Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti menşeli elektrikli bisikletlerin AB ye ithalatına kesin bir ANTİ-DAMPİNG VERGİSİ uygulanması (AB Mevzuatı)

(1)

By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 (2), the European Commission imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of electric bicycles, originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (‘the original measures’). The anti-dumping duties currently in force range from 10,3 % to 70,1 %. The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2)

Following the judgment of the General Court in Case T-242/19, on 17 March 2023 the anti-dumping duties were reimposed as regards Giant Electric Vehicle (Kunshan) Co., Ltd, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/609 (3). The re-imposed duty was set at 9,9 %.

(3)

By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 (4), the Commission imposed, in parallel, definitive countervailing duties on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China. The countervailing duties currently in force range from 3,9 % to 17,2 %.

(4)

Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (5) the European Commission (‘the Commission’) received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(5)

The request for review (‘the request’) was submitted on 16 October 2023 by the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (‘the applicant’) on behalf of the Union industry of electric bicycles in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(6)

Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 17 January 2024 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’) on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(7)

The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 (‘review investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2020 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(8)

In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed other known Union producers, the known producers in PRC as well as the authorities of PRC, known importers, users as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the expiry and invited them to participate.

(9)

Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the expiry review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(10)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(11)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of production volume. This sample consisted of three Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for 23,4 % of the total Union production in the review investigation period. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments on the provisional sample were received. The sample was considered representative of the Union industry.

(12)

To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(13)

No unrelated importer replied to the sampling form. Consequently, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

(14)

To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known producers in the PRC to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the PRC to the European Union to identify and/or contact other producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(15)

Only two exporting producers from the PRC provided a sampling reply and sampling was therefore not deemed necessary. Furthermore, these two companies accounted together for significantly less than 0,1 % of the Chinese electric bicycle industry in terms of (i) exports to the Union; (ii) exports to all other export destinations; (iii) domestic sales; and (iv) Chinese production capacity in the review investigation period. The Commission therefore considered that those two companies could not be considered representative for the Chinese electric bicycle industry for the purpose of the expiry review investigation.

(16)

Accordingly, the Commission concluded that cooperation from electric bicycle producers in the PRC was insufficient for making representative findings and informed the two companies that the Commission intended to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation and base its findings on continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury with regard to imports from the PRC on facts available.

(17)

Consequently, the Commission informed the authorities of the PRC by Note Verbale of 12 February 2024, that it might resort to the use of facts available under Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation when examining the continuation or recurrence of dumping. The authorities of the PRC did not react to the Note Verbale.

(18)

The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in the PRC within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the China (‘GOC’).

(19)

The Commission informed the two companies which had sent a sampling reply that they could not be considered representative for the overall Chinese e-bikes industry and that their company-specific information was not susceptible to form a basis for representative findings regarding all exports from the PRC to the Union. The Commission invited the two companies to contact the Commission services in case they nevertheless intended to fill out a questionnaire reply. At the initiation of the investigation a copy of the questionnaires was made available in the file for inspection by interested parties and on DG Trade’s website.

(20)

No questionnaire replies were received from the GOC nor any Chinese (exporting) producer.

(21)

The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

(22)

On 25 October 2024, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to maintain the anti-dumping duties in force. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.

(23)

Several interested parties submitted comments, which were considered by the Commission and addressed in Sections 2.3 and 7 below. One party who so requested was granted a hearing.

(24)

The product under review is the same as in the original investigation namely cycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor, currently falling under CN codes 8711 60 10 and ex 8711 60 90 (TARIC code 8711 60 90 10) (‘the product under review’).

(25)

The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(26)

As established in the original investigation, this expiry review investigation confirmed that the following products have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses:

(27)

These products are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(28)

Following definitive disclosure, one party submitted that the Commission should specify that the parts imported by the exempted importers and/or from exempted foreign exporters under Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1279 (7) should not be regarded as product concerned. According to this party, it should be clarified that parts of the product concerned to be used for the product concerned are not subject to anti-dumping duties if imported separately.

(29)

The Commission considered that such clarification was not warranted since parts are not covered by the measures that are subject of this review. On this basis, this claim was rejected.

(30)

During the review investigation period, imports of electric bicycles from the PRC continued, albeit at lower levels than in the investigation period of the original investigation (i.e. from 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2017). According to Eurostat data, imports of electric bicycles from the PRC accounted for about 4,4 % of the Union market in the review investigation period compared to 35 % market share during the original investigation period. In absolute terms the volume of imports from the PRC went down from 699 658 pieces in the original investigation period to 220 914 pieces during the review investigation period.

(31)

As mentioned in Section 1.6.3, there was no cooperation from the exporters/producers from the PRC in the investigation. Therefore, the Commission informed the authorities of the PRC that due to the absence of cooperation, the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings with regard to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The Commission did not receive any comments or requests for an intervention of the Hearing Officer in this regard.

(32)

Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping were based on facts available, in particular information submitted with the request for review and information obtained from cooperating parties in the course of the review investigation (namely, the applicant and the sampled Union producers).

(33)

Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation tending to show, with regard to the PRC, the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated the investigation on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(34)

In order to obtain information it deemed necessary for its investigation with regard to the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC. In addition, in point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited all interested parties to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence regarding the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation within 37 days of the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union. No questionnaire reply was received from the GOC and no submission on the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was received within the deadline. Subsequently, the Commission informed the GOC that it would use facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation for the determination of the existence of the significant distortions in the PRC.

(35)

In point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also specified that, in view of the evidence available, it had provisionally selected Türkiye as an appropriate representative country pursuant to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation for the purpose of determining the normal value based on undistorted prices or benchmarks. The Commission further stated that it would examine other possibly appropriate countries in accordance with the criteria set out in first indent of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic regulation.

