CELEX: 52013PC0206
Language: en
Date: 2013-04-15
Title: Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China

|
			
		
		
		52013PC0206
		
			Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China /* COM/2013/0206 final - 2013/0109 (NLE) */
			
				
		
		
			
			   	EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
Grounds for and objectives of the
proposal
This proposal concerns the application of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against
dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community ('the basic
Regulation') in the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ceramic
tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China.
General context
This proposal is made in the context of the
implementation of the basic Regulation and is the result of an investigation
which was carried out in line with the substantive and procedural requirements
laid out in the basic Regulation.
Existing provisions in the area of the
proposal
Provisional measures were imposed by
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1072/2012 (OJ L 318, 15.11.2012, p.
28.).
Consistency with other policies and
objectives of the Union
Not applicable.
2.           RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS
WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Consultation of interested parties
Interested parties concerned by the
proceeding have had the possibility to defend their interests during the
investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation.
Collection and use of expertise
There was no need for external expertise.
Impact assessment
This proposal is the result of the
implementation of the basic Regulation.
The basic Regulation does not contain
provisions for a general impact assessment but contains an exhaustive list of
conditions that have to be assessed.
3.           LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE
PROPOSAL
Summary of the proposed action
On 16 February 2012 the Commission
initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ceramic tableware
and kitchenware originating in the
People's Republic of China.
The Commission imposed provisional
anti-dumping duties on these imports by Regulation (EU) No 1072/2012 of 14 November 2012.
The attached proposal for a Council
Regulation is based on the definitive findings which have confirmed the
existence of dumping causing injury, and the fact that the imposition of
measures is not against the overall Union interest. Although the product scope
and the final duty rates have been amended, the provisional findings were
confirmed.
It is therefore proposed that the Council
adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation which should be published no later
than 14 May 2013.
Legal basis
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30
November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members
of the European Community.
Subsidiarity principle
The proposal falls under the exclusive
competence of the European Union. The subsidiarity principle therefore does not
apply.
Proportionality principle
The proposal complies with the
proportionality principle for the following reasons:
The form of action is described in the
above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no scope for national decision.
Indication of how financial and
administrative burden falling upon the Union, national governments, regional
and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is minimized and
proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable.
Choice of instruments
Proposed instruments: regulation.
Other means would not be adequate for the
following reason:
Other means would not be adequate because the
basic Regulation does not provide for alternative options.
4.           BUDGETARY IMPLICATION
The proposal has no implication for the
Union budget.
2013/0109 (NLE)
Proposal for a
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic
tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No
1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community[1],
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by
the European Commission (‘the Commission’) after having consulted the Advisory
Committee,
Whereas:
1.           PROCEDURE
1.1.        Initiation
(1)       The Commission, by
Regulation (EU) No 1072/2012[2]
(‘the provisional Regulation’), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on
imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s
Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’).
(2)       The proceeding was
initiated on 16 February 2012[3]
following a complaint lodged on behalf of Union producers (‘the complainants’),
representing more than 30% of the total Union production of ceramic tableware
and kitchenware. 
(3)       As set out in recital (22)
of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered
the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 (‘the investigation period’
or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury
covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP (‘the period
considered’).
1.2.        Subsequent procedure
(4)       Subsequent to the disclosure
of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided
to impose a provisional anti-dumping duty (‘provisional disclosure’), several
interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the
provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity
to be heard. Two importers and one exporting producer requested and were
afforded hearings in the presence of the Hearing Officer of the
Directorate-General for Trade.
(5)       The Commission continued
to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive
findings. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties
were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified
accordingly.
(6)       In addition, as explained
in recital (55) below, a verification visit was carried out at a Thai producer,
the purpose of which was to investigate the suitability of Thailand as an appropriate analogue country. 
(7)       Subsequently all parties
were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which
it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty
on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the PRC and the
definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of provisional duty ('the
final disclosure'). All parties were granted a period within which they could
make comments on the final disclosure. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce for
Import and Export of Light Industrial Products and Arts-crafts (‘CCCLA’) and a
group of importers requested and were granted hearings in the presence of the
Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade. 
(8)       The comments submitted by
the interested parties were considered and taken into account where
appropriate.
1.3.        Sampling
(9)       Following provisional
disclosure several interested parties challenged the sample of exporting
producers from the PRC arguing that the sample is not representative, as it is based
only on the largest exported volumes and thus failed to take into account other
factors characterising the diversity and fragmentation of the ceramic industry
in the PRC.
(10)     It
follows from Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation that the selection of
companies to be included in the sample may be limited to the largest
representative volume of exports that can reasonably be investigated within the
time available. In view of the fragmentation of the industry it was considered
that a selection based on export volumes would allow a representative sample
that could be investigated within the time available. In this respect it should
nevertheless be noted that the companies selected are located in three
different regions in China
and have significant production of the product concerned of different types of ceramic
material, e.g. porcelain and stoneware as well as production of a wide variety
of product types. Therefore, this claim cannot be accepted.
(11)     One exporting producer
claimed that the use of different methodologies for selecting the sample for
the EU industry and importers as compared to the sampling of exporting
producers amount to discrimination and that the same criteria should have been
used. The use of different methodologies is discriminatory against the
exporting producers and a breach of equal treatment.
(12)     The selection of a sample
of exporting producers serves only to investigate the existence of dumping of
the product concerned from the PRC. In this regard, it is essential to cover
the maximum volume of imports of the product concerned in the investigation
period. On the other hand, the sample of Union producers was selected for the
purpose of determining whether the Union industry was suffering material injury
of the basis of numerous different indicators. Concerning importers, the
information collected is largely used in the Union interest assessment. It
follows that for importers and the Union producers, it is important to collect
information from a range of companies active in, for example, different product
segments. As the underlying rationale for selecting companies to be included in
the samples is different for, on the one hand, Union producers and importers
and, on the other hand, exporting producers, they are not in a similar
situation. Therefore, neither the principle of non-discrimination nor equal
treatment requires the use of an identical methodology for selecting the
respective samples. It follows that this claim is wholly unwarranted and is
therefore rejected. 
(13)     Furthermore, one exporting
producer maintained its request, as referred to in recital (8) of the
provisional Regulation, that it should have been included in the sample. The
company has however not put forward any new arguments that would justify its
inclusion in the sample. Therefore, and taking into account the findings in recital
(10) above, the conclusions in recital (9) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
(14)     The same non-sampled
exporting producer claimed that it was not afforded sufficient time to submit
its comments on the final disclosure and that, in addition, the disclosure was
insufficient since it did not disclose, e.g. figures for allowances,
sales prices, adjustments, etc. Therefore, its rights of defence have not been
respected. 
(15)     According to Article 20(5)
of the basic Regulation an interested party should be afforded a time period of
at least 10 days to submit comments on the final disclosure. The exporting
producer in question received the final disclosure by way of electronic mail on
25 February 2013 and was given until 8 March 2013, i.e. 11 days, to
submit comments. The disclosure document was in addition also sent by
registered mail the following day. It follows that the party concerned was
given sufficient time to submit comments and this claim must therefore be
rejected. In this respect it is also noted that the party’s comments were
provided within the given deadline and that no request for an extension of the
deadline was made. Moreover, having due regard to its obligation to protect
confidential information, the Commission disclosed all essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it intended to propose the imposition of
definitive measures. More particularly, the respect for the rights of defence
does not require that company specific sale figures or allowances made in respect
of companies included in the sample, used to establish individual dumping
margins must be communicated to a party for which no individual margin is
calculated. 
(16)     It follows from the above
that the claim that the rights of defence were not respected is unfounded and
is therefore rejected.
2.           PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE
PRODUCT
2.1.        Introduction
(17)     As set out in recitals (24)
and recitals (56) to (57) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned as
provisionally defined is ceramic
tableware and kitchenware, excluding ceramic knives ('the product concerned'),
currently falling within CN codes ex 6911 10 00, ex 6912 00 10, ex 6912 00 30,
ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912 00 90 and originating in the People’s Republic of
China. 
2.2.        Claims
(18)     Following provisional
disclosure, no parties contested that ceramic (kitchen) knives were
fundamentally different from other kinds of ceramic table and kitchenware due
to differences in physical characteristics, production processes and end-uses. All
comments by parties having been analysed, the claim to exclude ceramic knives
from the product scope of this investigation is definitively accepted. 
(19)     After publication of
provisional measures, several parties claimed that certain ceramic condiment
and spice mills and their ceramic grinding parts, should be excluded from the
product scope.
(20)     This claim is based on the
allegation that, in view of their specificities, such mills and other types of
ceramic tableware and kitchenware could not be considered as forming one single
product. Those mills have a ceramic material mainly made of alumina for the grinding
plate which is not used for ’standard’ tableware such as cups and plates and for
which firing is done at higher temperatures. Their degree of inter-changeability
with the main categories of the product under investigation would be limited.
This would also apply to ceramic grinding mechanisms without any housing which
are normally declared under the above-mentioned codes. 
(21)     The investigation showed
that the ceramic element in these grinders normally represented a minor part of
the mill. Moreover, the investigation showed that mills with a ceramic grinding
plate, including their ceramic grinding parts, did not have the same basic
physical characteristics and basic uses as ceramic tableware and kitchenware. The
shape, strength and design of the ceramic grinding parts are different from ceramic
tableware and kitchenware.
(22)     Some
parties submitted that the mills in question should be excluded from the
product scope on the basis that they have the same physical characteristics,
industry design and end-use as mills with grinding mechanisms made of metal and
that when included in certain sets of mills they are normally classified under
tariff heading 8210. They also claimed that the ceramic elements in these
instances generally represent normally up to 2% of the value of the product. Nevertheless,
given the numerous classification possibilities of mills and sets of mills, the
investigation could not retain these arguments to determine whether ceramic
mills should be excluded from the product scope of the investigation.
(23)     Several parties backed
their claim that the mills in question should be excluded from the product
scope on the basis that it would be necessary to use ceramic grinding plates,
rather than metal, in certain mills, namely salt mills, as salt corrodes metal
grinders. However, the investigation showed that salt mills do not necessarily use
ceramic grinding mechanisms.
(24)     On
the basis of the considerations in the recitals above, the investigation
concluded that condiment and spice mills with ceramic grinding elements are
fundamentally different from other kinds of ceramic table and kitchenware due
to the differences in basic physical characteristics and uses of the ceramic
material used for the working parts. Therefore, the claim to exclude them,
including stand-alone ceramic grinding mechanisms and their parts, from the
product scope of this investigation is accepted. 
(25)     After publication of
provisional measures, some parties claimed that ceramic knife sharpeners should
be excluded from the product scope because of differences in the production
processes, end-use and the fact that these items are not aimed at retaining
foodstuff due to their specific design and physical characteristics. The
investigation confirmed these points. The claim to exclude them from the
product scope of this investigation is therefore granted.
(26)     In the same vein it was
also investigated whether ceramic peelers should be excluded from the product
scope. Indeed, the investigation confirmed that ceramic peelers, also, are
fundamentally different from other kinds of ceramic table and kitchenware due
to the differences in the design and physical characteristics (shape and
strength) of the ceramic material used for the working parts, their production
processes and end-use. Ceramic peelers should, therefore, also be excluded from
the product scope of this investigation.
(27)     After publication of
provisional measures, a party also claimed that pizza-stones made of cordierite
ceramic should be excluded from the product scope because of their different
physical properties (shape and hardness), industrial design and use. Cordierite
ceramic is a type of alumina magnesia silicate with specific properties, namely
an excellent thermal shock resistance. The investigation confirmed that
pizza-stones made of cordierite ceramic have the same physical properties
(shape and hardness), industrial design and use as bricks for furnaces or ovens.
Consequently, they are different from other ceramic tableware and kitchenware. Following
final disclosure, the complainants pointed at the similarity of pizza-stones
made of cordierite ceramic as compared to the other products covered by the
proceeding. However, they could not demonstrate that pizza-stones made of
cordierite ceramic have the same basic physical characteristics and end uses. The
claim to exclude them from the product scope of this investigation is therefore
granted. 
(28)     After publication of
provisional measures, a Dutch association claimed that ceramic tableware and
kitchenware to be used as promotional products should be excluded from the
product scope on the basis that they are not sold to be used as tableware or
kitchenware, that they are an important economical driver for the retail sector,
that they are highly appreciated by consumers and that only producers in the
People’s Republic of China could offer the quantities needed within a short
period. The claim to exclude ceramic tableware and kitchenware to be used as
promotional products from the product scope of this investigation cannot
however be granted because their physical characteristics, production processes
and end-use are the same as those of other kinds of ceramic tableware and
kitchenware.
(29)     Provisional measures having
been published and again after final disclosure, a German importer and
wholesaler and a Chinese co-operating exporting producer claimed that specially
coated stoneware wares of a kind for sublimation printing and for which the
coating of sublimation is removable through mechanical scratching should be
excluded from the product scope on the basis that they are semi-finished
products for which the photofinishing is carried out in the Union via specific
channels, the different consumer perception, the fact that the sublimation
coating exceeds the value of the uncoated ceramic items and the inexistency of
Union producers of this kind of product. The investigation revealed that the
product is visibly identical to other non-sublimated tableware and, therefore,
it is difficult to distinguish, if at all. The investigation further showed
that these products have normally the same end-use as other types of ceramic
tableware. It was also found that several Union producers do manufacture these
products and that Union-made and imported products are in direct competition.
In view of the above, the claim to exclude specially coated stoneware wares
of a kind for sublimation printing is rejected. 
(30)     After the publication of
provisional measures and again after final disclosure, the importer that had
claimed the exclusion of underglaze figurative hand-painted tableware from the
product scope alleged that the Commission's provisional analysis in this
respect was flawed because it ignored the existence of market segments, the differences
in quality between the different types of tableware, the luxury and more
fragile nature of underglaze figurative hand-painted tableware and the limited
interchangeability as a consequence of the associated consumer perception. It
also alleged that underglaze figurative hand-painted tableware may be even used
for decoration.
(31)     As regards the claims
concerning the differences in quality between the different types of tableware
and the luxury and more fragile nature of underglaze figurative hand-painted
tableware, these characteristics are not specific to underglaze figurative
hand-painted tableware. Moreover, as regards the limited interchangeability as
a consequence of associated consumer perception, no new argument was raised
that would change the conclusion in recital (45) of the provisional Regulation
that the average consumer does not make a difference between underglaze
figurative hand-painted tableware and other types of ceramic tableware.
