Pending: 32017R1019

17.6.2017 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 155/6
(1) The European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated on 31 March 2016(2)an investigation following a complaint lodged on 15 February 2016 by the European Steel Association (‘EUROFER’ or ‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of rebars.
(2) The Commission imposed on 20 December 2016 a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods originating in the Republic of Belarus (‘Belarus’ or ‘the country concerned’) by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2303(3)(‘the provisional Regulation’).
(3) Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘the provisional disclosure’), the complainant and the sole Belarusian exporting producer made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.
(4) Hearings took place with the Belarusian exporting producer and with Union producers.
(5) The Commission considered the oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties and, where appropriate, modified the provisional findings.
(6) In order to verify the questionnaires replies mentioned in recitals (124) and (133) of the provisional Regulation, which were not verified at the provisional stage of the procedure, verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following parties:a)Unrelated importer in the Union:—Duferco Deutschland GmbH, Germanyb)Union users:—ATG Deutschland GmbH, Germany—Tilts Ltd, Latvia a) Unrelated importer in the Union:—Duferco Deutschland GmbH, Germany — Duferco Deutschland GmbH, Germany b) Union users:—ATG Deutschland GmbH, Germany—Tilts Ltd, Latvia — ATG Deutschland GmbH, Germany — Tilts Ltd, Latvia
a) Unrelated importer in the Union:—Duferco Deutschland GmbH, Germany — Duferco Deutschland GmbH, Germany
— Duferco Deutschland GmbH, Germany
b) Union users:—ATG Deutschland GmbH, Germany—Tilts Ltd, Latvia — ATG Deutschland GmbH, Germany — Tilts Ltd, Latvia
— ATG Deutschland GmbH, Germany
— Tilts Ltd, Latvia
a) Unrelated importer in the Union:—Duferco Deutschland GmbH, Germany — Duferco Deutschland GmbH, Germany
— Duferco Deutschland GmbH, Germany
— Duferco Deutschland GmbH, Germany
b) Union users:—ATG Deutschland GmbH, Germany—Tilts Ltd, Latvia — ATG Deutschland GmbH, Germany — Tilts Ltd, Latvia
— ATG Deutschland GmbH, Germany
— Tilts Ltd, Latvia
— ATG Deutschland GmbH, Germany
— Tilts Ltd, Latvia
(7) The Commission informed all parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intends to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of rebars (‘the definitive disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the definitive disclosure. After definitive disclosure, in the light of the findings as established in recitals (18) to (24) of the General Disclosure Document the Commission analysed injury indicators excluding data pertaining to the Italian market for which all parties were informed (the additional final disclosure). Subsequently, all parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the additional disclosure. The comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.
(8) In the absence of comments concerning the method of sampling, the provisional findings set out in recitals (7) to (10) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(9) In the absence of comments concerning the investigation period (‘IP’) and the period considered, the periods established in recital (14) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(10) As set out in recitals (15) to (16) of the provisional Regulation, the product subject to investigation was defined as ‘certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods, made of iron or non-alloy steel, not further worked than forged, hot-rolled, hot-drawn or hot-extruded, but including those twisted after rolling and also those containing indentations, ribs, grooves or other deformations produced during the rolling process, originating in Belarus and currently falling within CN codes ex 7214 10 00, ex 7214 20 00, ex 7214 30 00, ex 7214 91 10, ex 7214 91 90, ex 7214 99 10, ex 7214 99 71, ex 7214 99 79 and ex 7214 99 95 (‘rebars’ or ‘the product concerned’). High fatigue performance iron or steel concrete reinforcing bars and rods are excluded’.
(11) Already at provisional stage of the investigation, the exporting producer from Belarus pointed to an alleged inconsistency between the complaint (referring to two CN codes) and the notice of initiation (NoI) (referring to nine CN codes). After explanations given in this regard in the provisional regulation, the Belarussian exporter changed the nature of its claim and requested the inclusion of an additional sentence in the descriptive part of the product concerned in order to make it clear that round bars and other types of bars without indents, ribs or other deformations, which are also covered by the additional seven CN codes, are not included in the product concerned.
(12) On the other hand, contrary to the claim of the Belarusian company, the complainant claimed that round bars and other bars without deformation should be included in the product scope.
(13) After careful examination, the Commission concludes that the descriptive part of definition of the product concerned in the complaint and in the NoI clearly does not encompass round bars and bars without deformation and, therefore, these bars fall outside the product scope. Furthermore, all the data concerning product concerned collected for the dumping calculations and injury analysis did not include data referring to the round bars or bars without deformation. Therefore, the definition of the product scope should make it clear that round bars and bars without deformation are not part of the product concerned. Hence, the Commission accepts the changes in the description of the product concerned suggested by the Belarusian exporting producer. During this assessment, the Commission verified that the CN codes ex 7214 99 71 and ex 7214 99 79 referred exclusively to round bars and bars without deformation and, therefore, excluded the reference made to them in the definition of the product scope. The Commission also noticed that these bars had been incorrectly included in the information set out in recitals (62), (63), (65) and (103) of the provisional Regulation (Union consumption, volume and market share of the imports concerned, prices of imports, and imports from third countries) and therefore this data was revised accordingly.
(14) Taking into account the above, the Commission clarifies the definition of the product concerned as followed:‘The product concerned is certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods, made of iron or non-alloy steel, not further worked than forged, hot-rolled, hot-drawn or hot-extruded, whether or not twisted after rolling, containing indentations, ribs, grooves or other deformations produced during the rolling process, originating in Belarus and currently falling within CN codes ex 7214 10 00, ex 7214 20 00, ex 7214 30 00, ex 7214 91 10, ex 7214 91 90, ex 7214 99 10 and ex 7214 99 95 (‘the product concerned’). High fatigue performance iron or steel concrete reinforcing bars and rods and other long products, such as round bars are excluded’.
(15) In the absence of comments concerning details of dumping calculation, the provisional findings and conclusions set out in recitals (19) to (55) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(16) In the absence of any comments concerning the Union industry, the provisional findings and conclusions set out in recitals (56) to (59) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(17) As mentioned in the recitals (13) and (14), the round bars and bars without deformation are not part of the product concerned. These products are currently falling within CN codes ex 7214 99 71 and 7214 99 79. The revised information presented in the tables, as set out in recitals (62), (63) and (65) of the provisional Regulation, is as follows:
2012 2013 2014 IP
Consumption (in tonnes) 9 308 774 8 628 127 9 239 505 9 544 273
Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 99 103
2012 2013 2014 IP
Volume (tonnes) 159 395 140 970 236 109 457 755
Index (2012 = 100) 100 88 148 287
Market share on EU consumption (%) 1,8 1,6 2,6 4,8
Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 149 280
Prices of imports
Average price (in EUR/tonne) 495 463 436 372
Index (2013 = 100) 100 93 88 75
(18) The correction of the figures above did not have any impact on the injury assessment. Indeed, the trends observed were the same and therefore the Commission's findings in recitals (62) to (66) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(19) As described in recital (132) of the provisional Regulation, the Belarusian exporting producer and one of the non-sampled Union importers raised the issue of alleged price-fixing among the Union producers, which would have rendered the injury data unreliable. This claim was further developed by the Belarusian company in its submission after provisional disclosure. The Belarusian exporting producer indicated that a cartel investigation was currently being conducted by Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (‘AGCM’)) with regard to certain companies located in Northern Italy. One of the companies concerned is part of the sample of the Union producers in the current antidumping investigation.
(20) Following this claim, the Commission requested relevant information from AGCM to evaluate whether and to what extent those facts influence the reliability of the injury data of the Union industry in the present anti-dumping proceedings.
(21) According to the case-law, in a situation where an investigation into anti-competitive behaviour is pending at a national competition authority, the Commission has to consider whether the Union industry, through this behaviour, has contributed to the injury suffered and establish that the injury on which it bases its conclusions did not derive from the anticompetitive behaviour. The Commission may in such a situation not wait until the competent national authority concludes its investigation, but has to request the relevant information from the parties and the national authorities, as appropriate, under the procedural rules for anti-dumping investigations and carry out an assessment of that information(4).
(22) Following a request based on Article 6(3) of the basic Regulation, AGCM has informed the Commission that on 21 October 2015 it opened a formal investigation with respect to six Italian producers of concrete reinforcement bars and welded wire for an alleged infringement of Article 101 TFEU(5). One of these companies is the Italian sampled producer in the current anti-dumping investigation. AGCM extended the proceedings in September 2016 to also cover under the investigation two additional Italian producers. Following the in-depth assessment of all available information, AGCM issued a Statement of Objections that was communicated to the relevant companies on 18 January 2017. The anti-competitive conduct being investigated concerns an alleged exchange of information and price collusion between the eight Italian companies that would cover several phases of the value added chain of their activities from the purchase of inputs, through the levels of production capacity and effective production, up to the sale of the output, which would have taken place over the period 2010 to 2016. On account of its supply and demand side characteristics, the relevant geographic market was defined as national in the formal decision to launch the investigation.
(23) The information submitted by AGCM shows that the product concerned in this investigation, rebars, overlaps with the products subject to the antitrust investigation, and also that the alleged cartel was in force during the whole investigation period. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the data of the sampled Italian producer is not reliable for the purpose of the injury analysis.
(24) As a result, the Commission has analysed Union consumption, volume and market share of the imports concerned and also the macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators excluding data pertaining to the Italian market. For the sake of transparency, the relevant figures excluding the Italian companies are presented below.(a)Union consumption201220132014IPConsumption (in tonnes)7 400 3637 241 2027 917 8778 149 861Index (2012 = 100)10098107110(b)Volume and market share of the imports concerned201220132014IPVolume (tonnes)159 395140 970236 109457 755Index (2012 = 100)10088148287Market share on EU consumption (%)2,21,93,05,6Index (2012 = 100)10090138261 (a) Union consumption201220132014IPConsumption (in tonnes)7 400 3637 241 2027 917 8778 149 861Index (2012 = 100)10098107110 2012 2013 2014 IP Consumption (in tonnes) 7 400 363 7 241 202 7 917 877 8 149 861 Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 107 110 (b) Volume and market share of the imports concerned201220132014IPVolume (tonnes)159 395140 970236 109457 755Index (2012 = 100)10088148287Market share on EU consumption (%)2,21,93,05,6Index (2012 = 100)10090138261 2012 2013 2014 IP Volume (tonnes) 159 395 140 970 236 109 457 755 Index (2012 = 100) 100 88 148 287 Market share on EU consumption (%) 2,2 1,9 3,0 5,6 Index (2012 = 100) 100 90 138 261
(a) Union consumption201220132014IPConsumption (in tonnes)7 400 3637 241 2027 917 8778 149 861Index (2012 = 100)10098107110 2012 2013 2014 IP Consumption (in tonnes) 7 400 363 7 241 202 7 917 877 8 149 861 Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 107 110
2012 2013 2014 IP
Consumption (in tonnes) 7 400 363 7 241 202 7 917 877 8 149 861
Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 107 110
(b) Volume and market share of the imports concerned201220132014IPVolume (tonnes)159 395140 970236 109457 755Index (2012 = 100)10088148287Market share on EU consumption (%)2,21,93,05,6Index (2012 = 100)10090138261 2012 2013 2014 IP Volume (tonnes) 159 395 140 970 236 109 457 755 Index (2012 = 100) 100 88 148 287 Market share on EU consumption (%) 2,2 1,9 3,0 5,6 Index (2012 = 100) 100 90 138 261
2012 2013 2014 IP
Volume (tonnes) 159 395 140 970 236 109 457 755
Index (2012 = 100) 100 88 148 287
Market share on EU consumption (%) 2,2 1,9 3,0 5,6
Index (2012 = 100) 100 90 138 261
(a) Union consumption201220132014IPConsumption (in tonnes)7 400 3637 241 2027 917 8778 149 861Index (2012 = 100)10098107110 2012 2013 2014 IP Consumption (in tonnes) 7 400 363 7 241 202 7 917 877 8 149 861 Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 107 110
2012 2013 2014 IP
Consumption (in tonnes) 7 400 363 7 241 202 7 917 877 8 149 861
Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 107 110
2012 2013 2014 IP
Consumption (in tonnes) 7 400 363 7 241 202 7 917 877 8 149 861
Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 107 110
(b) Volume and market share of the imports concerned201220132014IPVolume (tonnes)159 395140 970236 109457 755Index (2012 = 100)10088148287Market share on EU consumption (%)2,21,93,05,6Index (2012 = 100)10090138261 2012 2013 2014 IP Volume (tonnes) 159 395 140 970 236 109 457 755 Index (2012 = 100) 100 88 148 287 Market share on EU consumption (%) 2,2 1,9 3,0 5,6 Index (2012 = 100) 100 90 138 261
2012 2013 2014 IP
Volume (tonnes) 159 395 140 970 236 109 457 755
Index (2012 = 100) 100 88 148 287
Market share on EU consumption (%) 2,2 1,9 3,0 5,6
Index (2012 = 100) 100 90 138 261
2012 2013 2014 IP
Volume (tonnes) 159 395 140 970 236 109 457 755
Index (2012 = 100) 100 88 148 287
Market share on EU consumption (%) 2,2 1,9 3,0 5,6
Index (2012 = 100) 100 90 138 261
(25) Macroeconomic indicators (tables):(a)Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation201220132014IPProduction volume (tonnes)10 108 0069 652 13010 283 5989 605 712Index (2012 = 100)1009510295Production capacity (tonnes)13 850 55314 047 16114 173 25313 910 700Index (2012 = 100)100101102100Capacity utilisation (%)73697369Index (2012 = 100)100949995(b)Sales volume, market share and growth201220132014IPSales volume unrelated (tonnes)6 358 0836 177 0496 232 0696 229 333Index (2012 = 100)100979898Market share unrelated sales (%)86857976Index (2012 = 100)100999289Sales volume related (tonnes)355 888361 542730 267625 858Index (2012 = 100)100102205176Market share related sales (%)5598Index (2012 = 100)100104192160(c)Employment and productivity201220132014IPNumber of employees4 3144 1034 2784 189Index (2012 = 100)100959997Productivity (MT/employee)2 3432 3532 4042 293Index (2012 = 100)10010010398 (a) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation201220132014IPProduction volume (tonnes)10 108 0069 652 13010 283 5989 605 712Index (2012 = 100)1009510295Production capacity (tonnes)13 850 55314 047 16114 173 25313 910 700Index (2012 = 100)100101102100Capacity utilisation (%)73697369Index (2012 = 100)100949995 2012 2013 2014 IP Production volume (tonnes) 10 108 006 9 652 130 10 283 598 9 605 712 Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 102 95 Production capacity (tonnes) 13 850 553 14 047 161 14 173 253 13 910 700 Index (2012 = 100) 100 101 102 100 Capacity utilisation (%) 73 69 73 69 Index (2012 = 100) 100 94 99 95 (b) Sales volume, market share and growth201220132014IPSales volume unrelated (tonnes)6 358 0836 177 0496 232 0696 229 333Index (2012 = 100)100979898Market share unrelated sales (%)86857976Index (2012 = 100)100999289Sales volume related (tonnes)355 888361 542730 267625 858Index (2012 = 100)100102205176Market share related sales (%)5598Index (2012 = 100)100104192160 2012 2013 2014 IP Sales volume unrelated (tonnes) 6 358 083 6 177 049 6 232 069 6 229 333 Index (2012 = 100) 100 97 98 98 Market share unrelated sales (%) 86 85 79 76 Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 92 89 Sales volume related (tonnes) 355 888 361 542 730 267 625 858 Index (2012 = 100) 100 102 205 176 Market share related sales (%) 5 5 9 8 Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 192 160 (c) Employment and productivity201220132014IPNumber of employees4 3144 1034 2784 189Index (2012 = 100)100959997Productivity (MT/employee)2 3432 3532 4042 293Index (2012 = 100)10010010398 2012 2013 2014 IP Number of employees 4 314 4 103 4 278 4 189 Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 99 97 Productivity (MT/employee) 2 343 2 353 2 404 2 293 Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 103 98
(a) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation201220132014IPProduction volume (tonnes)10 108 0069 652 13010 283 5989 605 712Index (2012 = 100)1009510295Production capacity (tonnes)13 850 55314 047 16114 173 25313 910 700Index (2012 = 100)100101102100Capacity utilisation (%)73697369Index (2012 = 100)100949995 2012 2013 2014 IP Production volume (tonnes) 10 108 006 9 652 130 10 283 598 9 605 712 Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 102 95 Production capacity (tonnes) 13 850 553 14 047 161 14 173 253 13 910 700 Index (2012 = 100) 100 101 102 100 Capacity utilisation (%) 73 69 73 69 Index (2012 = 100) 100 94 99 95
2012 2013 2014 IP
Production volume (tonnes) 10 108 006 9 652 130 10 283 598 9 605 712
Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 102 95
Production capacity (tonnes) 13 850 553 14 047 161 14 173 253 13 910 700
Index (2012 = 100) 100 101 102 100
Capacity utilisation (%) 73 69 73 69
Index (2012 = 100) 100 94 99 95
(b) Sales volume, market share and growth201220132014IPSales volume unrelated (tonnes)6 358 0836 177 0496 232 0696 229 333Index (2012 = 100)100979898Market share unrelated sales (%)86857976Index (2012 = 100)100999289Sales volume related (tonnes)355 888361 542730 267625 858Index (2012 = 100)100102205176Market share related sales (%)5598Index (2012 = 100)100104192160 2012 2013 2014 IP Sales volume unrelated (tonnes) 6 358 083 6 177 049 6 232 069 6 229 333 Index (2012 = 100) 100 97 98 98 Market share unrelated sales (%) 86 85 79 76 Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 92 89 Sales volume related (tonnes) 355 888 361 542 730 267 625 858 Index (2012 = 100) 100 102 205 176 Market share related sales (%) 5 5 9 8 Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 192 160
2012 2013 2014 IP
Sales volume unrelated (tonnes) 6 358 083 6 177 049 6 232 069 6 229 333
Index (2012 = 100) 100 97 98 98
Market share unrelated sales (%) 86 85 79 76
Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 92 89
Sales volume related (tonnes) 355 888 361 542 730 267 625 858
Index (2012 = 100) 100 102 205 176
Market share related sales (%) 5 5 9 8
Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 192 160
(c) Employment and productivity201220132014IPNumber of employees4 3144 1034 2784 189Index (2012 = 100)100959997Productivity (MT/employee)2 3432 3532 4042 293Index (2012 = 100)10010010398 2012 2013 2014 IP Number of employees 4 314 4 103 4 278 4 189 Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 99 97 Productivity (MT/employee) 2 343 2 353 2 404 2 293 Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 103 98
2012 2013 2014 IP
Number of employees 4 314 4 103 4 278 4 189
Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 99 97
Productivity (MT/employee) 2 343 2 353 2 404 2 293
Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 103 98
(a) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation201220132014IPProduction volume (tonnes)10 108 0069 652 13010 283 5989 605 712Index (2012 = 100)1009510295Production capacity (tonnes)13 850 55314 047 16114 173 25313 910 700Index (2012 = 100)100101102100Capacity utilisation (%)73697369Index (2012 = 100)100949995 2012 2013 2014 IP Production volume (tonnes) 10 108 006 9 652 130 10 283 598 9 605 712 Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 102 95 Production capacity (tonnes) 13 850 553 14 047 161 14 173 253 13 910 700 Index (2012 = 100) 100 101 102 100 Capacity utilisation (%) 73 69 73 69 Index (2012 = 100) 100 94 99 95
2012 2013 2014 IP
Production volume (tonnes) 10 108 006 9 652 130 10 283 598 9 605 712
Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 102 95
Production capacity (tonnes) 13 850 553 14 047 161 14 173 253 13 910 700
Index (2012 = 100) 100 101 102 100
Capacity utilisation (%) 73 69 73 69
Index (2012 = 100) 100 94 99 95
2012 2013 2014 IP
Production volume (tonnes) 10 108 006 9 652 130 10 283 598 9 605 712
Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 102 95
Production capacity (tonnes) 13 850 553 14 047 161 14 173 253 13 910 700
Index (2012 = 100) 100 101 102 100
Capacity utilisation (%) 73 69 73 69
Index (2012 = 100) 100 94 99 95
(b) Sales volume, market share and growth201220132014IPSales volume unrelated (tonnes)6 358 0836 177 0496 232 0696 229 333Index (2012 = 100)100979898Market share unrelated sales (%)86857976Index (2012 = 100)100999289Sales volume related (tonnes)355 888361 542730 267625 858Index (2012 = 100)100102205176Market share related sales (%)5598Index (2012 = 100)100104192160 2012 2013 2014 IP Sales volume unrelated (tonnes) 6 358 083 6 177 049 6 232 069 6 229 333 Index (2012 = 100) 100 97 98 98 Market share unrelated sales (%) 86 85 79 76 Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 92 89 Sales volume related (tonnes) 355 888 361 542 730 267 625 858 Index (2012 = 100) 100 102 205 176 Market share related sales (%) 5 5 9 8 Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 192 160
2012 2013 2014 IP
Sales volume unrelated (tonnes) 6 358 083 6 177 049 6 232 069 6 229 333
Index (2012 = 100) 100 97 98 98
Market share unrelated sales (%) 86 85 79 76
Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 92 89
Sales volume related (tonnes) 355 888 361 542 730 267 625 858
Index (2012 = 100) 100 102 205 176
Market share related sales (%) 5 5 9 8
Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 192 160
2012 2013 2014 IP
Sales volume unrelated (tonnes) 6 358 083 6 177 049 6 232 069 6 229 333
Index (2012 = 100) 100 97 98 98
Market share unrelated sales (%) 86 85 79 76
Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 92 89
Sales volume related (tonnes) 355 888 361 542 730 267 625 858
Index (2012 = 100) 100 102 205 176
Market share related sales (%) 5 5 9 8
Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 192 160
(c) Employment and productivity201220132014IPNumber of employees4 3144 1034 2784 189Index (2012 = 100)100959997Productivity (MT/employee)2 3432 3532 4042 293Index (2012 = 100)10010010398 2012 2013 2014 IP Number of employees 4 314 4 103 4 278 4 189 Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 99 97 Productivity (MT/employee) 2 343 2 353 2 404 2 293 Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 103 98
2012 2013 2014 IP
Number of employees 4 314 4 103 4 278 4 189
Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 99 97
Productivity (MT/employee) 2 343 2 353 2 404 2 293
Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 103 98
2012 2013 2014 IP
Number of employees 4 314 4 103 4 278 4 189
Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 99 97
Productivity (MT/employee) 2 343 2 353 2 404 2 293
Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 103 98
(26) Microeconomic indicators (tables — indexed for confidentiality reasons):(a)Average unit selling prices on the Union market and unit cost of production201220132014IPAverage unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne)Index (2012 = 100)100938978Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne)Index (2012 = 100)100969181(b)Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital201220132014IPProfitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)Index (2012 = 100)100– 593– 435– 603Cash flow (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100355114Investments (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100837972Return on investmentsIndex (2012 = 100)100– 606– 500– 645(c)Stocks201220132014IPClosing stocks (tonnes)Index (2012 = 100)1008510673(d)Labour costs201220132014IPAverage labour costs per employee (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100100104103 (a) Average unit selling prices on the Union market and unit cost of production201220132014IPAverage unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne)Index (2012 = 100)100938978Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne)Index (2012 = 100)100969181 2012 2013 2014 IP Average unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne) Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 89 78 Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne) Index (2012 = 100) 100 96 91 81 (b) Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital201220132014IPProfitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)Index (2012 = 100)100– 593– 435– 603Cash flow (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100355114Investments (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100837972Return on investmentsIndex (2012 = 100)100– 606– 500– 645 2012 2013 2014 IP Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 593 – 435 – 603 Cash flow (EUR) Index (2012 = 100) 100 35 51 14 Investments (EUR) Index (2012 = 100) 100 83 79 72 Return on investments Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 606 – 500 – 645 (c) Stocks201220132014IPClosing stocks (tonnes)Index (2012 = 100)1008510673 2012 2013 2014 IP Closing stocks (tonnes) Index (2012 = 100) 100 85 106 73 (d) Labour costs201220132014IPAverage labour costs per employee (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100100104103 2012 2013 2014 IP Average labour costs per employee (EUR) Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 104 103
(a) Average unit selling prices on the Union market and unit cost of production201220132014IPAverage unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne)Index (2012 = 100)100938978Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne)Index (2012 = 100)100969181 2012 2013 2014 IP Average unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne) Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 89 78 Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne) Index (2012 = 100) 100 96 91 81
2012 2013 2014 IP
Average unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 89 78
Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 96 91 81
(b) Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital201220132014IPProfitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)Index (2012 = 100)100– 593– 435– 603Cash flow (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100355114Investments (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100837972Return on investmentsIndex (2012 = 100)100– 606– 500– 645 2012 2013 2014 IP Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 593 – 435 – 603 Cash flow (EUR) Index (2012 = 100) 100 35 51 14 Investments (EUR) Index (2012 = 100) 100 83 79 72 Return on investments Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 606 – 500 – 645
2012 2013 2014 IP
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 593 – 435 – 603
Cash flow (EUR)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 35 51 14
Investments (EUR)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 83 79 72
Return on investments
Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 606 – 500 – 645
(c) Stocks201220132014IPClosing stocks (tonnes)Index (2012 = 100)1008510673 2012 2013 2014 IP Closing stocks (tonnes) Index (2012 = 100) 100 85 106 73
2012 2013 2014 IP
Closing stocks (tonnes)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 85 106 73
(d) Labour costs201220132014IPAverage labour costs per employee (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100100104103 2012 2013 2014 IP Average labour costs per employee (EUR) Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 104 103
2012 2013 2014 IP
Average labour costs per employee (EUR)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 104 103
(a) Average unit selling prices on the Union market and unit cost of production201220132014IPAverage unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne)Index (2012 = 100)100938978Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne)Index (2012 = 100)100969181 2012 2013 2014 IP Average unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne) Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 89 78 Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne) Index (2012 = 100) 100 96 91 81
2012 2013 2014 IP
Average unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 89 78
Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 96 91 81
2012 2013 2014 IP
Average unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers (EUR/tonne)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 89 78
Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 96 91 81
(b) Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital201220132014IPProfitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)Index (2012 = 100)100– 593– 435– 603Cash flow (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100355114Investments (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100837972Return on investmentsIndex (2012 = 100)100– 606– 500– 645 2012 2013 2014 IP Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 593 – 435 – 603 Cash flow (EUR) Index (2012 = 100) 100 35 51 14 Investments (EUR) Index (2012 = 100) 100 83 79 72 Return on investments Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 606 – 500 – 645
2012 2013 2014 IP
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 593 – 435 – 603
Cash flow (EUR)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 35 51 14
Investments (EUR)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 83 79 72
Return on investments
Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 606 – 500 – 645
2012 2013 2014 IP
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 593 – 435 – 603
Cash flow (EUR)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 35 51 14
Investments (EUR)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 83 79 72
Return on investments
Index (2012 = 100) 100 – 606 – 500 – 645
(c) Stocks201220132014IPClosing stocks (tonnes)Index (2012 = 100)1008510673 2012 2013 2014 IP Closing stocks (tonnes) Index (2012 = 100) 100 85 106 73
2012 2013 2014 IP
Closing stocks (tonnes)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 85 106 73
2012 2013 2014 IP
Closing stocks (tonnes)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 85 106 73
(d) Labour costs201220132014IPAverage labour costs per employee (EUR)Index (2012 = 100)100100104103 2012 2013 2014 IP Average labour costs per employee (EUR) Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 104 103
2012 2013 2014 IP
Average labour costs per employee (EUR)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 104 103
2012 2013 2014 IP
Average labour costs per employee (EUR)
Index (2012 = 100) 100 100 104 103
(27) On that basis, the Commission notes that the development of the injury indicators without the data pertaining to Italy is practically the same to the one reflecting the whole Union market including Italy. It can therefore be concluded that following the exclusion of data relating to the Italian market from the injury analysis, the situation of the Union industry is still one of material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation
(28) As far as undercutting is concerned, the Commission first notes that the undercutting margin found at provisional stage was 4,5 %. The Commission has re-examined the existence of undercutting in the light of the findings above in recitals (19) to (23). Undercutting is established by using data from the sampled companies. Hence, the Commission has excluded from the undercutting calculations the data relating to the Italian producer that is part of the sample. The undercutting margin based on all sampled companies minus the Italian one remains significant at a level of 4,4 %.