(36)

On 18 July 2024, the Commission informed interested parties by a note to the file (‘the Note to the File’) of the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value, with Türkiye as the representative country. In that note, the Commission provided a list of all factors of production such as raw materials, labour and energy used in the production of electric bicycles. In addition, the Commission informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) costs and profits based on aggregated financial statements from Company Accounts Statistics (8) for 206 profitable companies active in the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities, commonly referred to as NACE, category 30.9 ‘Manufacture of transport equipment n.e.c.’. The data for those producers in the representative country, is compiled by the Central Bank of Türkiye and the Turkish Statistical Institute. Parties were invited to comment, and comments were received from the applicant which were taken into account as described in recital (67).

(37)

According to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation, ‘the normal value shall normally be based on the prices paid or payable, in the ordinary course of trade, by independent customers in the exporting country’.

(38)

However, according to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, ‘in case it is determined […] that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence in that country of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b), the normal value shall be constructed exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks’ , and ‘shall include an undistorted and reasonable amount of administrative, selling and general costs and for profits’ (‘administrative, selling and general costs’ is hereinafter referred to as ‘SG&A’).

(39)

As further explained below, the Commission concluded in the present investigation that, based on the evidence available, and in view of the lack of cooperation of the GOC and the producers in China, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.

(40)

Steel and aluminium are core raw materials in the bicycle industry. Essentially all major bicycle parts are fully or partially made from these materials. Bicycles frames, forks and handlebars, are usually made of either steel or aluminium. Wheels and spokes chains, derailleurs, gears and cables and carriers are usually made out of steel. Mudguards and pedals are made out of metal or plastic (i.e. products of the chemical industry). The request mentioned the significant distortions found by the European Commission in the Chinese steel and aluminium industries in recent investigations such as imports from China of steel fasteners, welded tubes and pipes of steel, steel wind towers, hot rolled stainless steel (9); aluminium converter foil, aluminium extrusions, aluminium flat-rolled products, aluminium foil, and aluminium road wheels (10). The repeated and consistent findings in these cases are according to the request, clear evidence of systemic distortions of Chinese costs and prices of steel and aluminium products in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation.

(41)

Like in previous investigations concerning the steel and aluminium sectors in the PRC, the Commission examined in the present investigation whether it was appropriate or not to use domestic prices and costs in the PRC, due to the existence of significant distortions. The Commission did so on the basis of the evidence available on the file, including the evidence contained in the request, and in the Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the Purposes of Trade Defence Investigations (11) (‘Report’) as well as in its updated version (‘updated Report’) (12), which relies on publicly available sources. That analysis covered the examination of the substantial government interventions in the PRC’s economy in general, but also the specific market situation in the relevant sector including the product under review. The Commission further supplemented these evidentiary elements with its own research on the various criteria relevant to confirm the existence of significant distortions in the PRC as also found by its previous investigations in this respect.

(42)

The request alleged that the Chinese economy as a whole is widely influenced and affected by substantial governmental interventions, in view of which domestic prices and costs of the Chinese electric bicycles industry cannot be used in the present investigation. In particular, the request mentioned that the Chinese electric bicycles industry has been characterised by a high level of State ownership, State-influence and/or State-subsidisation and several electric bicycle producers have close ties with the GOC, regional or local governments, either directly or via associations. To support its position, the request referred to the Report, to Chinese legislation, to further reports, as well as to additional anecdotal evidence of distortions implemented during the review investigation period.

(43)

As mentioned in recital (40) above, the request mentioned recent investigations where the Commission found that there is substantial government intervention in the PRC resulting in a distortion of the effective allocation of resources in line with market principles (13). More specifically, the request argued that the Chinese economy, including the electric bicycles and bicycles sector, is to a significant degree determined by an elaborate system of planning which sets out priorities and prescribes the goals on which the central and local governments must focus. These policies discriminate in favour of domestic producers or otherwise influence free market forces. The request also mentioned that the system of planning in China results in resources being driven to sectors designated as strategic or otherwise politically important by the government, rather than being allocated in line with market forces. In addition, the request mentioned that the cost of most, if not all, production factors of Chinese electric bicycles production are distorted, including steel and aluminium for bicycle parts, electricity, land, and labour costs.

(44)

The request provided examples of elements pointing to the existence of distortions, as listed in the first to sixth dash of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. The request also established that the electric bicycles industry and its parts (namely battery, engine, control units and light metal components) are regarded as key/strategic industries, whose development is actively pursued by the GOC as a policy objective. In particular, the request submitted that the GOC has been heavily promoting the Chinese bicycle and electric bicycles industry, through national, regional and local instruments such as the 14th 5-Year General Plan (14); the Made in China 2025 Notice (15); the Catalogue of Industries Encouraged for Foreign Investment in the Central and Western Region of China (16) (2020 Version) and the Guidance Catalogue for the Industrial Structure Adjustment (17) (batteries and lightweight material). The request also mentioned several provinces, among them, e.g. Tianjin, Hebei, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shandong and Guangdong, which have included the bicycle and/or electric vehicle industry in their regional plans.

(45)

In conclusion, the request took the position that prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials, energy and labour, are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by substantial government intervention within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. On that basis, according to the request, it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs to establish normal value in this case.

(46)

The GOC did not comment or provide evidence supporting or rebutting the existing evidence on the case file, including the (updated) Report and the additional evidence provided by the applicant, on the existence of significant distortions and/or appropriateness of the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation in the case at hand.

(47)

The Commission’s investigation confirmed the claim contained in the request that the electric bicycles industry keeps being regarded as a key industry by the GOC. This is confirmed in the numerous plans, directives and other documents focused on promoting the bicycles industry in general and the electric bicycles industry in particular, which are issued at national, regional, and municipal level.