Finally, the Commission had analysed the existence of market segments in recitals
(157) to (158) of the provisional Regulation. These arguments could not
therefore reverse the conclusions in recital (45) of the provisional
Regulation.
(32)     The claim raised in recital
(50) of the provisional Regulation was further elaborated after the imposition
of provisional measures. These claims were reiterated after definitive
disclosure. The importer with production in China claimed that
kitchenware/tableware products that are entirely glazed and/or enamelled on
100% of their surface with the exception of the base or a part thereof and
where 100% of the glazed/enamelled surface is coloured with a non-white colour
should be excluded from the product scope. The claim was duly analysed and the
investigation has shown that the physical characteristics, production processes
and end-uses of these products are the same as those of other glazed and/or
enamelled products of ceramic tableware and kitchenware. Therefore, the claim is
definitively rejected.
(33)     CCCLA insisted that fine
bone china should be excluded from the product scope of the investigation on
the basis that it is a fragile luxury product with a low mechanical strength and
it also contested that it is chip resistant. Yet it is noted that CCCLA itself
had previously submitted that fine bone china had a high mechanical strength
and was chip resistant. These contradictory statements clearly undermined the
CCCLA claims. In any event, the arguments raised do not change the conclusions
summarized in recital (28) of the provisional Regulation. Therefore, the claim
for the exclusion of fine bone china from the product scope is therefore
definitively rejected.
(34)     The same party reiterated
that durable porcelain should be excluded from the product scope of the
investigation. It claimed that the statement that it does not have uncontested
features was not true, that it was very robust due to a clay aluminium content
of over 24% and then contested the Union manufacturing capacity for this product.
However, the different submissions on durable porcelain are contradictory as
regards for instance the raw materials share and its alumina powder content. Moreover,
it was not contested that durable porcelain was also manufactured in the Union
and that producers in the PRC made durable porcelain which was in direct
competition with Union produced durable porcelain as well as with other
products covered by the investigation. The claim to exclude durable porcelain
is therefore definitively rejected.
(35)     All types of ceramic
tableware and kitchenware can be regarded as different types of the same
product. Therefore, the claim made after provisional and again after final
disclosure that the investigation covers a large range of like products and
that, as a result, it would be necessary to conduct separate standing, dumping,
injury, causation and Union interest analyses for each product segment, is
found to be unfounded. One party that claimed that the product scope was too
broad brought forward a comparison of products with different levels of
decoration, but its statements as regards end-use (for the garden and children
in one case, for decoration in the other case) are disputable because there is
no clear-cut and can rather be seen as a confirmation of the point made in
recital (55) of the provisional Regulation. It should also be noted that an
importer with production in the People’s Republic of China submitted that over
99% of the ceramic tableware and kitchenware products sold in the Union were predominantly or exclusively white. Some parties contested recital (58) of the
provisional Regulation on the basis that in the framework of the investigation
the institutions did not carry out any test of whether certain merchandise was not
suitable for free trade in the Union. However, this fact does not undermine the
conclusion in recital (63) of the provisional Regulation.
2.3.        Conclusion
(36)     In view of the above, the
product scope is definitively defined as ceramic tableware and kitchenware,
excluding ceramic knives, ceramic condiment or spice mills and their ceramic
grinding parts, ceramic peelers, ceramic knife sharpeners and cordierite
ceramic pizza-stones of a kind used for baking pizza or bread, originating in
the People's Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 6911 10
00, ex 6912 00 10, ex 6912 00 30, ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912 00 90.
(37)     In the absence of other
comments regarding the product concerned and the like product, all other
determinations in recitals (24) to (63) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
3.           DUMPING
3.1.        Market Economy Treatment
(MET)
(38)     Following provisional
disclosure one exporting producer, one Union producer and one importer claimed
that the MET determination was made out of time, i.e. after the three-month
period laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and that the
investigation therefore should be terminated without imposition of any
anti-dumping measures. This claim in relation to the MET determination had
already been made at the provisional stage and was rejected by the Commission
in recitals (72) and (73) of the provisional Regulation. After final disclosure
five more exporting producers put forward a similar claim. In support of the
claim they relied on the Court of Justice's judgments in the Brosmann
and Aokang Shoes cases[4].

(39)     First, it is recalled that
the Brosmann and Aokang cases are not pertinent for the
assessment of the legality of the MET analysis in the investigation at hand
since those cases, contrary to this investigation, relate to situations where
the MET assessments were not conducted at all.
(40)     Furthermore, Brosmann
and Aokang cases are not relevant for the assessment of the legality of
the investigation at hand, in the light of the fact that the basic Regulation
has meanwhile been amended[5].
Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, as amended, provides that the Commission
shall only make MET determinations in respect of companies included in a sample
pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation and that it shall make such a
determination within seven months of, but in any event not later than eight
months after the initiation of the investigation, is applicable to all new and
pending investigations as from 15 December 2012, including therefore the
present one.
(41)     In any event, the
interpretation of the standing case law that there was no infringement per
se of the right to a MET determination notwithstanding the fact that
the three month time limit was not respected, must be upheld. Therefore, the
conclusion in recital (73) of the provisional Regulation is maintained. 
(42)     Due to the large number of
MET claims received and the need at that time to carry out numerous
verification visits to examine those claims, the MET determination was not made
within seven months. However the determinations were made within eight months
from the date of the initiation as required by the basic Regulation, as amended
by Regulation 1168/2012. The allegation that any right in this respect was
removed with retroactive effect is not justified as explained above.
(43)     In view of the above, the
claim that the anti-dumping investigation, due to a failure to make a MET
determination within three months, should be terminated without imposition of
any anti-dumping measures, is rejected. 
(44)     Furthermore, one
non-sampled exporting producer that failed to demonstrate that it has one clear
set of accounting records that were independently audited in line with
international accounting standards and thus had its MET request rejected, maintained
the claim that the alleged accounting errors, if any, on the basis of which its
request was refused, were not material and that, therefore, the decision to
refuse MET was disproportionate and in breach of the principle of
proportionality. Following final disclosure this exporting producer maintained
its claim but did not put forward any new arguments.
(45)     The arguments concerning
the severity of the accounting records are essentially identical to those made
during the MET investigation and were rebutted by the Commission prior to the
MET determination. Nevertheless, with regard to the argument that the refusal
to grant MET breaches the principle of proportionality it should be recalled
that the MET criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are
cumulative and, unless they are all fulfilled, MET cannot legally be granted.
In addition, since the burden of proof is on the company requesting MET and the
company failed to demonstrate that it had one clear set of accounts, the only
option available to the Commission was to refuse MET. Therefore, the decision
to refuse MET cannot be considered to be in breach of the principle of
proportionality. In any event, pursuant to Article 2(7)(d) of the basic
Regulation, as amended by Regulation 1168/2012[6],
when the Commission has limited its examination by the use of sampling, a
determination on MET shall be limited to the parties included in the sample.
3.2.        Individual Treatment (IT)
(46)     It is recalled that
although sixteen exporting producers requested IT, only the claims received
from the sampled companies were examined pursuant to Article 9(6) of the basic
Regulation and were, subsequently, accepted. Of the remaining eleven exporting
producers, seven requested individual examination.
(47)     In accordance with Articles
9(5) and 9(6) of the basic Regulation, individual duties shall be applied to
imports from any exporter or producer which will be granted individual
examination, as provided for in Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.
Accordingly, the four companies that requested IT but not individual
examination could not be granted an individual duty. 
(48)     One exporting producer
claimed that it had submitted all information required within given deadlines
and should therefore have had its IT claim examined and an individual margin
established in accordance with the Court of Justice ruling in the Brosmann
case[7].
(49)     This claim cannot be
accepted. As the company in question was not included in the sample its claim
for IT could only be assessed in the context of an individual examination,
should one be carried out pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. 
(50)     In the absence of any
further comments on IT, recitals (79) to (81) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed. 
3.3.        Individual Examination (IE)
(51)     Claims for individual
examination pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation were submitted by
seven exporting producers, comprising ten legal entities. As explained in
recitals (82) and (83) of the provisional Regulation, no decisions were taken
in respect of these requests at the stage of provisional measures.
(52)     On 21 December 2012 the
exporting producers were informed that their requests for individual
examinations could not be accepted as they would be unduly burdensome and would
prevent completion of the investigation in due. 
(53)     One exporting producer
claimed that, pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation, an individual
examination is a statutory right and that the Commission's refusal to
individually examine it is unjustified, since neither the number of companies
nor the examination required would, in view of the Commission's resources, be
unduly burdensome or prevent the completion of the investigation in due time.
Following final disclosure this claim was repeated but no further arguments
were put forward.
(54)     The decision whether or not
to accept individual examinations is taken on a case by case basis, taking into
account the number of claims submitted and the time available to assess these
claims. In this case, it should be recalled that the Commission was legally
obliged to carry out MET examinations at sixteen legal entities in the PRC,
including companies not selected in the sample. Considering the time
constraints imposed by legal procedural deadlines no individual examinations could
therefore be carried out prior to the provisional findings. In view of the
limited time available thereafter and considering the number of claims
submitted and the limited resources available by the services responsible for
anti-dumping investigations in the Commission, it was concluded that it would
be unduly burdensome to carry out individual examinations in this case. 
3.4.        Normal Value
3.4.1.     Choice of analogue country
(55)     Following
the imposition of provisional measures, the selection of an appropriate
analogue country was further examined. In this context, a verification visit
was carried out at the premises of the Thai exporting producer that had
submitted a questionnaire reply, as mentioned in recital (87) of the provisional
Regulation. After having examined and verified the information received from
the cooperating producer in Thailand it was however concluded that the Thai producer could not provide
data at a sufficient level of detail regarding the types of products sold on
the domestic market. Therefore, it was considered that Brazil should be retained as the most appropriate analogue country.
(56)     Nevertheless, the
information obtained from Thailand served to support some of the findings made
in Brazil, notably the level of price difference between branded and
non-branded products (see recital (91) below).
(57)     Following the final
disclosure one industry association came forward and contested the choice of Brazil as an appropriate analogue country. It essentially argued that the only reason to
choose Brazil appears to be based on the fact that no other country was
appropriate. This claim cannot be accepted. It follows clearly from the
recitals (84) to (88) of the provisional Regulation that Brazil was considered as an appropriate analogue country based on the factual domestic
market situation. The fact that the Commission after provisional measures
continued to examine also other potential analogue countries does not lead to
the conclusion that Brazil is not an appropriate choice. 
(58)     In view of the above and in
the absence of any other comments on substance on the choice of Brazil as the appropriate analogue country, recitals (84) to (88) of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed. 
3.4.2.     Determination of normal
value 
(59)     Following
the provisional disclosure several interested parties claimed that the
determination of normal value was flawed in so far as it was allegedly not
established for the sales of like products in Brazil and, therefore, led to
distorted and unfair results, particularly in respect of stoneware products and
other product types that were not produced and sold in the analogue country.
Some exporting producers also argued that the methodology for establishing the
constructed normal value, referred to in recital (94) of the provisional
Regulation, was not properly disclosed.
(60)     The comments received after
the provisional disclosure show that the methodology used to determine the
normal value was not fully clear to some interested parties, In order to address
these comments, it is further explained that the methodology for determining
the normal value has been the following.
(61)     Given that all requests for
MET are denied normal value for all sampled exporting producers from the PRC
was established on the basis of information received from the producer in the
analogue country, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(62)     In
accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first
examined whether the sales of the like product in Brazil to independent customers were
representative. The sales of the Brazilian cooperating producer of the like
product were found to be sold in representative quantities on the Brazilian
domestic market compared to the product concerned exported to the Union by the exporting producers included in the sample. In this respect it is recalled
that according to Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation, "like
product" means a product that is identical, i.e. alike in all
aspects, to the product under consideration or, in the absence of such a
product, another product which, although not alike in all aspects, has
characteristics closely resembling those of the product under consideration. 
(63)     The Commission subsequently
examined whether these sales could be considered as having been made in the
ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This
was done by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent
customers. The sales transactions were considered profitable where the unit
price was equal to, or above, the cost of production. The cost of production of
the cooperating Brazilian producer was therefore determined.
(64)     This examination
demonstrated that for all product types more than 80% by volume of sales on the
domestic market were above cost and that the weighted average sales price of
all types was equal to, or above, the unit cost of production. 
(65)     Accordingly, normal value,
by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic
prices of all sales, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or
not. It follows that, contrary to what was indicated in recital (94) of the
provisional Regulation, no constructed normal value has been established for
non-profitable sales. 
3.4.3.     Export price 
(66)     In the absence of any
comments regarding export prices, recital (95) of the provisional Regulation is
hereby confirmed.
3.4.4.     Comparison 
(67)     Following
provisional disclosure several interested parties claimed that, generally, the
methodology used for the comparison of normal value and export price was flawed
as it did not compare like products and that the basis on which adjustments
were made was not sufficiently explained. More particularly, one exporting
producer claimed that for stoneware products, which were not produced and sold
by the analogue producer, the Commission should have compared the export price
with the domestic price for earthenware, duly adjusted, rather than
constructing a normal value. Moreover, several exporting producers argued that
for several other product types, which were produced and sold by exporting
producers, a comparison between the export price and an average price per kg
for a generic product type sold in Brazil based solely on the type of ceramic
material used has inevitably lead to a comparison between products that are not
like and thus to a flawed result. In addition, one exporting producer claimed that the branding adjustment
under Article 2(10)(k) was underestimated while another exporting producer claimed
that the level of that adjustment was not based on any reliable or
substantiated data and is therefore not justified. The same exporting producer
also argued that its export prices should be adjusted for differences in
quantities sold at different levels of trade. Finally, several interested
parties claimed that the methodology used for adjustments for differences in
physical characteristics are not well founded and it is unclear on which data these
adjustments were made. 
(68)     In
view of the comments received the methodology used for price comparison and
adjustments for the purpose of price comparability pursuant to Article 2(10) of
the basic Regulation have been revised. Most notably, for products that at the
provisional stage were compared on the basis of the average price per kg for a
generic product based solely on the ceramic material used, the comparison has
been made with the closest resembling product (see recital (77) below),which
allowed for a more accurate and fair price comparison.
(69)     The normal value and export price were compared on an
ex-works basis. The dumping margins were established by comparing the
individual ex-works price of the sampled exporters to the domestic sales price
of the analogue producer of the like product. Some export transactions
concerned, however, atypical product types, like serviette rings, knife rests
or teapot stands, for which it was not possible to ensure a fair comparison.