(29) The Belarussian exporting producer also claimed that the undercutting (and underselling) calculations should not be done by comparison to the prices of all transactions of the sampled Union producers but only in comparison to those happening where the competition with Belarusian import takes place. Undercutting calculations are normally performed on the basis of dumped imports of the product concerned into the Union with all comparable sales of the Union industry. However, given the specific circumstances of this case and the particular characteristics of the product concerned, the Commission has also calculated an undercutting margin by limiting the analysis to those Member States where the Belarusian products were first sold, mainly in the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, and Lithuania. This approach is based on the conservative assumption that the immediate and direct pressure exercised by the dumped imports on Union sales prices first took place in those Member States. Any subsequent trickling through of the effect to other Member States has thus deliberately been ignored. Under this scenario, the duly adjusted weighted average sales prices of the Belarusian dumped imports were compared to the corresponding sales prices of the sampled Union producers, excluding the one located in Italy, charged to unrelated customers in those regions where direct competition with Belarusian products occurred. This resulted in an undercutting margin of 2,8 %, instead of the 4,5 % margin as established in recital (68) of the provisional Regulation.
(30) The product concerned by this investigation can be considered a commodity product, which is very price sensitive. It is therefore concluded that even an undercutting margin of 2,8 % is significant and sufficient to cause price depression as explained in recitals (83), (84) and (98) of the provisional Regulation.
(31) Following final disclosure, the Belarussian exporting producer also claimed that the findings above in recitals (19) to (23) would most likely have spill-over effects on other Member States, especially in France, where the parent company of one of the Italian producers has a subsidiary holding a strong market position. However, with respect to the alleged anti-competitive conduct in Italy, AGCM has defined the relevant geographic market as national. Moreover, the evidence of the file summarized in recitals (19) to (23) on its own does not support such a claim. This claim is therefore rejected.
(32) In the absence of any additional comments with regard to injury to the Union industry, the provisional findings and conclusions set out in recitals (70) to (95) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(33) In the absence of any comments with regard to the effect of dumped imports on the economic situation of the Union industry, the findings and conclusions set out in recitals (97) to (100) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(34) In the absence of any comments with regard to export performance of the Union industry, the conclusion set out in recital (101) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
(35) In the absence any comments with regard to the sales to related parties, the conclusions set out in recitals (102) to (103) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(36) As mentioned in the recitals (13) and (14), the round bars and bars without deformation are not part of the product concerned. The revised information presented in the tables, as set out in recital (103) of the provisional Regulation, is as follows:Country201220132014IPNorwayVolume (tonnes)195 366184 632201 617215 046Index (2012 = 100)10095103110Market share (%)2,12,12,22,3Average price (EUR/tonne)551495483431Bosnia and HerzegovinaVolume (tonnes)47 70279 184105 909116 927Index (2012 = 100)100166222245Market share (%)0,50,91,11,2Average price (EUR/tonne)566479455415TurkeyVolume (tonnes)92 920136 128195 115103 484Index (2012 = 100)100147210111Market share (%)1,01,62,11,1Average price (EUR/tonne)515472456419UkraineVolume (tonnes)66 2956 08924 771112 605Index (2012 = 100)100937170Market share (%)0,70,10,31,2Average price501489441393Rest of the WorldVolume (tonnes)124 713155 609192 020288 853Index (2012 = 100)100125154232Market share (%)1,31,82,13,0Average price (EUR/tonne)732667568469 Country 2012 2013 2014 IP Norway Volume (tonnes) 195 366 184 632 201 617 215 046 Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 103 110 Market share (%) 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,3 Average price (EUR/tonne) 551 495 483 431 Bosnia and Herzegovina Volume (tonnes) 47 702 79 184 105 909 116 927 Index (2012 = 100) 100 166 222 245 Market share (%) 0,5 0,9 1,1 1,2 Average price (EUR/tonne) 566 479 455 415 Turkey Volume (tonnes) 92 920 136 128 195 115 103 484 Index (2012 = 100) 100 147 210 111 Market share (%) 1,0 1,6 2,1 1,1 Average price (EUR/tonne) 515 472 456 419 Ukraine Volume (tonnes) 66 295 6 089 24 771 112 605 Index (2012 = 100) 100 9 37 170 Market share (%) 0,7 0,1 0,3 1,2 Average price 501 489 441 393 Rest of the World Volume (tonnes) 124 713 155 609 192 020 288 853 Index (2012 = 100) 100 125 154 232 Market share (%) 1,3 1,8 2,1 3,0 Average price (EUR/tonne) 732 667 568 469
Country 2012 2013 2014 IP
Norway Volume (tonnes) 195 366 184 632 201 617 215 046
Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 103 110
Market share (%) 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,3
Average price (EUR/tonne) 551 495 483 431
Bosnia and Herzegovina Volume (tonnes) 47 702 79 184 105 909 116 927
Index (2012 = 100) 100 166 222 245
Market share (%) 0,5 0,9 1,1 1,2
Average price (EUR/tonne) 566 479 455 415
Turkey Volume (tonnes) 92 920 136 128 195 115 103 484
Index (2012 = 100) 100 147 210 111
Market share (%) 1,0 1,6 2,1 1,1
Average price (EUR/tonne) 515 472 456 419
Ukraine Volume (tonnes) 66 295 6 089 24 771 112 605
Index (2012 = 100) 100 9 37 170
Market share (%) 0,7 0,1 0,3 1,2
Average price 501 489 441 393
Rest of the World Volume (tonnes) 124 713 155 609 192 020 288 853
Index (2012 = 100) 100 125 154 232
Market share (%) 1,3 1,8 2,1 3,0
Average price (EUR/tonne) 732 667 568 469
Country 2012 2013 2014 IP
Norway Volume (tonnes) 195 366 184 632 201 617 215 046
Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 103 110
Market share (%) 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,3
Average price (EUR/tonne) 551 495 483 431
Bosnia and Herzegovina Volume (tonnes) 47 702 79 184 105 909 116 927
Index (2012 = 100) 100 166 222 245
Market share (%) 0,5 0,9 1,1 1,2
Average price (EUR/tonne) 566 479 455 415
Turkey Volume (tonnes) 92 920 136 128 195 115 103 484
Index (2012 = 100) 100 147 210 111
Market share (%) 1,0 1,6 2,1 1,1
Average price (EUR/tonne) 515 472 456 419
Ukraine Volume (tonnes) 66 295 6 089 24 771 112 605
Index (2012 = 100) 100 9 37 170
Market share (%) 0,7 0,1 0,3 1,2
Average price 501 489 441 393
Rest of the World Volume (tonnes) 124 713 155 609 192 020 288 853
Index (2012 = 100) 100 125 154 232
Market share (%) 1,3 1,8 2,1 3,0
Average price (EUR/tonne) 732 667 568 469
(37) The correction of the figures above did not have any impact on the findings in recital (104) of the provisional Regulation. Indeed, throughout the period considered the prices of imports from the third countries were on average always higher than the prices of the Union industry. The only exporting country with lower average prices than the Union industry was Belarus in the IP which was the same year when volumes of imports from Belarus increased most rapidly. Therefore the Commission's findings in recital (104) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(38) With regard to the imports from third countries, the Belarusian exporting producer did not agree with the Commission's conclusion that individual market shares of third countries, with exception of Ukraine's, had increased only marginally. The Belarusian exporting producer supported its opinion with imports statistics for the year 2016, which is a period subsequent to the IP. Furthermore, it pointed out to an alleged discrepancy between the import figures reported in table 6.3.3 of the provisional Regulation and available Eurostat statistics.
(39) In response to this claim, it should first be noted that post IP trends and data are normally not taken into account in the injury and causation analysis. While the Commission agreed in the recital (111) of the provisional Regulation to collect and review certain post IP data, it was undertaken in the context of the claims concerning the impact of so called ‘VAT fraud scheme’, the alleged subsequent gap between demand and supply of the product concerned on the markets of Poland and the Baltic States, and the abnormally high level of IP export volumes from Belarus allegedly resulting from that scheme.
(40) Secondly, the Commission cannot base its finding concerning the effects of imports from third countries on post IP import figures presented by the interested party, since it should only analyse trends observed during the period considered (2012-2015), and on which it collected information during the investigation. As explained in recital (39), in this investigation, the Commission assessed limited post IP data to address an exceptional situation, that is, the VAT fraud scheme. Thus, the findings of recital (104) of the provisional Regulation which relate to changes of market shares of third countries during the period under consideration, which ends in 2015, were confirmed.
(41) Even if the development of imports from third countries after IP were taken into account, it would not change the Commission's conclusion on the potential impact of these imports on the situation of the Union industry, as those prices remained higher than prices of imports from Belarus.
(42) Finally, with regard to the alleged discrepancy between the import figures reported in the provisional Regulation and Eurostat statistics, it should be noted that the latter statistics include also import volumes of so-called high fatigue performance bars which are not part of the product scope of this procedure and were not reported in table 6.3.3 of the provisional Regulation(6). Taking into account the above, the claims of the Belarussian exporting producer concerning the impact of third countries' imports are rejected.
(43) In the absence of other comments with regard to the imports from third countries, the conclusions set out in recital (104) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(44) In the absence of any comments with regard to the costs evolution, the conclusion set out in recital (105) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
(45) The Belarusian exporting producer reiterated in its submission the comments made at the provisional stage of the investigation with regard to the impact of the so-called VAT fraud scheme on the Union market, and claimed the Commission had failed to discharge its duty of investigating the matter. According to the exporting producer, this scheme was the main reason for the financial difficulties of some Union producers. As a result of this fraud scheme two producers located in Latvia (in early 2013) and Slovakia (in late 2014) went bankrupt and stopped production of the like product. Furthermore, one Union producer in Poland stopped the production of the like product for 3 months in 2014 due to upgrading its machinery. All these events together allegedly led to a shortage of supply mainly on the Polish and on the Baltic markets from 2013 onwards. This alleged gap would have been filled by the Belarusian exports.
(46) The Belarusian exporting producer further claimed that, because of the VAT scheme, the year 2015 (IP) was an ‘unusual year’ in terms of high volumes of the product concerned exported to the Union and that export volumes started to decrease already at the end of the IP and continued decreasing after the IP.
(47) In response to these claims, the Commission first looked into the exports data provided by the Belarusian statistics office and noted the following. The increase in the volume of exports by the exporting producer to the Union correlated with the decrease in the volume exports of the exporting producer to the Russian market. As described in the table below, between 2013 and 2015, the Belarusian exporting producer decreased its sales to Russia significantly by around 370 000 tonnes and increased its sales to the Union market by approximately the same amount, i.e. 380 000 tonnes.201220132014IP2016Total exports sales836787878831689Index 2012 = 100100941059982Exports to Russia545591474221157Index 2012 = 100100108874129Total exports to EU170147255530250Index 2012 = 10010086150312147Exports to Baltic States105110140137132Index 2012 = 100100105133130126Exports to Poland255015015Index 2012 = 1001002502 5007 500750Exports to Other Member States633265243103Index 2012 = 10010051103386163Source:Extracts from the Belarus statistics office. 2012 2013 2014 IP 2016 Total exports sales 836 787 878 831 689 Index 2012 = 100 100 94 105 99 82 Exports to Russia 545 591 474 221 157 Index 2012 = 100 100 108 87 41 29 Total exports to EU 170 147 255 530 250 Index 2012 = 100 100 86 150 312 147 Exports to Baltic States 105 110 140 137 132 Index 2012 = 100 100 105 133 130 126 Exports to Poland 2 5 50 150 15 Index 2012 = 100 100 250 2 500 7 500 750 Exports to Other Member States 63 32 65 243 103 Index 2012 = 100 100 51 103 386 163 Source:Extracts from the Belarus statistics office.
2012 2013 2014 IP 2016
Total exports sales 836 787 878 831 689
Index 2012 = 100 100 94 105 99 82
Exports to Russia 545 591 474 221 157
Index 2012 = 100 100 108 87 41 29
Total exports to EU 170 147 255 530 250
Index 2012 = 100 100 86 150 312 147
Exports to Baltic States 105 110 140 137 132
Index 2012 = 100 100 105 133 130 126
Exports to Poland 2 5 50 150 15
Index 2012 = 100 100 250 2 500 7 500 750
Exports to Other Member States 63 32 65 243 103
Index 2012 = 100 100 51 103 386 163
Source:Extracts from the Belarus statistics office.
2012 2013 2014 IP 2016
Total exports sales 836 787 878 831 689
Index 2012 = 100 100 94 105 99 82
Exports to Russia 545 591 474 221 157
Index 2012 = 100 100 108 87 41 29
Total exports to EU 170 147 255 530 250
Index 2012 = 100 100 86 150 312 147
Exports to Baltic States 105 110 140 137 132
Index 2012 = 100 100 105 133 130 126
Exports to Poland 2 5 50 150 15
Index 2012 = 100 100 250 2 500 7 500 750
Exports to Other Member States 63 32 65 243 103
Index 2012 = 100 100 51 103 386 163
Source:Extracts from the Belarus statistics office.
(48) Secondly, the Commission evaluated the situation on the Polish and the Baltic States' markets. Concerning 2013, Polish and Baltic states' markets were faced with the decrease of production of one Polish producer and the stop of production of one Latvian producer. Moreover, from 1 October 2013 the Polish government applied reverse charge VAT mechanisms to some 40 steel products, from fencing and pipes to finished flat-steel products as well as rebars, and thus tackling the VAT fraud scheme. The analysis of the export sales from Belarus to the Union market showed that the Belarusian exporting producer sales to Poland and the Baltic States remained stable, at around 110 000 tonnes compared with 2012. Therefore it is concluded that the Belarusian exporting producer did not take advantage of the alleged shortage of supply by the Union production in 2013 and that the other Union producers present in the market were able to supply the market either from stocks or by re-directing export sales to these markets(7).
(49) Concerning 2014, one Polish producer stopped production for one quarter in order to upgrade its machinery and one Slovak producer stopped its production in August 2014 (the company was declared in bankruptcy in February 2015). The quantity not available as a result of those events is estimated at around 133 000 tonnes.
(50) The analysis of the export sales from Belarus to the Union market showed that the Belarusian exporting producer sales to Poland and the Baltic States indeed increased by around 75 000 tonnes. However the exporting producer also increased its sales to other Union markets such as Germany from basically minimal quantities to around 120 000 tonnes. Therefore the argument that the Belarusian exporting producer increased its sales to the Union market only because of the exceptional market situation in Poland and the Baltic states is rejected, as it also increased (at even higher pace) its sales to other parts of the Union market where no exceptional circumstances existed.
(51) Concerning the investigation period, the Latvian producer re-opened in March 2015. The Polish production was back to normal. Therefore, there was no longer an exceptional market situation in these parts of the Union market.
(52) Despite this, the Belarusian exporting producer increased its sales to Poland even further and it maintained its sales to the Baltic States compared to 2014. Moreover the sharpest increase took place on other parts of the Union market (mainly in Bulgaria, the Netherlands, and Germany).
(53) Therefore, it is concluded that the increase of the Belarusian exports to the European Union was not due to the gap between demand and supply in the Union market but to the redirection of the volume lost on the Russian market. Thus, the claim of inadequate assessment of the impact of the VAT fraud scheme in the provisional determination is unfounded and is, therefore, rejected.
(54) In accordance with recital (111) of the provisional Regulation the Commission assessed the volume imports after the investigation period. The data showed that the imports from Belarus decreased somewhat, but they were still well above the 2013 levels and more or less at 2014 levels. Therefore the argument that the increase of imports from Belarus was temporary in nature and was explained by the particular market situation on certain Union market segments is rejected.
