About HKTDC | Media Room | Contact HKTDC | Wish List Wish List () | My HKTDC |
Save As PDF Print this page
Qzone

Anti-dumping Actions

Commodity: Oxalic acid, whether in dihydrate (CUS number 0028635-1 and CAS number 6153-56-6) or anhydrous form (CUS number 0021238-4 and CAS number 144- 62-7) and whether or not in aqueous solution, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 11 00 (TARIC code 2917 11 00 91).

Countries/Economies: The Chinese mainland and India.

Action: On 2 July 2018, Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/931 was published in the Official Journal, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the Chinese mainland, following an expiry review. Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry of the anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received a request for the initiation of an expiry review. The request was lodged on 18 January 2017 by Oxaquim SA (‘the applicant’) said to be representing more than 50% of the total Union production of oxalic acid. The initiation of the review was announced on 12 April 2017. It is stated that the Chinese mainland is by far the world's largest oxalic acid producing country; and that no Chinese producer cooperated in this investigation which led to the findings being based on the best facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. The Commission established that there is continuation of dumping to the Union as the Chinese exporting producers were said to be still exporting oxalic acid at dumped prices during the review investigation period (RIP). The Commission concluded that the large estimated production capacity, the high spare capacity in combination with the price levels on other export markets, and the attractiveness of the Union market indicate that a repeal of the measures would likely result in significant increase of exports to the Union. Given the dumping margin established during the RIP for both India and the Chinese mainland, it is felt to be also likely that future exports will be made at significantly dumped prices. On that basis, the Commission established that dumping from both countries would continue if the measures were allowed to lapse.

Rates: The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed as follows. In the case of the Chinese mainland, it is 37.7% and 14.6% for individually named entities, and 52.2% for all other companies. In the case of India, it is 22.8% and 31.5% for individually named entities, and 43.6% for all other companies.

Dates: Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/931 entered into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal.

 

Commodity: Tartaric acid, excluding D-(-)- tartaric acid with a negative optical rotation of at least 12.0 degrees, measured in a water solution according to the method described in the European Pharmacopoeia, currently falling within CN code ex 2918 12 00 (TARIC code 2918120090).

Countries/Economies: The Chinese mainland.

Action: On 29 June 2018, the Official Journal published Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/921 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the Chinese mainland, following an expiry review. Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry, the Commission received a request for a review, lodged on 24 January 2017 by applicants said to be representing more than 25% of the total Union production of tartaric acid. The product under review is used in wine, in beverage and food additives, as a retardant in plaster and in numerous other products. The Commission based normal value on the information provided in the expiry review request, that is on prices of domestic invoices of the product under review from one Argentinian producer. The use of Argentina as a source for the normal value is said to be in line with the use of Argentina as analogue country in the previous investigations. The investigation established that the product under review in Argentina was produced by using the natural process, while in China the cheaper synthetic process was used. The cost of the raw materials used in Argentina was therefore adjusted to take into account the cost differences in production methods. The Regulation states that, given the non-cooperation of the Chinese exporting producers, the findings in relation to the likelihood of recurrence of dumping set out in the new Regulation were based on facts available. The Regulation further states that, in conclusion, the dumping margins established during the review investigation period, the large production capacity, the high spare capacity in combination with mainland China's export behaviour in other third countries and the attractiveness of the Union market, indicate that a repeal of the measures would likely result in significant increase of exports to the Union. Given the dumping margins found during the review investigation period it is also likely that future exports will be made at significantly dumped prices. The Commission therefore concluded that there is a strong likelihood of a continuation of dumping should the measures be repealed.

Rates: The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty is 10.1% for Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd, Changzhou, 8.3% for Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai, and 34.9% for all other companies (except Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, Hangzhou — TARIC additional code A687).

Dates: The Regulation entered into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal.

 

Commodity: Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, of circular cross section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406.4 mm with a Carbon Equivalent Value (CEV) not exceeding 0.86 according to the International Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis, currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 23 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 20, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 39 10, ex 7304 39 52, ex 7304 39 58, ex 7304 39 92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 81, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 10, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93 (13) (TARIC codes 7304191020, 7304193020, 7304230020, 7304291020, 7304293020, 7304312020, 7304318030, 7304391010, 7304395220, 7304395830, 7304399230, 7304399320, 7304518120, 7304518930, 7304591010, 7304599230 and 7304599320). This description can be found in Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation 2015/2272.

Countries/Economies: The Chinese mainland.

Action: On 29 June 2018, the Official Journal published Commission Implementing Decision 2018/928 terminating the re-opening of the investigation concerning the judgments in joined cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P in relation to Council Regulation 926/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the Chinese mainland, and Commission Implementing Regulation 2015/2272 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the Chinese mainland following an expiry review. It may be recalled that by judgment of 7 April 2016 in joined cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P, the Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) upheld the findings of the General Court, insofar as they concerned Hubei. As a direct consequence of the Hubei judgments, imports into the Union of SPT as produced by Hubei were deemed to have never been subject to anti-dumping measures. Hence, the anti-dumping duties collected on these imports had to be reimbursed in accordance with the applicable customs legislation. On 9 September 2016, the Commission published a notice concerning the judgments in joined cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P, reopening the review investigation that lead to the adoption of the expiry review Regulation. The re-opening was limited in scope to determining whether, in light of the Hubei judgments, it would be appropriate to repeal the expiry review Regulation for Chinese exporting producers other than Hubei. The examination revealed that any such repeal would, in fact, not be appropriate. Thus, the expiry review concluded that the repeal of the measures would likely lead to a recurrence of threat of injury. That conclusion was not called into question by any of the interested parties, nor was the Commission able to retrieve evidence that would call those findings into question. Therefore, and considering that even when disregarding import volumes from Hubei, the findings of the expiry review would not have been different, the Commission concluded that, should the measures be repealed, the economic impact on the Union industry would be severe. Consequently, on balance and with particular consideration for the significant negative effects for the Union industry should measures be repealed, the Commission considered that it would be inappropriate to repeal the measures in force against Chinese exporting producers other than Hubei. The investigation concerning the judgments in joined cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P in relation to Regulation 926/2009 and Implementing Regulation 2015/2272 is therefore terminated.

Dates: Commission Implementing Decision 2018/928 entered into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal.

Content provided by Picture: HKTDC Research
Comments (0)
Shows local time in Hong Kong (GMT+8 hours)

HKTDC welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers.
Review our Comment Policy

*Add a comment (up to 5,000 characters)