Therefore, also taking into account that these transactions were negligible as
they overall only accounted for less than 0.5% of export volumes, they were
excluded. 
(70)     For the purpose of ensuring
a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowances
in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price and price
comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Adjustments were made, where appropriate, in respect of differences in physical
characteristics, level of trade and for other factors affecting price
comparability, notably branding. 
(71)     First, it was examined
whether an adjustment under Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation for
differences in physical characteristics was warranted. 
(72)     In
cases where the normal value was determined on the basis of the closest resembling
product (see recital (68) above), an adjustment was made for differences in the
physical characteristics in order to ensure a fair price comparability between
the like products. 
(73)     With
regard to stoneware products, the export price was compared to the domestic
sales price of the closest resembling product produced and sold in the analogue
country, i.e. the sales price of products made of earthenware instead of
stoneware but identical in all other aspect, as adjusted upwards by 5%, to
reflect the price difference between stoneware and earthenware. 
(74)     One exporting producer
claims that both the production costs and the retail price for earthenware
products is higher than for stoneware products. Accordingly, the export price
for its stoneware products should have been adjusted downwards rather than upwards.
In support of this claim the exporting producer relies essentially on its own
estimates of the production costs of earthenware and stoneware, respectively,
and an extract from a price list indicating retail prices of earthenware and
stoneware products. 
(75)     This information, which was
provided very late in the proceedings, and only after the final disclosure,
stands in stark contrast to the information that has been provided to the
Commission throughout the investigation from other interested parties, i.e.
the complainant, the Union industry and the producer in the analogue country
All these parties have indicated that stoneware products are of a higher
quality, i.e. more durable, than earthenware products and are more expensive to
manufacture as stoneware is basically high-fired clay and earthenware low-fired
clay. Accordingly, stoneware can generally be sold at a higher price. This information
is further corroborated by publicly available market information. 
(76)     It should further be noted
that the exporting producer in question does not produce earthenware itself and
has thus only provided an estimate of the production costs thereof. In
addition, the submitted price list does not demonstrate conclusively that
earthenware products are generally more expensive than stoneware products. Therefore,
the evidence provided is not such as to demonstrate that the adjustment made
for a fair price comparison between the normal value and the export price of stoneware
products is flawed and the claim is accordingly rejected. 
(77)     In
respect of other product types for which the comparison at provisional stage
was based on the average price per kg and the ceramic material only, the
Commission has further analysed the product types concerned and compared the
export price with the closest resembling product type produced and sold in the
analogue country. Where only one minor physical characteristic differed, e.g.
type of glazing or decoration, while all other basic characteristics of the
product type were identical, the sales price of the closest resembling type was
adjusted by the actual price difference found for the difference in physical
characteristic. For other product types, where more than one physical characteristic
differed, the export price was compared to the average sales price of the
closest resembling product. For these product types, the closest resembling
product shared several or all of the following basic physical characteristics;
ceramic material, type of ware, basic shape, decoration and glazing. 
(78)     Two sampled exporting
producers claimed that, similar to the adjustments made in cases where only one
minor physical characteristic was different, an adjustment should also be made
where more than one physical characteristic of the closest resembling product
was different. 
(79)     It is recalled that in
cases where only one minor physical characteristic differed the sales price of
the closest resembling product was adjusted to take into account the actual
price difference found for the difference in question while, on the other hand,
where more than one physical characteristic was different the comparison was
made on the basis of the average sales price of the product with identical
physical characteristics. Therefore, in the latter case, no price adjustment
was required for any physical difference between the like products as they
shared the same basic physical characteristics. Accordingly, this claim cannot
be accepted.
(80)     One of the exporting producers
mentioned above also claimed additional adjustments for differences in physical
characteristics with regard to weight and whiteness of the product concerned.
It claimed that it uses raw material of a low standard and that, therefore, the
cost and price of its products are lower than for the like product produced in
the analogue country. Its export price should therefore be adjusted with a
reasonable amount. In this respect it is first recalled that the company was
not granted market economy status and that its costs of production have thus
not been verified. In addition, the claim that its products are about 5%
heavier than standard products was not accompanied by any verifiable or
supporting documents and therefore found to be unsubstantiated. Regarding the
whiteness, as this exporting producer admitted in its submission that its
products are of normal whiteness, it failed to explain why any adjustment
should be warranted in this respect. Therefore, these claims are rejected.
(81)     Another exporting producer
claimed that the Commission had failed to compare some of its export sales with
the normal value of the appropriate closest resembling product. These exports
concerned sales of decorated products via an unrelated trader, which had,
allegedly, provided the decoration (decal) free of charge. As a consequence,
the export price did not include the cost for decoration and should therefore
have been compared with the normal value determined for undecorated products
or, in the alternative, an average normal value of decorated and undecorated
goods.
(82)     It is recalled that the
cost of production is not a relevant factor for the price comparability, which
is based solely on a comparison between the normal value and the export price
for like products. It is also clear from the information provided that the
exported products in question were indeed decorated although the exporting
producer did allegedly not bear the full costs associated with the added value
that can be assigned to the decoration. However, this is not a factor that can
justify a price adjustment for differences in physical characteristics with the
like product in the analogue country. In any event, considering the late stage
of the proceeding at which this claim was made, the data submitted in support
of the claim cannot be verified. Accordingly, the claim is hereby rejected.
(83)     In view of the wide variety
of possible combinations of ceramic tableware sets produced and sold in the PRC
and in Brazil, respectively, it was for the purpose of achieving a fair price
comparability considered necessary to group different sets together based on
the number and type of items combined in a set. The average domestic sales
price in the analogue country for the different combinations of sets thus
grouped together was compared with the export price for set combinations
falling within those groups.
(84)     One exporting producer
claimed that due to the wide variety of possible product combinations making up
a set, the grouping methodology does not allow for a fair price comparison, as
it fails to take into account the characteristics of each piece making up a
set. Therefore, this exporting producer claimed that sets should be excluded
from the dumping margin calculation. 
(85)     It is recalled that the
dumping calculations for sets are based on a comparison of the average price
per kg and not on a piece by piece basis. It is therefore not necessary to
establish the exact combination of different pieces in each set for a fair
price comparison with regard to sets. The grouping methodology used takes into
account the basic characteristics of different set combinations in so far as
the sets are identified as e.g. coffee and/or tea sets, dinner sets or
other sets and also the number of pieces combined. In these circumstances, it
is considered that a fair comparison has been made in regard to sets in the
sense of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. It follows that this claim
cannot be accepted. 
(86)     Furthermore,
as described in recital (99) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation
established that Chinese exporting producers generally qualify their product in
up to five different grades ranging from A to E with significant price
differences. The vast majority of exports to the Union consist however of A-grade, B-grade or C-grade or a combination
thereof. This grading is however not universal or based on any general
industry-wide standard but is rather company specific and allows for price
differentiation. On the other hand, the analogue country producer only sells
the equivalent of A-grade on the domestic Brazilian market and price
comparability was therefore found to be affected. Accordingly, the export price
was adjusted upwards to Chinese A-grade level in order to be comparable with
the product sold by the analogue producer on the Brazilian market. This level
of this adjustment was individually established for each of the sampled
companies, where appropriate and based on the actual and verified price
difference between the different grades. 
(87)     Following the final disclosure
one sampled exporting producer came forward and claimed that parts of its
export sales that were sold via an unrelated trader consisted of a combination
of A-grade and B-grade and should therefore also be adjusted to the price level
of A-grade. It claimed that the price difference amounted to 25% and provided
copies of invoices and price quotations as supporting evidence. 
(88)     However, this information
was not provided either during the investigation, including the verification
visit, or after the disclosure of the Commission’s provisional findings. On the
contrary, this producer has throughout the investigation indicated that it only
exported A-grade products. No full price list was provided, despite being
requested to do so in the questionnaire, to quantify the alleged price
difference between the different grades, only a limited number of price
quotations. Under such circumstances and considering the very late stage in the
proceedings at which the information was submitted the reliability thereof is
questionable and cannot in any event be verified. Accordingly, the claim is
rejected.
(89)     Second, as described in
recital (98) of the provisional Regulation it was examined whether a level of
trade adjustment under Article 2(10)(d) of the basic Regulation was warranted. It
was found that the export price is at a different level of trade from the
normal value as Chinese exports were essentially made at wholesale level
whereas the domestic sales in the analogue country were also made at a retail
level. The investigation further established that on both markets the different
distribution channels affected the price level, thus affecting fair price
comparability between export price and normal value. Accordingly, in order to
make a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value, the latter
was established on a per product type basis and adjusted for each level of
trade by using the price differences found between the different levels of
trade in the analogue country. It is recalled that, where appropriate, a
further level of trade adjustment was made in the provisional Regulation on the
basis of the price difference found in respect of quantities sold at each level
of trade (recital (98) of the provisional Regulation). This further adjustment
was deemed justified as the investigation, at the provisional stage, had indicated
that while the majority of Chinese export sales were made in large quantities,
the majority of domestic sales were made in smaller quantities resulting in
price differences on the same level of trade. However, further investigation
and a more detailed analysis of the domestic sales transactions in the analogue
country have, contrary to the provisional findings, demonstrated that the ratio
of small and large quantities sold by the analogue producer is similar to that
of the Chinese exporting producers. Accordingly, this adjustment is no longer
considered appropriate or justified. 
(90)     Third,
as described in recital (100) of the provisional Regulation the investigation
established that the Brazilian producer only sells branded products on the
Brazilian market whereas Chinese exporting producers do not export branded
products but rather private label products or generic ceramic tableware and
kitchenware. Branded products are normally perceived by customers to be
products signifying a certain prestige, assured quality and design thus
commanding a higher market price whereas generic and/or private label products,
whilst having the same physical and technical characteristics, are usually sold
at considerably lower price levels. While the additional value of a branded
value cannot generally be exactly quantified in the abstract as it varies from
brand to brand and depends on many different factors, such as customer
perception, brand recognition, and other non-quantifiable factors, the
Brazilian producer has, in this particular case, confirmed that its branded
products can be sold at significantly higher prices on the Brazilian market
than other non-branded products. Furthermore, a report concerning the Brazilian
market for tableware and kitchenware products confirmed that Brazilian
customers are extremely brand-orientated and that the Brazilian analogue
country producer is a long established and very well-known producer. In view of
these elements, a downward adjustment of 40% of the domestic sales price was
made to the normal value pursuant to Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation. 
(91)     With
regard to the above mentioned adjustment it is recalled that two exporting
producers have questioned both the basis on which the adjustment was made as
well as the level of the adjustment (see recital (67) above). It is however
uncontested that a branded product commands a higher sales price than an
identical non-branded product and that the price comparability is thus
affected. Moreover, in addition to the information provided by the producer in
the analogue country, actual and verified price data from a cooperating
producer in Thailand, as
well as information received from one Union producer after the provisional
disclosure, have confirmed that the level of adjustment is appropriate. In
particular, the market situation in Thailand was found to be comparable with
the Brazilian market as also in Thailand, only a few well known and
long-established brands exist. Therefore, these claims cannot be accepted. 
(92)     Following
the final disclosure no exporting producers maintained their objection to this
adjustment while the association of complainants claimed that the branding
adjustment is too high, in particular with regard to non-porcelain products. In
support of this claim the complainant referred to price lists and information
provided by some Union producers.
(93)     While the information
submitted confirms the Commission’s findings that the added value of a brand on
any given market is company/brand-specific, the information provided is not
such as to put into question the level of adjustment that was determined for
the branded products sold by the analogue producer on the domestic Brazilian
market as the information provided only concerned the Union market. In view of
the large number of Union producers, the diversity of the Union market with its
regional differences, also as regards brand orientation, and the high market
share of Chinese imports, the situation of the Union market is quite different
to the Brazilian one. Therefore, and in light of the considerations in recitals
(90) and (91) above, this claim cannot be accepted.
(94)     As
described in recital (101) of the provisional Regulation, further adjustments were made, where
appropriate, in respect of transport, insurance, handling and ancillary costs,
packing, credit, bank charges and commissions in all cases where they were
demonstrated to affect price comparability.
3.5.        Dumping margins
(95)     In the absence of comments,
the methodology used for calculating the dumping margins, as set out in
recitals (102) to (105) of the provisional Regulation, is herewith confirmed. 
(96)     Following the provisional
disclosure, the Commission were informed that some trading companies, which do
not produce the product concerned, had erroneously been named in Annex I to the
provisional Regulation and hence subject to the dumping duty established for
cooperating exporting producers. The Commission informed these companies of its
intention to have them removed from Annex I and granted them the opportunity to
provide comments. After having examined the comments received, several trading
companies have been removed from Annex 1. Where appropriate, they have been
replaced with the related cooperating exporting producer.
(97)     Taking into account the
adjustments made to the normal value and to the export price as set out in
recitals (67) – (94) above, and in the absence of any further comments, the
definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier
price, duty unpaid, are as follows: 
             Company || Duty 
 Hunan Hualian China Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Hualian Ebillion Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Liling Hongguanyao China Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Hualian Yuxiang China Industry Co., Ltd || 18,3% 
 Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co., Ltd || 13,1% 
 CHL Porcelain Industries Ltd || 23,4% 
 Shandong Zibo Niceton-Marck Huaguang Ceramics Limited; Zibo Huatong Ceramics Co., Ltd; Shandong Silver Phoenix Co., Ltd; Niceton Ceramics (Linyi) Co., Ltd; Linyi Jingshi Ceramics Co., Ltd; Linyi Silver Phoenix Ceramics Co., Ltd; Linyi Chunguang Ceramics Co., Ltd: Linyi Zefeng Ceramics Co., Ltd || 17,6% 
 Guangxi Province Beiliu City Laotian Ceramics Co., Ltd || 22,9% 
 Non-sampled cooperating exporting producers || 17,9% 
 All other companies || 36,1% 
4.           INJURY
4.1.        Period considered
(98)     After final disclosure,
several interested party reiterated that the period considered should have
started in 2009 instead of 2008 as the economic crisis would have started in
2008 and the trend between 2009 and 2011 would be clear. As regards this claim,
it is noted that 2009 does not represent a more appropriate year as the start
of the period considered in view of the fact that the effects of the economic
crisis were fully felt in that year, resulting in a significant drop of
consumption as compared to 2008. The claim is therefore definitively rejected. 