(48)

The 14th 5-Year General Plan mentioned specifically the Chinese electric bicycles industry as an encouraged industry. In addition, the electric bicycles industry has been listed as encouraged industry in various catalogues adopted by the GOC, such as those mentioned in recital (44) above.

(49)

Moreover, the GOC and regional governments have also issued sector-specific plans and support programs for the bicycles industry. For instance, the 2022 Guiding Opinion on the high-quality development of light industry MIIT 2022/68 (18) provides specific information regarding key technology R & D projects mentioning bicycle transmission and high-efficiency lithium ion battery safety technology. It also includes information about upgrading innovative product manufacturing engineering concerning bicycles like long-distance off-road and high-performance folding bicycles as well as intelligent electric bicycles. The 2024 Electric Bicycle Industry Standard Conditions (19) and the Electric Bicycle Industry Standard Announcement Management Measures (MIIT) (20) were announced by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People’s Republic of China, the State Administration for Market Regulation, and the National Fire and Rescue Bureau in order to promote the development of electric bicycle industry, the announcement mentioned that ‘new production enterprises and new and expanded projects should comply with the provisions of national industrial policies. Enterprises should strengthen technological innovation, improve product quality, encourage the high-end, intelligent, and green transformation and upgrading of existing production lines, and reduce construction projects that simply expand production capacity. Encourage regions with conditions to promote the park-based and intensive development of the electric bicycle industry’. In addition, the announcement included information regarding supervision and management of the electric bicycles industry, mentioning that ‘Industry associations shall organize enterprises to strengthen industry self-discipline, guide enterprises to engage in production and business activities in accordance with the law, and assist the industry competent department in the implementation and follow-up supervision of these standard conditions’.

(50)

Further industrial policy objectives regarding electric bicycles can also be seen in the planning documents of provinces, such as Shandong (21), Hebei (22), Tianjin (23), Jinghai, and Jiansgu (24). Jiangsu Province is the number one province for electric bicycle production in the PRC, and its electric bicycle production accounts for about 20 % of the country’s electric bicycle production (25). It has a high-tech industrial park called Tianjin Ziya Economic and Technological Development Zone which is the leading industrial district in the production of bicycles in general and electric bicycles in particular (26), receiving the ‘China Bicycle and Electric Bicycle Capital’ brand awarded by the expert group of China Light Industry Federation and China Bicycle Association (27).

(51)

As to the GOC being in a position to interfere with prices and costs through State presence in firms in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), second indent of the basic Regulation, the investigation showed that the China Bicycle Association (CBA) is controlled by the Communist party of China as established in the articles of the Association (28). In particular, Article 21 of the CBA established the composition of the Board of Directors and the conditions they have to fulfil including ‘support the leadership of the Communist Party of China, conscientiously implement the Party’s line, principles and policies, abide by laws and regulations, abide by social and professional ethics, and have high political quality and professionalism’. Moreover, the Jiangsu Bicycle Association (29), includes in its Article 4 that the ‘In accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Communist Party of China, this association shall establish the organization of the Communist Party of China, carry out party activities and provide necessary conditions for the activities of the party organization’, and in its Article 5 ‘The registration authority of this association is the Civil Affairs Department of Jiangsu Province. This association accepts the business guidance and supervision and management of the Civil Affairs Department of Jiangsu Province and other relevant departments’.

(52)

Concerning the main producers of electric bicycles, the investigation also found that Fushida is a member of the CBA, and its CEO is a Party Branch secretary (30). Shanghai Phoenix is a company which is 24,36 % owned by the State (31) and the Chairman is a Party Committee Secretary since January 2023. Flying Pigeon is a State-Owned Enterprise held by Tianjin Bohai Light Industry Investment Group, a State-Owned Enterprise Group under SASAC (32). As regards private company Zhonglu co. operating the Shanghai Forever brand, it is to be noted that the Chairman of the company is a deputy secretary of the Party Committee (33).

(53)

Further, policies discriminating in favour of domestic producers or otherwise influencing the market in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), third indent of the basic Regulation are in place in the sector of the product under review. The investigation identified further documents showing that the industry benefits from governmental guidance and intervention into the electric bicycles sector. Moreover, the bicycle industry in Jinghai District was included in the list of characteristic industry clusters of small and medium-sized enterprises in 2023 announced by the Ministry of Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (see recital (49) above) (34).

(54)

No evidence was submitted in the present investigation demonstrating that the electric bicycles sector is not affected by the government intervention in the financial system in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), sixth indent of the basic Regulation. For instance, the investigation confirmed that Shanghai Phoenix benefited from governmental subsidies in 2022 and 2023 as stated in its 2023 Annual Report (35). Zhonglu co, operating the Shanghai Forever brand has also benefited from governmental subsidies as stated in its 2023 Annual Report (36).

(55)

Finally, the Commission recalls that in order to produce the product under review, a number of inputs are needed (see also recital (40) above). When the producers of electric bicycles purchase/contract these inputs, the prices they pay (and which are recorded as their costs) are clearly exposed to the same systemic distortions mentioned before. For instance, suppliers of inputs employ labour that is subject to the distortions. They may borrow money that is subject to the distortions on the financial sector/capital allocation. In addition, they are subject to the planning system that applies across all levels of government and sectors.

(56)

As a consequence, not only the domestic sales prices of electric bicycles are not appropriate for use within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, but all the input costs (including raw materials, energy, land, financing, labour, etc.) are also affected because their price formation is affected by substantial government intervention, as described in Parts I and II of the (updated) Report. Indeed, the government interventions described in relation to the allocation of capital, land, labour, energy and raw materials are present throughout the PRC. This means, for instance, that an input that in itself was produced in the PRC by combining a range of factors of production is exposed to significant distortions. The same applies for the input to the input and so forth.