(55) In the absence of other comments with regard to the VAT fraud scheme and post IP developments, the findings and conclusions set out in recitals (106) to (111) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(56) In summary, the Commission considers that none of the arguments put forward by the interested parties after the provisional disclosure were able to alter the provisional findings which established a causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP. Thus, the conclusions set out in recitals (112) to (115) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(57) The Commission has found that the only other factor that may have had an impact on the situation of the Union industry was imports from third countries, as stated in the recital (104) of the provisional Regulation. However, the Commission concluded that those imports could not break the causal link between Belarusian dumped imports and the material injury found to the Union industry and that the dumped imports from Belarus remained the main cause of injury.
(58) Based on the above analysis, which distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it is concluded that the dumped imports from Belarus caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.
(59) In the absence of any comments with regard to the interest of the Union industry, the conclusions set out in recitals (117) to (122) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(60) The Belarusian exporting producer claimed in its submissions that the Commission's assessment of Union interest did not take into account particular problems of importers and users located in the Baltic States. It claimed that, due to logistic reasons (such as, railway connections or certificate requirements), Belarus is the only source of supply of rebars for those companies.
(61) In this regard, the Commission confirmed that the only cooperating user located in the Baltic States experienced certain technical problems with deliveries from the Union producers (none of them being located in the Baltic States). On the other hand, this company stated that purchases from Belarus could be, and in the post IP period effectively were, replaced by purchases from Russia and to some extent also from Ukraine.
(62) Furthermore, the Commission received very low cooperation from the companies located in the Baltic States, which seems to indicate that they do not perceive that they would be negatively affected by potential antidumping measures concerning Belarusian imports of the product concerned.
(63) In the absence of other comments with regard to the interest of the users and importers, the conclusions set out in recitals (123) to (131) and recital (134) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(64) In its submission after the provisional disclosure, the complainant claimed that the level of antidumping duty proposed at provisional stage (12,5 %) would not be sufficient, as the measure could easily be absorbed by the Belarusian exporting producer, which is a state-owned company, located in a non-market economy country with alleged favourable access to the subsidized raw material metal scrap.
(65) With regard to this claim, it should be stressed that the potential absorption can only be a matter of a separate anti-absorption investigation on the basis of Article 12 of the basic Regulation and cannot affect in advance the level of antidumping measures imposed in the original investigation. Furthermore, the evidence available in this investigation does not support the allegation of the easy access to a subsidized raw material by the Belarusian producer; in fact, the Commission found that the company purchases most of its raw material from Russia and Ukraine, countries considered as market economies.
(66) In its submission after the provisional disclosure, the Belarussian exporting producer and the Belarussian authorities referred to the strategic importance of the cooperation with the EU in the steel sector, and the fact that measures may negatively affect Belarusian purchases of capital equipment in the Union, the establishment of network of related trading companies in the Union, and any cooperation with European financial institutions.
(67) In response to this point, the Commission underlines that the measures have as sole purpose to restore a level playing field on the Union market. It is not of a punitive nature. If the exporting producer increases its prices durably, so that dumping ceases to exist, it can ask for a refund and an interim review. Therefore, the Commission does not consider those considerations to be relevant for the assessment of Union interest.
(68) In summary, none of the arguments put forward by the interested parties demonstrates that there are compelling reasons against the imposition of measures on imports of the product concerned from Belarus. Any negative effects on unrelated users and importers can be mitigated by the availability of alternative sources of supply. Moreover, when considering the overall impact of the anti-dumping measures on the Union market, the positive effects, in particular on the Union industry, appear to outweigh the potential negative impacts on the other interested parties. Thus, the conclusions set out in recitals (135) to (137) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(69) Following provisional disclosure, the Union industry contested the target profit used in order to determine the injury elimination level as set out in recital (143) of the provisional Regulation. The same claims were reiterated after final disclosure.
(70) The target profit used in the provisional injury margin calculations amounted to 4,8 %. This figure was based on the 2012 profit margin found for a very similar product, HFP rebars, and used in the recent anti-dumping procedure concerning imports of HFP rebars originating in China(8).
(71) The complainant in its submission contested the use of the same target profit used in the HFP rebars investigation and claimed that these two products and their respective markets are different. The complainant suggested using a target profit even higher than originally proposed in the complaint, 16 % or 17 %, which was the profit achieved by the Union producers in 2006 or considered ‘desirable in the long term for the sound steel industry’(9).
(72) In this regard, the target profit used in these proceedings, which the Commission found to be the most appropriate, is based on the figure actually achieved in 2012 (which is within the period considered) by the Union producers of a very similar product manufactured to a large extent using the same facilities for production of the product concerned in this investigation. It is also recalled that in the complaint EUROFER requested a target profit of 9,9 %, which was used in an investigation on wire rod, a product definitely more distant from the product concerned than HFP rebars. Finally, the purpose of the establishment of the injury margin is to remove the part of injury caused by dumped imports, but not by other factors such as the economic crisis. While the profit of 1,3 %, which was the only profit achieved by the Union industry in the period considered(10), was found to be inappropriate due to the impact of the VAT fraud scheme, it appears more congruous to use a profit margin that was achieved by the industry in the same period, verified and found appropriate for a very similar product in an antidumping procedure with mostly overlapping periods. The claim of the Union industry is therefore rejected.
(73) In the provisional calculation of the injury margin, an adjustment of 2 % was used for post-importation costs(11). In its submission after provisional disclosure, the Belarusian exporting producer claimed that in this particular case a higher figure of 4-6 % should be used, since this level of adjustment would better reflect the actual post-importation costs the importers/users have to cover.
(74) Following this claim, the Commission looked in more detail into the level and structure of the importation and post-importation costs declared by the cooperating importer and users referred to in recital (6).
(75) Based on the findings of the verification visits of these companies, the Commission does not find grounds to change the level of adjustment. The actual post importation costs for the importer and one of the users were (on average for the whole IP) below 2 %. Only for one company (the German user), post importation costs were higher than 2 %, within the claimed range of 4-6 %. However, this company had non-standard post importation operations for the transport of the product concerned from its warehouses to inland production sites. These are not standard post-importation costs, common to importers, but costs very specific to this company's operation. It should be stressed that, for the purpose of the injury margin calculations, export prices are established at an EU border level (adjusted for post-importation costs) and compared with ex works prices of the Union producers. Costs of transportation of the product to the users' production sites are not relevant in this context and thus are not taken into account. Based on the above, the Commission confirms the post-importation cost established at provisional stage at 2 % as reasonable. The claim is therefore rejected.
(76) After provisional disclosure, both the complainant and the Belarussian exporting producer raised several additional minor points with regard to the injury margin calculations.
(77) The complainant indicated that the establishment of the CIF price for the undercutting and underselling calculations should not be based on transfer price to related importers but recalculated from the independent re-sales. The Commission hereby confirms that in fact the CIF price used for the calculation of undercutting and underselling at the provisional stage is based on independent re-sales.
(78) The complainant proposed an ‘alternative’ method of cost allocation between different types of product for the calculation of undercutting and underselling. However, this proposal was made after provisional measures when all the questionnaire replies were already verified on spot and calculations completed. In any event, cost allocation is irrelevant for the injury margin calculation in this case, as the injury margin was based on per product type ex-work prices and not on per product type costs. The claim is therefore rejected.
(79) The complainant also proposed to base the injury margin not on the data of the whole IP but on a chosen quarter of IP where the margin would be ‘more representative’. However, the complainant failed to provide any evidence that there are any special circumstances in this case which would justify departing from the standard practice of the Commission to base the injury margin on the whole IP. The claim is therefore rejected.
(80) The Commission has decided to apply caution as far as the calculation of the injury margin is concerned. Indeed, given the unreliability of certain data for the reasons set out above at recitals (19) to (23) and the specificities of this case, the Commission has revised the calculation of the the injury elimination level by excluding data from the sampled Italian producer and limiting the calculation to sales in the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, and Lithuania. This calculation is a mirror of the undercutting calculation mentioned above in recital (29) that resulted in an undercutting margin of 2,8 %. On this basis, the revised injury margin is established at a level 10,6 %.
(81) After final disclosure, the complainant contested the methodology followed by the Commission in this case, on the grounds that the Commission had de facto narrowed down the scope of the investigation to reduce it to a regional investigation. It also claimed that the above injury elimination level would not remove injury to the overall Union industry. The complainant further noted that the Belarussian dumped imports took place in 16 different Member States, i.e. many more than those used by the Commission for its establishment of the injury margin.
(82) In this respect, it should be noted that the Commission has actually based his injury analysis on the situation of the overall Union industry, and has concluded that removing Italy from the assessment does not change the injury picture. As far as the injury elimination level is concerned, even though imports from Belarus indeed took place in a number of Member States (in fact 13), the Commission based the injury elimination calculations on the data pertaining only to the companies in the sample, which sold the like product in a more limited number of countries, for the reasons explained in recital (29). This is without prejudice to the possibility, for all interested parties, to request an interim review once the findings of the cartel investigation are finalized, and depending on the situation prevailing at that time.
(83) In the absence of any other comments regarding the injury elimination level, the level of the definitive injury elimination level is established at 10,6 %.
(84) 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 the imports of the product concerned at the level of the injury margin, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.
(85) After final disclosure the Belarussian exporting producer claimed that the circumstances of the case justified the imposition of measures under the form of a partial duty free amount, i.e. that the first 200 000 tons imported would be free of duty, and that the duration of the measures should be limited to two years.
(86) It is recalled that dumping results from price discrimination and therefore the remedy should consist of anti-dumping duties or a price undertaking. A duty free quota as requested by the Belarussian exporter does not contain any price element which would remedy injurious dumping and can therefore not be accepted. In this case there is also no justification for reducing the period of application of the measures. Should the circumstances change, the Belarussian has the possibility to request a review of the measures pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The claims are therefore rejected. It is also recalled that the Commission may revisit the findings should the cartel investigation put in question the definitive findings set out in this regulation.
(87) On the basis of the above, the rate at which such duties will be imposed are set as follows:CompanyInjury margin(%)Dumping margin(%)Definitive anti-dumping duty rate(%)BMZ10,658,410,6All other companies10,658,410,6 Company Injury margin(%) Dumping margin(%) Definitive anti-dumping duty rate(%) BMZ 10,6 58,4 10,6 All other companies 10,6 58,4 10,6
Company Injury margin(%) Dumping margin(%) Definitive anti-dumping duty rate(%)
BMZ 10,6 58,4 10,6
All other companies 10,6 58,4 10,6
Company Injury margin(%) Dumping margin(%) Definitive anti-dumping duty rate(%)
BMZ 10,6 58,4 10,6
All other companies 10,6 58,4 10,6
(88) In view of the dumping margins found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, should be definitively collected.
(89) The Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 did not deliver an opinion,
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union(1)(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods, made of iron or non-alloy steel, not further worked than forged, hot-rolled, hot-drawn or hot-extruded, whether or not twisted after rolling, containing indentations, ribs, grooves or other deformations produced during the rolling process. High fatigue performance iron or steel concrete reinforcing bars and rods are excluded. Other long products, such as round bars are excluded. The product is originating in Belarus and is currently falling within CN codes ex 7214 10 00, ex 7214 20 00, ex 7214 30 00, ex 7214 91 10, ex 7214 91 90, ex 7214 99 10 and ex 7214 99 95 (TARIC codes: 7214100010, 7214200020, 7214300010, 7214911010, 7214919010, 7214991010, 7214999510).
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 shall be 10,6 %.
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

Article 2
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2303 shall be definitively collected.

Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union(1)(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods, made of iron or non-alloy steel, not further worked than forged, hot-rolled, hot-drawn or hot-extruded, whether or not twisted after rolling, containing indentations, ribs, grooves or other deformations produced during the rolling process. High fatigue performance iron or steel concrete reinforcing bars and rods are excluded. Other long products, such as round bars are excluded. The product is originating in Belarus and is currently falling within CN codes ex 7214 10 00, ex 7214 20 00, ex 7214 30 00, ex 7214 91 10, ex 7214 91 90, ex 7214 99 10 and ex 7214 99 95 (TARIC codes: 7214100010, 7214200020, 7214300010, 7214911010, 7214919010, 7214991010, 7214999510).
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 shall be 10,6 %.
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2303 shall be definitively collected.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

Pending: 32017R0804

12.5.2017 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 121/3
(1) The European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated on 13 February 2016 an investigation following a complaint lodged on 4 January 2016 by the Defence Committee of the seamless steel tubes industry of the European Union (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of the like product. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.
(2) It imposed on 12 November 2016 a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’, ‘China’ or ‘the country concerned’) by Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1977(2)(‘the provisional Regulation’).
(3) Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘the provisional disclosure’), Union producers, Chinese exporting producers, and an association of Chinese exporting producers made written submissions. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.
(4) The Commission considered the comments submitted by the interested parties and, where appropriate, modified the provisional findings accordingly.
(5) The Commission informed all parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intends to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes (‘the definitive disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the definitive disclosure. The comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.
(6) In recitals (7) to (9) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission invited comments concerning the representativity of one of the sampled Union producers.
(7) One Chinese exporting producer argued that the one Union producer should be removed from the sample as its data would distort the findings for the whole industry. A second Chinese exporting producer underlined that Vallourec was the largest company in the sample, thus it was unclear whether the sample was representative of the Union industry. The complainant argued that the Chinese producers are increasingly competing also in tailor-made and high-end products. It also pointed out that the oil and gas products are mainly exported outside the Union, so this difference in product ranges has only a small role in the Union market.
(8) The Commission requested additional data and carried out a further verification visit at the premises of the Union producer. The findings showed that the Union producer produces a wider range of product types than the other sampled Union producers, but this wide product range, including pipes for power generation, oil and gas and construction, was within the product scope. Both the Union producers and the Chinese producers are involved in both the commodity products and the high-end products. The specific Union producer represents a large part of the Union production. The Commission therefore concluded that the Union producer is part of the Union industry, and that there are no grounds to exclude it from the sample. Any unwarranted impact of this company's specific situation in the injury picture was addressed by means of cost adjustments and weighting, as explained in recitals (81), (84) and (146).
(9) The association of Chinese exporting producers reiterated its earlier comments against the initiation of the investigation, among which its opposition to the method of establishing a preliminary sample before initiation. It also alleged that the complaint was unsubstantiated, of poor quality and based on assumptions, the product scope was too broad and groups together too different products, and there were too many confidential elements.
(10) The Commission recalled that the preliminary selection of sampled companies was open for comments by the interested parties. The comments of the Chinese association were received only after the deadline, by which stage the sample had already been confirmed. It was therefore rejected. As regards the other claims, the Commission pointed out that at the stage of the complaint, it was not necessary to already have the same evidence of dumping and injury that would be necessary for the imposition of measures. The claims concerning confidential annexes of the complaint were examined and the justification for the confidentiality was confirmed. In any case, the Chinese association received a detailed reply to its claims against the initiation.
(11) In the absence of other comments concerning the method of sampling, the provisional findings set out in recitals (10) to (13) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(12) As mentioned in recital (14) of the provisional Regulation, three exporting producers which were not included in the sample requested that an individual margin of dumping be established pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. However, following the publication of the provisional measures, two of them decided to withdraw their request for an individual examination. The sole exporting producer that confirmed its initial request for an individual examination was Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd
(13) No claim forms for market economy treatment were submitted by any of the exporting producers during the investigation. The findings of recital (15) of the provisional Regulation were therefore confirmed.
(14) In addition to the questionnaires and visits described in recitals (16) and (17) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission sent additional questions to the complainant and to one Union producer in order to carry out the verifications concerning injury and causality identified in the provisional Regulation. Furthermore, one Chinese exporting producer received a questionnaire for individual examination.
(15) Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following parties:(a)exporting producers in the PRC—Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (individual examination);(b)Union producers—Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Germany;(c)unrelated importers—Edgen Murray GmbH, Austria/United Kingdom,—Meever & Meever BV, Netherlands,—Cuñado S.A., Spain. (a) exporting producers in the PRC—Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (individual examination); — Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (individual examination); (b) Union producers—Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Germany; — Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Germany; (c) unrelated importers—Edgen Murray GmbH, Austria/United Kingdom,—Meever & Meever BV, Netherlands,—Cuñado S.A., Spain. — Edgen Murray GmbH, Austria/United Kingdom, — Meever & Meever BV, Netherlands, — Cuñado S.A., Spain.
(a) exporting producers in the PRC—Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (individual examination); — Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (individual examination);
— Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (individual examination);
(b) Union producers—Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Germany; — Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Germany;
— Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Germany;
(c) unrelated importers—Edgen Murray GmbH, Austria/United Kingdom,—Meever & Meever BV, Netherlands,—Cuñado S.A., Spain. — Edgen Murray GmbH, Austria/United Kingdom, — Meever & Meever BV, Netherlands, — Cuñado S.A., Spain.
— Edgen Murray GmbH, Austria/United Kingdom,
— Meever & Meever BV, Netherlands,
— Cuñado S.A., Spain.
(a) exporting producers in the PRC—Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (individual examination); — Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (individual examination);
— Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (individual examination);
— Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (individual examination);
(b) Union producers—Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Germany; — Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Germany;
— Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Germany;
— Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Germany;
(c) unrelated importers—Edgen Murray GmbH, Austria/United Kingdom,—Meever & Meever BV, Netherlands,—Cuñado S.A., Spain. — Edgen Murray GmbH, Austria/United Kingdom, — Meever & Meever BV, Netherlands, — Cuñado S.A., Spain.
— Edgen Murray GmbH, Austria/United Kingdom,
— Meever & Meever BV, Netherlands,
— Cuñado S.A., Spain.
— Edgen Murray GmbH, Austria/United Kingdom,
— Meever & Meever BV, Netherlands,
— Cuñado S.A., Spain.
(16) The association of Chinese exporting producers criticised the starting point of the period considered (2012), arguing that the year 2011 would have been a more appropriate starting point. It argued that the imports from China to the EU of the product concerned decreased from 2011 (46 657 tonnes) to 2012 (39 195 tonnes). As a result, 2012 as a base year shows increase of imports over the period considered (to 42 539 tonnes), whereas 2011 as the base year would show a decrease of imports from China. It requested further explanation on the choice of 2012.
(17) The Commission noted that the period considered has been established in line with the standard practice. As explained in recital (18) of the provisional Regulation, the period considered covers three full calendar years preceding the investigation period. There is no basis to select a different period. The comment was therefore rejected. In any event, the data collected from the interested parties only covered the period considered. The determination of the injury indicators was therefore only possible for the period 2012 to 2015. Hence the data on the import volumes from China since 2011 did not allow the Commission to draw conclusions on the overall development of the situation of the Union industry. Considering the trend of decreasing profitability since 2012, as described in recitals (91) and (92), the inclusion of the year 2011 in the period considered would have shown an even steeper negative development in the situation of the Union industry.
(18) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer and the association of Chinese exporting producers claimed that in recital (59) (corresponding to recital (47) of the General Disclosure Document) the Commission's explanation for the differences in export volumes was not based on any evidence.
(19) The Commission clarified that the recital (59) did not concern the claim of the inclusion of the year 2011 the investigation period, but instead referred to a different comment from another interested party, who had claimed an inconsistency in comparison with an earlier investigation of the same product. The claims of the Chinese association of exporting producers concerning the investigation period were addressed in recital (17).
(20) In the absence of other comments concerning the investigation period, the recital (18) of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.
(21) One Chinese exporting producer argued that the product scope was overly wide as it includes product types of alloy steel of which the respective costs and prices deviate significantly from the standard product concerned. It requested the exclusion of the product types made of alloy and high alloy steel(3)from the product scope.
(22) The association of Chinese exporting producers affirmed that the product scope brings together three different market segments: (a) oil/gas; (b) power plants; and (c) construction, and that injury should have been assessed separately for each of the segments. It stated that the product destined for one market segment is required to comply with specific industrial standards and therefore cannot be used in another segment. As a proof of the latter, it referred to the practice in Canada and United States, where anti-dumping investigations had separated the pipes and tubes produced for the oil/gas sector from pipes and tubes produced for other sectors.
(23) With respect to the latter claim, one interested party claimed that their exports to the Union were related only to the construction sector.
(24) As regards the first claim concerning alloy and high-alloy steel, the Commission noted that the definition of the product concerned covers a wide variety of product types which share the same or similar basic technical and physical characteristics. The Commission took account of the differences among the product types and ensured a fair comparison. A unique product control number (PCN) was allocated to each product type, produced and sold by the Chinese exporting producers and to each one produced and sold by the Union industry. The PCN depended on the main characteristics of the product, in this case, product type, external diameter, wall thickness, quenching & tempering, length, tube extremity, and testing. Therefore, the product types imported from China were compared on a PCN basis with the products produced and sold by the Union industry that have the same or similar characteristics. In particular, the first characteristic (product type) separated non-alloy, alloy, and high-alloy steels. Therefore the differences in costs and prices arising from alloy and high-alloy steel were taken into account in the comparisons. According to case-law(4), when determining whether products are alike so that they form part of the same product, it needs to be assessed whether they share the same technical and physical characteristics, and have the same basic end-uses and the same price-quality ratio. In that regard, the interchangeability of, and competition between, those products should also be assessed. The investigation found that all the product types are made from steel, using manufacturing processes required to produce seamless pipes, thus using similar machines, such that producers can switch between different variants of the product, according to demand. Therefore, although all the different product types are not directly interchangeable, producers are competing for orders covering a broad range of product types. Moreover, these product types are produced and sold by both the Union industry and the Chinese exporting producers using a similar production method.
(25) As regards the second claim concerning market segments, the claim does not substantiate on which basis product types of one or the other market segment should be excluded from the product scope. Nor is it explained why a separate injury assessment should be carried out by segment. The definition of the product concerned, covering seamless pipes and tubes with an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, was not contested neither after the Notice of initiation, nor in the questionnaire replies and the verification visits. As explained in recital (24), the PCN is based on basic physical and technical characteristics, not on the potential final use or market segment. In any case, the investigation has shown that both the Chinese exporting producers and the Union producers compete in all of the three segments. Moreover, the duty rates for each individual Chinese exporting producer are calculated on the basis of a weighted average by product type. As a result, the total duties to be paid would remain identical for a given product mix. While some product types would obtain lower margins and others higher margins, the sum of all the margins would be equal to the weighted average of all product types.