4.2.        Union production and Union
industry
(99)     In a joint submission several importers questioned the
calculation method of the Union production figure given in recital (108) of the
provisional Regulation. Several interested parties repeated these comments
after final disclosure. In particular, they considered that the standing
requirement would not have been met by the complainants as the available
PRODCOM statistics would suggest a much higher level of EU production of the
like product than the 240 200 tonne figure mentioned in the said recital, as a
result of which the complainants would represent less than 25% of EU production
of the like product. These parties had calculated
an EU production figure of 313 187 tonnes during the IP and they arrived at
this figure by using full PRODCOM data for porcelain ceramic tableware and
kitchenware and making an 20% downwards adjustment for non porcelain ceramic
tableware and kitchenware, by analogy to the methodology applied by the
complainant and in the investigation for establishing import volumes.
(100)   In this respect it should
firstly be noted that, in the framework of the statutory analysis of an
anti-dumping complaint and in accordance with Article 5(4) of the basic
Regulation, the Commission services carried out a thorough standing examination
before initiation. The Commission analysed the data in the complaint and
contacted all known Union producers and asked them to also provide data on
production as well as their position with regards the complaint and to assist
the Commission in the identification of other potential producers, if any.
Associations of producers provided information on production as well.
(101)   In respect
of this claim it is further noted that the data source and methodology for the
Union production figure used for each of the years of the period considered was
also explained in recital (107) of the provisional Regulation, i.e. in line
with what had been done at complaint stage it is based on data provided by the
European and national associations, cross-checked with data provided by
individual producers and also with other statistical sources (in particular, PRODCOM).

(102)   As explained by the
complainants during the investigation, the data provided by the European
association had, as concerns porcelain products, been based on PRODCOM data for
porcelain tableware and kitchenware as the PRODCOM code for this product
matched with the porcelain products covered by this investigation. As concerns
non-porcelain products, PRODCOM could not be used at it covered many more
manufactured products than the non-porcelain products covered by this
investigation. Therefore, for these products, the national associations had
collected the relevant data based on their in-depth knowledge of their
respective markets and this information had been cross-checked by the European
association before providing the total figures to the Commission. Those figures
were updated during the investigation. Moreover, a list of all known producers
was contained in the non-confidential file and the Commission’s attention was
only drawn to the existence of an additional three producers in Romania. The disparity between the PRODCOM statistics and the 240 200 figure derives from
the fact that the product scope of this investigation does not match with the PRODCOM
statistical data codes as concerns non-porcelain products, i.e. it is much
narrower. In the case of EUROSTAT import statistics, this
difference could indeed be accounted for by making a 20% downward adjustment, but
this was not appropriate in the case of the EU production figures reported in
the PRODCOM database. In particular the PRODCOM figures of two Member States would
appear to be grossly overstated if one applied the same methodology. 
(103)   Therefore, the methodology
used by the parties concerned and referred to in recital (99) above is flawed.
Moreover, no evidence was provided that the production as reported by any of
the EU Member States, including the two Member States referred to above, and
included in the non-confidential file would be understated. It should also be
noted that for some Member States the data provided by the European association
and used in this investigation was significantly higher than if adjusted
PRODCOM data had been used. In view of the above, there is no reason to doubt the
production figures reported in this investigation and the result of the
examination of standing.
(104)   In the absence of any
further comments, recitals (107) and (108) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
4.3.        Union consumption
(105)   In a joint submission
several importers contested the Union consumption figures provided in recital
(110) of the provisional Regulation. This claim was based on the erroneous use
of PRODCOM statistical data for Union production and sales, as explained under
point 4.2 above and is therefore dismissed.
(106)   However,
whilst checking again the Eurostat import statistics, it was found that they
had been updated since the imposition of provisional measures which had
resulted in some minor changes. Therefore, for the sake of completeness, on the
basis of these updated Eurostat import statistics and submissions regarding
Union industry sales on the Union market, the Union consumption developed as
follows:
Table 1
 Volume (tonnes) || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP 
 Union consumption || 826 897 || 687 587 || 750 828 || 727 411 
 Index (2008=100) || 100 || 83 || 91 || 88 
(107)   In the absence of any further
comments, recitals (109) and (111) to (112) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
4.4.        Imports from the country
concerned
4.4.1.     Volume, price and market
share of dumped imports from the country concerned
(108)   In a joint submission several
importers contested the figures provided in recital (113) of the provisional
Regulation. This claim was based on the erroneous use of PRODCOM statistical
data and is therefore dismissed. 
(109)   On
the basis of the updated Eurostat import statistics (see recital (106) above),
the volume, market share and average prices of imports of the product concerned
developed as set out below:
Table 2
 Imports from the PRC || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP 
 Volume of imports (tonnes) || 535 593 || 449 325 || 516 624 || 486 170 
 Index (2008=100) || 100 || 84 || 96 || 91 
 Market share || 64,8 % || 65,3 % || 68,8 % || 66,8% 
 Average import price (EUR/tonne) || 1 274 || 1 307 || 1 473 || 1 498 
 Index (2008=100) || 100 || 103 || 116 || 118 
(110)   The
updated volumes, values and trends are almost identical to those analysed in
the provisional Regulation. The market share of Chinese imports increased from
64,8% in 2008 to 66,8% in the IP. The import price increased by almost 18%
during the period considered, from 1 274 EUR/tonne to 1 498 EUR/tonne. 
(111)   One
party alleged a complete lack of correlation between the prices and volumes of
Chinese imports. In this respect, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the basic
Regulation consideration shall be given to whether there has been a significant
increase in dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production
or consumption in the Union.
With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, consideration shall
be given to whether there has been significant price undercutting by the dumped
imports as compared with the price of a like product of the Union industry, or
whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a
significant degree or prevent price increases, which would otherwise have
occurred, to a significant degree. No one or more of these factors can
necessarily give decisive guidance. 
(112)   Within
the above context, the following should be noted. Firstly, at the time when the
Union consumption recovered (2009-2010), there was a significant price increase
of Chinese imports – which would suggest that there is a correlation. But more
importantly, the development of Chinese prices during the period considered
should be assessed in the context of the very significant price difference
which already existed in 2008 and which is illustrated by the average Chinese
imports prices (table 2) and the average EU sales prices (table 9) reported in
the provisional Regulation. These high price differences are confirmed by the
high levels of undercutting during the IP. The price increase, consequently,
did not prevent Chinese imports from gaining market share over the period
considered. Indeed, these imports continued to exert a severe pressure on
prices of EU industry which went down by 12% over the period considered. This
comment, therefore, cannot be accepted. 
(113)   As regards the evolution of
import price (increasing) and import volume (decreasing) from 2008 to 2011 and
then 2012 brought forward by one sampled group of Chinese exporting producers, the
observed trend of increasing average import prices cannot undermine the finding
of injurious dumping during the IP. As concerns the development of Chinese
import volumes, and as already highlighted in recital (114) of the provisional
Regulation and again in recital (109) above, the market share indicator shows
an increase in market share of Chinese imports by 2 percentage points. Moreover,
and as explained in more detail in recitals (116) and (117) of the provisional
Regulation and in recital (111) above, there was important price undercutting
by the Chinese imports.
4.4.2.     Price undercutting
(114)   Following provisional
disclosure, several interested parties requested more details on the price
undercutting calculations than those already provided in recital (116) of the
provisional Regulation. Insofar as the sensitive nature of this information and
the fact that the EU producers had been granted anonymity would allow it, additional
information was provided.
(115)   By
analogy to the decision made after the imposition of provisional measures to
exclude from the export listings some “atypical” products for the purpose of
calculating dumping (see recital (69) above), these products were also excluded
from the export listings used for the injury calculations. This change had only
a minor effect on the undercutting margins, which remained therefore in the
same range as mentioned in recital (117) of the provisional Regulation.
(116)   In the absence of any
further comments, recitals (113) to (117) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
4.5.        Situation of the Union
industry
4.5.1.     General
(117)   Several parties stated that
the fact that several injury factors improved between 2009 or 2010 and the IP
demonstrates that the Union industry is developing positively. However, it
should be noted that this analysis is incomplete and that it disregards the
evolution of those factors during the whole period considered. The explanations
given in recital (23) of the provisional Regulation are also to be taken into consideration
in this respect. 
(118)   Upon request by an
interested party, it is confirmed that the macroeconomic indicators were
assessed at the level of the whole Union industry, while the microeconomic ones
were analysed at the level of the sampled Union producers, which included
non-complaining companies.
(119)   CCCLA submitted that the
micro- and macro-economic indicators presented in the provisional Regulation
were not representative as the total production in the Union would be much
higher than the figures used in this investigation. However, in view of the
analysis and conclusions reached under point 4.2 above, this argument is
rejected.
(120)   In the absence of any
further comments, recitals (118) to (121) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
4.5.2.     Macroeconomic indicators
4.5.2.1.  Production, production
capacity and capacity utilisation
(121)   As mentioned in section 4.1
above, several importers contested the production figures provided in recital
(122) of the provisional Regulation. However, these figures have been
cross-checked and are confirmed.
(122)   In the absence of any
further comments, recitals (122) to (124) of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
4.5.2.2.  Sales volumes and market
share
(123)   The update in Table 2 has no
impact on Tables 4 and 5 of the provisional Regulation.
(124)   In the absence of relevant
comments regarding sales volumes and market share, recitals (125) and (126) of
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
4.5.2.3.  Employment and productivity
(125)   In a joint submission
several importers contested the employment and productivity figures provided in
recitals (127) and (128) of the provisional Regulation, alleging that they were
not in line with the picture depicted by certain Eurostat statistics[8]. 
(126)   However, the figures for both
indicators were cross-checked and deemed accurate. The figures brought forward
by the parties were too broad and not related to the production of the like
product. In the absence of any further comments regarding employment and
productivity, recitals (127) to (128) of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.
4.5.2.4.  Magnitude of the dumping
margin
(127)   In the absence of any
comments regarding the magnitude of the dumping margin, recital (129) of the
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
4.5.3.     Microeconomic indicators
4.5.3.1.  Stocks
(128)   In a joint submission
several importers contested the stock figures provided in recital (130) of the
provisional Regulation and their relevance as compared to publicly available
data regarding certain Union producers. They also disagreed with the statement
that the Union industry basically works on orders. 
(129)   As regards working on
orders, the investigation confirmed that that was indeed the case for sampled
Union producers and that is a normal practice in the sector. Moreover, the stock
figures provided in the provisional Regulation concerned the verified stock
figure from the sampled Union producers which is considered the most reliable
figure.
(130)   After final disclosure the
above comments were reiterated, however, no new arguments were brought forward.
In the absence of any further comments regarding stocks, recital (130) of the
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
4.5.3.2.  Sales prices
(131)   In the absence of any
comments regarding the sales prices figures as given in the provisional Regulation,
recital (131) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
4.5.3.3.  Profitability, cash flow,
investments, return on investment, ability to raise capital and wages
(132)   After
disclosure, a clerical error was discovered in the calculation of the net
profit of the Union industry and the return on investment (ROI). This error was
corrected and the revised figures are as follows:
Table 3
   || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP 
 Net profit of Union sales to unrelated customers (% of net sales turnover) || 3,8% || 2,8% || -0,5% || 3,2% 
 Index (2008=100) || 100 || 74 || -13 || 84 
 ROI (net profit in % of net book value of investments) || 16,4% || 6,3% || -6,8% || 20,5% 
 Index (2008=100) || 100 || 38 || -41 || 125 
(133)   The above correction does
not materially affect the provisional findings as regards these two indicators.
However, the weighted average profit level of the sampled producers was, during
the period considered, slightly lower as provisionally established as it went
down from 3,8% to 3,2% (instead of from 4,2% to 3,5%). Return on investment largely
followed the trend observed for profit, but, as also pointed at by several
interested parties after final disclosure, over the period considered it developed
overall positively instead of negatively. 
(134)   One interested party questioned
the fragile state of the Union industry at the beginning of the period
considered, as mentioned in recital (134) of the provisional Regulation. This
party claimed that only injury caused by dumping may be taken into account and
that no dumping has been established for any period other than 2011. However,
the reference to the state of the Union industry in that recital was only made
in order to analyse whether the profit achieved in the beginning of the period
considered could be taken into account as representing the profit that the
industry would normally achieve – quod non.
(135)   Several
parties questioned the benchmark profit level referred to in recital (135) of
the provisional Regulation and/or proposed other (lower) benchmarks.
(136)   A group of Chinese exporting producers stated that the
profit level during the IP was a good profitability rate. However, this claim
was not substantiated. Another party also stated that the profit levels
displayed in the provisional Regulation could be deemed normal levels and this
party based itself on the publicly available profit data of a German producer between
1999 and 2007. Yet another interested party stated that the IP profit level
displayed in the provisional Regulation could be deemed “normal” on the basis
on the conclusions of a study by the Commission[9] which
included profit data of a German producer between 2004 and 2007. Similar claims were received after final disclosure.
(137)   In this respect, it is
recalled that the provisional Regulation concluded that the profit achieved in
the beginning of the period considered cannot be considered as a normal profit
as the Union industry was then, already, in a fragile state as explained in
recital (134) of the provisional Regulation. In addition, it was found that the
publicly available 1999-2007 profit data of a German producer referred to above
concerned not only manufacturing activities of ceramic tableware and
kitchenware, but also other important segments. As concerns the Commission
study referred to in recital (136) above, in the light of the scope, the aim
and the time of that study, this was found not to be a pertinent basis for the
determination of profitability. For instance, in relation to the product
concerned it only referred to the profit situation of one company. Finally, all
three submissions referred to in recital (136), which are contradicted by the submission
mentioned in recital (141) below, are not sufficiently substantiated. It is
therefore confirmed that the profit rate of 3,2% observed during the IP could
not be deemed acceptable for this product. 
(138)   One interested party claimed
that the profit levels of the home interior design, furniture and/or food of
the Swedish retailing sectors should be used as a benchmark. However, given,
inter alia, the disparity in the investment levels for the manufacturing and
the retailing sectors concerned, this claim should be rejected.
(139)   After final disclosure, a
party submitted that to consider the 6% profit as found reasonable in the
footwear investigation also a normal profit level in the current case was not
appropriate as it had been established in 2006, when the economic circumstances
were much more favourable than in 2013. This argument cannot be accepted. First
of all, the party refers to economic circumstances in general and not to the
specific situation on the tableware market. It is true that the consumption
dropped significantly in 2009 but it has recovered since to a considerable
extent. More importantly, the development of consumption should not be
seen in isolation. Given the high volume of dumped imports (market share of
66,8%), the level of dumping (dumping margins ranging from 13,1% to 36,1%) and
the level of undercutting (ranging from 26,5% to 47,6%), the competitive
situation on the Union market would have been very different in case imports
had been made at non-dumped prices. This argument should therefore be dismissed.