(57)

In sum, the evidence available showed that prices or costs of the product under review, including the costs of raw materials, energy and labour, are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by substantial government intervention within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation, as shown by the actual or potential impact of one or more of the relevant elements listed therein. On that basis, and in the absence of any cooperation from the GOC, the Commission concluded that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs to establish normal value in this case. Consequently, the Commission proceeded to construct the normal value exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks, that is, in this case, on the basis of corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country, in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, as described in the following section.

(58)

The choice of the representative country was based on the following criteria pursuant to Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation:

(59)

As explained in recital (36), the Commission issued a note to the file on the sources for the determination of the normal value on 18 July 2024. This note described the facts and evidence underlying the relevant criteria, informed interested parties of its intention to consider Türkiye as an appropriate representative country in the present case if the existence of significant distortions pursuant to Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation would be confirmed.

(60)

In line with the criteria listed under Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission identified Türkiye as a country with a similar level of economic development as the PRC. Türkiye is classified by the World Bank as an ‘upper-middle income’ country on a gross national income basis. Furthermore, Türkiye was identified as a country where the product under review is produced and where relevant data was readily available.

(61)

Finally, having established that, based on all of the above elements, Türkiye was an appropriate representative country, and with no alternative appropriate representative country being proposed by any of the interested parties, there was no need to carry out an assessment of the level of social and environmental protection in accordance with the last sentence of Article 2(6a)(a) first indent of the basic Regulation.

(62)

In the absence of cooperation, as proposed in the expiry review request and given that Türkiye met the criteria laid down in Article 2(6a)(a), first indent of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected Türkiye as the appropriate representative country.

(63)

In the note on relevant sources to use for the determination of the normal value, the Commission listed the factors of production such as materials, energy and labour used in the production of the product under review by Union and Turkish producers based on the information in the expiry review request duly updated where more accurate information was available. The Commission also stated that, in order to construct the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, it would use Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’) (39) to establish the undistorted cost of some of the factors of production, notably the most important raw materials. In addition, the Commission stated that it would use information from the Turkish Statistical Institute (40) for establishing undistorted costs of labour and energy.

(64)

The Commission also stated that to establish the reasonable amounts for SG&A costs and for profit, it would use the financial data from Company Account Statistics for 206 companies active in NACE category 30.9, as set out in recital (36).

(65)

The Commission further informed the interested parties that a number of factors of production (paint, undercoat and EPAC electric kit) all individually represented a small share of the total raw material / component costs in the review investigation period (together less than 1 % of the total raw material / component costs). The Commission therefore treated these other factors of production as ‘consumables’ and expressed these consumables as a percentage of the total cost of raw materials.

(66)

In addition, the Commission included a value for manufacturing overhead costs in order to cover costs not included in the factors of production referred to above. The Commission established the ratio of manufacturing overheads to the direct costs of manufacturing, based on specific information from Union producers and their related companies, provided by the applicant (41).

(67)

In light of the applicant’s comments on the Note to the File, the Commission made two changes to the list of the factors of production as follows. First, a clerical error was corrected where the information related to batteries was inadvertently switched with the information for the electric motor for bicycles. Second, for four factors of production (crank sets, pedals, rear hub and front hub) the commodity codes used in the note were replaced with more accurate commodity codes directly related to the parts concerned. These changes were reflected in Table 1.

(68)

Considering all the information based on the request and subsequent information submitted by the applicant and collected during the verification visits, the following factors of production and their sources have been identified in order to determine the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation:

Table 1

Factors of production of e-bikes

(69)

The production processes of e-bikes are globally similar, with no significant differences between the production processes or the input materials used in the PRC, the Union and other countries.

(70)

In order to establish the undistorted price of raw materials as delivered at the gate of a representative country producer, the Commission used as a basis the weighted average import price to the representative country as reported in the GTA to which import duties were added. An import price in the representative country was determined as a weighted average of unit prices of imports from all third countries excluding the PRC and countries which are not members of the WTO, listed in Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and the Council (43). The Commission decided to exclude imports from the PRC into the representative country as it concluded in recital (57) that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the PRC due to the existence of significant distortions in accordance with Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. Given that there is no evidence showing that the same distortions do not equally affect products intended for export, the Commission considered that the same distortions affected export prices. After excluding imports from the PRC into the representative country, the volume of imports from other third countries remained representative.

(71)

The Commission did not find any other imports in material quantities from other distorted sources.

(72)

For some factors of production, the statistical data from GTA provided prices per tonne/kilogram, while the consumption values in the production of an e-bike were in pieces (or other units such as metres). This concerned the following factors of production: switches, brakes, crank sets, rear derailleurs, rear sprockets, shifters, front hubs, rear hub, spokes, rear hubs, decals, head sets, pedals, saddles, seat clamps, and seat posts. For the conversion factors to be used for these factors of production, the Commission relied on the explanations and supporting evidence provided by the applicants in the request (44). This evidence consisted of information from specialised websites (45) and the applicants’ own calculations of weight per item (46).

(73)

For a number of factors of production the actual costs incurred by the sampled Union producers represented a negligible share of total raw material costs in the review investigation period. As the value used for these factors of production had no appreciable impact on the dumping margin calculations, regardless of the source used, the Commission decided to include those costs in consumables as explained in recital (65).

(74)

In view of lack of cooperation and in the absence of other elements on file, based on the data provided by the applicant, the Commission established the ratio of consumables to the total raw material / components costs at 1 %. This percentage was then applied to the recalculated cost of raw materials / components when using the established undistorted prices.

(75)

Normally, domestic transport prices should also be added to these import prices. However, considering the absence of cooperation as well as the nature of this expiry review investigation, which is focused on finding whether dumping continued during the review investigation period or could reoccur, rather than finding its exact magnitude, the Commission decided that adjustments for domestic transport were unnecessary. Such adjustments would only result in increasing the normal value and hence the dumping margin.