(26) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer and the association of Chinese exporting producers further contested the product scope. They argued that due to different requirements in terms of standards, alloy content, and end uses, the products for the oil and gas segment were different from and not interchangeable with the products for the two other segments. The PCN was allegedly unable to allow for proper comparisons between product types, since the product scope itself was not properly defined. As regards the producers shifting their focus between segments, they claimed that the difficulties in the two other segments were therefore the result of the market forces and not related to imports from China. Moreover, they alleged that the Union producers' shifting of focus to other segments was a commercial strategy that necessarily implied reduced revenues, due to the lower sales prices in the other segments when compared with oil and gas products.
(27) The Commission referred to recital (24) where it concluded that while some of the different product types were not directly interchangeable, notably due to the different requirements in terms of standards and raw materials, they nevertheless shared the same or similar basic technical and physical characteristics. As regards the shifting of the focus to other segments, the comments from the interested parties did not dispute the ability of the producers to shift their focus from one segment to the other. The comments thus confirmed the findings in recital (24) that the products for different segments were produced by the same producers, with similar machines, and that the producers can switch between different variants. Therefore the Commission concluded that the product scope was correct, and hence comparisons between product types were possible on the basis of the PCN. It therefore concluded that these claims did not contradict the findings of the investigation.
(28) The Commission therefore concluded that all types of the product concerned share the same basic physical and technical characteristics. As a consequence the above claims were rejected and the findings of the recitals (19) to (22) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(29) As mentioned in recitals (24) to (28) of the provisional Regulation, Mexico was chosen as the appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing the normal values for the PRC in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.
(30) Following the imposition of provisional measures, one interested party claimed that South Korea should be considered a better analogue country since the cost of production and production process of Korean mills is much closer to the one of the Chinese mills. It was also claimed that there are significant differences in terms of costs and technology used in the production process between some of the Chinese exporting producers and the analogue country producer or Union producers. The production process of the Chinese is allegedly more advanced and certain adjustments should be made in order to guarantee a fair comparison.
(31) It should be noted that the product concerned constitutes a niche market and thus a relatively small number of producers are capable of producing it. Furthermore, the cooperation with the analogue country producers is voluntary. Although CISA suggested that South Korea would be a more appropriate choice for analogue country, it did not propose a specific Korean producer willing to cooperate. It is recalled here, that at the provisional stage the Commission requested cooperation from 13 companies in 8 countries. Even though a company in South Korea was among these companies, the specific company never replied to the request. Based on searching the internet and consultation of the companies' websites of 41 producers of steel products in South Korea, it was found that only three of them produced seamless pipes and tubes. Two of the latter produced small diameter pipes and tubes which is not the product concerned and the sole producer in South Korea that produced the product concerned, made use of a production technology that is not comparable to the production technologies that were mainly used by the Chinese producers. The evidence found during the investigation indicates that South Korea was predominantly producing low diameter seamless pipes and tubes, which is not the product under investigation, or makes use of a production technology which is not comparable with that of the Chinese producers of the product concerned. Therefore, the Commission concluded that South Korea could not be considered as an adequate analogue country.
(32) In addition, although a variety of production processes exists among the Chinese producers, the production process of the Mexican producer is one of the processes used by the Chinese producers. The similarities of the production processes between Mexico and China supported further the conclusion that Mexico was an appropriate analogue country for this investigation.
(33) The interested party did not submit sufficient evidence in order to explain and quantify in terms of costs the differences between its allegedly advanced production technology and the technology that is used in Mexico. It did not submit any cost information of a specific Chinese producer, nor for the sector of activity in China, nor referring to any other producer using similar production processes, that would have allowed the Commission to assess the alleged differences between the technology used in China and the cooperating Mexican producer, and the impact, if any, in the appropriateness of Mexico as the analogue country. Moreover, no cooperation was received from South Korea. Thus the claim was rejected. Consequently, the Commission confirmed Mexico as the only available appropriate analogue country.
(34) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer claimed that the Commission uncritically accepted Mexico as analogue country just for the reason that such choice served its needs of finding high dumping margins.
(35) The specific claim was a mere statement and the interested party did not substantiate its assertion nor provided any evidence that Mexico was not an appropriate analogue country. In any event, the Commission recalls that where it only receives cooperation from one exporting producer in a market economy country, the Commission is obliged, based on theGLSjudgment of the Court (C-338/10), to use that country. Thus the claim was rejected.
(36) The details for the calculation of the normal value are set out in recitals (29) to (37) of the provisional Regulation.
(37) One Chinese exporting producer claimed that most of the data for the establishment of the dumping margin have been kept unreasonably confidential. The party especially commented upon the fact that the normal value of the cooperating producer was not disclosed.
(38) According to Articles 19(1) of the basic Regulation, information confidential by nature is information, the disclosure of which may cause: (1) significant advantage to a competitor; or (2) adverse effect upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom the information has been acquired. Since data with respect to sales and costs are confidential by nature, in the provisional Regulation data regarding profit, selling, general and administrative costs of the analogue county producer have been provided on a percentage basis in ranges, providing in that way transparency to the most possible extent without violating their confidential nature. The analogue country producer requested and justified confidentiality treatment of its sales and costs data, disclosure of which could harm company's competitive position. In addition, the disclosure of the normal value could provide the possibility a competitor to construct back the prices and costs of the analogue country producer. Thus the claim was rejected.
(39) In the absence of any other comments concerning the normal value, recitals from (29) to (37) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(40) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer, Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (‘Gross’) claimed that the Commission used one constructed normal value only, for the 27 product types that Gross exported during the investigation period, without distinguishing the different steel types and the costs for quenching and tempering in its production process. The specific claim was based on the reading and interpretation of individual parts of the general disclosure document by isolating their meaning from the meaning of the whole document.
(41) The Commission recalled here that the details of the dumping calculation were set out in recitals (44) to (47) of the provisional Regulation and mentioned in recital (41) of the general disclosure document. Recital (44) of the provisional Regulation mentioned precisely that the Commission conducted the comparison of the normal value and export price, for each product type in isolation and never used one normal value for all product types. The product types that were used for the comparison were defined in the questionnaires that were sent to the analogue country producer, Chinese exporting producers and Union producers. Steel grade, quenching and tempering and other characteristics were specified and taken into account for the calculation of the cost of production and the construction of the normal value for each product type separately, by adjusting for each characteristic properly. Since the claim was based on a misinterpretation of the general disclosure document, it was rejected.
(42) Gross also claimed that the Commission should eliminate from its export sales those product types that TAMSA, the Mexican analogue country producer, does not produce.
(43) The Commission's practice following the WTO rulings on the case ‘European Communities — Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China’(5)is that a normal value should be found or constructed for all types exported by the exporting producer. The Commission therefore rejected the claim.
(44) In the absence of any comments concerning the export price, recitals (38) and (39) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(45) The details of the method used for the comparison between the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers are set out in recitals (40) to (43) of the provisional Regulation.
(46) It is recalled here that China applies a policy of reimbursing VAT upon export only partially. To ensure that the normal value was expressed at the same level of taxation as the export price, the normal value in the provisional Regulation was determined with the inclusion of the VAT charged on exports of large diameter seamless pipes and tubes that was not refunded to the Chinese exporting producers. The specific non-refundable VAT was at the level of 8 % for all product types.
(47) In this regard, the complainants commented that the refundable VAT in China was not the same for all product types. Specifically, for pipes and tubes used in the oil and gas exploration business, the refundable VAT was 13 % and for the other product types it was 9 %. The complainant claimed that the dumping margins should be recalculated accordingly and requested a confirmation that the specific VAT was effectively paid before being reimbursed.
(48) Since the VAT in China was the same for all products types at the level of 17 %, the non-refundable VAT for pipes and tubes used in the oil and gas exploration business was therefore 4 % and for the other product types was 8 %.
(49) Thus, the Commission revised the adjustments for the companies which reported the actual refunded VAT on a transaction by transaction basis in their questionnaire replies. The specific exporting producers were Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd and Hengyang Valin MPM Co., Ltd The dumping margins for these companies were recalculated accordingly. The recalculation taking into account the specific non-refundable VAT rates led to slightly lower dumping margins. The dumping margins of the other sampled companies remained at the provisional level.
(50) During the verification visits it was confirmed that the VAT was effectively paid before being reimbursed.
(51) The details of the dumping calculation were set out in recitals (44) to (47) of the provisional Regulation.
(52) Concerning the sampled exporting producers, the more precise VAT adjustments on the normal values led to the definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, as follows:CompanyDefinitive dumping margin (%)Yangzhou Chengde Steel Pipe Co., Ltd45,4Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co., Ltd103,8Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd39,9Hengyang Valin MPM Co., Ltd92,9Other cooperating producers73,6All other producers103,8For the sole exporting producer which requested individual examination, Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd, the definitive dumping margin in the general disclosure documents was set at the level of 66,0 %. Company Definitive dumping margin (%) Yangzhou Chengde Steel Pipe Co., Ltd 45,4 Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co., Ltd 103,8 Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd 39,9 Hengyang Valin MPM Co., Ltd 92,9 Other cooperating producers 73,6 All other producers 103,8
Company Definitive dumping margin (%)
Yangzhou Chengde Steel Pipe Co., Ltd 45,4
Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co., Ltd 103,8
Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd 39,9
Hengyang Valin MPM Co., Ltd 92,9
Other cooperating producers 73,6
All other producers 103,8
Company Definitive dumping margin (%)
Yangzhou Chengde Steel Pipe Co., Ltd 45,4
Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co., Ltd 103,8
Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd 39,9
Hengyang Valin MPM Co., Ltd 92,9
Other cooperating producers 73,6
All other producers 103,8
(53) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer (Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd (‘Gross’)) claimed that its dumping margin (66,0 %) cannot be higher than the dumping margins of Yangzhou Chengde Steel Pipe Co., Ltd, (‘Chengde’) and Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd (‘Lontrin’) which were 45,4 % and 39,9 % respectively. The claim was based on the conjunction of two considerations: (i) the assumption that the normal value that was used for the calculation of the dumping margins was the same for the three Chinese exporters; and (ii) the fact that, according to the Chinese trade statistics at the level of the customs codes, the average unit export price of Gross was higher than the respective prices of Chengde and Lontrin.
(54) With respect to the assumption made by Gross, the Commission recalled here that the calculation of the dumping margin was not based on an average normal value for each exporting producer, but on the normal value of each product type that was exported to the Union market by this exporting producer. Thus, the product mix that was exported was the determinant for the calculation of the weighted average dumping margin. Since the three exporting producers did not export the same product mix during the investigation period, the specific assumption made by Gross is incorrect. Furthermore, the unit export prices that were used for the calculation of the dumping margin were based on the actual export transactions and not on statistical data. At the same time, the unit export prices were determined at the level of the product types which did not correspond with the level of the customs codes that Gross used in its claim. Since the claim was based on incorrect assumptions and insufficient facts, it was rejected. However, the correction of some clerical mistakes that were revealed during the re-examination of the dumping margin calculations, led to a decrease of the definitive dumping margin from 66,0 % to 52,3 %.
(55) In the absence of comments concerning Union industry, the recitals (49) to (51) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(56) The comments to the recital (52) of the provisional Regulation concerning the sampling of the Union industry have been addressed above in conjunction with the comments to recitals (7) to (9) of the provisional Regulation.
(57) In the absence of comments concerning Union consumption, the conclusions set out in the recital (53) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(58) Following provisional disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer contested the 2012 import volume in recital (54) of the provisional Regulation, claiming that the volume was different from the data used in a previously terminated investigation that had concerned the same product.
(59) The Commission clarified that the complaint in that previous investigation was lodged in December 2012. Therefore, it did not contain the import volumes of the full year 2012, but instead was based on the second half of 2011 and the first half of 2012. The data used in recital (54) of the provisional Regulation reflected the Eurostat data for the entire years 2012 to 2015. The claim was therefore rejected.
(60) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer and the association of Chinese exporting producers claimed that in recital (59) the Commission's explanation did not address their claim that 2011 would have been a more appropriate starting year of the investigation period.
(61) The Commission clarified that recital (59) referred to a different claim from a different interested party. The claim concerning the investigation period was addressed in recital (17).
(62) In the absence of other comments concerning the import volumes, the recitals (54) and (55) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(63) Following definitive disclosure, a clerical error concerning the import statistics was detected in recitals (56) to (58) and recital (105) of the provisional Regulation.
(64) As a result, the findings in recital (56) of the provisional Regulation were revised as follows:The table below shows the average price of imports from China:201220132014IP (2015)Average price in EUR/tonne1 0961 0791 0371 099Index (2012 = 100)1009895100Source:European Commission (Eurostat) 2012 2013 2014 IP (2015) Average price in EUR/tonne 1 096 1 079 1 037 1 099 Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 95 100 Source:European Commission (Eurostat)
2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
Average price in EUR/tonne 1 096 1 079 1 037 1 099
Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 95 100
Source:European Commission (Eurostat)
2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
Average price in EUR/tonne 1 096 1 079 1 037 1 099
Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 95 100
Source:European Commission (Eurostat)
(65) The findings in Recital (57) of the provisional Regulation were revised as follows:The average import prices were established on the basis of the Eurostat import statistics. The average import prices from China remained fairly stable during the period considered. The import prices were slightly lower in the year 2014 than in the previous years, but in 2015 the prices increased back to their initial levels.
(66) The findings in Recital (58) of the provisional Regulation were also revised as follows:However, the average import prices depend on the product mix, in particular of the steel grade, which is not visible in the trade statistics. While the average export sales price of all the Chinese exporting producers was 1 099 EUR/tonne in the IP, the average export sales price of the sampled Chinese exporting producers was 1 102 EUR/tonne, ranging from 946 EUR/tonne to 1 444 EUR/tonne.
(67) In the absence of other comments concerning the import prices, the recitals (56) to (59) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed as revised in recitals (64) to (66).
(68) Following provisional disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer and the association of Chinese exporting producers requested more justification for the elimination of two characteristics from the product control numbers (PCN) for the purposes of establishing undercutting and injury margins. They alleged that the removal of these two characteristics may have resulted in unreasonably high injury margins. They also requested clarifications on why the PCNs 214NN and 215NN exported from China did not match with the Union sales of the Union producers.
(69) In line with the information given to the exporting producers at the provisional disclosure, the Commission clarified that no sufficient matching could be found using the full PCN composed by the seven characteristics. The PCN was simplified with the elimination of product characteristics ‘quenching and tempering’ and ‘testing’. As a result of the simplification, at the provisional stage 62 % to 99 % of the exports of the sampled Chinese exporting producers matched with the product types sold in the Union by the Union industry. Contrary to what was alleged, the higher matching rate ensured that the injury findings were made on a representative basis rather than on few transactions. Following the claims of the Chinese exporting producers, the Commission adjusted the method of comparison. The import prices of the remaining product types that were not sold by the Union industry were compared with a constructed Union sales price, which was based on the average Union sales price of the closest group of product types, i.e. those with the same first PCN characteristic. As a result, 100 % of the exports of the sampled Chinese exporting producers were matched with Union sales. The undercutting margins ranged from 15,2 % to 29,1 %.
(70) As regards the specific PCNs, the Commission clarified that the reason for non-matching of these export sales at the provisional stage was the absence of Union sales of this product type with wall thickness above 30 mm. At the definitive stage, also these product types were included in the price comparison following the adjusted method explained above.
(71) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer requested further clarification on its individual injury margin in comparison with the other Chinese exporting producers, on the basis of a price comparison of the customs statistics. Secondly, the exporting producer contested the simplification of the PCN code by the elimination of the two characteristics, claiming that the simplification was not warranted and may have led to comparison at different levels. It requested instead the Commission to make an adjustment for physical characteristics for quenching and tempering for some of its product types by eliminating the average cost of quenching and tempering from the underselling price. Thirdly, the same producer pointed out that the Union sales prices did not follow logical patterns in terms of length and wall thickness. Fourthly, it also requested a clarification about the source of the constructed Union sales price that was established for the product types for which no Union sales had been found.
(72) As regards the first claim, the Commission explained that the price comparisons are made on the basis of each product type. For this reason the result does not necessarily follow the average price patterns at the level of the customs codes, since the product mixes within a same customs code are not identical for two different exporting producers. As regards the second claim, the Commission accepted the request for an adjustment. Accordingly, the injury margin for this exporting producer was recalculated as regards the product types concerned by the request. Quenching and tempering were found to concern less than 5 % of the Union sales volumes of the concerned products. The cost of quenching and tempering treatment was found to be between 30-60 EUR/tonne based on available data. The impact of the adjustment on the injury margin of the Chinese exporting producer was less than 0,2 %. As regards the third claim concerning price patterns, the Commission clarified that the average Union sales prices were established on the basis of verified transactions of the sampled Union producers. The prices depended on the specific market conditions at the time of each transaction. Fourthly, as regards the source of the constructed sales price, the Commission clarified, in line with the information provided in the disclosure documents, that the unit sales price was constructed as the average of the Union sales price of the product types having the same first PCN characteristic.
(73) Following definitive disclosure, a second Chinese exporting producer contested the constructed Union sales price. It claimed that instead of constructing the Union sales prices on the basis of the average Union sales price of all products in the same category, as explained in recital (69), the Union sale price should have been established as the average of the Union sales price of only those product types that had been exported by the individual Chinese exporting producer.
(74) The Commission pointed out that such a method would have led to different Union sales prices for the same PCN, depending on the product mix of each individual exporting producer. Such a method would therefore not guarantee equal treatment of all Chinese exporting producers. Findings based on a fewer product types would also be less representative than the findings based on all product types sold in the Union. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
(75) The Chinese exporting producer contested the use of Union sales prices for the calculation of undercutting in recital (60) and for the calculation of injury elimination level in recitals (138) to (140) of the provisional Regulation. It claimed the method is incorrect because the average result of the Union industry is probably not identical with the specific profit of each PCN. It claimed that the comparison should instead have been made on the basis of the costs.
(76) The Commission pointed out that using the costs of the Union industry instead of the prices, as claimed by the Chinese exporting producer, would have led to a less accurate comparison. This is because a comparison based on costs could not have been adjusted for the level of trade, since the level of trade can only be taken into account by disregarding specific sales transactions, namely the direct sales to end users. A cost-based calculation, by contrast, would have been based on the costs of production, thus grouping together all the products. The imports from China are made through traders. The direct sales to end-users typically involve additional tailor-made requirements, as explained in recital (61) of the provisional Regulation. A cost-based calculation would therefore have resulted in comparing different types of transactions and products with each other. Hence, contrary to what is alleged, taking into account the level of trade led to lower injury margins, since the high-cost sales made directly to end users were not included in the calculation.
(77) The complainant contested the exclusion of the direct sales to end users in recital (61) of the provisional Regulation. It claimed that even though the sales of the Chinese products are indeed made through distributors, those sales include also tailor made and high value products. According to the complainant, there is therefore no reason to exclude the direct sales to end users from the comparison.
(78) The Commission noted that both the Union industry and the Chinese exporters mostly sell through traders. Therefore, it considered that comparison of prices at the same level of trade, described in recitals (60) and (61) of the provisional Regulation, is the most accurate available method to compare the import prices from China with the most similar transactions in the Union sales.
(79) As a consequence, the conclusions set out in recitals (60) to (62) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(80) The recitals (8) and (107) of the provisional Regulation highlighted the high costs of one of the sampled Union producers. This was further investigated after the imposition of the provisional measures.
(81) Firstly, the effect of extraordinary write-offs of one Union producer was disregarded from the profitability of the Union sales. The extraordinary write-offs in the annual accounts were related to the loss of value of certain assets, following the drop in the sales to oil and gas segment outside the Union. They amounted to a total of around 1 400 million EUR for the group in the period 2014-2015. A share of the write-offs had affected the value of the production assets for the product concerned in Europe and had been recorded as a cost of production. This share of the write-off therefore made the Union sales appear more loss-making than they would have been under an ordinary cost structure of the Union sales. Hence this depreciation was not included in the costs of the Union sales. As a result, the average cost of the Union sales was reduced by 60-80 EUR/tonne in 2014 and 2015.
(82) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer requested a clarification on whether the Commission had investigated the depreciation of all four sampled Union producers and how the depreciation had been allocated to the product concerned.
(83) The Commission clarified that the regular depreciation of all four sampled Union producers was taken into account. In those cases where the assets were used to produce also other products than the product concerned, only a part of the total depreciation, corresponding to the share of volume of the product concerned, was taken into account as a cost of the product concerned. The adjustment explained in recital (81) did not change the impact of the regular depreciations. It only concerned the extraordinary write-offs of one Union producer in 2014 and 2015.
(84) Secondly, the fixed costs relating to the unused reserve capacity of this sampled Union producer were disregarded from the profitability of the Union sales. From 2012 to 2015, it lost a significant part (20 %-40 %) of sales (mainly dedicated to exports). The capacity was not reduced to reflect these losses, but instead remained in place, ready to be used when the demand resumed. Hence the costs of this reserve capacity were not included in the costs of the Union sales.
(85) The Commission assessed whether it would be warranted to make the same adjustment also to the other sampled Union producers. It found that the other Union producers had also lost export sales albeit to a smaller extent, while maintaining their capacity stable. For the sake of coherence, the Commission made the same adjustment to the costs of all sampled Union producers, which however only had a small impact (not exceeding 0,5 percentage points of the injury margin).
(86) As a result, the average cost of the Union sales was reduced by 30-100 EUR/tonne in 2014 and 2015.
(87) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer requested more information on the adjustment of the costs, their breakdown, and the impact of the adjustment. Secondly, it claimed that the published financial reports of one sampled Union producer showed financial results that were different from the costs and profitability reported in the definitive disclosure.