(140)   Some other parties suggested
the benchmark used in another anti-dumping investigation, i.e. the
investigation concerning ceramic tiles[10].
After final disclosure, similar comments were received. However it is noted
that ceramic tiles, contrary to leather footwear and tableware, cannot be
considered a consumer product in the same way. For instance, the rate at which
households buy or replace ceramic tableware items and the way it is marketed
and, eventually, sold to the consumers is closer to leather footwear than to
ceramic tiles. The claim to use the target profit also applied in the ceramic
tiles investigation is therefore dismissed.
(141)   The complainants stated that the benchmark profit level
should be rather in excess of 10% because the manufacturing of table- and
kitchenware products is a capital intensive activity which in addition requires
a high degree of new investment and innovation. Although it is confirmed that
indeed the industry concerned is capital intensive and that it requires a
continuous need for investment, the information submitted to substantiate this
claim could not change the benchmark provisionally used. The investigation could
not conclude that that benchmark would be the most appropriate for all Union producers.
(142)   A
group of importers contested the profitability figures in the provisional
Regulation and calculated, based on the cost of production figures, EU sales
price and volume figures and the export sales prices figures in the provisional
Regulation, profitability and reached the conclusion that the EU industry actually
made a profit of 6% during the IP. However, this computation was erroneous as
it combined data from different sources (the sampled Union producers, the Union
industry as a whole and Eurostat).
(143)   In the absence of any
further relevant comments, recitals (132) to (137) of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
4.5.3.4.  Cost of production
(144)   In a joint submission,
several importers deemed that the cost of production figures in recital (138)
of the provisional Regulation did not follow the labour and energy cost
evolution shown in Eurostat. The parties highlighted that labour costs increased
in EU27. Equally, the evolution of the cost of energy in the Union would not
support a decrease in the cost of production. 
(145)   In this respect it is noted
that the labour and energy cost provided by the parties was too broad.
Moreover, the fact that the Union industry managed to decrease the cost of
production during a period where the general trend was the opposite
demonstrates the extraordinary effort made by the Union industry to cut costs
and remain competitive.
(146)   The cost of production figures
provided in the provisional Regulation represent the verified cost of production
for sampled Union producers. In the absence of any further comments, recital
(138) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
4.5.3.5.  Conclusion on injury
(147)   Several parties contested
the conclusion on injury put forward in the provisional Regulation on the basis
that several injury indicators improved in the very last part of the period
considered. However, this issue cannot undermine the fact that most injury indicators
deteriorated during the period considered. This deterioration of injury
indicators can be observed for most macro-economic indicators, such as production
volume, capacity, sales to unrelated customers, employment as well as for the
injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry
such as profitability and investments. 
(148)   In the absence of other
comments, recitals (139) to (143) of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.
5.           CAUSATION
5.1.        Introduction
(149)   In the absence of any comments
to recital (144) of the provisional Regulation, that recital is hereby
confirmed.
5.2.        Effect of the dumped
imports
(150)   Several parties contested
the conclusion stated in recital (148) of the provisional Regulation. However,
even though some of the percentages that were highlighted in recitals (145) and
(147) of the provisional Regulation have been slightly revised as explained
above, this does not alter the facts and conclusions contained in recitals
(145) to (148) of the provisional Regulation.
(151)   Indeed, given the development
of the market share of the Chinese dumped imports, it is clear that there is no
contradiction between recital (147) of the provisional Regulation, in
particular as regards the statement that the decrease in sales prices of the
Union industry on the Union market and its profitability can be attributed to
the price depression caused onto the Union market by dumped imports from China
and the Union industry’s market share movements, as alleged by one party. 
(152)   Furthermore, the fact that
prices of imports from the PRC increased over the period considered, as pointed
out by several parties, does not undermine the finding of undercutting and injurious
dumping during the IP.
(153)   In the absence of any other
comments as regards the effect of the dumped imports, recitals (145) to (148)
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5.3.        Effect of other factors
5.3.1.     Imports from third countries
other than the country concerned
(154)   As mentioned in recital (106)
above, following the imposition of provisional measures, the Eurostat data
concerning imports had been updated. Whilst cross-checking these new data with
the previous data contained in the provisional Regulation, a clerical error in
the computation of the import figures from Thailand and Turkey was detected. This has been corrected and, consequently, the definitive figures concerning
the imports of the like product from third countries, based on Eurostat data, are
as follows: 
Table 4
   || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || IP 
 Volume of imports from all other third countries (tonnes) || 100 972 || 81 464 || 81 595 || 89 146 
 Index (2008=100) || 100 || 81 || 81 || 88 
 Market share || 12,2% || 11,8% || 10,9% || 12,3% 
 Average import price (EUR/tonne) || 2 378 || 2 354 || 2 590 || 2 519 
 Index (2008=100) || 100 || 99 || 109 || 106 
 Volume of imports from Turkey (tonnes) || 26 978 || 25 303 || 25 485 || 29 336 
 Index (2008=100) || 100 || 94 || 94 || 109 
 Market share || 3,3% || 3,7% || 3,4% || 4% 
 Average import price (EUR/tonne) || 2 776 || 2 649 || 2 802 || 2 855 
 Index (2008=100) || 100 || 95 || 101 || 103 
 Volume of imports from Thailand (tonnes) || 25 916 || 20 660 || 20 600 || 25 213 
 Index (2008=100) || 100 || 80 || 79 || 97 
 Market share || 3,1% || 3% || 2,7% || 3,5% 
 Average import price (EUR/tonne) || 1 246 || 1 183 || 1 403 || 1 356 
 Index (2008=100) || 100 || 95 || 113 || 109 
(155)   The imports from third
countries decreased by 12% over the period considered, while the market share
of these imports remained rather stable.
(156)   It should be noted that
average import prices from other third countries increased by 6% during the
period considered, remaining consistently higher than the average selling price
of Chinese export sales (by 68% during the IP).
(157)   Before the publication of
the provisional Regulation, CCCLA observed that imports from Turkey would have increased
by 8% between 2010 and 2011, the import prices from Turkey being allegedly only
around 20% higher than import prices from China. Then several parties contested
the conclusion of the provisional Regulation as regards Turkish imports. 
(158)   Bearing in mind that there
was a material manifest error in the reporting of Turkish imports in the
provisional Regulation and the updated data as displayed above, nothing suggests
that Turkish imports, given their prices and their market share, can break the
causal link between Chinese exports of the product concerned and the injury
suffered by the Union industry. It should also be noted that the non-inclusion
of imports originating in Turkey in the complaint cannot be described as
discriminatory as, at initiation stage, sufficient evidence of dumping, injury
and causal link was not present as far as imports from Turkey were concerned.
(159)   The market share of imports
from Thailand was never more than 3,5% during the investigation period. 
(160)   For the above reasons, it is
concluded that imports from other third countries did not materially affect the
situation of the Union industry to the extent breaking the casual link between
the dumped imports from PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.
5.3.2.     Market segments
(161)   In the absence of any new
comments as regards market segments, recitals (156) to (158) of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5.3.3.     Consumption and demand
(162)   A party suggested that injury
could be attributed to a long term reduction in demand for Union produced
products. Yet the investigation did not confirm such trend, as already
explained in recital (112) of the provisional Regulation. 
(163)   In the absence of any
further comments as regards consumption and demand, recitals (159) to (166) of
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5.3.4.     Exports by Union industry
(164)   A party pointed out that average
EU export prices were lower than the average sales prices on the Union market
during the period considered. This could have affected the ability of the Union
industry to make new investments or hire new staff. A similar argument was
reiterated after definitive disclosure. However, as already mentioned in
recital (169) of the provisional Regulation, most of the injury indicators
cannot be affected by the performance on the export sales. Moreover, it could
also be argued that these sales were a way of compensating, partly, the injury
suffered on the Union market. Further, as the average prices have been
calculated by dividing the total value of the sales of the like product by the
total volume of such sales, a different product mix of the sales on the EU
market as compared to the export sales can also result in significant
differences in average sales values overall. Finally, these export sales
represented less than 37% of the EU industry's overall sales volumes, i.e. the
dominant market for the Union industry was still, by far and large, the Union
home market. The argument that these export sales injured the Union industry to
the extent breaking a causal link between the imports from PRC and injury
suffered by EU industry is therefore rejected.
(165)   In the absence of any new comments
as regards the exports by the Union industry, recitals (167) to (170) of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5.3.5.     Elimination of the import
quotas 
(166)   Following provisional
measures, another party suggested that the elimination of import quotas would
have had an impact on Union producers during the period considered. However, no
new facts were brought forward that could alter the conclusion in recital (173)
of the provisional Regulation.
(167)   In the absence of any new substantiated
comments as regards the elimination of import quotas, recitals (171) to (173)
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5.3.6.     Anti-competitive practices
on the Union market
(168)   Subsequent to the imposition
of provisional measures, several parties insisted that the cartel investigation
launched by the German authorities referred to in recital (175) of the provisional
Regulation or the cartel fine referred to in the same recital had not duly been
taken into account. Concerning these claims, the following can be said further
to what is already stated in recitals (174) and (175) of the provisional
Regulation.
(169)   The German cartel
investigation, which investigates alleged price fixing from July 2005 to
February 2008, is still on-going. As the EU producers have been granted
confidentiality and in view of the fact that the final results of the German
on-going investigation have not publicly been released yet, it is not possible
to comment on the details of the analysis carried out. However it can be
confirmed that none of the sampled Union producers is subject to this on-going
investigation. The investigation also concluded that the micro-economic
indicators have not been affected by the investigated practices and the
macro-economic indicators only to a very limited extent, if any.
(170)   As concerns the cartel
findings concerning bathroom fixtures and fittings, it is recalled that this
price fixing cartel was found active between 1992 and 2004 and that only one of
the fined producers is also active in the tableware and kitchenware sector. The
data provided by this producer in the framework of standing and injury are not
influenced by the cartel practices as only the data concerning the tableware
and kitchenware section of this producer have been used and not its
consolidated data. Therefore, also the fine relating to this cartel has not
affected the data provided by this producer. It is further recalled that the
price fixing period was well before the period considered. Since the Union
producers’ identities are confidential, it cannot be disclosed whether or not
this company is included in the sample. However, should a sampled Union
producer have recorded in its accounts any items (e.g. a cartel fine)
distorting its injury picture for the purpose of this investigation, the
investigating authority would have isolated them in order for the relevant
injury factors not to be distorted. 
(171)   Consequently, the
allegations concerning the impact of the above-mentioned cartel investigations
on the injury and causation analysis are hereby rejected. 
(172)   One interested party
mentioned that there would be illegal price arrangements and market allocations
between Union producers, however it did not provide any evidence for this
allegation and the claim is therefore rejected.
(173)   In the absence of any new
comments concerning anti-competitive practices on the Union market, recitals
(174) to (176) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5.3.7.     Production methods
(174)   In the absence of any new
comments concerning production methods, recitals (177) to (178) of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(175)   An importer repeated similar
claims after definitive disclosure, arguing about the difference in production
methods used by Union producers as compared to more artisanal methods of
Chinese factories. However, no substantive argument was brought forward that
could alter the conclusion reached in recital (178) of the provisional
Regulation and the claim is therefore definitively rejected.
5.3.8.     Second-hand markets
(176)   In the absence of any new
comments as regards second-hand markets, recitals (179) to (180) of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5.3.9.     Economic crisis
(177)   A party stated that recital (183)
of the provisional Regulation provides a wrong analysis of the situation during
the economic recovery period between 2010 and 2011 and that the impact of the
economic crisis was underestimated. These comments were repeated after final
disclosure. However, the claims were unsubstantiated. It must also be stressed
that the recital cited stated that dumped imports from China intensified the effect of the economic downturn. As regards the impact of the economic
crisis, recital (184) of the provisional Regulation is clear about the fact
that the economic crisis may have contributed to the Union’s industry poor
performance, even though it could not break the causal link between the dumped
imports and the injurious situation of that industry suffered during the IP.
(178)   In the absence of any new
comments regarding the economic crisis, recitals (181) to (184) of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5.3.10.   Other factors
(179)   In a joint submission, several
importers alleged that the drop in employment was a normal development in the
consumer goods industry. However, this claim was not substantiated. Moreover, even
if such trend would be normal in this sector, it could not break the causal
link between the dumped imports from the PRC and the significant jobs losses in
the sector. This claim is, therefore, rejected.
(180)   A party claimed that the remaining
structural deficits of the Union industry in conjunction with existing
overcapacity as shown in Table 3 of the provisional Regulation could break the
causal link between dumped imports from the PRC and injury suffered by Union
manufacturers. As regards this argument, although the Union industry was
already in a fragile state in the beginning of the period considered and had
gone through a restructuration, the investigation confirmed that it was competitive
and properly coping with demand from all markets. As to Table 3 of the
provisional Regulation, the drop in production must be seen in conjunction with
the pressure stemming from the high volume of low-priced imports from the PRC,
as exports by the Union industry remained stable. Therefore, the claim could
not be accepted.
(181)   A party considered that the Commission
had failed to consider the cumulative effect of each of the other injurious
factors. This claim was also raised by several parties after definitive
disclosure. However, given the results of the investigation in relation to the
various other factors invoked, it is not conceivable that their cumulative
effect could have broken the causal link. Indeed, for most of the other factors
raised, their impact was small, if any.
(182)   A party considered that the
investigating authority had failed to distinguish between co-occurrence and
causality. Yet the supporting information provided was far from being
conclusive in this respect and the claim is therefore rejected.
(183)   In the absence of any new
comments as regards other factors, recitals (185) to (190) of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5.4.        Conclusion on causation
(184)   In the absence of any new
comments, recital (191) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
6.           UNION INTEREST
6.1.        Preliminary remarks
(185)   In the absence of any
comments to recital (192) of the provisional Regulation, that recital is hereby
confirmed.
6.2.        Interest of the Union
industry
(186)   A Polish non-complainant
producer welcomed the measures, whereas a UK non-complainant manufacturer with
importing interests of the product concerned opposed them. The second party
deems that duties would have a negative effect on those producers that
complement their product range with imports from the PRC and have adapted to
globalisation via a business model where high value-added work is done in the Union. In addition customers would be less inclined to purchase their products because they
would not offer a full range of products anymore.