(76)

The Turkish Statistical Institute publishes detailed information on wages in different economic sectors in Türkiye. The Commission used the latest available statistics (2022) for average labour cost in NACE Sector 30 which includes costs for labour in the manufacturing of e-bikes (47). The hourly average labour costs thus obtained were further adjusted for inflation using the labour cost index (48) to reflect the costs for the review investigation period.

(77)

To establish the benchmark price for electricity, the Commission used prices as reported in the electricity tariff tables based on electricity bills published by the Turkish Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA) in its regular press releases (49). The Commission used the data related to the industrial electricity prices in Kuruş/kWh for the industrial sector for 2023, which was 0,892 CNY/kWh.

(78)

To establish the benchmark price for gas, the Commission used the price of gas for industrial users in Türkiye as published by the Turkish Statistical Institute (50) in its regular press releases for the second semester of 2021 and the first semester of 2022. The Commission used the data of the gas prices in the corresponding consumption band in Kuruş/m3 duly adjusted for inflation using the Producer Price Index published by the Turkish Statistical Institute (51) to adapt to the review investigation period (2023), which resulted in a price of 4,112 CNY/m3. The price was adjusted for VAT of 18 %, as the quoted price was VAT included.

(79)

According to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, ‘the constructed normal value shall include an undistorted and reasonable amount for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits’. In addition, a value for manufacturing overhead costs needs to be established to cover costs not included in the factors of production referred to above.

(80)

In order to establish an undistorted value of the manufacturing overheads and given the absence of cooperation from Chinese e-bike producers, the Commission used facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Therefore, based on the data provided by the applicant, the Commission established the ratio of manufacturing overheads to the total manufacturing and labour costs. This percentage was then applied to the undistorted value of the cost of manufacturing to obtain the undistorted value of manufacturing overheads.

(81)

For establishing an undistorted and reasonable amount for SG&A and profit, the Commission relied on the most recent available financial data for 206 Turkish companies active in NACE category 30.9, as set out in recital (36). The Commission considered the amount for SG&A costs and profits so established to be reasonable within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(a), for the ex-works trade level at which the normal value was constructed.

(82)

On the basis of the above, the Commission constructed the normal value per product type on an ex-works basis in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(83)

First, the Commission established the undistorted manufacturing costs. In the absence of cooperation by the exporting producers, the Commission relied on the information provided by the applicant in the review request (52), verified on spot at one of the sampled union producers, on the usage of each factor (materials, energy and labour) for the production of e-bikes. The Commission multiplied the usage factors by the undistorted costs per unit observed in the representative country Türkiye.

(84)

Once the undistorted manufacturing cost established, the Commission added the manufacturing overheads, SG&A costs and profit as noted in recitals (79)-(80). Manufacturing overheads were determined based on data provided by the applicant. SG&A costs and profit were determined based on the average of the values reported for the 206 Turkish companies active in NACE category 30.9 for 2022 (53). The Commission added the following items to the undistorted costs of manufacturing:

(85)

On that basis, the Commission constructed the normal value on an ex-works basis in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(86)

In the absence of cooperation by exporting producers from the PRC, the export price was determined based on CIF (Eurostat) data corrected to an ex-works level. Thus, the CIF price was reduced by the (sea) freight and insurance cost, and domestic transport cost. Domestic Chinese and international transport costs were based on information provided by the applicant in the request for review.

(87)

The Commission compared the constructed normal value established in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation and the export price on an ex-works basis as established above. Considering that both the normal value and the export price were established at the ex-works level of trade, no adjustments were necessary.

(88)

On this basis, the average dumping margin was found to be significant.. It was therefore concluded that dumping continued during the review investigation period.

(89)

Further to the finding of the existence of dumping during the review investigation period, the Commission investigated, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the likelihood of continuation of dumping, should the measures lapse. The following additional elements were analysed: the production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC, the relation between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union, and the attractiveness of the Union market. It is recalled that due to the non-cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers, as well as the GOC, the analysis was based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, in particular the request for review, GTA statistics and other available information.

(90)

In the absence of cooperation by the GOC and the Chinese exporting producers, the Commission based its findings regarding production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC on the information provided by the applicant in its request for review.

(91)

The investigation has shown that there was a general overcapacity in the e-bikes sector in the PRC during the period considered. The production capacity (54) in the PRC during this period was estimated to be 130 million pieces per year. In addition, Chinese production of standard bicycles can be easily switched to producing e-bikes, with a potential total capacity of over 400 million pieces (55). According to the applicant’s market intelligence, Chinese actual production and sales of e-bikes amounted to 57 million pieces per year, which indicated an estimated spare capacity of 73 million pieces per year during the review investigation period (56). This spare capacity, which was almost fifteen times the total Union consumption during the same period, could be diverted to the Union if the current measures would lapse.

(92)

Based on the above, the Commission concluded that the Chinese exporting producers have significant spare capacities, which could be used for exports to the Union in large quantities at dumped prices if the measures were allowed to lapse.

(93)

Based on the information provided in the expiry review request, the Union market for e-bikes remained attractive to Chinese exporters. Since the original investigation, imports from the PRC have decreased both in absolute and in relative terms. However, since 2020, when import volumes from China were at its lowest, imports increased significantly and almost doubled despite the measures in place (see Table 3 below). The market share previously held by the PRC has in part been taken over by other third countries such as Taiwan, which has increased its export volumes of the product under review to the Union since the previous investigation. At the same time, the PRC was still the second largest exporter of e-bikes to the Union during the review investigation period. This shows that the Union remained an attractive market for exporters from the PRC.