(88) As regards the disclosure of the cost adjustment, the Commission pointed out that the total impact of the adjustment for the costs of 2014 and 2015 was disclosed in recital (86). The Commission clarified that the cost adjustment took into account all fixed costs, including overheads, indirect labour, depreciation, and selling, general and administrative expenses. Due to commercially sensitive nature of the cost data of individual Union producers, the Commission could not reveal a detailed breakdown of the costs. The Commission instead disclosed a range of the impact. As regards the second claim, the Commission pointed out that the published financial reports referred to the results of the entire group and of all products. By contrast, the findings of the investigation concerned specifically the Union sales of the product concerned. The cost and profitability data from the two sources were therefore different, because they did not refer to the same scope of activity.
(89) The adjustments reduce the share of overheads allocated to the Union sales, and therefore reduce the losses of the Union sales in 2014 and 2015.
(90) As a result of the cost adjustments, the Commission revised the findings laid down in recital (79) of the provisional Regulation as follows:In the same period, the costs of the Union industry remained fairly stable, when the effects of extraordinary costs and reserve capacity were removed. The stable costs combined with the decreasing sales prices resulted in the industry becoming loss-making from 2013 onwards.201220132014IP (2015)Average unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers1 8391 6791 7731 584Index (2012 = 100)100919686Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne)1 7331 7131 9421 873Index (2012 = 100)10099112108Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne) after cost adjustments1 7331 7131 8301 704Index (2012 = 100)1009910698Source: Questionnaire replies 2012 2013 2014 IP (2015) Average unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers 1 839 1 679 1 773 1 584 Index (2012 = 100) 100 91 96 86 Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne) 1 733 1 713 1 942 1 873 Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 112 108 Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne) after cost adjustments 1 733 1 713 1 830 1 704 Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 106 98 Source: Questionnaire replies
2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
Average unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers 1 839 1 679 1 773 1 584
Index (2012 = 100) 100 91 96 86
Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne) 1 733 1 713 1 942 1 873
Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 112 108
Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne) after cost adjustments 1 733 1 713 1 830 1 704
Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 106 98
Source: Questionnaire replies
2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
Average unit selling price in the Union to unrelated customers 1 839 1 679 1 773 1 584
Index (2012 = 100) 100 91 96 86
Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne) 1 733 1 713 1 942 1 873
Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 112 108
Unit cost of goods sold (EUR/tonne) after cost adjustments 1 733 1 713 1 830 1 704
Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 106 98
Source: Questionnaire replies
(91) Furthermore, the Commission revised the findings laid down in recital (80) of the provisional Regulation as follows:During the period considered the Union producers' cash flow, investment, return on investment and their ability to raise capital developed as follows:201220132014IP (2015)Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)+ 5,7– 2,0– 9,5– 18,3Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) after cost adjustments+ 5,7– 2,0– 3,2– 7,6Cash flow (EUR)9 480 8878 224 52314 8943 814 661Investments (EUR)2 522 4065 241 4492 642 1672 465 992Index (2012 = 100)10020810598Return on investment (%)16,6– 6,2– 27,7– 53,6Source: Questionnaire replies 2012 2013 2014 IP (2015) Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) + 5,7 – 2,0 – 9,5 – 18,3 Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) after cost adjustments + 5,7 – 2,0 – 3,2 – 7,6 Cash flow (EUR) 9 480 887 8 224 523 14 894 3 814 661 Investments (EUR) 2 522 406 5 241 449 2 642 167 2 465 992 Index (2012 = 100) 100 208 105 98 Return on investment (%) 16,6 – 6,2 – 27,7 – 53,6 Source: Questionnaire replies
2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) + 5,7 – 2,0 – 9,5 – 18,3
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) after cost adjustments + 5,7 – 2,0 – 3,2 – 7,6
Cash flow (EUR) 9 480 887 8 224 523 14 894 3 814 661
Investments (EUR) 2 522 406 5 241 449 2 642 167 2 465 992
Index (2012 = 100) 100 208 105 98
Return on investment (%) 16,6 – 6,2 – 27,7 – 53,6
Source: Questionnaire replies
2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) + 5,7 – 2,0 – 9,5 – 18,3
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) after cost adjustments + 5,7 – 2,0 – 3,2 – 7,6
Cash flow (EUR) 9 480 887 8 224 523 14 894 3 814 661
Investments (EUR) 2 522 406 5 241 449 2 642 167 2 465 992
Index (2012 = 100) 100 208 105 98
Return on investment (%) 16,6 – 6,2 – 27,7 – 53,6
Source: Questionnaire replies
(92) Finally, the Commission revised the findings laid down in recital (88) of the provisional Regulation as follows:As shown above, during the period considered the production of the Union industry, and consequently the employment, has decreased. The Union industry has lost sales volumes and market share, while the imports from China have undercut the Union prices, thereby putting a pressure on the prices. As a result, the sales prices have decreased. Most importantly, the industry has become loss-making: profitability has deteriorated during the period considered, reaching the worst result in the IP.
(93) Following provisional disclosure, the complainant requested further clarification on the determination of the injury indicators in situations where the same production line can also be used to produce smaller diameter pipes, as mentioned in recitals (68) to (70) of the provisional Regulation.
(94) The Commission clarified that the capacity utilisation has been established on the basis of the utilisation of the total capacity by all products on the same production lines. For all the other injury indicators, only the product concerned has been taken into account.
(95) The complainant commented that the impact of the dumping assessed in recital (76) of the provisional Regulation should be considered significant. It also requested a clarification on the conclusion that no dumping had been found previously in recital (77) of the provisional Regulation.
(96) The Commission clarified that in view of the high dumping margins and the significant volume and market share and significantly lower prices of the imports from China, the magnitude of the dumping margin is such as to constitute a factor of injury having an impact on the Union industry under Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation. The Commission further clarified that the recital (77) of the provisional Regulation refers to the fact that the Commission has not previously made a finding of dumping for the product concerned during the period considered. While a previous investigation was initiated in 2013, it was subsequently terminated without concluding that dumping had taken place in the investigation period or before.
(97) Following provisional disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer questioned the findings in recital (79) of the provisional Regulation, in particular why the average cost of goods sold had increased by 8 % during the period considered, and in case this increase was due to only one Union producer, whether this reflected the injury of the entire Union industry.
(98) The Commission noted that following the cost adjustments explained in recitals (81) and (84), the average cost of goods sold has remained broadly stable during the period considered. At the same time, the average prices of the Union sales have decreased by 14 %, as shown in recitals (78) and (79) of the provisional Regulation. This has led to losses of the Union industry from 2013 onwards. It must therefore be concluded that the Union industry as a whole has suffered injury as a result of the declining sales prices.
(99) The association of Chinese exporting producers requested further clarification on the labour costs in recital (87) of the provisional Regulation, and on the impact of the overhead costs on the performance of the Union industry.
(100) The Commission clarified that the total number of employees has decreased by 13 % during the period considered, as shown in recital (75) of the provisional Regulation, and the average labour cost per employee has decreased by 8 %, as shown in recital (87) of the provisional Regulation. This decrease in average labour cost per employee is partly due to salary cuts, and partly due to a decrease in the number of hours worked. The fewer hours worked per employee is also reflected in the average output by each employee, which has decreased by 13 %, as shown in recital (75) of the provisional Regulation. As a result, the overall impact of labour costs per tonne has remained broadly stable during the period considered, so it cannot be considered to have been a major factor of injury.
(101) In the absence of other comments concerning the economic situation of the Union industry, and after the changes to recitals (79), (80) and (88), the other conclusions set out in recitals (63) to (89) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(102) Following provisional disclosure, the association of Chinese exporting producers commented that according to recital (56) of the provisional Regulation, the peak of the Chinese import prices to the Union was the year 2014, while the development of the injury indicators of the Union industry in that same year does not bear a direct relation to the import trends from China.
(103) The association of the Chinese exporting producers also contested the findings in recital (94) of the provisional Regulation. It disputed the existence of a causal link between the imports from China and the losses of the Union industry. Firstly, it argued that the difficulties of the Union industry started well before 2013, as demonstrated by the earlier anti-dumping complaint filed in 2012. Secondly, the increase of imports from China cannot be described to have been significant. Thirdly, the impact of the decrease of imports from China in 2013 has not been explained. Fourthly, the injury analysis should not focus on one particular year. Fifthly, the prices of the Union industry developed positively in 2014, despite the increase of imports from China. Overall, it alleged that the losses of the Union industry have fluctuated too much for there to be link with the import volumes from China. The injury to the Union industry must therefore have been caused by other factors than the imports from China.
(104) The association of the Chinese exporting producers also claimed that the injury analysis should have been made separately for each of the three segments within the product scope (oil and gas, power generation and mechanicals/construction). Otherwise the differences between the products and prices allegedly did not allow a proper comparison. In particular, the imports from China concerned predominantly the mechanicals/construction segment, whereas the Union producers were relatively more involved in the power generation and oil and gas segments.
(105) A Chinese exporting producer commented that according to the trade statistics the average prices from China remained stable during the period concerned. Therefore price undercutting by the imports from China cannot have been the cause of the declining sales volumes of the Union industry.
(106) The same exporting producer also questioned the import prices from China and other countries in recital (105) of the provisional Regulation. It pointed out that the low average import prices from China do not reflect the higher prices of the sampled Chinese exporting producers.
(107) The Commission agreed that all the injury indicators do not show a year-to-year correlation with the development of the imports from China. However, the effects are delayed from one year to the next as the prices and business relationships adjust to the increased unfair competition. As the imports from China take place through traders, the investigation of the unrelated importers has shown that there is a significant time-lag between the moment of ordering the products from China and their delivery to the end-user, resulting from the time of production, transport, stocking at the level of the trader and final delivery. The overall impact of the low-priced imports may thus only be observed over the entire period considered. None of the parties have contested the findings in recital (62) of the provisional Regulation that the imports from China entered the Union market at prices significantly undercutting the Union prices. Nor has it been contested that the imports from China increased in absolute terms during the period considered, in a context of decreasing Union consumption, which led to an even larger increase in relative terms.
(108) As regards the segments, the Commission pointed out that the relevant differences between product types are reflected in the product control number (PCN), which ensures that only comparable products are compared with each other. The key characteristics of the segments are distinguished by the PCN: alloy and high-alloy steels (power generation segment), non-alloy steels (construction) and the specific product categories of line pipe, casing, tubing and drill pipes (oil and gas segment). Moreover, as explained in recital (25), even if separate injury margins would have been established for each segment, the total duties to be paid for a given product mix would have remained identical.
(109) As regards the trade statistics, the Commission observed that the trade statistics do not account for the product mix, as explained in recital (58) of the provisional Regulation. The average prices may therefore represent different products in different years. By contrast, the undercutting between 15,1 % and 30,2 % in recital (62) of the provisional Regulation has been established by comparing the prices of the same product types, not the overall averages. Therefore the different product mixes of the sampled Chinese exporting producers are taken into account when establishing their individual injury margins.
(110) Therefore the conclusions set out in recitals (91) to (95) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(111) In accordance with recital (114) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission further investigated the causes that have led to the significant decrease in the profitability of the Union industry.
(112) As requested in recital (98) of the provisional Regulation, the complainant provided data showing that the worldwide consumption of seamless pipes and tubes has decreased by more than 10 % during the period considered. The decrease has been concentrated in the oil-producing regions, due to a standstill in the oil and gas drilling caused by the low oil prices. By contrast, the power generation and mechanical segments have not been directly affected by the difficulties in the oil and gas segment, but they have nevertheless experienced an indirect effect. According to the Union industry, in the absence of demand from oil and gas segment the producers have sought to sell to the other segments instead, leading to more competitive pressure in the other segments too.
(113) Following provisional disclosure, the Chinese exporting producers and their association requested, in addition to the percentages in recital (96) of the provisional Regulation, the export data of the Union industry. They also argued that the poor export performance, in particular in the oil and gas segment, has been the cause of the injury suffered by the Union industry. They argued that the impact of the lost sales has been more important than the relatively small increase of imports from China to the Union. They alleged that the cause behind the losses of the Union industry is the decrease in productivity resulting from lower production volumes.
(114) The Commission provided below the requested export volumes:201220132014IP (2015)Exports of the Union industry (tonnes)188 730194 744192 027130 367Index (2012 = 100)10010310269 2012 2013 2014 IP (2015) Exports of the Union industry (tonnes) 188 730 194 744 192 027 130 367 Index (2012 = 100) 100 103 102 69
2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
Exports of the Union industry (tonnes) 188 730 194 744 192 027 130 367
Index (2012 = 100) 100 103 102 69
2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
Exports of the Union industry (tonnes) 188 730 194 744 192 027 130 367
Index (2012 = 100) 100 103 102 69
(115) As can be seen, exports of the Union industry decreased by 31 % during the period considered. This decrease of exports was thus larger than the worldwide decrease of consumption. As mentioned in recital (96) of the provisional Regulation, also the Union sales decreased during the period considered, so that the share of exports remained high, at 56 % of all sales in the IP. The other findings set out in recitals (96) and (97) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(116) The Commission concluded that the decrease of export sales had a negative impact on the financial situation of the Union industry and contributed to the injury. The decrease in sales volumes led to lower capacity utilisation and thus increased the weight of the overheads on all sales, also on the Union sales. The weak export performance was thus a factor contributing to the injury suffered by the Union industry by increasing the costs of the Union sales. Due to the adjustments to the costs of the Union producers explained in recitals (81) and (84), the impact of this cause was largely removed from the calculation of the injury margin. To the extent that the effect would not have been fully removed by the adjustments, any remaining impact on the level of the injury margin would have been only marginal.
(117) The export performance cannot explain the injury resulting from the increase of imports from China at prices undercutting the Union prices, and the consequent depressing of the Union prices. In the absence of dumped imports, the Union producers could have sold their products in the Union market at non-injurious prices. Therefore the export performance did not break the causal link between the imports from China and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
(118) In the absence of comments, the conclusions set out in recitals (99) and (100) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(119) Following provisional disclosure, a Chinese exporting producer commented that the increase of imports from China during the period considered was 3 344 tonnes. At the same time the Union consumption decreased by 18 212 tonnes and the imports from other third countries increased by 9 711 tonnes, out of which imports from Japan increased by 3 535 tonnes. It pointed out that all these factors had a larger impact than the increase of imports from China.
(120) The Commission agreed that lower consumption and the increase of imports from other countries may have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry by reducing the sales volumes of the Union industry.
(121) However, these factors cannot explain the increase of imports from China at prices undercutting the Union prices. The imports from China have increased in a context of decreasing consumption in the Union. In particular, as shown in recitals (101) to (105) of the provisional Regulation, the prices of the imports from the other countries were higher than the prices of the imports from China, their average prices increased during the period considered, and their market share remained small. The imports from third countries therefore cannot have been the cause of the decrease in the Union sales prices. Thus, the injury caused by the imports from the third countries both to prices and to volumes, if any, would be marginal. Therefore these factors did not break the causal link between the imports from China and the material injury suffered by the Union industry. In any event, to the extent that these factors had a more than marginal impact, they are reflected in the adjustment concerning unused capacity in recitals (84) and (85).
(122) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer disputed the trade statistics data in recital (105) of the provisional Regulation, claiming that the prices of tonne of the imports from countries other than China and Japan were abnormally high. The Chinese exporting producer alleged that the underlying reason was under-declaration of the import quantities, resulting in high average prices. As a result, it claimed that the causation findings were flawed because they failed to take into account the allegedly higher volumes and lower prices of imports from third countries.
(123) The Commission clarified that the data in recital (105) of the provisional Regulation was based on publicly available Eurostat data. The Commission completed the data in the form of a more comprehensive table, which detailed also the imports from USA and the imports from all other countries than China, Japan and the USA. It also corrected the clerical errors detected following definitive disclosure. As a result, the findings in recital (105) of the provisional Regulation were revised as follows:On the basis of above, it is concluded that the impact of these imports is not such as to break the causal link between Chinese imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.Country201220132014IP (2015)ChinaVolume (tonnes)39 19535 33741 59042 539Index (2012 = 100)10090106109Market share on EU consumption (%)22,220,626,826,8Index (2012 = 100)10093121121Av. Price (EUR/tonne)1 0961 0791 0371 099Index (2012 = 100)1009895100JapanVolume (tonnes)2 2228 9223 6905 757Index (2012 = 100)100402166259Market share on EU consumption (%)1,35,22,43,6Index (2012 = 100)100414166259Av. Price (EUR/tonne)2 1461 7002 7791 143Index (2012 = 100)1007913053Total of all third countries except ChinaVolume (tonnes)5 31316 30818 38715 024Index (2012 = 100)100307346283Market share on EU consumption (%)3,09,511,99,5Index (2012 = 100)100316394315Av. Price (EUR/tonne)2 7172 0602 8894 073Index (2012 = 100)10076106150USAVolume (tonnes)1 1792 5913 8672 392Index (2012 = 100)100220328203Market share on EU consumption (%)0,71,52,51,5Index (2012 = 100)100227374226Av. Price (EUR/tonne)3 3602 5142 69515 421Index (2012 = 100)1007580459Total of all third countries except China, Japan and the USAVolume (tonnes)1 9154 79510 8306 875Index (2012 = 100)100250566359Market share on EU consumption (%)1,12,87,04,3Index (2012 = 100)100258645400Av. Price (EUR/tonne)2 9832 4852 9962 557Index (2012 = 100)1008310086Source:European Commission (Eurostat) Country 2012 2013 2014 IP (2015) China Volume (tonnes) 39 195 35 337 41 590 42 539 Index (2012 = 100) 100 90 106 109 Market share on EU consumption (%) 22,2 20,6 26,8 26,8 Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 121 121 Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 1 096 1 079 1 037 1 099 Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 95 100 Japan Volume (tonnes) 2 222 8 922 3 690 5 757 Index (2012 = 100) 100 402 166 259 Market share on EU consumption (%) 1,3 5,2 2,4 3,6 Index (2012 = 100) 100 414 166 259 Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 2 146 1 700 2 779 1 143 Index (2012 = 100) 100 79 130 53 Total of all third countries except China Volume (tonnes) 5 313 16 308 18 387 15 024 Index (2012 = 100) 100 307 346 283 Market share on EU consumption (%) 3,0 9,5 11,9 9,5 Index (2012 = 100) 100 316 394 315 Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 2 717 2 060 2 889 4 073 Index (2012 = 100) 100 76 106 150 USA Volume (tonnes) 1 179 2 591 3 867 2 392 Index (2012 = 100) 100 220 328 203 Market share on EU consumption (%) 0,7 1,5 2,5 1,5 Index (2012 = 100) 100 227 374 226 Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 3 360 2 514 2 695 15 421 Index (2012 = 100) 100 75 80 459 Total of all third countries except China, Japan and the USA Volume (tonnes) 1 915 4 795 10 830 6 875 Index (2012 = 100) 100 250 566 359 Market share on EU consumption (%) 1,1 2,8 7,0 4,3 Index (2012 = 100) 100 258 645 400 Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 2 983 2 485 2 996 2 557 Index (2012 = 100) 100 83 100 86 Source:European Commission (Eurostat)
Country 2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
China Volume (tonnes) 39 195 35 337 41 590 42 539
Index (2012 = 100) 100 90 106 109
Market share on EU consumption (%) 22,2 20,6 26,8 26,8
Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 121 121
Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 1 096 1 079 1 037 1 099
Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 95 100
Japan Volume (tonnes) 2 222 8 922 3 690 5 757
Index (2012 = 100) 100 402 166 259
Market share on EU consumption (%) 1,3 5,2 2,4 3,6
Index (2012 = 100) 100 414 166 259
Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 2 146 1 700 2 779 1 143
Index (2012 = 100) 100 79 130 53
Total of all third countries except China Volume (tonnes) 5 313 16 308 18 387 15 024
Index (2012 = 100) 100 307 346 283
Market share on EU consumption (%) 3,0 9,5 11,9 9,5
Index (2012 = 100) 100 316 394 315
Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 2 717 2 060 2 889 4 073
Index (2012 = 100) 100 76 106 150
USA Volume (tonnes) 1 179 2 591 3 867 2 392
Index (2012 = 100) 100 220 328 203
Market share on EU consumption (%) 0,7 1,5 2,5 1,5
Index (2012 = 100) 100 227 374 226
Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 3 360 2 514 2 695 15 421
Index (2012 = 100) 100 75 80 459
Total of all third countries except China, Japan and the USA Volume (tonnes) 1 915 4 795 10 830 6 875
Index (2012 = 100) 100 250 566 359
Market share on EU consumption (%) 1,1 2,8 7,0 4,3
Index (2012 = 100) 100 258 645 400
Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 2 983 2 485 2 996 2 557
Index (2012 = 100) 100 83 100 86
Source:European Commission (Eurostat)
Country 2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
China Volume (tonnes) 39 195 35 337 41 590 42 539
Index (2012 = 100) 100 90 106 109
Market share on EU consumption (%) 22,2 20,6 26,8 26,8
Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 121 121
Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 1 096 1 079 1 037 1 099
Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 95 100
Japan Volume (tonnes) 2 222 8 922 3 690 5 757
Index (2012 = 100) 100 402 166 259
Market share on EU consumption (%) 1,3 5,2 2,4 3,6
Index (2012 = 100) 100 414 166 259
Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 2 146 1 700 2 779 1 143
Index (2012 = 100) 100 79 130 53
Total of all third countries except China Volume (tonnes) 5 313 16 308 18 387 15 024
Index (2012 = 100) 100 307 346 283
Market share on EU consumption (%) 3,0 9,5 11,9 9,5
Index (2012 = 100) 100 316 394 315
Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 2 717 2 060 2 889 4 073
Index (2012 = 100) 100 76 106 150
USA Volume (tonnes) 1 179 2 591 3 867 2 392
Index (2012 = 100) 100 220 328 203
Market share on EU consumption (%) 0,7 1,5 2,5 1,5
Index (2012 = 100) 100 227 374 226
Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 3 360 2 514 2 695 15 421
Index (2012 = 100) 100 75 80 459
Total of all third countries except China, Japan and the USA Volume (tonnes) 1 915 4 795 10 830 6 875
Index (2012 = 100) 100 250 566 359
Market share on EU consumption (%) 1,1 2,8 7,0 4,3
Index (2012 = 100) 100 258 645 400
Av. Price (EUR/tonne) 2 983 2 485 2 996 2 557
Index (2012 = 100) 100 83 100 86
Source:European Commission (Eurostat)
(124) The import statistics showed that the imports from the USA had a particularly high unit price during the IP. The import prices from remaining third countries were broadly in line with the Union prices and remained fairly stable over time. Thus the high average import prices reflected the variations of the import prices from the USA. The Commission noted that no evidence was submitted supporting the claim that the import statistics were wrong. In any event, considering the relatively high prices from the USA also during the previous years, and their small market share, even if there would have been an error in the statistics concerning the USA, as alleged by the Chinese exporting producer, it would not have altered the findings in recital (121) that the imports from third countries did not break the causal link between the imports from China and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
(125) In the absence of other comments, the conclusions set out in recitals (101) to (106) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(126) In accordance with recitals (107) to (110) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission examined in more detailed the situation of one of the Union producers.