(187)   As far as the claim of the
second party is concerned, the situation of that company was examined. It was
found that Chinese imports of tableware constituted a minor part of their total
imports. The company claimed however, without further specifying it, that these
imports were important for them. The company did not give any figures about
their own production. According to the financial statements, the company had in
2011 a pre-tax profit on total turnover of more than 10%, most of it achieved
on non-EU markets (no figure was provided for the product concerned). On this
basis, it is not expected that the imposition of measures endangers the
viability of this company. As far as the claim that many other companies would
also encounter difficulties as a result of the measures, no specific evidence
was provided. Moreover, according to the replies received during the pre-initiation
standing phase and submissions received subsequently, there is no indication
that there is a significant number companies is in such a situation. 
(188)   The impact of duties on the
manufacturing activities of the Union industry would be positive. In fact, since
the recent imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, several positive
developments in this respect have been reported. 
(189)   The above-mentioned positive
developments confirm the complainants’ statement that Union production could be
substantially increased at very short notice by using plants, machinery and
workforce already available, whereas larger increases would be feasible in the
longer run. Redressing unfair price practices in the market therefore benefits
them since a new pricing level would makes it more attractive to manufacture
more products in the Union, be it in large or small orders, special designs or
mainstream unbranded products. It results in the creation of new jobs involving
skills of different kinds and relevant idle workforce can be put back to work. 
(190)   As to the impossibility of
offering a full range of products, this statement cannot be upheld because
consumers require ever-changing ranges of products and the existence of several
supply sources.
(191)   In the absence of any others
comments as regards the interest of the Union industry, recitals (193) to (198)
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
6.3.        Interest of unrelated
importers
(192)   The two largest importers in
the sample contested their level of co-operation as regards full profitability
data and the margin between purchase and resale prices to unrelated customers,
whereas one of them questioned having denied access to its accounts and argued
that nothing would have changed if access would have been given. The parties
claimed that their size and business model did not allow them to provide data
as detailed as requested. At definitive stage, it is confirmed that one of them
denied again access to its importer’s accounts and that both, despite having
endeavoured to do so, did not manage to provide full and usable profitability
data and information about the margin between purchase and resale prices to
unrelated customers in such a way that it could be used by the institutions in
the analysis of the situation of unrelated importers. The limited information
provided by both companies on their purchase and resale prices, be it overall
inconclusive, was fully in line, however, with the general mark-up information
obtained and summarized in recital (202) of the provisional Regulation.
(193)   In recital (203) of the
provisional Regulation, interested parties had been invited to submit
additional, comprehensive and verifiable data to further analyse the impact of
measures on the supply chain. 
(194)   Subsequent to provisional
measures, new replies to the importers questionnaire were sent by two unrelated
importers. Also submissions on Union interest were received from other
non-sampled importers, an association of European and International Commerce
(Foreign Trade Association), a Swedish association of importers, wholesalers
and retailers (Svensk Handel), CCCLA and a Union producer with importing interests.
None of the submissions contained conclusive data as to the impact of measures
on the supply chain.
(195)   A party claimed that the
downstream employment figure affected by the duties was understated in view of
the fact that Eurostat statistics show that overall distributive trade
enterprises employ more people (33 million) than manufacturing companies (31
million). However, the figures provided related to the importing and
manufacturing business in general and could not be used for the purpose of this
investigation.
(196)   In a joint submission,
several importers claimed that the five sampled importers employed more than 10
000 jobs relating to the product concerned and not 350 as mentioned in recital
(200) of the provisional Regulation. The figures have been checked again. It
should be underlined that within the analysis of the interests of importers, the
number of jobs relating to the importation and resale of the product concerned,
including supporting functions, is taken into account. The employment related
to other products or origins, or relating to activities like wholesaling or
retailing should, obviously, not be included in such number. It is recalled
that, earlier in the proceeding, a group of 14 importers had estimated the relevant
number of jobs involved at importers’ level, overall, at 7 000. That figure
seems to be in the right order of magnitude based on an extrapolation of the
situation of the sampled importers to the extent that their figures could be
used.
(197)   Several parties complained
about the high gross margin figure contained in recital (202) of the
provisional Regulation, alleging it would be misleading. However, the
investigation has shown that the vast majority of the importers which replied
to the importers' sampling questions reported a gross margin between purchase
and resale price ranging between 50% and 200% and the sampled importers were in
a similar situation. Moreover, following provisional disclosure, the
complainants submitted several examples supporting the information given by the
publication referred to in recital (202) of the provisional Regulation, i.e.
confirming the import price – retail price ratio of the product concerned. 
(198)   A UK manufacturer with
importing interests explained that those margins are needed to cover certain
costs incurred in the Union. No data was provided which would have allowed for
a calculation of those margins on the basis of turnover.
(199)   As from only three of the sampled
importers usable profit data on the importing activities relating to the
product concerned could be obtained and verified and these three importers represented
only some 3% of the imports of the product concerned, the weighted average profit
figure concerned was not considered conclusive and had, therefore, not been
mentioned in the provisional Regulation. However, it should be noted that this
weighted average profit was healthy (between 6% and 10% - range given for
confidentiality reasons). 
(200)   An importer claimed that
there is not enough production of coloured stoneware in the Union and that it had
no alternative but importing from the PRC. The same claim was made after
disclosure. Yet the investigation established that coloured stoneware can be
procured from several sources, including Union producers. Moreover, Union
producers have the production capacity to sell more on the Union market. 
(201)   The information collected in
the course of the investigation did not allow a proper quantification as to
what extent importers would be able to pass on purchase price increases as a
result of the proposed duty levels. However, should imports from the PRC be
subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty and given the information about the
gross and net margins, there is nothing to suggest that the viability of
importers' business is endangered. An importer also suggested that large market
operators and importers whose core business is not ceramic tableware and
kitchenware would not be negatively affected. 
(202)   It is therefore concluded
that the imposition of measures at the proposed levels does not have a
significantly adverse impact on the situation of unrelated importers of the
product concerned as a whole.
(203)   In the absence of any
additional new comments as regards the interest of unrelated importers,
recitals (199) to (211) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
6.4.        Interest of other economic
sectors
(204)   Further to the invitation
contained in recital (203) of the provisional Regulation, on the day of the
publication of provisional measures the Commission contacted directly relevant retailers
and associations of retailers, importers with possible retailing activity and also
designers that were known to the Commission and invited them to fill in
relevant questionnaires. Some recipients that had initially claimed to be
retailers replied that they were not concerned by the investigation because
they were not active in the business. The Commission eventually received seven
new replies to the retailers’ questionnaire. These seven retailers accounted
for 1% of imports from the PRC during the IP. Most of these replies were
deficient in many respects but they were nevertheless analysed as far as
possible. No replies were received to the designers’ questionnaire. 
(205)   The information thus
obtained did not, in substance, provide any new evidence on the interest of
other economic sectors that could contest the conclusion reached in recital (217)
of the provisional Regulation.
(206)   Following the publication of
provisional measures, submissions on Union interest as regards other economic
sectors were received from both sampled and non-sampled importers (including a
Polish importer active in the promotional items sector), an association of
European and International Commerce (Foreign Trade Association), a Swedish
association of importers, wholesalers and retailers (Svensk Handel), several
retailers, CCCLA and eight coffee roasting companies (seven of them located in
Italy, one with its headquarter in Austria).
(207)   Coffee roasting companies
claimed that due to the very small number of Union producers serving their
market (maximum 5), most of which would be importing from the PRC either
directly or through sister companies, and the very large number of coffee
roasters (1 500 – 3 000), measures at the level proposed at provisional stage
could impede them from sourcing the exactly same items in the future. This
claim cannot be accepted. First, the definitive measures are lower than
provisional measures. Second, the investigation revealed that Union producers were
in a position to further deploy their production potential and further serve
the coffee roasting industry, should the injury caused by dumped imports from the
PRC be removed. Given the large number of Union producers, it is very likely
that the number of Union producers that could take in orders from coffee
roasting companies would be more than five.
(208)   The coffee roasting
companies argued that anti-dumping measures would damage their exports because
of a loss of competitiveness and a possible retaliation by the Chinese
authorities. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the level of
measures imposed would entail such loss of competitiveness, also bearing in
mind that other WTO members have anti-dumping measures affecting this kind of
product. The retaliatory action allegation was also found to be unsubstantiated.
(209)   The coffee roasting
companies stated that the anti-dumping measures would unavoidably lead to a
general reduction in their business, to a decrease of their sales, to a general
increase of the coffee price in the HORECA (hotels, restaurants and catering) sector
and to a decrease in the quality of the products and services. All this would, allegedly,
put at risk a considerable number of direct and indirect jobs. However, bearing
in mind what the core business of the coffee roasting companies is and the
conclusions as regards the effects of measures on the supply chain, these
allegations cannot be upheld. It is also noted that providing the total number
of jobs linked to the worldwide operations of a coffee roasting company cannot
be deemed an appropriate calculation basis for the number of jobs that would be
at risk because of the imposition of anti-dumping measures.
(210)   Two retailers claimed that there
is not enough production of new bone china and bone china in the Union and that
they had no alternative but importing from the PRC. The same claim was made by
an association of importers after disclosure. Firstly and in general it should
be noted that anti-dumping measures aim at restoring fair trade and not at
blocking imports. In this case, the level of measures cannot be considered
prohibitive. Secondly, the investigation established that these products can be
procured from several sources, including Union producers. Finally, Union
producers have the production capacity to sell more on the Union market and
could further exploit their potential, should anti-dumping measures be
definitively imposed. 
(211)   One retailer claimed that
measures would have a negative impact on certain objects serving the tourist
market. Yet, no substantive information could support that claim. Also the
weight of the objects in question in the sector is limited.
(212)   An importer and wholesaler
alleged that the imposition of measures would lead to a vertical consolidation
of the market by some large players. However, given the current number of
players, this would be unlikely in the short-to-medium term.
(213)   Further to the issues
already dealt with in the provisional Regulation, it is noted that several
parties found that the interest of smaller companies, such as retailers,
distributors and businesses dealing with promotional items, had not been sufficiently
taken into consideration. This claim was reiterated after definitive disclosure
by several parties. It must be recognised that, overall, micro and small
businesses could be more vulnerable to any price increase as a result of
anti-dumping duties. However there is no evidence that the level of measures
imposed will have a significant negative effect on the other economic actors
that qualify as SMEs. The claim is therefore definitively rejected.
(214)   In the absence of any
additional comments as regards the interest of other economic sectors, recitals
(212) to (217) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
6.5.        Interest of consumers
(households)
(215)   Despite having been contacted
by the Commission, no parties directly representing the interests of end-buyers
such as associations of consumers made any representations.
(216)   Several parties contested
the conclusion of recital (222) of the provisional Regulation as regards higher
prices. Similar claims were made after definitive disclosure. 
(217)   In the unlikely event that
the duty is fully passed onto consumers and, assuming that import levels and
prices remain the same, the anti-dumping duties would mean a yearly extra cost per
household of less than 1 Euro. Such calculation is based on the IP import
volumes and values, the proposed level of the duties and the number of
households in the Union.
(218)   Such effect cannot be deemed
enough to outweigh the positive impact on the Union industry derived from limiting
the injury caused by dumped imports from the PRC. 
(219)   A party alleged that as a
consequence of measures there would be a shortage of cheaper tableware. This
claim was reiterated after definitive disclosure. Yet this claim cannot be
upheld because, as stated in recital (157) of the provisional Regulation, the
Union industry serves all markets (including cheaper tableware).
(220)   In the absence of any
additional comments as regards the interest of consumers (households), recitals
(218) to (226) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
6.6.        Conclusion on Union
interest 
(221)   In view of the above, the
assessment in the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
(222)   Therefore, recitals (227) to
(229) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
7.           DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
7.1.        Injury elimination level
(223)   It was claimed that the
profit margin used to calculate the amount of duty necessary to remove the
effects of the injurious dumping was too high. This claim was rejected as
explained in section 4.5.3.3 above. 
(224)   Several parties questioned
the target profit used for the calculation of the injury margin. These comments
are addressed in recitals (135) to (142) above. On the basis of the analysis of
those comments it is concluded that the target profit of 6% should be
maintained.
(225)   In the absence of other
comments concerning the injury elimination level, the methodology described in
recitals (230) to (234) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
7.2.        Definitive measures
(226)   In view of the conclusions
reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in
accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping
measures should be imposed on imports of the product concerned at the level of
the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the lesser
duty rule. Accordingly, all duty rates should be set at the level of the
dumping margins.
(227)   The
small adjustment referred to in recitals (115) and (132) above resulted in
slightly revised underselling margins as reflected in the injury margins listed
below. The proposed definitive anti-dumping duties are the following:
 Company || Dumping margin || Injury margin || Definitive duty rate 
 Hunan Hualian China Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Hualian Ebillion Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Liling Hongguanyao China Industry Co., Ltd and Hunan Hualian Yuxiang China Industry Co., Ltd || 18,3% || 44,8% || 18,3% 
 Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co., Ltd || 13,1% || 92,6% || 13,1% 
 CHL Porcelain Industries Ltd || 23,4% || 110,1% || 23,4% 
 Shandong Zibo Niceton-Marck Huaguang Ceramics Limited; Zibo Huatong Ceramics Co., Ltd; Shandong Silver Phoenix Co., Ltd; Niceton Ceramics (Linyi) Co., Ltd; Linyi Jingshi Ceramics Co., Ltd; Linyi Silver Phoenix Ceramics Co., Ltd; Linyi Chunguang Ceramics Co., Ltd, and Linyi Zefeng Ceramics Co., Ltd || 17,6% || 79,1% || 17,6% 
 Guangxi Province Beiliu City Laotian Ceramics Co., Ltd || 22,9% || 45,7% || 22,9% 
 All other co-operating exporting producers || 17,9% || 79,0% || 17,9% 
 All other companies || 36,1% || 110,1% || 36,1% 
(228)   The individual company
anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the
basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the
situation found during that investigation in respect to these companies. These
duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to ‘all other
companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of the products
originating in the PRC and produced by the companies and thus by the specific
legal entities mentioned. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any
other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this
Regulation with its name, including entities related to those specifically
mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty
rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(229)   In order to minimise the
risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty rates, it is
considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper
application of the anti-dumping duties. These special measures include the
presentation to the Customs authorities of the Member States of a valid
commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the
Annex II to this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall
be made subject to the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other
exporters.
(230)   Should the exports by one of
the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase
significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an
increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in
the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of
Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the
conditions are met an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This
investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual
duty rates and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.