(94)

The Union market for e-bikes is one of the largest in the world, with a consumption of 4 979 000 pieces during the review investigation period. In addition, as explained in the expiry review request, e-bike demand is expected to grow in the coming years due to (among other things) environmental policies in the Union. Evidence provided by the applicant in the expiry review request (57) and supported by the findings in this investigation (see recital (147)) showed that Chinese producers were offering e-bikes at very low prices (between EUR 210 and EUR 650) both to the Union and third countries during the review investigation period.

(95)

Even with the measures in place, Chinese exports to the Union continued, and even increased in the period considered to obtain a market share of 4,4 % in the review investigation period, which showed that the Union market remains attractive to Chinese exporting producers.

(96)

Therefore, based on the significant overcapacity in the PRC and the attractiveness of the Union market, the Commission concluded that, should the current measures lapse, it is likely that the Chinese exporting producers would redirect exports towards the Union in large quantities, at dumped prices.

(97)

In view of its findings on the continuation of dumping during the review investigation period and on the likely development of increasing exports should the measures lapse, the Commission concluded that there is a strong likelihood that the expiry of the anti-dumping measures on imports from the PRC would result in the continuation of dumping.

(98)

The like product was manufactured by 67 producers in the Union during the period considered. They constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(99)

The total Union production in the review investigation period was established at around 4 560 000 pieces. This number was established on the basis of available information concerning the Union industry, such as The European Bicycle Industry & Market Profile report, and an economic study carried out by the Confederation of the European Bicycle Industry (‘CONEBI’). As indicated in recital (11), three Union producers were selected in the sample representing 23,4 % of the total Union production of the like product.

(100)

The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of Eurostat import statistics and sales volume of the Union industry in the Union, as submitted by CONEBI.

(101)

Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 2

Union consumption (pieces)

(102)

The total consumption of e-bikes in the EU increased from approximately 4,3 million e-bikes in 2020 to 5,3 million e-bikes in 2022. Design and performance improvements, combined with a greater environmental awareness among EU citizens, has led to a constant increase in e-bike consumption. However, in the review investigation period the consumption of e-bikes in the EU decreased by 346 000 pieces in comparison to 2022 following a drop in demand that occurred some time after the lifting of the last COVID-19 measures in the first half of 2022.

(103)

The Commission established the volume of imports on the basis of Eurostat data.

(104)

The market share of the imports was then established by comparing import volumes with the Union consumption as shown in Table 2.

(105)

Imports into the Union from the PRC developed as follows:

Table 3

Import volume (pieces) and market share

(106)

Even with the measures in place, the market share of Chinese imports increased from 2,3 % in 2020 to 4,4 % in the review investigation period.

(107)

The Commission established the prices of imports on the basis of Eurostat data.

(108)

The average price of imports into the Union from the PRC developed as follows:

Table 4

Import prices (EUR/piece)

(109)

The average prices of imports from the PRC have continued to be extremely low during the period considered. In 2020 and 2021, the prices reported by Eurostat were even lower than the average prices found in the initial investigation (i.e. between EUR 422 and EUR 477).

(110)

Based on Eurostat data, prices in 2022 were temporarily higher, but still lower than Chinese import prices in 2016 (i.e. EUR 477).

(111)

Since there was no cooperation from exporting producers in the PRC, the Commission determined the price undercutting during the review investigation period by comparing:

(112)

The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers’ turnover during the review investigation period. The price undercutting ranged from 68 % to 80 %. Without the duties, the price undercutting amounted to 82,8 %.

(113)

The imports of e-bikes from third countries other than the PRC were mainly from Taiwan and Vietnam.

(114)

The (aggregated) volume of imports into the Union as well as the market share and price trends for imports of e-bikes from other third countries developed as follows:

Table 5

Imports from third countries

(115)

The market shares of total imports of the product under review from third countries other than the PRC increased between 2020-2022 and reached 20,3 % in 2022. However, in the review investigation period it dropped to 16,3 %, a lower level than in 2020.

(116)

The assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

(117)

As mentioned in recital (11), sampling was used for the assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry.

(118)

For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of the information provided by CONEBI. The data related to all Union producers. The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.

(119)

The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, employment, productivity, magnitude of the dumping margin, and recovery from past dumping.

(120)

The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital.

(121)

The total Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 6

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

(122)

The production capacity and production in the Union increased steadily in the period from 2020 to 2022 as a consequence of an increased demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in the review investigation period there was a decrease in production volumes and capacities due to increased stock build-up during COVID-19, where Union producers anticipated continued sales at high accelerated level, which did not happen as, after COVID-19, demand fell significantly.

(123)

The Union industry’s sales volume and market share developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 7

Sales volume and market share (pieces)

(124)

Sales increased over the period considered, especially because of an increased demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, once COVID-19 measures were lifted, the demand for e-bikes dropped which resulted in lower sales figures in the review investigation period. Furthermore, the economic situation in 2022 and the review investigation period (higher energy costs, inflation, in particular) had an effect not only on the Union industry but also on consumers, in particular those with less purchasing power. Therefore, the Union industry’s sales stagnated in the review investigation period compared to 2022, while market share of the Union industry increased by 4,5 percentage points.

(125)

Employment and productivity developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 8

Employment and productivity

(126)

The Union industry increased the level of employment by 28 % in the period considered. Most of this increase occurred between 2020 and 2022 as a consequence of an increased demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023 there was a drop in number of employees due to the decrease in production volumes. Productivity remained rather stable in the period considered.

(127)

As sales remained stable in the review investigation period in comparison to 2022, while consumption decreased, the Union industry managed to increase its market share by 4,5 % in that period.

(128)

The level of imports from the PRC during the review investigation period was relatively limited, representing 4,4 % of Union consumption. Therefore, the impact of the magnitude of dumping on the Union industry was rather limited.