(127) The average costs of this Union producer were indeed higher than those of the other Union producers. However, this is explained by the wide range of products than the other Union producers, including a larger proportion of the more expensive alloy and high-alloy steel products. The Union producer also sells tailor-made products directly to final customers, instead of distributors. These sales typically attract higher prices.
(128) The Union producer demonstrated that some of the Chinese exporting producers have obtained the necessary quality certificates to supply also the most critical applications in the Union, and were thus competing also in the high-end segment in the Union for the same projects as the Union producer, thus causing a price pressure on its Union sales.
(129) During the period considered, the Union producer lost production volumes faster than the other Union producers, notably in exports, which led to an increase in the weight of the fixed costs. There were extraordinary depreciations to reflect the difficulties in the oil and gas markets. Finally, the profitability of the Union sales was also affected by the decrease of sales prices in the Union.
(130) Even though a part of the losses of the Union producer were due to the lost sales volumes and the consequent low capacity utilisation, the Commission also found that part of its financial losses was due to the lowering prices in the Union market. There is thus a causal link between the dumped imports from China, undercutting the Union prices, and the injury suffered by the Union producer. This causal link, affecting the Union sales prices, is not broken by the specific costs of the Union producer in 2014-2015.
(131) As explained in recitals (81), (84), (85), (90) and (91), adjustments were made to the costs of the Union producer and the profitability of the Union sales was recalculated. The adjustments largely removed the impact of the export sales and the depreciations related to the specific situation in the oil and gas markets. To the extent that the effect would not have been fully removed by the cost adjustments, any remaining impact on the level of the injury margin would have been only marginal. Even after the cost adjustments, the profitability of the Union producer remained negatively affected by the undercutting of its sales prices in the Union.
(132) Following definitive disclosure, as explained in recital (26), one Chinese exporting producer and the association of Chinese exporting producers alleged that the difficulties encountered by the Union industry in the sales in the other segments than oil and gas were the result of the market forces, and not related to imports from China. They also claimed that the Union producers had chosen a commercial strategy to shift from oil and gas products to lower-priced segments, which caused the negative trends in profitability.
(133) The Commission noted that the dumped imports from China had undercut the Union prices in the product scope as a whole, not only in the oil and gas segment. Therefore the injury caused by the imports from China was not limited to a particular segment. Absent the dumped imports undercutting Union prices, the Union industry would have been able to obtain higher prices in all segments, independently of the focus of Union producers. To the extent that shifting to the other segments was a source of injury, it was due to the export performance and the lowering of consumption, both of which were assessed above as other potential factors causing injury, with the conclusion that those factors could not break the causal link between the dumped imports from China and the injury suffered by the Union industry. The claim was therefore rejected.
(134) The Commission concluded that the other causes of injury, both separately and when taken together, did not break the causal link between the dumped imports from China and the injury suffered by the Union industry. This is because the dumped imports clearly caused injury by undercutting the Union prices and thus depressing the sales prices in the Union market.
(135) By contrast, the other causes of injury were not related to undercutting of the Union sales prices and their cumulative impact was marginal. The injury caused by the decreasing sales volumes was unrelated to the Union prices and its effect was at most marginal after the cost adjustments to the Union producers. The imports from third countries were small, and occurred at high and increasing prices. They therefore did not cause price depression, and their effect, if any, was marginal. The specific cost structure of one Union producer was addressed by the cost adjustments, and any remaining effect after the cost adjustments was at most marginal.
(136) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer argued that the general wage and cost level in China was lower than in the Union, which explained why the Chinese prices were below the Union prices. It claimed that the price undercutting was therefore a normal phenomenon, and comparisons between Union prices and import prices were unfair.
(137) The Commission pointed out that the anti-dumping duties are imposed only in situations where the prices of the export sales are below normal value. The arguments concerning lower costs in general were therefore not pertinent.
(138) Following definitive disclosure, another Chinese exporting producer and the association of Chinese exporting producers contested the findings on causation. They argued that the imports from China could not explain the variations of the profitability of the Union industry. They alleged that causes other than the imports from China had caused the injury to the Union industry. They argued that the cost adjustments cannot substitute the causation analysis.
(139) The Commission noted that the cost adjustments determined the actual cost of the Union industry, as explained in recitals (81), (84), (85) and (86). Second, the Commission noted that the arguments raised following the definitive disclosure did not dispute the finding that the imports from China increased during the period considered, in a context of decreasing Union consumption. The arguments also did not dispute the finding that the imports from China had undercut the Union prices, thus causing injury to the Union industry. The Commission assessed in detail the other factors that had contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry in recitals (111) to (135). The cumulative attribution analysis of the other factors in recitals (134) and (135) showed that the other factors, both separately and when taken together, did not break the causal link between the dumped imports from China undercutting the Union prices and the injury suffered by the EU industry, and that no injury attributable to other factors has been attributed to the dumped imports. The claims were therefore rejected.
(140) Therefore, even when the cumulative effect of the other factors possibly contributing to injury was assessed, the causal link between dumping and injury was not broken. On this basis, the conclusions set out in recital (115) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(141) Following provisional disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer disagreed with the conclusions set out in the recital (124) of the provisional Regulation, according to which there are several alternative sources of supply. However the claim was not substantiated. The findings of the investigation show that most of the unrelated importers already purchase from other sources.
(142) The claim was rejected and the conclusions set out in recitals (116) to (132) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(143) Following provisional disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer claimed that the target profit of + 5,7 % used in order to determine the injury elimination level as set out in recital (137) of the provisional Regulation was not reached in normal conditions of competition. However the claim was not substantiated and it did not specify what method or profit rate should have been used instead. The claim was therefore rejected.
(144) The complainant argued that the appropriate level of the target profit should be + 15 %, as imports from China were already present in 2012. It suggested using profit data from the years before 2012 to support such a level.
(145) The Commission noted that the method for provisionally determining the target profit on the basis of the year 2012 was suggested in the complaint, and that the level was based on verified data of the Union producers. The Union producers did not provide historical profit data from the years before 2012 that could be verified. The claim was therefore rejected and the conclusions set out in recitals (134) to (137) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed, as regards the method of determining the target profit on the basis of the year 2012.
(146) At the provisional stage, the high-priced products determined the average profitability to a large degree, because the calculation was based on sales values. However, most of the Union sales and of the imports from China concern low-price commodity products. The method based on sales values therefore overstates the importance of the high-priced products compared with their actual share of the Union market. For these reasons, for the purposes of calculating the injury elimination level, the weights of the Union producers were set to correspond to their share of the sales volume, as opposed to sales value.
(147) The weighted average profitability is as follows:201220132014IP (2015)Average profitability of the Union industry, weighted by sales volume in the Union (%)+ 4,7– 0,9– 4,0– 3,9 2012 2013 2014 IP (2015) Average profitability of the Union industry, weighted by sales volume in the Union (%) + 4,7 – 0,9 – 4,0 – 3,9
2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
Average profitability of the Union industry, weighted by sales volume in the Union (%) + 4,7 – 0,9 – 4,0 – 3,9
2012 2013 2014 IP (2015)
Average profitability of the Union industry, weighted by sales volume in the Union (%) + 4,7 – 0,9 – 4,0 – 3,9
(148) Thus, the profit of the year 2012 changed from + 5,7 % to + 4,7 %. The target profit was therefore set at + 4,7 %.
(149) The weighted profitability of the Union industry in the IP and the target profit are used for the calculation of the non-injurious prices, in line with recitals (139) and (140) of the provisional Regulation.
(150) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer questioned the calculation of the target unit price. It claimed that the target unit prices should be 4,7 % higher than the Union sales prices, while in the definitive disclosure the difference between the two prices had been 9 %.
(151) The Commission clarified that the difference between Union sales price and target unit price is composed of the average loss (– 3,9 %) and of the target profit (+ 4,7 %). These percentages are calculated on the basis of the Union sales prices, as explained in recital (139) of the provisional Regulation. These same amounts lead to a difference of 9 % when expressed as a percentage of the import CIF values.
(152) Following definitive disclosure, a second Chinese exporting producer referred to the published annual accounts of one sampled Union producer, and argued that the Union producer had been profitable in 2014, and despite having been loss-making in 2015 could be considered profitable if the costs were adjusted by eliminating the loss of value of assets, decreasing the cost of goods sold in line with the sales, and decreasing the sales, general and administrative costs in line with the sales. On this basis, the Chinese exporting producer claimed that the Union industry was profitable in 2013-2015, and therefore the injury margin calculation should not include any target profit, nor should it take into account the losses of the Union industry.
(153) The Commission noted that the financial results in the annual accounts referred to the results of the entire group and of all products, while the findings of the investigation concerned specifically the Union sales of the product concerned. Hence, the profitability of the Union sales of the product concerned could not be calculated on the basis of the published accounts, as they did not refer to the same scope of activity.
(154) The comments concerning the method for establishing the injury elimination level were addressed in the recitals (75) to (78). In the absence of other comments, the conclusions set out in recitals (138) to (141) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(155) 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 the imports of the product concerned, in accordance with the lesser duty rule in Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation. The Commission compared the injury margins and the dumping margins. The amount of the duties should be set at the level of the lower of the dumping and injury margins.
(156) On the basis of the above, the definitive anti-dumping duty rates, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, should be as follows:CompanyInjury margin (%)Dumping margin (%)Definitive anti-dumping duty rate (%)Yangzhou Chengde Steel Pipe Co., Ltd29,245,429,2Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co., Ltd54,9103,854,9Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd44,639,939,9Hengyang Valin MPM Co., Ltd48,292,948,2Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd41,452,341,4Other cooperating producers45,673,645,6All other producers54,9103,854,9 Company Injury margin (%) Dumping margin (%) Definitive anti-dumping duty rate (%) Yangzhou Chengde Steel Pipe Co., Ltd 29,2 45,4 29,2 Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co., Ltd 54,9 103,8 54,9 Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd 44,6 39,9 39,9 Hengyang Valin MPM Co., Ltd 48,2 92,9 48,2 Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd 41,4 52,3 41,4 Other cooperating producers 45,6 73,6 45,6 All other producers 54,9 103,8 54,9
Company Injury margin (%) Dumping margin (%) Definitive anti-dumping duty rate (%)
Yangzhou Chengde Steel Pipe Co., Ltd 29,2 45,4 29,2
Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co., Ltd 54,9 103,8 54,9
Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd 44,6 39,9 39,9
Hengyang Valin MPM Co., Ltd 48,2 92,9 48,2
Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd 41,4 52,3 41,4
Other cooperating producers 45,6 73,6 45,6
All other producers 54,9 103,8 54,9
Company Injury margin (%) Dumping margin (%) Definitive anti-dumping duty rate (%)
Yangzhou Chengde Steel Pipe Co., Ltd 29,2 45,4 29,2
Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co., Ltd 54,9 103,8 54,9
Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd 44,6 39,9 39,9
Hengyang Valin MPM Co., Ltd 48,2 92,9 48,2
Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd 41,4 52,3 41,4
Other cooperating producers 45,6 73,6 45,6
All other producers 54,9 103,8 54,9
(157) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of this investigation. Therefore, they reflected the situation found during this investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates are exclusively applicable to imports of the product concerned originating in the country concerned and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of product concerned 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.
(158) A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission(6). 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 notice informing about the change of name will be published in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.
(159) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to a difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The companies with individual anti-dumping duties must present 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) hereof. Imports not accompanied by that invoice should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(160) To ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duties, the anti-dumping duty for all other companies should apply not only to the non-cooperating exporting producers in this investigation, but also to the producers which did not have exports to the Union during the investigation period.
(161) In view of the dumping margins found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties.
(162) The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,
Company Definitive anti-dumping duty rate (%) TARIC additional code
Yangzhou Chengde Steel Pipe Co., Ltd 29,2 C171
Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co., Ltd 54,9 C172
Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd 39,9 C173
Hengyang Valin MPM Co., Ltd 48,2 C174
Zhejiang Gross Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd 41,4 C204
Companies listed in the Annex 45,6 C998
All other producers 54,9 C999
(i) it did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) originating in China during the period of investigation (1 January-31 December 2015);
(ii) it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation; and
(iii) it has either actually exported the goods concerned or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the period of investigation,
Company TARIC additional code
Tianjin Pipe Manufacturing Co., Ltd C998
Shandong Luxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd C998
Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Union Co., Ltd C998
Wuxi SP. Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd C998
Zhangjiagang Tubes China Co., Ltd C998
TianJin TianGang Special Petroleum Pipe Manufacture Co., Ltd C998
Shandong Zhongzheng Steel Pipe Manufacturing Co., Ltd C998
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union(1)(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
After consulting the Member States,
Volume and market share if the imports concerned
Prices of imports and price undercutting
Export performance of the Union industry
Sales to related parties
Imports from third countries and decreasing consumption due to the crisis in the oil and gas sector
Differences in costs and profitability margins within the Union industry
Shifting of Union industry’s focus to lower-price products
Cumulative assessment of those other factors that have been found to contribute to injury
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, currently falling within CN codes 7304 19 90, ex 7304 29 90, 7304 39 98 and 7304 59 99 (TARIC code 7304299090) and originating in the People’s Republic of China.
2. The rates 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:
3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the Member States’ customs authorities of a valid commercial invoice, on which shall appear a declaration dated and signed by an official of the entity issuing such invoice, identified by his/her name and function, drafted as follows: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of (product concerned) 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.’ If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply. This requirement shall not apply to duties secured by the way of the provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to the Regulation (EU) 2016/1977.
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

Article 2
Where any exporting producer from China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:
(i)
it did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) originating in China during the period of investigation (1 January-31 December 2015);
(ii)
it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation; and
(iii)
it has either actually exported the goods concerned or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the period of investigation,
the Article 1(2) may be amended by adding the new exporting producer to the list in Annex.

Article 3
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to the Regulation (EU) 2016/1977 shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released.

Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union(1)(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
After consulting the Member States,
Volume and market share if the imports concerned
Prices of imports and price undercutting
Export performance of the Union industry
Sales to related parties
Imports from third countries and decreasing consumption due to the crisis in the oil and gas sector
Differences in costs and profitability margins within the Union industry
Shifting of Union industry’s focus to lower-price products
Cumulative assessment of those other factors that have been found to contribute to injury
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, currently falling within CN codes 7304 19 90, ex 7304 29 90, 7304 39 98 and 7304 59 99 (TARIC code 7304299090) and originating in the People’s Republic of China.
2. The rates 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:
3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the Member States’ customs authorities of a valid commercial invoice, on which shall appear a declaration dated and signed by an official of the entity issuing such invoice, identified by his/her name and function, drafted as follows: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of (product concerned) 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.’ If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply. This requirement shall not apply to duties secured by the way of the provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to the Regulation (EU) 2016/1977.
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
Where any exporting producer from China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:
(i)
it did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) originating in China during the period of investigation (1 January-31 December 2015);
(ii)
it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation; and
(iii)
it has either actually exported the goods concerned or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the period of investigation,
the Article 1(2) may be amended by adding the new exporting producer to the list in Annex.
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to the Regulation (EU) 2016/1977 shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.
ANNEXThe People’s Republic of China cooperating exporting producers not sampled:

Company | TARIC additional code
Tianjin Pipe Manufacturing Co., Ltd | C998
Shandong Luxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd | C998
Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Union Co., Ltd | C998
Wuxi SP. Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd | C998
Zhangjiagang Tubes China Co., Ltd | C998
TianJin TianGang Special Petroleum Pipe Manufacture Co., Ltd | C998
Shandong Zhongzheng Steel Pipe Manufacturing Co., Ltd | C998

Pending: 32017R0649

6.4.2017 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 92/68
(1) On 7 October 2016 the European Commission (‘the Commission’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel whether or not in coils (including ‘cut-to-length’ and ‘narrow strip’ products), not further worked than hot-rolled, not clad, plated or coated (‘the product concerned’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1778(2)(‘the provisional Regulation’).
(2) The investigation had been initiated on 13 February 2016(3)following a complaint lodged on 4 January 2016 by the European Steel Association (‘Eurofer’ or ‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 90 % of the total Union production of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel.
(3) As stated in recital (23) of the provisional Regulation the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2012 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).
(4) As mentioned in recital (3) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission also initiated the following two investigations:(a)on 13 May 2016(4), an anti-subsidy investigation on imports of the same product originating in the People's Republic of China;(b)on 7 July 2016(5), an anti-dumping investigation on imports of the same product originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine. (a) on 13 May 2016(4), an anti-subsidy investigation on imports of the same product originating in the People's Republic of China; (b) on 7 July 2016(5), an anti-dumping investigation on imports of the same product originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine.
(a) on 13 May 2016(4), an anti-subsidy investigation on imports of the same product originating in the People's Republic of China;
(b) on 7 July 2016(5), an anti-dumping investigation on imports of the same product originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine.
(a) on 13 May 2016(4), an anti-subsidy investigation on imports of the same product originating in the People's Republic of China;
(b) on 7 July 2016(5), an anti-dumping investigation on imports of the same product originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine.
(5) As stated in recital (4) of the provisional Regulation, the complainant submitted on 5 April 2016 a request for registration of imports of the product concerned from the PRC. On 2 June 2016, the complainant updated the request by providing more recent financial data, but on 11 August 2016, withdrew it.
(6) Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (the provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.
(7) As set out in detail from recital (135) and following below, one interested party was invited by the Commission services to request the intervention by the Hearing Officer in certain trade proceedings (‘the Hearing Officer’) on the accuracy of the provisional calculations and on his right to access confidential information. This hearing took place on 7 February 2017.
(8) The Commission continued seeking and verifying all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. In order to have at its disposal more comprehensive data on the Union's cost of production (per product type per quarter of the investigation period), the sampled Union producers were requested to provide additional data. All sampled Union producers submitted the requested information.
(9) The Commission informed all parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the product concerned into the Union. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the definitive disclosure.
(10) The comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.
(11) Recital (24) of the provisional Regulation set out the provisional definition of the product concerned.
(12) Recitals (29) to (35) of the provisional Regulation set out the claim from a Chinese exporting producer and an importer to exclude tool steel and high-speed steel from the product scope, and the reasons why the Commission provisionally excluded tool steel and high-speed steel from the product scope.
(13) Following definitive disclosure, the complainant reiterated its comment that this claim was not well founded and that there is a risk of circumvention in case these claims would be accepted by the Commission. The Commission observed that it already considered the risk of circumvention at provisional stage. As laid out in recital (34) of the provisional Regulation, it found that imports of tool steel and high-speed steel account volume-wise for about 1,25 % of total Chinese imports in 2015, and that they fall under different, specific CN codes. Furthermore, the Commission did not receive any evidence which would indicate a change in pattern of trade after the imposition of provisional measures, suggesting potential circumvention.
(14) For the reasons set out in recitals (32) to (34) of the provisional Regulation and absent any new facts or evidence, the Commission maintained its decision to exclude tool steel and high-speed steel from the product scope.
(15) Recitals (36) to (37) of the provisional Regulation set out the claim of an Italian user to exclude certain other product types from the product scope. As stated in recitals (38) and (39) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission provisionally rejected these requests but stated that it would further investigate this product exclusion request. Following the provisional disclosure, this Italian user reiterated its request.
(16) During an on spot verification visit in the premises of the company, the Commission sought to clarify the points raised by this user.
(17) However, the user did not bring forward any new element during these discussions. Accordingly, the Commission rejected these claims and confirmed its conclusions reached in recitals (38) and (39) of the provisional Regulation.
(18) Following final disclosure, the Italian user reiterated its request to exclude Interstitial-Free (IF) steel types, dual-phase steel types, high carbon steel types, and non-grain oriented steel types of the product concerned. This user referred to a discussion with Commission investigators, during which the user claims that the Commission officials would have accepted that there is a difference in terms of chemical characteristics and end-uses between ‘ordinary’ and other high-quality types of the product concerned. Moreover, this user referred to two other investigations where the Commission would have decided to exclude certain product types. The first case was an anti-circumvention investigation concerning certain aluminium foil from the People's Republic of China based on an alleged slight modification of the product. In that case, a particular type of aluminium foil used for further processing was allegedly excluded from the extension to the slightly modified product(6). The second case concerned an investigation on certain corrosion resistant steels (CRS) originating in the People's Republic of China(7), where the product scope was so defined to exclude the automotive grades from the scope of the measures.
(19) The Commission rejected this request. First, the meeting at the premises of the company was an exchange of information to clarify some points which were raised by the user. The user cannot draw any legitimate expectations from such kind of informal meeting. Moreover, contrary to what is claimed by the user, the Commission investigators never agreed that there was a difference between certain types of the product concerned in terms of chemical characteristics and end-uses. Second, it is true that the current description and the CN codes of the product concerned do include a wide variety of types from a quality perspective. However, the production of high-quality types of the product concerned by both the Union and exporting producers is inherent to the production process of the product concerned, and higher quality types are made from the same basic material and on the same production equipment. Therefore, such argument is not sufficient to lead to the exclusion requested by the user. Third, the two cases to which the user refers are both ongoing and no final conclusions have been made. In addition, one of these cases (the case concerning the particular type of aluminium foil) concerns an anti-circumvention case, and is therefore not relevant. Fourth, for the different types of the product concerned, including the so-called high-quality types, it is not possible to identify the difference between the numerous types of the product concerned based on visual inspection, and therefore an exclusion would be unmanageable by customs authorities. Fifth, in many cases, the products cannot even be differentiated by chemical analysis or microstructural tests, since such specific characteristics only arise later during the further cold rolling process. In conclusion, these types of a relatively higher quality also fully meet the definition of the product concerned, and no convincing argument has been brought forward to exclude them from the scope of the product concerned.