(231)   Any claim requesting the
application of an individual anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in
the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales
entities) should be addressed to the Commission[11] forthwith with all relevant
information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked
to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for instance, that
name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If
appropriate, this Regulation will then be amended accordingly by updating the
list of companies benefiting from individual anti-dumping duty rates.
(232)   In order to ensure a proper
enforcement of the anti- dumping duty, the country-wide duty level should not
only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also to those
producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP.
(233)   In order to ensure equal
treatment between any new exporters and the cooperating companies not included
in the sample, mentioned in Annex I to this Regulation, provision should be
made for the weighted average duty imposed on the latter companies to be
applied to any new exporters which would otherwise be entitled to a review
pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.
(234)   All
parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the PRC and the definitive
collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (final
disclosure). All parties were granted a period within which they could make
comments on the final disclosure. 
(235)   The oral and written
comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into
account where appropriate.
7.3.        Definitive collection of
provisional anti-dumping duties
(236)   In view of the magnitude of
the dumping margins found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union
industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the
provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, be
definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties
imposed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby
imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware, excluding ceramic
knives, ceramic condiment or spice mills and their ceramic grinding parts, ceramic
peelers, ceramic knife sharpeners and cordierite ceramic pizza-stones of a kind
used for baking pizza or bread, currently falling within CN codes ex 6911 10
00, ex 6912 00 10, ex 6912 00 30, ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912 00 90 (TARIC codes
6911 10 00 90, 6912 00 10 11, 6912 00 10 91, 6912 00 30 10, 6912 00 50 10 and
6912 00 90 10) and originating in the People's Republic of China.
2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping
duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the
product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed below,
shall be as follows:
 Company || Duty || TARIC additional code 
 Hunan Hualian China Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Hualian Ebillion Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Liling Hongguanyao China Industry Co., Ltd; Hunan Hualian Yuxiang China Industry Co., Ltd. || 18,3% || B349 
 Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co., Ltd || 13,1% || B350 
 CHL Porcelain Industries Ltd || 23,4% || B351 
 Shandong Zibo Niceton-Marck Huaguang Ceramics Limited; Zibo Huatong Ceramics Co., Ltd; Shandong Silver Phoenix Co., Ltd; Niceton Ceramics (Linyi) Co., Ltd; Linyi Jingshi Ceramics Co., Ltd; Linyi Silver Phoenix Ceramics Co., Ltd; Linyi Chunguang Ceramics Co., Ltd; Linyi Zefeng Ceramics Co., Ltd. || 17,6% || B352 
 Guangxi Province Beiliu City Laotian Ceramics Co., Ltd || 22,9% || B353 
 Companies listed in Annex I || 17,9% ||   
 All other companies || 36,1% || B999 
3. The application of the individual
anti-dumping duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2
shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member
States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall be conform to the
requirements set out in the Annex II. If no such invoice is presented, the duty
applicable to "All other companies" shall apply. 
4. Unless otherwise specified, the
provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
1. The amounts secured by way of the
provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1072/2012 on
imports of ceramic condiment or spice mills and their ceramic grinding parts,
ceramic peelers, ceramic knife sharpeners and cordierite ceramic pizza-stones
of a kind used for baking pizza or bread and originating in the People’s
Republic of China shall be released.
2. The amounts secured by way of the
provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1072/2012 on
imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware, excluding ceramic knives, ceramic
condiment or spice mills and their ceramic grinding parts, ceramic peelers,
ceramic knife sharpeners and cordierite ceramic pizza-stones of a kind used for
baking pizza or bread and originating in the People’s Republic of China, shall
be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive
rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released.
Article 3
Where any new exporting producer in the
People’s Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:
— it did not export to the Union the product described in Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 January 2011
to 31 December 2011),
— it is not related to any of the exporters
or producers in the People’s Republic of China which are subject to the
measures imposed by this Regulation,
— it has actually exported to the Union the
product concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are
based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a
significant quantity to the Union,
Article 1(2) may be amended by adding the
new exporting producer to the cooperating companies not included in the sample
and thus subject to the weighted average duty rate of 17,9%.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on
the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding
in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
Annex I
Co-operating
Chinese exporting producers not sampled
 Name || TARIC additional code 
 Amaida Ceramic Product Co., Ltd. || B357 
 Asianera Porcelain (Tangshan) Ltd. || B358 
 Beiliu Changlong Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B359 
 Beiliu Chengda Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B360 
 Beiliu City Heyun Building Materials Co., Ltd. || B361 
 Beiliu Jiasheng Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B362 
 Beiliu Quanli Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B363 
 Beiliu Shimin Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B364 
 Beiliu Windview Industries Ltd. || B365 
 Cameo China (Fengfeng) Co., Ltd. || B366 
 Changsha Happy Go Products Developing Co., Ltd. || B367 
 Chao An Huadayu Craftwork Factory || B368 
 Chaoan County Fengtang Town HaoYe Ceramic Fty || B369 
 Chao'an Lian Xing Yuan Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B370 
 Chaoan Oh Yeah Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. || B371 
 Chaoan Shengyang Crafts Industrial Co., Ltd || B372 
 Chaoan Xin Yuan Ceramics Factory || B373 
 Chao'an Yongsheng Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd. || B374 
 Chaozhou Baodayi Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B375 
 Chaozhou Baode Ceramics Co., Ltd, || B376 
 Chaozhou Baolian Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B377 
 Chaozhou Big Arrow Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. || B378 
 Chaozhou Boshifa Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B379 
 Chaozhou Cantake Craft Co., Ltd. || B380 
 Chaozhou Ceramics Industry and Trade General Corp. || B381 
 Chaozhou Chaofeng Ceramic Making Co., Ltd. || B382 
 Chaozhou Chengxi Jijie Art & Craft Painted Porcelain Fty. || B383 
 Chaozhou Chengxinda Ceramics Industry Co., Ltd. || B384 
 Chaozhou Chenhui Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B385 
 Chaozhou Chonvson Ceramics Industry Co., Ltd. || B386 
 Chaozhou Daxin Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. || B387 
 Chaozhou DaXing Ceramics Manufactory Co., Ltd || B388 
 Chaozhou Dayi Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd. || B389 
 Chaozhou Dehong Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B390 
 Chaozhou Deko Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B391 
 Chaozhou Diamond Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. || B392 
 Chaozhou Dongyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B393 
 Chaozhou Dragon Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. || B394 
 Chaozhou Fairway Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd. || B395 
 Chaozhou Feida Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd. || B396 
 Chaozhou Fengxi Baita Ceramics Fty. || B397 
 Chaozhou Fengxi Dongtian Porcelain Fty. No.2 || B398 
 Chaozhou Fengxi Fenger Ceramics Craft Fty. || B399 
 Chaozhou Fengxi Hongrong Color Porcelain Fty. || B400 
 Chaozhou Fengxi Jiaxiang Ceramic Manufactory || B401 
 Chaozhou Fengxi Porcelain Industrial Trade Imp & Exp. Corp || B402 
 Chaozhou Fengxi Shengshui Porcelain Art Factory || B403 
 Chaozhou Fengxi Zone Jinbaichuan Porcelain Crafts Factory || B404 
 Chaozhou Fromone Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B405 
 Chaozhou Genol Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd. || B406 
 Chaozhou Good Concept Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B407 
 Chaozhou Grand Collection Ceramics Manufacturing Co. Ltd. || B408 
 Chaozhou Guangjia Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd. || B409 
 Chaozhou Guidu Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B410 
 Chaozhou Haihong Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B411 
 Chaozhou Hengchuang Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B412 
 Chaozhou Henglibao Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. || B413 
 Chaozhou Hongbo Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. || B414 
 Chaozhou Hongjia Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B415 
 Chaozhou Hongye Ceramics Manufactory Co., Ltd. || B416 
 Chaozhou Hongye Porcelain Development Co., Ltd. || B417 
 Chaozhou Hongyue Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. || B418 
 Chaozhou Hongzhan Ceramic Manufacture Co., Ltd. || B419 
 Chaozhou Hua Da Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B420 
 Chaozhou Huabo Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B421 
 Chaozhou Huade Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd. || B422 
 Chaozhou Huashan Industrial Co., Ltd. || B423 
 Chaozhou Huayu Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B424 
 Chaozhou Huazhong Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd. || B425 
 Chaozhou Huifeng Ceramics Craft Making Co., Ltd. || B426 
 Chaozhou J&M Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. || B427 
 Chaozhou Jencymic Co., Ltd. || B428 
 Chaozhou Jiahua Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B429 
 Chaozhou Jiahuabao Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. || B430 
 Chaozhou JiaHui Ceramic Factory || B431 
 Chaozhou Jiaye Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B432 
 Chaozhou Jiayi Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B433 
 Chaozhou Jiayu Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B434 
 Chaozhou Jin Jia Da Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. || B435 
 Chaozhou Jingfeng Ceramics Craft Co., Ltd. || B436 
 Chaozhou Jinqiangyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B437 
 Chaozhou Jinxin Ceramics Making Co., Ltd || B438 
 Chaozhou Jinyuanli Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd. || B439 
 Chaozhou Kaibo Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B440 
 Chaozhou Kedali Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. || B441 
 Chaozhou King's Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. || B442 
 Chaozhou Kingwave Porcelain & Pigment Co., Ltd. || B443 
 Chaozhou Lemontree Tableware Co., Ltd. || B444 
 Chaozhou Lianfeng Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B445 
 Chaozhou Lianjun Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B446 
 Chaozhou Lianyu Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B447 
 ChaoZhou Lianyuan Ceramic Making Co., Ltd. || B448 
 Chaozhou Lisheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B449 
 Chaozhou Loving Home Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B450 
 Chaozhou Maocheng Industry Dve. Co., Ltd. || B451 
 Chaozhou MBB Porcelain Factory || B452 
 Chaozhou Mingyu Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. || B453 
 Chaozhou New Power Co., Ltd. || B454 
 Chaozhou Ohga Porcelain Co.,Ltd. || B455 
 Chaozhou Oubo Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B456 
 Chaozhou Pengfa Ceramics Manufactory Co., Ltd. || B457 
 Chaozhou Pengxing Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B458 
 Chaozhou Qingfa Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B459 
 Chaozhou Ronghua Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B460 
 Chaozhou Ronglibao Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B461 
 Chaozhou Rui Cheng Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. || B462 
 Chaozhou Rui Xiang Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. || B463 
 Chaozhou Ruilong Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B464 
 Chaozhou Sanhua Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. || B465 
 Chaozhou Sanming Industrial Co., Ltd. || B466 
 Chaozhou Santai Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B467 
 Chaozhou Shuntai Ceramic Manufactory Co., Ltd. || B468 
 Chaozhou Songfa Ceramics Co.,Ltd. || B469 
 Chaozhou Sundisk Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B470 
 Chaozhou Teemjade Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B471 
 Chaozhou Thyme Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B472 
 Chaozhou Tongxing Huajiang Ceramics Making Co., Ltd || B473 
 Chaozhou Totye Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. || B474 
 Chaozhou Trend Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. || B475 
 Chaozhou Uncommon Craft Industrial Co., Ltd. || B476 
 Chaozhou Weida Ceramic Making Co., Ltd. || B477 
 Chaozhou Weigao Ceramic Craft Co., Ltd. || B478 
 Chaozhou Wingoal Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. || B479 
 Chaozhou Wood House Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B480 
 Chaozhou Xiangye Ceramics Craft Making Co., Ltd. || B481 
 Chaozhou Xin Weicheng Co., Ltd. || B482 
 Chaozhou Xincheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B483 
 Chaozhou Xinde Ceramics Craft Factory || B484 
 Chaozhou Xingguang Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B485 
 Chaozhou Xinhui Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B486 
 Chaozhou Xinkai Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B487 
 Chaozhou Xinlong Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. || B488 
 Chaozhou Xinyu Porcelain Industrial Co., Ltd. || B489 
 Chaozhou Xinyue Ceramics Manufacture Co., Ltd. || B490 
 Chaozhou Yangguang Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B491 
 Chaozhou Yaran Ceramics Craft Making Co., Ltd. || B492 
 Chaozhou Yinhe Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B493 
 Chaozhou Yongsheng Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd. || B494 
 Chaozhou Yongxuan Domestic Ceramics Manufactory Co., Ltd. || B495 
 Chaozhou Yu Ri Ceramics Making Co., Ltd. || B496 
 Chaozhou Yuefeng Ceramics Ind. Co., Ltd. || B497 
 Chaozhou Yufeng Ceramics Making Factory || B498 
 Chaozhou Zhongxia Porcelain Factory Co., Ltd. || B499 
 Chaozhou Zhongye Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B500 
 Dabu Yongxingxiang Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B501 
 Dapu Fuda Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B502 
 Dapu Taoyuan Porcelain Factory || B503 
 Dasheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. Dehua || B504 
 De Hua Hongshun Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B505 
 Dehua Hongsheng Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B506 
 Dehua Jianyi Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. || B507 
 Dehua Kaiyuan Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. || B508 
 Dehua Ruyuan Gifts Co., Ltd. || B509 
 Dehua Xinmei Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B510 
 Dongguan Kennex Ceramic Ltd. || B511 
 Dongguan Shilong Kyocera Co., Ltd. || B512 
 Dongguan Yongfuda Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B513 
 Evershine Fine China Co., Ltd. || B514 
 Excellent Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B515 
 Fair-Link Limited (Xiamen) || B516 
 Far East (Boluo) Ceramics Factory Co., Ltd. || B517 
 Far East (chaozhou) Ceramics Factory Co., Ltd. || B518 
 Fengfeng Mining District Yuhang Ceramic Co. Ltd. ("Yuhang") || B519 
 Foshan Metart Company Limited || B520 
 Fujian De Hua Jiashun Art&Crafts Co., Ltd. || B521 