(129)

The weighted average unit sales prices of the sampled Union producers to unrelated customers in the Union developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 9

Sales prices and cost of production in the Union (EUR/piece)

(130)

The average sales prices of the sampled Union producers, as well as the production costs, increased in the period considered, which in 2020 and 2021 mainly reflected a change in the product mix and the technological advancements in e-bike motors and batteries, while in 2022 and the review investigation period that increase also reflected increased production costs due to the general economic situation marked with inflation and higher energy costs.

(131)

The average labour costs of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 10

Average labour costs per employee

(132)

Even though there a decrease in number of employees in the review investigation period in comparison to 2022 following a drop in demand, the average labours costs per employee steadily increased in the period considered.

(133)

Stock levels of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 11

Inventories

(134)

The increases in the inventories were due to the increased stock build-up during COVID-19 where there was a significant increase in demand, combined with the supply chain issues as Union producers were overordering raw materials and components in order to meet production requirements. However, once supply chain issues were resolved, Union producers received more raw materials and components than needed. This was followed by a drop in demand for e-bikes in the review investigation period, in comparison to 2022, which left the Union producers with very high numbers of inventories at the end of the review investigation period.

(135)

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 12

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments

(136)

The Commission established the profitability of the sampled Union producers by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. The sampled Union producers remained profitable over the period considered. In the review investigation period, the profitability, however, dropped due to increased costs.

(137)

The overall stable profitability in the period considered allowed the Union industry to make large investments.

(138)

The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. The cash flow decreased significantly over the period considered and turned negative in 2023. The return on investments also deteriorated, which made it more difficult for the Union industry to raise capital and grow. This resulted in a drop in investments of 50 % in the review investigation period in comparison to 2022.

(139)

Macro indicators such as Union production, sales and employment steadily increased in the period from 2020 to 2022, as a consequence of an increased demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in the review investigation period production volumes, capacities, sales and employment decreased, due to increased stock build-up during the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by a decrease in demand as a result of the lifting of the COVID-19 measures and the change in the economic situation in the Union, marked by in particular high energy costs and inflation.

(140)

As regards the microeconomic indicators, the investigation established that the profitability of the sampled Union producers in period from 2020 to 2022 remained above 7 %. However, in the review investigation period, the Union industry’s profitability dropped to 5,4 %. Cash flow decreased from 2020 to 2022 and turned negative in 2023. The return on investments also deteriorated, which made it more difficult for the Union industry to raise capital and grow.

(141)

On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry had recovered from past material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, caused by dumped imports from the PRC. However, during the period considered, a number of injury indicators deteriorated, and the Union industry returned to an economically fragile situation. Therefore, the Commission further examined the likelihood of recurrence of injury originally caused by dumped imports from the PRC if the measures were to be repealed.

(142)

The Commission analysed the following elements to establish the likelihood of recurrence of injury should the measures be repealed: the production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC, the relation between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union and the impact of potential imports and price levels of such imports from these countries on the Union industry’s situation.

(143)

As already described and detailed in Section 3.10.1 above, the exporting producers in the PRC have significant spare capacities which could be used to produce the product under review for export to the Union if measures were allowed to lapse. The quantities that could be exported by Chinese exporting producers amount to 73 million pieces, exceeding by far the size of the Union market.

(144)

As described and detailed in Section 3.10.2 above, the Union market for e-bikes is one of the largest in the world and e-bike demand is expected to grow in the coming years due to, among other points, environmental policies in the Union. The Chinese exporting producers exported to their main third markets at prices significantly below the average sales prices of the Union producers on the Union market during the review investigation period. Therefore, exporting to the Union is potentially much more attractive for Chinese exporters. Consequently, it can be reasonably expected that, should the measures be repealed, Chinese exporting producers would start to export high volumes of the product under review to the Union.

(145)

In order to establish how the imports from the PRC would affect the Union industry should the measures be terminated, the Commission performed a comparative price analysis without the existence of anti-dumping measures.

(146)

In order to estimate the likely price at which Chinese producers would sell when exporting to the Union market, the Commission made a price comparison between the sampled Union producers average price (ex-works) to the corresponding average price of the product under review from the PRC when exported to third countries such as the United Kingdom, Türkiye, Norway or Serbia, which have separate codes for e-bikes and no measures in place.

(147)

The result of the comparison showed that the average price of Chinese exports of the product concerned to the above countries varied from EUR 210 to EUR 650, i.e. significantly lower than the Union industry’s price on the Union market. Therefore, should the measures be allowed to lapse it would thus be likely that imports from the PRC would enter the market in high volumes, as in the investigation period of the original investigation and at low prices which would cause injury.

(148)

In view of the above, the conclusion is that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of dumped imports from the PRC at injurious price levels. As a consequence, the viability of the Union industry would be at serious risk.

(149)

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users.

(150)

The investigation showed that should the measures expire it would have a negative effect on the Union industry. The measures have re-established a level playing field on the Union market. This has allowed new companies to enter the market, especially in the entry level and mid-range segments. The number of known e-bike Union producers almost doubled from approximately 37 in 2020 to 67 in 2023, despite challenges resulting from the economic situation in 2022-2023. The number of e-bikes produced in the Union increased by more than 1 million between 2020 (3,4 million) and 2023 (4,5 million) and is forecasted to increase further. The number of direct employees has increased from around 3 500 in the original investigation period to almost 11 000 in the review investigation period.

(151)

A termination of the anti-dumping measures would put Union producers at high-risk, especially those serving the entry-level and mid-range e-bike segments, which include many smaller producers across the Union industry.