(20) In the absence of any other comments regarding the product scope and the like product, the conclusions reached in recitals (24) to (28) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(21) The product concerned is thus defined as certain flat-rolled products of iron, non-alloy steel or other alloy steel, whether or not in coils (including ‘cut-to-length’ and ‘narrow strip’ products), not further worked than hot-rolled, not clad, plated or coated, originating in the PRC.The product concerned does not include:—products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel,—products of tool steel and high-speed steel,—products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more, and—products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.The product concerned is currently falling within CN codes 7208 10 00, 7208 25 00, 7208 26 00, 7208 27 00, 7208 36 00, 7208 37 00, 7208 38 00, 7208 39 00, 7208 40 00, 7208 52 10, 7208 52 99, 7208 53 10, 7208 53 90, 7208 54 00, 7211 13 00, 7211 14 00, 7211 19 00, ex 7225 19 10, 7225 30 90, ex 7225 40 60, 7225 40 90, ex 7226 19 10, 7226 91 91 and 7226 91 99. — products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel, — products of tool steel and high-speed steel, — products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more, and — products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.
— products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel,
— products of tool steel and high-speed steel,
— products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more, and
— products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.
— products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel,
— products of tool steel and high-speed steel,
— products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more, and
— products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.
(22) After the imposition of provisional measures, and following definitive disclosure, the Chinese Iron and Steel Association (CISA) claimed that the difference between the injury and dumping margins raised doubts as to the accuracy of the Commission's methodology. CISA estimated that the normal value in the analogue country was 61 % higher than the target price for the Union industry. According to CISA, normal values provided by a producer which is related to the complainant, as it is the case for the present investigation, are sometimes abnormally high.
(23) Furthermore, CISA claimed that, if the data is factually correct, in view of such difference, the Commission should invalidate the choice of the USA as a valid analogue country, make adjustments to the data or use EU data instead.
(24) Under Union law, the Commission is entitled to use prices of companies related to EU producers when the analogue country is appropriate. This was the case for investigations on high fatigue performance steel concrete reinforcement bars (South Africa)(8)and on cold-rolled flat steel products (Canada)(9), as mentioned by CISA itself. The existence of a relationship between the analogue country producer and a Union producer does not invalidate or affect the determination of the normal value which is based on duly verified data.
(25) The calculations regarding the normal value were performed and validated according to the applicable legal rules. They are factually correct.
(26) The USA is a competitive market with ten domestic producers and substantial imports from several countries. It has anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force, which allows its companies to operate under normal conditions of competition. Therefore, the Commission sees no reason for not using USA prices. In addition, no supporting evidence was provided that would justify making an adjustment.
(27) After definitive disclosure, one interested part questioned again the choice of the USA as a valid analogue country in the present case, questioning the reliability of the normal value in that country which it found much too high as compared to the price on the Union market. Given that the data of the analogue country producer have been verified and have been found to be correct, that argument was rejected.
(28) As regards the suggestion for prices actually paid or payable in the Union, Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation only allows for the use of these prices when the use of prices in or exports of a market economy third country is not possible. Given that it is possible to use the US prices (analogue country method) in the present case, this suggestion was dismissed.
(29) The Commission hence confirmed its findings with regard to the normal value.
(30) At provisional stage, the Commission made adjustments to transactions where the exporting producers export the product concerned to the Union through related companies acting as an importer.
(31) These adjustments were made with reference to the actual profit of the related importers.
(32) Because of the relationship between these exporting producers and the related traders/importers, the actual profits of related importers must however be considered unreliable. For this reason, in line with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, an adequate profit margin should be established by the investigation authority on a reasonable basis. The Commission considered that the profits made by an unrelated importer constitute a reasonable basis in this situation.
(33) However, considering that the Commission did not obtain cooperation from any unrelated importer during this investigation, it resorted to the profit of an unrelated importer of a closely resembling product. Therefore, the Commission used the profit of an importer of cold-rolled flat steel products, which is similar in many respects to the product concerned, as explained in recital (221) of the provisional regulation. This profit was determined in the investigation on cold-rolled flat steel products mentioned in recital (24) above. The calculation of the export prices was adjusted accordingly.
(34) The exporting producer Jiangsu Shagang Group claimed that the Commission did not disclose all adjustments carried out on Shagang's export price and referred to one specific adjustment. The Commission clarified that the legal ground for this adjustment was Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation as it refers to a mark-up received by a related company which performs functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. In response, Shagang claimed that it should be considered a single economic entity together with its related companies and, therefore, this adjustment should not be made. On 16 November 2016, following a request from Shagang, a hearing took place between Shagang and the Commission services to further discuss this issue. In addition, following definitive disclosure, on 12 January 2017, a second hearing took place to discuss, inter alia, this adjustment.
(35) Shagang reiterated that its related companies (two traders located in Hong Kong and Singapore, respectively) only deal with Shagang products, as far as steel products are concerned and that the fact that the related traders are also involved in the trading of products (other than steel) not produced by Shagang is irrelevant in establishing the existence of a single economic entity.
(36) Under established case-law, the Union institutions are required to consider all factors necessary to determine whether the related trader carries out the functions of an integrated sales department within that producer and that those factors cannot be limited to the product concerned. In particular, the Union institutions are entitled to take into account factors such as sales by a related trader of products other than the product concerned as well as sales by such a trader of products supplied by producers other than the producer to which it is related. Accordingly, the Commission analysed several factors and established, inter alia, that: (i) there was a consistent mark-up charged by a related company in China to its related traders abroad; (ii) the main activity of these traders, amounting to around 90 % of their turnover, consisted of trading products other than the product concerned including trading activities with unrelated parties; (iii) in some cases, fees and expenses were found to have been paid in export sales to the Union; (iv) the business licence of one of these related traders described its main activities as ‘wholesale on a fee or contract basis, e.g. commission agents’; (v) based on verified the Profit & Loss sheet it was established that the related traders own profit covered all relevant office expenditures, instead of these expenditures being covered by financial contributions from the parent company. Therefore, the Commission found that the related traders and Shagang do not form a single economic entity. The claim was therefore rejected and the adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation was maintained.
(37) Due to the correction made on construction of the export price mentioned in recital (33) above, the dumping margins of two groups of companies were recalculated, which led to their slight increase. This increase also had an impact on the dumping margin of all other cooperating and non-cooperating companies since this margin is based on the margins of cooperating companies.
(38) The definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:Table 1Dumping margins, the PRCChinese exporting producersDefinitive dumping marginBengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd97,3 %Hesteel Group Co., Ltd95,5 %Jiangsu Shagang Group106,9 %Other cooperating companies100,5 %All other companies106,9 % Chinese exporting producers Definitive dumping margin Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd 97,3 % Hesteel Group Co., Ltd 95,5 % Jiangsu Shagang Group 106,9 % Other cooperating companies 100,5 % All other companies 106,9 %
Chinese exporting producers Definitive dumping margin
Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd 97,3 %
Hesteel Group Co., Ltd 95,5 %
Jiangsu Shagang Group 106,9 %
Other cooperating companies 100,5 %
All other companies 106,9 %
Chinese exporting producers Definitive dumping margin
Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd 97,3 %
Hesteel Group Co., Ltd 95,5 %
Jiangsu Shagang Group 106,9 %
Other cooperating companies 100,5 %
All other companies 106,9 %
(39) In the absence of any comments with respect to the definition of the Union industry and Union production the conclusions set out in recitals (62) to (66) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(40) One interested party submitted that the overall Union consumption has been underestimated as sales by Union producers to related companies, made at conditions comparable to those granted on the free market, have been excluded from the calculation of the Union consumption.
(41) This claim was rejected: First, as set out in recital (69) of the provisional Regulation, the distinction between captive and free market is relevant for the injury analysis because products destined for captive use are not exposed to direct competition from imports, and transfer prices are set within the groups according to various price policies. By contrast, production destined for the free market is in direct competition with imports of the product concerned, and prices are free market prices. Second, the total free market includes sales of Union producers to unrelated customers and non-captive sales to related companies. It has been investigated and confirmed that these non-captive sales are indeed sales at market prices and that the related buyer had a free choice of supplier, irrespective of whether this supplier was related or not. Consequently, the Union consumption (free market) has not been underestimated.
(42) In this regard, in Tables 2 and 3 of the provisional Regulation, the development of the Union consumption on the captive market and the free market was reported and explained. By merging these two tables, the overall consumption (thus including captive and free market) evolved as follows during the period considered:Table 2Overall consumption (captive and free market) (tonnes)201220132014IPOverall consumption72 181 04674 710 25476 026 64977 427 389Index (2012 = 100)100104105107Source: Eurofer questionnaire reply and Eurostat 2012 2013 2014 IP Overall consumption 72 181 046 74 710 254 76 026 649 77 427 389 Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 105 107 Source: Eurofer questionnaire reply and Eurostat
2012 2013 2014 IP
Overall consumption 72 181 046 74 710 254 76 026 649 77 427 389
Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 105 107
Source: Eurofer questionnaire reply and Eurostat
2012 2013 2014 IP
Overall consumption 72 181 046 74 710 254 76 026 649 77 427 389
Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 105 107
Source: Eurofer questionnaire reply and Eurostat
(43) The above table shows that overall consumption has increased to a level that was higher in the investigation period than at the beginning of the period considered. The trend is explained by the increase in captive consumption which was much stronger than the increase in free market consumption in absolute terms.
(44) Thus, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (67) to (74) of the provisional Regulation on Union consumption.
(45) In the absence of any comments with respect to the volume, market share and price of the imports from the country concerned, the Commission also confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (75) to (82) of the provisional Regulation on these topics.
(46) No comments concerning this part of the provisional regulation were received.
(47) Following provisional measures, one interested party claimed that most macroeconomic indicators of the Union industry show a positive trend and disagreed with the Commission's finding that the Union industry has incurred material injury.
(48) This claim was rejected. First, the Commission did not state in the provisional Regulation that the Union industry has incurred material injury. On the contrary, it has stated in recital (119) of the provisional Regulation that the Union industry was in a weak situation at the end of the investigation period, but not to the extent that the Union industry has suffered material injury during the period considered within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation. Second, in this regard, as described in recital (117) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission referred to the fact that some macroeconomic indicators (such as the production volumes, the capacity utilisation rates due to the increase in the captive and free consumption) were still following a positive trend.
(49) The Commission hence confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (87) to (103) of the provisional Regulation with respect to the macroeconomic indicators.
(50) The same interested party noted that during the period considered, no matter the volume of imports from China (low or high), the unit costs of the sampled Union producers was always higher than their sales prices, with the year 2014 as the only exception. It also indicated that the sampled Union producers remained largely unprofitable during the period considered. Therefore, this interested party requested the Commission to further investigate why:(a)the sampled Union steel producers incurred during the period 2012-2013 their largest loss when the Chinese import volumes were at a low level and the prices of the Chinese imports were equal to or even higher than the ones of the Union industry;(b)during the same period their sales prices were lower than their unit cost of production. (a) the sampled Union steel producers incurred during the period 2012-2013 their largest loss when the Chinese import volumes were at a low level and the prices of the Chinese imports were equal to or even higher than the ones of the Union industry; (b) during the same period their sales prices were lower than their unit cost of production.
(a) the sampled Union steel producers incurred during the period 2012-2013 their largest loss when the Chinese import volumes were at a low level and the prices of the Chinese imports were equal to or even higher than the ones of the Union industry;
(b) during the same period their sales prices were lower than their unit cost of production.
(a) the sampled Union steel producers incurred during the period 2012-2013 their largest loss when the Chinese import volumes were at a low level and the prices of the Chinese imports were equal to or even higher than the ones of the Union industry;
(b) during the same period their sales prices were lower than their unit cost of production.
(51) In this regard, the Commission referred first to recital (106) of the provisional Regulation. There, the Commission stated that the performance of the Union industry had been negatively affected in 2012 and 2013 by the aftermath of the Eurozone debt crisis, as well as the decline in steel demand in 2012. In 2014, the Union industry started a recovery process which continued also in the first half of 2015. This temporary improvement of the EU industry situation was due to their increased efforts to remain competitive, in particular by increasing the productivity of the Union industry's workforce. Second, as mentioned in recital (107) of the provisional Regulation, the cost of production remained generally higher than the decreasing sales prices, and in order to limit the loss in market share, the Union producers followed the downward price spiral and reduced their sales price significantly, in particular during 2015. As a result, the Commission considered that it had sufficiently investigated and clarified these elements.
(52) The same interested party argued also that, when calculating back the sales quantity on the basis of Tables 7 and 14 of the provisional Regulation, it found that the sampled Union producers represent only 31 % of the total Union industry sales volume whereas recital (64) of the provisional Regulation states that they represent 45 % of the total Union production. This interested party argued that such a big difference casts doubts on the representativity of the sample, and that any change in sample could have led to completely different injury findings.
(53) As mentioned in recital (64) of the provisional Regulation, the total Union production was established at around 74,7 million. This includes both the free and the captive market. By contrast, Tables 7 and 14 in the provisional Regulation clearly refer to the free market only. Thus, they include only sales in the free market. The difference found is explained by the fact that the total production used for the comparison made by this interested party included captive sales, when it should only have included sales in the free market. Consequently, there is no reason to doubt on the representativity of the chosen sample.
(54) In the absence of other comments, the conclusions set out in recitals (104) to (116) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(55) On the basis of the analysis of the comments, as summarised in recitals (39) to (54) above, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (117) to (119) of the provisional Regulation. The Commission concluded that the Union industry was in a weak situation at the end of the investigation period but not to the extent that the Union industry has suffered material injury during the period considered within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.
(56) Under the case-law, the Union institutions are entitled, in certain circumstances, to take post-investigation period data into consideration when conducting anti-dumping investigations initiated on the basis of allegations of threat of injury. Indeed, the case-law considers that the determination of whether there is a threat of injury, by its very nature, requires a prospective analysis. In addition, Article 3(9) of the basic regulation requires that the finding of a threat of material injury is to be based on facts and not merely allegation, conjecture or remote possibility and that the change in circumstances which would create a situation in which the dumping would cause injury must be clearly foreseen and imminent.
(57) As authorised by the case-law, and as indicated in recital (122) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission continued its prospective analysis after the imposition of the provisional measures, by collecting mainly data from the second half of 2016 for all factors which it had provisionally investigated, and analysing whether these additional data could be used to confirm or invalidate the findings based on the data from the investigation period.
(58) The Commission further recalls that under Article 6(1) of the Basic Regulation, which equally applies to investigations initiated on the basis of allegations of threat of injury, representative findings have to be based on a period ending before the initiation of proceedings. The purpose of this principle is to ensure that the results of the investigation are representative and reliable, by ensuring that the factors on which the determination of dumping and injury is based are not influenced by the conduct of the producers concerned following the initiation of the antidumping proceeding, and therefore that the definitive duty imposed as a result of the proceeding is appropriate to remedying effectively the injury caused by the dumping.
(59) As set out in recital (124) of the provisional Regulation, imports from the country concerned significantly increased from 246 720 to 1 519 304 tonnes between 2012 and the investigation period. The same recital also mentioned that the volume of Chinese imports further increased (by 8,5 %) in the first half of 2016 (773 275 tonnes), compared to the first half of 2015 (712 390 tonnes).
(60) The available data for the additional period July-September 2016 shows that the Chinese dumped imports have started to decrease as compared to the IP (2015) and to the post-IP period January-June 2016, when expressed on the basis of monthly averages.Table 3Evolution of Chinese import volume (tonnes)2014IP (2015)January-June 2016July-September 2016Volume of imports from China592 1041 519 304773 275296 267Average monthly Chinese imports49 342126 608128 87998 756Source: Eurostat 2014 IP (2015) January-June 2016 July-September 2016 Volume of imports from China 592 104 1 519 304 773 275 296 267 Average monthly Chinese imports 49 342 126 608 128 879 98 756 Source: Eurostat
2014 IP (2015) January-June 2016 July-September 2016
Volume of imports from China 592 104 1 519 304 773 275 296 267
Average monthly Chinese imports 49 342 126 608 128 879 98 756
Source: Eurostat
2014 IP (2015) January-June 2016 July-September 2016
Volume of imports from China 592 104 1 519 304 773 275 296 267
Average monthly Chinese imports 49 342 126 608 128 879 98 756
Source: Eurostat
(61) The Commission thus found that the trend of increasing volumes has stopped. However, when assessing the significance and the reliability of these figures for confirming or invalidating the threat of injury analysis, the Commission also observed that:(a)the average monthly Chinese import volumes in the period July-September 2016 are still twice as high as the average monthly imports in 2014;(b)the decrease in the average monthly Chinese import volumes from July-September 2016 (compared to 2015) can be explained by:—the chilling effect of the request for registration by the complainant on 5 April 2016 and its update in June 2016 (which, though, was withdrawn only in mid-August 2016),—the adoption by the Commission of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329(10), under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time, and—the knowledge of the intention of the Commission to decide on provisional measures within 8 months of initiation (instead of 9 months). (a) the average monthly Chinese import volumes in the period July-September 2016 are still twice as high as the average monthly imports in 2014; (b) the decrease in the average monthly Chinese import volumes from July-September 2016 (compared to 2015) can be explained by:—the chilling effect of the request for registration by the complainant on 5 April 2016 and its update in June 2016 (which, though, was withdrawn only in mid-August 2016),—the adoption by the Commission of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329(10), under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time, and—the knowledge of the intention of the Commission to decide on provisional measures within 8 months of initiation (instead of 9 months). — the chilling effect of the request for registration by the complainant on 5 April 2016 and its update in June 2016 (which, though, was withdrawn only in mid-August 2016), — the adoption by the Commission of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329(10), under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time, and — the knowledge of the intention of the Commission to decide on provisional measures within 8 months of initiation (instead of 9 months).
(a) the average monthly Chinese import volumes in the period July-September 2016 are still twice as high as the average monthly imports in 2014;
(b) the decrease in the average monthly Chinese import volumes from July-September 2016 (compared to 2015) can be explained by:—the chilling effect of the request for registration by the complainant on 5 April 2016 and its update in June 2016 (which, though, was withdrawn only in mid-August 2016),—the adoption by the Commission of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329(10), under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time, and—the knowledge of the intention of the Commission to decide on provisional measures within 8 months of initiation (instead of 9 months). — the chilling effect of the request for registration by the complainant on 5 April 2016 and its update in June 2016 (which, though, was withdrawn only in mid-August 2016), — the adoption by the Commission of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329(10), under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time, and — the knowledge of the intention of the Commission to decide on provisional measures within 8 months of initiation (instead of 9 months).
— the chilling effect of the request for registration by the complainant on 5 April 2016 and its update in June 2016 (which, though, was withdrawn only in mid-August 2016),
— the adoption by the Commission of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329(10), under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time, and
— the knowledge of the intention of the Commission to decide on provisional measures within 8 months of initiation (instead of 9 months).
(a) the average monthly Chinese import volumes in the period July-September 2016 are still twice as high as the average monthly imports in 2014;
(b) the decrease in the average monthly Chinese import volumes from July-September 2016 (compared to 2015) can be explained by:—the chilling effect of the request for registration by the complainant on 5 April 2016 and its update in June 2016 (which, though, was withdrawn only in mid-August 2016),—the adoption by the Commission of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329(10), under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time, and—the knowledge of the intention of the Commission to decide on provisional measures within 8 months of initiation (instead of 9 months). — the chilling effect of the request for registration by the complainant on 5 April 2016 and its update in June 2016 (which, though, was withdrawn only in mid-August 2016), — the adoption by the Commission of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329(10), under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time, and — the knowledge of the intention of the Commission to decide on provisional measures within 8 months of initiation (instead of 9 months).
— the chilling effect of the request for registration by the complainant on 5 April 2016 and its update in June 2016 (which, though, was withdrawn only in mid-August 2016),
— the adoption by the Commission of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329(10), under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time, and
— the knowledge of the intention of the Commission to decide on provisional measures within 8 months of initiation (instead of 9 months).
— the chilling effect of the request for registration by the complainant on 5 April 2016 and its update in June 2016 (which, though, was withdrawn only in mid-August 2016),
— the adoption by the Commission of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329(10), under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time, and
— the knowledge of the intention of the Commission to decide on provisional measures within 8 months of initiation (instead of 9 months).
(62) One interested party argued that the Commission mainly based its analysis on a data set, i.e. from the end of 2015, which is more than nine months old at the time of the investigation and which cannot give the most reliable indication as to the likelihood of substantially increased imports. Furthermore, it also argued that an analysis of the import trends for a representative period of time would have shown that import volumes are decreasing. As a result, this interested party qualified the analysis of the threat of injury by the Commission as flawed.
(63) First, the Commission noted that it had provided all data, available at that time, in recital (124) of the provisional Regulation, both for the period considered and the post-investigation period. Second, the Commission has again updated in recital (60) all information concerning the Chinese import volumes. In that update the Commission indeed noted that there is a decrease in the average monthly Chinese import volumes from July 2016 onwards. However, this decrease can mainly be explained for the reasons as mentioned in recital (61).
(64) Following definitive disclosure, the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA) on the one hand welcomed the Commission's use of additional post-investigation period data, but on the other hand argued that the Commission's assessment of the evolution of the Chinese imports since July 2016 onwards was wrong. This interested party stated, from a factual point of view, that the Chinese import volumes started steadily decreasing since the beginning of 2016. Moreover, it argued that the Commission was violating the general principle of Article 3(9) of the basic Regulation by stating that the most recent decline of Chinese exports was likely to be a temporary phenomenon since a determination of a threat of material must ‘be based on facts and not based on an allegation, conjecture or remote possibility’. It therefore requested the Commission to consider the most recent post-IP data on the basis of facts alone, and to refrain from interpreting the most recent post-IP data in the light of remote possibilities or unsupported assertions. Similar comments were received from two other Chinese exporting producers and from the Italian user.