 Fujian Dehua Chengyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B522 
 Fujian Dehua Five Continents Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd. || B523 
 Fujian Dehua Fujue Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B524 
 Fujian Dehua Full Win Crafts Co., Ltd. || B525 
 Fujian Dehua Fusheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B526 
 Fujian Dehua Gentle Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B527 
 Fujian Dehua Guanhong Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B528 
 Fujian Dehua Guanjie Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B529 
 Fujian Dehua Hiap Huat Koyo Toki Co., Ltd. || B530 
 Fujian Dehua Hongda Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B531 
 Fujian Dehua Hongsheng Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. || B532 
 Fujian Dehua Hongyu Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B533 
 Fujian Dehua Huachen Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B534 
 Fujian Dehua Huaxia Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B535 
 Fujian Dehua Huilong Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B536 
 Fujian Dehua Jingyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B537 
 Fujian Dehua Jinhua Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B538 
 Fujian Dehua Jinzhu Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B539 
 Fujian Dehua Lianda Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B540 
 Fujian Dehua Myinghua Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B541 
 Fujian Dehua Pengxin Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B542 
 Fujian Dehua Rongxin Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B543 
 Fujian Dehua Shisheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B544 
 Fujian Dehua Will Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B545 
 Fujian Dehua Xianda Ceramic Factory || B546 
 Fujian Dehua Xianghui Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B547 
 Fujian Dehua Xingye Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B548 
 Fujian Dehua Yonghuang Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B549 
 Fujian Dehua Yousheng Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B550 
 Fujian Dehua You-Young Crafts Co., Ltd. || B551 
 Fujian Dehua Zhenfeng Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B552 
 Fujian Dehua Zhennan Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B553 
 Fujian Jackson Arts and Crafts Co., Ltd. || B554 
 Fujian Jiamei Group Corporation || B555 
 Fujian Profit Group Corporation || B556 
 Fujian Province Dehua County Beatrot Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B557 
 Fujian Province Yongchun County Foreign Processing and Assembling Corporation || B558 
 Fujian Quanzhou Longpeng Group Co., Ltd. || B559 
 Fujian Quanzhou Shunmei Group Co., Ltd. || B560 
 Fung Lin Wah Group || B561 
 Ganzhou Koin Structure Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B562 
 Global Housewares Factory || B563 
 Guangdong Baofeng Ceramic Technology Development Co., Ltd. || B564 
 Guangdong Bening Ceramics Industries Co., Ltd. || B565 
 Guangdong Daye Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B566 
 Guangdong Dongbao Group Co., Ltd. || B567 
 Guangdong Huaxing Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B568 
 Guangdong Quanfu Ceramics Ind. Co., Ltd. || B569 
 Guangdong Shunqiang Ceramics Co., Ltd || B570 
 Guangdong Shunxiang Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B571 
 Guangdong Sitong Group Co., Ltd. || B572 
 Guangdong Songfa Ceramics Co.,Ltd. || B573 
 GuangDong XingTaiYi Porcelain Co., Ltd || B574 
 Guangdong Yutai Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B575 
 Guangdong Zhentong Ceramics Co., Ltd || B576 
 Guangxi Baian Ceramic Co. Ltd || B577 
 Guangxi Beiliu City Ming Chao Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B578 
 Guangxi Beiliu Guixin Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B579 
 Guangxi Beiliu Huasheng Porcelain Ltd. || B580 
 Guangxi Beiliu Newcentury Ceramic Llc. || B581 
 Guangxi Beiliu Qinglang Porcelain Trade Co., Ltd. || B582 
 Guangxi Beiliu Rili Porcelain Co.,Ltd. || B583 
 Guangxi Beiliu Xiongfa Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B584 
 Guangxi Beiliu Yujie Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B585 
 Guangxi Beiliu Zhongli Ceramics Co., Ltd || B586 
 Guangxi Nanshan Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B587 
 Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd. || B588 
 Guangxi Yulin Rongxing Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B589 
 Guangzhou Chaintime Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B590 
 Haofa Ceramics Co., Ltd. of Dehua Fujian || B591 
 Hebei Dersun Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B592 
 Hebei Great Wall Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B593 
 Henan Ruilong Ceramics Co., Ltd || B594 
 Henghui Porcelain Plant Liling Hunan China || B595 
 Huanyu Ceramic Industrial Co., Ltd. Liling Hunan China || B596 
 Hunan Baihua Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B597 
 Hunan Eka Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B598 
 Hunan Fungdeli Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B599 
 Hunan Gaofeng Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd. || B600 
 Hunan Huari Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd || B601 
 Hunan Huawei China Industry Co., Ltd || B602 
 Hunan Huayun Ceramics Factory Co., Ltd || B603 
 Hunan Liling Tianxin China Industry Ltd. || B604 
 Hunan Provincial Liling Chuhua Ceramic Industrial Co., Ltd. || B605 
 Hunan Quanxiang Ceramics Corp. Ltd. || B606 
 Hunan Rslee Ceramics Co., Ltd || B607 
 Hunan Taisun Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B608 
 Hunan Victor Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd || B609 
 Hunan Wing Star Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B610 
 Hunan Xianfeng Ceramic Industry Co.,Ltd || B611 
 Jiangsu Gaochun Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B612 
 Jiangsu Yixing Fine Pottery Corp., Ltd. || B613 
 Jiangxi Global Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B614 
 Jiangxi Kangshu Porcelain Co.,Ltd. || B615 
 Jingdezhen F&B Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B616 
 Jingdezhen Yuanjing Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. || B617 
 Jiyuan Jukang Xingxing Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B618 
 Joyye Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. || B619 
 Junior Star Ent's Co., Ltd. || B620 
 K&T Ceramics International Co., Ltd. || B621 
 Kam Lee (Xing Guo) Metal and Plastic Fty. Co., Ltd. || B622 
 Karpery Industrial Co., Ltd. Hunan China || B623 
 Kilncraft Ceramics Ltd. || B624 
 Lian Jiang Golden Faith Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B625 
 Liling Gaojia Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd || B626 
 Liling GuanQian Ceramic Manufacture Co., Ltd. || B627 
 Liling Huahui Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd. || B628 
 Liling Huawang Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd. || B629 
 Liling Jiahua Porcelain Manufacturing Co., Ltd || B630 
 Liling Jialong Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd || B631 
 Liling Jiaxing Ceramic Industrial Co., Ltd || B632 
 Liling Kaiwei Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B633 
 Liling Liangsheng Ceramic Manufacture Co., Ltd. || B634 
 Liling Liuxingtan Ceramics Co., Ltd || B635 
 Liling Minghui Ceramics Factory || B636 
 Liling Pengxing Ceramic Factory || B637 
 Liling Quanhu Industries General Company || B638 
 Liling Rongxiang Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B639 
 Liling Ruixiang Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. || B640 
 Liling Santang Ceramics Manufacturing Co., Ltd. || B641 
 Liling Shenghua Industrial Co., Ltd. || B642 
 Liling Spring Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd || B643 
 Liling Tengrui Industrial and Trading Co.,Ltd. || B644 
 Liling Top Collection Industrial Co., Ltd || B645 
 Liling United Ceramic-Ware Manufacturing Co., Ltd. || B646 
 Liling Yonghe Porcelain Factory || B647 
 Liling Yucha Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B648 
 Liling Zhengcai Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd || B649 
 Linyi Jinli Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B650 
 Linyi Pengcheng Industry Co., Ltd. || B651 
 Linyi Wanqiang Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B652 
 Linyi Zhaogang Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B653 
 Liveon Industrial Co., Ltd. || B654 
 Long Da Bone China Co., Ltd. || B655 
 Meizhou Gaoyu Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B656 
 Meizhou Lianshunchang Trading Co., Ltd. || B657 
 Meizhou Xinma Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B658 
 Meizhou Yuanfeng Ceramic Industry Co., Ltd. || B659 
 Meizhou Zhong Guang Industrial Co., Ltd. || B660 
 Miracle Dynasty Fine Bone China (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. || B661 
 Photo USA Electronic Graphic Inc. || B662 
 Quanzhou Allen Light Industry Co., Ltd. || B663 
 Quanzhou Chuangli Craft Co., Ltd. || B664 
 Quanzhou Dehua Fangsheng Arts Co., Ltd. || B665 
 Quanzhou Haofu Gifts Co., Ltd. || B666 
 Quanzhou Hongsheng Group Corporation || B667 
 Quanzhou Jianwen Craft Co., Ltd. || B668 
 Quanzhou Kunda Gifts Co., Ltd. || B669 
 Quanzhou Yongchun Shengyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B670 
 Raoping Bright Future Porcelain Factory ("RBF") || B671 
 Raoping Sanrao Yicheng Porcelain Factory || B672 
 Raoping Sanyi Industrial Co., Ltd. || B673 
 Raoping Suifeng Ceramics and Glass Factory || B674 
 Raoping Xinfeng Yangda Colour Porcelain FTY || B675 
 Red Star Ceramics Limited || B676 
 Rong Lin Wah Industrial (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. || B677 
 Ronghui Ceramic Co., Ltd Liling Hunan China || B678 
 Shandong Futai Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B679 
 Shandong Gaode Hongye Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B680 
 Shandong Kunlun Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B681 
 Shandong Zhaoding Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B682 
 Shantou Ceramics Industry Supply & Marketing Corp. || B683 
 Sheng Hua Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B684 
 Shenzhen Baoshengfeng Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. || B685 
 Shenzhen Bright Future Industry Co., Ltd. ("SBF") || B686 
 Shenzhen Donglin Industry Co., Ltd. || B687 
 Shenzhen Ehome Enterprise Ltd || B688 
 Shenzhen Ever Nice Industry Co., Ltd. || B689 
 Shenzhen Fuliyuan Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B690 
 Shenzhen Full Amass Ind. Dev. Co. Ltd || B691 
 Shenzhen Fuxingjiayun Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B692 
 Shenzhen Good-Always Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd || B693 
 Shenzhen Gottawa Industrial Ltd. || B694 
 Shenzhen Hiker Housewares Ltd. || B695 
 Shenzhen Hua Mei Industry Development Ltd || B696 
 Shenzhen Mingsheng Ceramic Ltd. || B697 
 Shenzhen Senyi Porcelain Industry Co. Ltd. || B698 
 Shenzhen SMF Investment Co., Ltd || B699 
 Shenzhen Tao Hui Industrial Co., Ltd. || B700 
 Shenzhen Topchoice Industries Limited || B701 
 Shenzhen Trueland Industrial Co., Ltd. || B702 
 Shenzhen Universal Industrial Co., Ltd. || B703 
 Shenzhen Zhan Peng Xiang Industrial Co., Ltd. || B704 
 Shijiazhuang Kuangqu Huakang Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B705 
 Shun Sheng Da Group Co., Ltd. Quanzhou Fujian || B706 
 Stechcol Ceramic Crafts Development (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. || B707 
 Taiyu Ceramic Co., Ltd. Liling Hunan China || B708 
 Tangshan Beifangcidu Ceramic Group Co., Ltd. || B709 
 Tangshan Boyu Osseous Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B710 
 Tangshan Chinawares Trading Co., Ltd || B711 
 Tangshan Daxin Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B712 
 Tangshan Golden Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B713 
 Tangshan Haigelei Fine Bone Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B714 
 Tangshan Hengrui Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd. || B715 
 Tangshan Huamei Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B716 
 Tangshan Huaxincheng Ceramic Products Co., Ltd. || B717 
 Tangshan Huyuan Bone China Co., Ltd. || B718 
 Tangshan Imperial-Hero Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B719 
 Tangshan Jinfangyuan Bone China Manufacturing Co., Ltd. || B720 
 Tangshan Keyhandle Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B721 
 Tangshan Longchang Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B722 
 Tangshan Masterwell Ceramic Co., Ltd. || B723 
 Tangshan Redrose Porcelain Products Co., Ltd. || B724 
 Tangshan Shiyu Commerce Co., Ltd. || B725 
 Tangshan Xueyan Industrial Co., Ltd. || B726 
 Tangshan Yida Industrial Corp. || B727 
 Tao Yuan Porcelain Factory || B728 
 Teammann Co., Ltd. || B729 
 The China & Hong Kong Resources Co., Ltd. || B730 
 The Great Wall Group Holding Co., Ltd. Guangdong || B731 
 Tienshan (Handan) Tableware Co., Ltd. ("Tienshan") || B732 
 Topking Industry (China) Ltd. || B733 
 Weijian Ceramic Industrial Co., Ltd. || B734 
 Weiye Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B735 
 Winpat Industrial Co., Ltd. || B736 
 Xiamen Acrobat Splendor Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B737 
 Xiamen Johnchina Fine Polishing Tech Co., Ltd. || B738 
 Xiangqiang Ceramic Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Liling City Hunan || B739 
 Xin Xing Xian XinJiang Pottery Co., Ltd. || B740 
 Xinhua County Huayang Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B741 
 Xuchang Jianxing Porcelain Products Co., Ltd. || B742 
 Yangjiang Shi Ba Zi Kitchen Ware Manufacturing Co., Ltd. || B743 
 Yanling Hongyi Import N Export Trade Co., Ltd. || B744 
 Ying-Hai (Shenzhen) Industry Dev. Co., Ltd. || B745 
 Yiyang Red Star Ceramics Ltd. || B746 
 Yong Feng Yuan Industry Co., Ltd. ("Yong Feng Yuan Industry") || B747 
 Yongchun Dahui Crafts Co., Ltd. || B748 
 Yu Yuan Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B749 
 Yuzhou City Kongjia Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B750 
 Yuzhou Huixiang Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B751 
 Yuzhou Ruilong Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B752 
 Zeal Ceramics Development Co., Ltd, Shenzhen, China || B753 
 Zhangjiakou Xuanhua Yici Ceramics Co., Ltd. ("Xuanhua Yici") || B754 
 Zhejiang Nansong Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B755 
 Zibo Boshan Shantou Ceramic Factory || B756 
 Zibo CAC Chinaware Co., Ltd. || B757 
 Zibo Fortune Light Industrial Products Co., Ltd. || B758 
 Zibo Fuxin Porcelain Co., Ltd. || B759 
 Zibo GaoDe Ceramic Technology & Development Co., Ltd. || B760 
 Zibo Hongda Ceramics Co., Ltd. || B761 
 Zibo Jinxin Light Industrial Products Co., Ltd. || B762 
 Zibo Kunyang Ceramic Corporation Limited || B763 
Annex II
A declaration signed by an official of the
entity issuing the commercial invoice, in the following format, must
appear on the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3):
(1)              
The name and function of the official of the
entity issuing the commercial invoice. 
(2)              
The following declaration: “I, the undersigned,
certify that the (volume) of ceramic tableware and kitchenware sold for export
to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name
and address) (TARIC additional code) in (country concerned). I declare that the
information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.”
(3)              
Date and signature.       
[1]               OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
[2]               OJ L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 28.
[3]               OJ C 44, 16.2.2012, p. 22.
[4]               Court of Justice judgment of 2 February 2012 in case
C-249/10 P, Brosmann Footwear HK and Others v. Council of the European
Union and Court of Justice judgment of 15 November 2012 in case C-247/10 P, Zhejiang
Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd v. Council of the European Union.
[5]               Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation
(EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not
members of the European Community, OJ L 344, 14.12.2012, p. 1.
[6]               Ibid.
[7]               See footnote 4.
[8]               Eurostat statistics on employment linked to the manufacturing
of textiles, wearing apparel, leather/wood/cork/straw/paper (products) and
printing and reproduction of recorded media.
[9]               Competitiveness of the Ceramics Sector, final report
13 October 2008, p. 29.
[10]             OJ L 238, 15.09.2011, p.1
[11]             European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade,
Directorate H, Office: NERV-105, 08/020, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/
BELGIË.