2022.
(26)
The Commission recalled that, given the lodging date of the request, the period used in the request to show trends ending on 30 June 2022 was the most recent period with a full set of data available to the applicants at the time of the request.
In addition, during the reinvestigation the Commission assessed prices until the end of the AIP, i.e., 30 September 2022.
It follows that the period during which, according to Connect Com, the prices rose was partially included in the AIP.
Therefore, the claim was rejected.
(27)
Connect Com also disputed the causality between the allegedly fallen prices and the imposition of the duties.
It claimed that an extreme price decrease already occurred from August 2021 to September 2021, before the duties were imposed and that the subsequent price drop from EUR 10 in December 2021 to EUR 7 in June 2022 was not significant anymore and not linked to the imposition of the measures.
(28)
According to Article 12 of the basic Regulation, when there is sufficient evidence of duties being absorbed, the original investigation might be re-opened at the request of any interested party.
The Commission assessed the evidence submitted by the applicant showing that after the original investigation period, Chinese export prices had decreased.
In view of this information, the Commission decided to open the absorption reinvestigation.
Furthermore, Article 12(2) of the basic Regulation does allow the Commission to consider evidence of price decreases occurring after the OIP and before the imposition of duties, such as the ones discussed by Connect Com.
The claim put forward by Connect Com was therefore rejected.
1.10.
Disclosure
(29)
On 1 June 2023, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to amend the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of OFC originating in China.
All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.
The Commission received comments from FTT Group, ZTT Group and Twentsche (Nanjing) Fibre Optics Ltd (‘TFO’).