(152)

Compounding the vulnerable situation is the fact that the production of e-bikes is a highly capital intense business, because substantial stocks of bicycle parts are required at all times to maintain production. In addition, Union producers have made large investments in sustainable and environmentally friendly production and product improvements over the last years. Termination of the anti-dumping measures would block development of practical engineering know-how for the application of ultimate high technologies, including automation and new materials.

(153)

In addition, according to the expiry review request, the Union e-bikes industry is one of the largest green industries, with more than 1 000 small and medium-sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) having provided approximately 80 000 jobs according to The European Bicycle Industry & Market Profile report 2024. This includes jobs in direct and indirect production jobs, upstream industries, bicycle accessories, bicycle dealerships, etc.

(154)

On the basis of the above, the extension of the measures is in the interest of the Union industry.

(155)

The Commission contacted all known users and unrelated importers.

(156)

Following initiation, the only party that came forward and provided comments was an ad hoc Group, on behalf of 8 small companies in the Union which assemble e-bike parts imported from China and other third countries. Their main comment related to the implementation of the measures against imports of (conventional) bicycle parts from China, which creates uncertainty about the legal rules of the import of e-bike components and, hence, renders it difficult to import parts of e-bikes, which are not subject to measures. The group opposed the extension of the measures, mainly due to the current problems with the imports of components, coupled with the risk of extension of the measures to these e-bikes components, and argued that using market surveillance to scrutinise compliance of imports from the PRC with all pertinent regulations would be more efficient to address imports of unfairly traded e-bikes from China which are often illegal and unsafe.

(157)

The Commission considered, however, that it is not realistic that market surveillance and regulatory measures only can prevent injury caused by imports of dumped e-bikes from the PRC. Also, customs enforcement issues in relation to the imports of e-bikes components cannot justify the termination of the measures, which have achieved the intended effect. In any event, the enforcement of measures falls outside the scope of the investigation.

(158)

Following disclosure, the ad hoc Group reiterated the same claims. It argued that the Commission should focus on strengthening market surveillance rather than extending trade defence measures to address the root causes of market distortions and ensure a level playing field for all stakeholders. According to the ad hoc Group, trade defence measures inadvertently create a regulatory framework that fosters imports of sub standardised and unsafe bikes while making the life of serious e-bikes manufacturers from the PRC with long-term ambitions on Union market difficult.

(159)

The Commission considered that the arguments raised by the ad hoc Group were already addressed in recital (156). Since no new comments of substance on these matters were brought forward, the conclusion in recital (157) was confirmed.

(160)

The ad hoc Group also argued that repealing the trade defence measures would not lead to a significant increase in injurious imports as, according to them, a modest 4,4 % market share of Chinese imports during the RIP undermined the claim that Chinese imports pose a significant threat.

(161)

The Commission considered that the increase of market share to 4,4 % in the RIP took place in a situation with trade defence measures in place. Because of the trade defence measures, Chinese imports only gained 2,1 percentage points market share during the period considered. Considering the attractiveness of the Union market, the production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC and the relation between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union, the Commission concluded that if measures are to be repealed there would be a significant increase of dumped imports from the PRC at injurious price levels. On this basis, this claim was rejected.

(162)

Furthermore, the ad hoc Group claimed that the Commission relied on unverified information and claims which compromises the impartiality of the investigation, especially those coming from the applicant.

(163)

As mentioned in recitals (31) and (32), the Commission applied Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings with regard to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury as there was no cooperation from the exporters/producers from the PRC in the investigation. Consequently, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury were based on facts available, in particular information submitted with the request for review and information obtained from cooperating parties in the course of the review investigation (namely, the applicant and the sampled Union producers). All information submitted by the sampled Union producers was thoroughly verified. On this basis, this claim was rejected.

(164)

No users or unrelated importers came forward and cooperated in this investigation by submitting a questionnaire reply apart from the above-mentioned submission. On the basis of the information available to the Commission, it found that there was no evidence contradicting the conclusion in the original investigation that the negative effects on unrelated importers could not be considered disproportionate and was mitigated by the availability of alternative sources of supply. The positive effects of the countervailing measures on the Union market, in particular on the Union industry, outweighed the potential negative effect on the other interest groups. Indeed, the investigation confirmed that, in addition to China, there are increasingly other source of supply from third countries. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the continuation of measures would not be disproportionally detrimental to users and importers.

(165)

On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons of Union interest against the maintenance of the existing measures on imports of the product under review originating in the PRC.

(166)

On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on continuation of dumping, recurrence of injury and Union interest, the anti-dumping measures on imports of electric bicycles originating in the PRC should be maintained.

(167)

To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The application of individual anti-dumping duties is only applicable upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this regulation. Until such invoice is presented, imports should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(168)

While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rates of anti-dumping duty and exemptions to imports, it is not the only element to be taken into account by the customs authorities. Indeed, even if presented with an invoice meeting all the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation, the customs authorities of Member States must carry out their usual checks and may, like in all other cases, require additional documents (shipping documents etc.) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration and ensure that the subsequent application of the lower rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

(169)

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 rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

(170)

The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are exclusively applicable to imports of the product under review originating in the PRC and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product under review produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’. They should not be subject to any of the individual anti-dumping duty rates.

(171)

A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it subsequently changes the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission (58). The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a regulation about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(172)

All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

(173)

An exporter or producer that did not export the product concerned to the Union during the period that was used to set the level of the duty currently applicable to its exports may request the Commission to be made subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies not included in the sample. The Commission should grant such request, provided that three conditions are met. The new exporting producer would have to demonstrate that: (i) it did not export the product concerned to the Union during the period that was used to set the level of the duty applicable to its exports; (ii) it is not related to a company that did so and thus is subject to the anti-dumping duties; and (iii) has exported the product concerned thereafter or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to do so in substantial quantities.

(174)

In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council (59) when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.

(175)

The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,