(65) The Commission agreed that the trend of increasing volumes stopped, but mainly from July 2016 onwards. However, it also observed that the absolute level was still high. While the Chinese imports for the period January-June 2016 (773 275 tonnes for 6 months) were lower than the period July-December 2015 (806 914 tonnes for 6 months), the average import volumes for the period January-June 2016 were still higher than for the period January-June 2015 (712 390 tonnes for 6 months) and for all other 6 months' periods before. Second, the Commission has not analysed the trend of import volumes as an isolated factor, but has taken a comprehensive approach. It weighted and assessed not only all the factors which are listed in Article 3(9), second subparagraph, of the basic Regulation but in addition some additional factors such as order intakes and profitability (see Sections 4.2-4.5 below), so as to have a strong factual basis for its overall assessment.
(66) Concerning the rationale why the Chinese exports decreased mainly from the second half of 2016 onwards, the explanations by the Commission are based on three facts, i.e. the public announcements made in the Steel Communication, the registration request by the complainant in this case, and the decision on the retroactive collection of duties on certain cold-rolled steel products:—On the basis of the Steel Communication from the Commission of 16 March 2016 (‘Steel: Preserving sustainable jobs and growths in Europe’)(11)the Chinese exporting producers had been made aware of the intention of the Commission to ‘immediately use the available margins to further accelerate the adoption of provisional measures by reducing investigation procedures by one month (from nine to eight months).’ As a result, due to the initiation of this case on 13 February 2016, they had been aware that provisional measures could be imposed early October 2016.—On 5 April 2016, the Complainant submitted a request for registration of imports from the PRC of the product concerned. On 2 June 2016, the complainant updated the request by providing more recent information. As a result, well-informed exporting producers and exporters knew that there was a risk that — if they shipped the product concerned from the second half of 2016 onwards — their exported like products could become subject to retro-active duties 90 days prior to the potential imposition of provisional duties in October 2016, i.e. by July 2016.—On 29 July 2016, the Commission adopted an Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329, under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time on certain cold-rolled steel products, also a steel product. As a result, the risk that measures would apply as of early July 2016 in this proceeding became even more certain because of the retroactive collection in this case involving a steel product. — On the basis of the Steel Communication from the Commission of 16 March 2016 (‘Steel: Preserving sustainable jobs and growths in Europe’)(11)the Chinese exporting producers had been made aware of the intention of the Commission to ‘immediately use the available margins to further accelerate the adoption of provisional measures by reducing investigation procedures by one month (from nine to eight months).’ As a result, due to the initiation of this case on 13 February 2016, they had been aware that provisional measures could be imposed early October 2016. — On 5 April 2016, the Complainant submitted a request for registration of imports from the PRC of the product concerned. On 2 June 2016, the complainant updated the request by providing more recent information. As a result, well-informed exporting producers and exporters knew that there was a risk that — if they shipped the product concerned from the second half of 2016 onwards — their exported like products could become subject to retro-active duties 90 days prior to the potential imposition of provisional duties in October 2016, i.e. by July 2016. — On 29 July 2016, the Commission adopted an Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329, under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time on certain cold-rolled steel products, also a steel product. As a result, the risk that measures would apply as of early July 2016 in this proceeding became even more certain because of the retroactive collection in this case involving a steel product.
— On the basis of the Steel Communication from the Commission of 16 March 2016 (‘Steel: Preserving sustainable jobs and growths in Europe’)(11)the Chinese exporting producers had been made aware of the intention of the Commission to ‘immediately use the available margins to further accelerate the adoption of provisional measures by reducing investigation procedures by one month (from nine to eight months).’ As a result, due to the initiation of this case on 13 February 2016, they had been aware that provisional measures could be imposed early October 2016.
— On 5 April 2016, the Complainant submitted a request for registration of imports from the PRC of the product concerned. On 2 June 2016, the complainant updated the request by providing more recent information. As a result, well-informed exporting producers and exporters knew that there was a risk that — if they shipped the product concerned from the second half of 2016 onwards — their exported like products could become subject to retro-active duties 90 days prior to the potential imposition of provisional duties in October 2016, i.e. by July 2016.
— On 29 July 2016, the Commission adopted an Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329, under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time on certain cold-rolled steel products, also a steel product. As a result, the risk that measures would apply as of early July 2016 in this proceeding became even more certain because of the retroactive collection in this case involving a steel product.
— On the basis of the Steel Communication from the Commission of 16 March 2016 (‘Steel: Preserving sustainable jobs and growths in Europe’)(11)the Chinese exporting producers had been made aware of the intention of the Commission to ‘immediately use the available margins to further accelerate the adoption of provisional measures by reducing investigation procedures by one month (from nine to eight months).’ As a result, due to the initiation of this case on 13 February 2016, they had been aware that provisional measures could be imposed early October 2016.
— On 5 April 2016, the Complainant submitted a request for registration of imports from the PRC of the product concerned. On 2 June 2016, the complainant updated the request by providing more recent information. As a result, well-informed exporting producers and exporters knew that there was a risk that — if they shipped the product concerned from the second half of 2016 onwards — their exported like products could become subject to retro-active duties 90 days prior to the potential imposition of provisional duties in October 2016, i.e. by July 2016.
— On 29 July 2016, the Commission adopted an Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329, under which anti-dumping duties were collected retroactively for the first time on certain cold-rolled steel products, also a steel product. As a result, the risk that measures would apply as of early July 2016 in this proceeding became even more certain because of the retroactive collection in this case involving a steel product.
(67) CISA also argues that the Commission's explanations on why the Chinese imports decreased from the second half of 2016 onwards are ‘remote possibilities or unsupported assertions’. As shown above, the Commission's explanations are based on facts. The Commission notes that CISA itself did not provide a plausible alternative explanation as to why the Chinese exports went down.
(68) In the absence of any other comments, the Commission hence confirmed its conclusion that the most recent decline of Chinese exports is likely to be a temporary phenomenon due to the specific circumstances identified in recital (61) that is not capable of invalidating the findings of the Commission concerning the existence of a threat of injury. If no measures are taken at the definitive stage, Chinese import volumes will most likely increase again, especially in light of the present overcapacities in the PRC and the insufficient absorption capacity of third states or the PRC itself, as explained from recital (70) onwards.
(69) The decrease of Chinese import volumes after July 2016 can be explained by the chilling effect of the registration request and the knowledge of intention of the Commission to decide on provisional measures within 8 months of initiation. In addition, the absolute level of Chinese imports volumes after July 2016 onwards remains very high when compared to 2014. For these reasons, it is likely that this decrease in import volumes would be only temporarily, and such trend would revert if no measures are imposed. Therefore it did not change the Commission's assessment that there was a clear and imminent threat of injury at the end of the investigation period.
(70) As noted in recital (133) and the table in recital (185) of the provisional Regulation, the actual production in 2014 of the product concerned in the PRC (317,4 million tonnes) is about 5 times the total production of Russia, Ukraine, Iran and Brazil combined (57,4 million tonnes). This fact was an indication of the enormous production capacity of the product concerned in the PRC. Furthermore, as laid down in recitals (140) and (139) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission found the absorption capacity of the PRC market to be insufficient, and that it was very unlikely that third countries would be able to absorb on their own the huge amount of freely disposable capacity.
(71) After the imposition of provisional measures, the Commission updated the table of recital (185) of the provisional Regulation on the basis of the most recent available data as follows:Table 4Actual production of the like product by third countries (in thousands of tonnes)CountryCrude steel capacity estimated for the year 2015(12)Crude steel production in 2014Crude steel production in 2015(13)Theoretical excess capacity in 2015(13)HRF actual production in 2014HRF actual production in 2015Russia90 00071 46170 89819 10226 89827 509PRC1 153 098822 750803 825349 273317 387322 259Ukraine42 50027 17022 96819 5327 8676 314Iran28 85016 33116 14612 7048 2767 872Brazil49 22033 89733 25615 96414 22913 388The above updated 2015 production figures for the like product show that the country concerned outnumbers by far all other large exporting countries; the above updated 2015 capacity figures for crude steel also indicate that only the PRC has such a massive excess capacity (amounting to almost 350 million tonnes in 2015, compared to 317 million tonnes in 2014, as shown in the table of recital (185) of the provisional Regulation).Accordingly, the Commission reiterated that the overcapacity in steel production in the PRC constitutes an important indicator for the existence of a threat of an imminent injury to the Union industry. Country Crude steel capacity estimated for the year 2015(12) Crude steel production in 2014 Crude steel production in 2015(13) Theoretical excess capacity in 2015(13) HRF actual production in 2014 HRF actual production in 2015 Russia 90 000 71 461 70 898 19 102 26 898 27 509 PRC 1 153 098 822 750 803 825 349 273 317 387 322 259 Ukraine 42 500 27 170 22 968 19 532 7 867 6 314 Iran 28 850 16 331 16 146 12 704 8 276 7 872 Brazil 49 220 33 897 33 256 15 964 14 229 13 388
Country Crude steel capacity estimated for the year 2015(12) Crude steel production in 2014 Crude steel production in 2015(13) Theoretical excess capacity in 2015(13) HRF actual production in 2014 HRF actual production in 2015
Russia 90 000 71 461 70 898 19 102 26 898 27 509
PRC 1 153 098 822 750 803 825 349 273 317 387 322 259
Ukraine 42 500 27 170 22 968 19 532 7 867 6 314
Iran 28 850 16 331 16 146 12 704 8 276 7 872
Brazil 49 220 33 897 33 256 15 964 14 229 13 388
Country Crude steel capacity estimated for the year 2015(12) Crude steel production in 2014 Crude steel production in 2015(13) Theoretical excess capacity in 2015(13) HRF actual production in 2014 HRF actual production in 2015
Russia 90 000 71 461 70 898 19 102 26 898 27 509
PRC 1 153 098 822 750 803 825 349 273 317 387 322 259
Ukraine 42 500 27 170 22 968 19 532 7 867 6 314
Iran 28 850 16 331 16 146 12 704 8 276 7 872
Brazil 49 220 33 897 33 256 15 964 14 229 13 388
(72) In addition, the information and projections concerning the Chinese capacity of crude steel and the product concerned that became available after July 2016 still showed the same inconsistencies:(a)On the one hand, the Commission received anecdotal information that the PRC apparently started to reduce its overcapacity: In this respect, the EU Delegation in Beijing reported that a Deputy Director of the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA) declared that the PRC is likely to cut off 70 millions of tonnes of steel overcapacity during 2016 (announcement on 28 October 2016). Furthermore, Baosteel Group and Wuhan Steel Group also announced that they completed their targeted capacity cuts for 2016 already in October 2016 (announcement on 24 October 2016).(b)On the other hand, recent OECD projections(14)estimate that the Chinese capacity will even further increase in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The Chinese side continued to avoid engaging in a bilateral platform between the Union and the PRC to monitor steel excess capacity. In addition, the 13th5-year plan in relation to ‘Steel industry adjustment and upgrading plan’ (2016-2020) assumes crude steel production volume forecast at 750-800 million tonnes in 2020 and crude steel production capacity reduction by 100-150 million till 2020. It also encourages steel enterprises being in a good position to go overseas and set up steel production bases as well as processing and distribution centres.In summary, the issue of overcapacity in the steel sector in the PRC is acknowledged by the Chinese authorities, and despite some announcements made after 30 June 2016, is not likely to be resolved in the near future. The Chinese overcapacity is so massive that realistically it cannot disappear in the short or medium-term period. (a) On the one hand, the Commission received anecdotal information that the PRC apparently started to reduce its overcapacity: In this respect, the EU Delegation in Beijing reported that a Deputy Director of the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA) declared that the PRC is likely to cut off 70 millions of tonnes of steel overcapacity during 2016 (announcement on 28 October 2016). Furthermore, Baosteel Group and Wuhan Steel Group also announced that they completed their targeted capacity cuts for 2016 already in October 2016 (announcement on 24 October 2016). (b) On the other hand, recent OECD projections(14)estimate that the Chinese capacity will even further increase in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The Chinese side continued to avoid engaging in a bilateral platform between the Union and the PRC to monitor steel excess capacity. In addition, the 13th5-year plan in relation to ‘Steel industry adjustment and upgrading plan’ (2016-2020) assumes crude steel production volume forecast at 750-800 million tonnes in 2020 and crude steel production capacity reduction by 100-150 million till 2020. It also encourages steel enterprises being in a good position to go overseas and set up steel production bases as well as processing and distribution centres.
(a) On the one hand, the Commission received anecdotal information that the PRC apparently started to reduce its overcapacity: In this respect, the EU Delegation in Beijing reported that a Deputy Director of the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA) declared that the PRC is likely to cut off 70 millions of tonnes of steel overcapacity during 2016 (announcement on 28 October 2016). Furthermore, Baosteel Group and Wuhan Steel Group also announced that they completed their targeted capacity cuts for 2016 already in October 2016 (announcement on 24 October 2016).
(b) On the other hand, recent OECD projections(14)estimate that the Chinese capacity will even further increase in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The Chinese side continued to avoid engaging in a bilateral platform between the Union and the PRC to monitor steel excess capacity. In addition, the 13th5-year plan in relation to ‘Steel industry adjustment and upgrading plan’ (2016-2020) assumes crude steel production volume forecast at 750-800 million tonnes in 2020 and crude steel production capacity reduction by 100-150 million till 2020. It also encourages steel enterprises being in a good position to go overseas and set up steel production bases as well as processing and distribution centres.
(a) On the one hand, the Commission received anecdotal information that the PRC apparently started to reduce its overcapacity: In this respect, the EU Delegation in Beijing reported that a Deputy Director of the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA) declared that the PRC is likely to cut off 70 millions of tonnes of steel overcapacity during 2016 (announcement on 28 October 2016). Furthermore, Baosteel Group and Wuhan Steel Group also announced that they completed their targeted capacity cuts for 2016 already in October 2016 (announcement on 24 October 2016).
(b) On the other hand, recent OECD projections(14)estimate that the Chinese capacity will even further increase in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The Chinese side continued to avoid engaging in a bilateral platform between the Union and the PRC to monitor steel excess capacity. In addition, the 13th5-year plan in relation to ‘Steel industry adjustment and upgrading plan’ (2016-2020) assumes crude steel production volume forecast at 750-800 million tonnes in 2020 and crude steel production capacity reduction by 100-150 million till 2020. It also encourages steel enterprises being in a good position to go overseas and set up steel production bases as well as processing and distribution centres.
(73) The data concerning the absorption capacity of the PRC that became available after July 2016 is limited. Nevertheless, the Commission found that the domestic Chinese steel demand forecast is one of ‘low to no growth’ in the coming 4-5 years (2015-2020) as investments (such as in construction business) are slow, what will impact dramatically the domestic Chinese finished steel consumption.(15)
(74) The data concerning the absorption capacity of third countries that became available after July 2016 onwards indicated that:(a)On the one hand, Malaysia terminated in January 2016 a safeguard investigation with regard to hot-rolled coils against China and some other countries in January 2016, whereas Turkey terminated in April 2016 an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of hot-rolled coils from China, France, Japan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine.(b)On the other hand, India recently imposed final duty rates in a safeguard investigation of hot-rolled flat sheet and plates of alloy and non-alloy steel. Furthermore, Brazil initiated an anti-subsidy investigation against imports of hot-rolled flat carbon steel. Finally, Turkish producers have filed new anti-dumping and countervailing duty petitions against imports of hot-rolled coils, originating, inter alia, in China. In this respect, following final disclosure, one interested party informed the Commission that the Turkish authorities had opened in the meantime a new dumping investigation on 21 December 2016, covering heavy plate and certain types of HRF.As a result, on the basis of this updated information, third countries are unlikely to be able to absorbing increasing Chinese exports as a result of the huge amount of free disposable Chinese capacity. Even if the status quo in Chinese exports to other third countries was maintained, if no measures were imposed, the Union market would likely continue to be among the primary targets of Chinese dumped exports. (a) On the one hand, Malaysia terminated in January 2016 a safeguard investigation with regard to hot-rolled coils against China and some other countries in January 2016, whereas Turkey terminated in April 2016 an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of hot-rolled coils from China, France, Japan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine. (b) On the other hand, India recently imposed final duty rates in a safeguard investigation of hot-rolled flat sheet and plates of alloy and non-alloy steel. Furthermore, Brazil initiated an anti-subsidy investigation against imports of hot-rolled flat carbon steel. Finally, Turkish producers have filed new anti-dumping and countervailing duty petitions against imports of hot-rolled coils, originating, inter alia, in China. In this respect, following final disclosure, one interested party informed the Commission that the Turkish authorities had opened in the meantime a new dumping investigation on 21 December 2016, covering heavy plate and certain types of HRF.
(a) On the one hand, Malaysia terminated in January 2016 a safeguard investigation with regard to hot-rolled coils against China and some other countries in January 2016, whereas Turkey terminated in April 2016 an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of hot-rolled coils from China, France, Japan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine.
(b) On the other hand, India recently imposed final duty rates in a safeguard investigation of hot-rolled flat sheet and plates of alloy and non-alloy steel. Furthermore, Brazil initiated an anti-subsidy investigation against imports of hot-rolled flat carbon steel. Finally, Turkish producers have filed new anti-dumping and countervailing duty petitions against imports of hot-rolled coils, originating, inter alia, in China. In this respect, following final disclosure, one interested party informed the Commission that the Turkish authorities had opened in the meantime a new dumping investigation on 21 December 2016, covering heavy plate and certain types of HRF.
(a) On the one hand, Malaysia terminated in January 2016 a safeguard investigation with regard to hot-rolled coils against China and some other countries in January 2016, whereas Turkey terminated in April 2016 an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of hot-rolled coils from China, France, Japan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine.
(b) On the other hand, India recently imposed final duty rates in a safeguard investigation of hot-rolled flat sheet and plates of alloy and non-alloy steel. Furthermore, Brazil initiated an anti-subsidy investigation against imports of hot-rolled flat carbon steel. Finally, Turkish producers have filed new anti-dumping and countervailing duty petitions against imports of hot-rolled coils, originating, inter alia, in China. In this respect, following final disclosure, one interested party informed the Commission that the Turkish authorities had opened in the meantime a new dumping investigation on 21 December 2016, covering heavy plate and certain types of HRF.
(75) Following the provisional Regulation, the complainant referred to the fact that the PRC has announced since 2008 several plans to tackle the steel overcapacity, but that none of them has succeeded. Following definitive disclosure, the complainant reiterated that previous Chinese attempts to limit the domestic steel overcapacity have also failed. As a consequence, according to this interested party, the Chinese government is likely to be unable to cure the huge overcapacity that has affected the steel sector for many years and which it has tried and failed to resolve a number of previous times.
(76) On the other hand, following definitive disclosure, another interested party mentioned that the Chinese government has recently announced that it had met his targets for the reduction of capacity in the steel sector in 2016 and that it was strongly committed to further reduce capacity in the steel sector.
(77) Concerning the argument that the Chinese government has consistently failed to reduce the massive steel overcapacity, the Commission is required to perform a prospective analysis in a threat of injury-case. Therefore, it considered the statements of the complainant to be irrelevant as they are related to the past and cannot be used to extrapolate the future behaviour of the Chinese government.
(78) Concerning the opposite argument on the reduction of the Chinese capacity made by other interested parties, the Commission reiterated that the information and projections that are available concerning the Chinese capacity of crude steel and the product concerned show inconsistencies. However, while not disputing the Chinese serious commitments to reduce its capacity, the fact remains that the existing Chinese overcapacity, as shown in Table 20 of the Provisional Regulation, is so massive that it cannot realistically disappear in the short or medium-term period.
(79) Concerning the absorption capacity of third countries, one interested party referred to the fact that Malaysia and Turkey terminated two investigations on hot-rolled coils against the PRC. Therefore, this interested party concluded that the alleged likelihood of a trade diversion to the Union has lessened.
(80) These statements were rejected: As mentioned in recital (74), other countries are likely to adopt measures, which makes it unlikely that third countries would start absorbing on their own the huge Chinese capacity.
(81) Concerning the absorption capacity of the PRC, no comments were received from any interested party.
(82) In conclusion, post-IP data confirm the Commission's analysis at provisional stage: Given the limited progress on cutting the massive excess capacity in 2016, it is likely that significant volumes of the existing massive excess capacity on steel, including the like product, would continue to be directed to the Union market, if no measures are taken. The present overcapacities and the insufficient absorption capacity of third states or the PRC itself indicate the likelihood of substantially increased Chinese exports to the Union would no measures be taken at definitive stage.
(83) Concerning the price level of imports, recital (142) of the provisional Regulation mentioned that the average import prices from the country concerned decreased by 33 %, from 600 EUR/tonne in 2012 to 404 EUR/tonne in 2015. Furthermore, the table in recital (145) of the provisional Regulation showed a further continuing decrease of Chinese unit prices during the post-investigation period January-June 2016 when entering the Union market.
(84) The available data concerning the price levels of imports for the period July-September 2016 shows that the average Chinese import prices increased:Table 5Average Chinese import prices during the post-IPJanuary 2016June 2016July 2016August 2016September 2016Average import prices of Chinese imports(EUR/tonne)326308371367370Source: Eurostat January 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 Average import prices of Chinese imports(EUR/tonne) 326 308 371 367 370 Source: Eurostat
January 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016
Average import prices of Chinese imports(EUR/tonne) 326 308 371 367 370
Source: Eurostat
January 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016
Average import prices of Chinese imports(EUR/tonne) 326 308 371 367 370
Source: Eurostat
(85) The recent rise in the Chinese import prices must be put in the following context:(a)The Chinese import prices were not the only ones to increase after 30 June 2016. Import prices of other main exporting countries to the Union also increased after 30 June 2016.(b)The level reached in the last three months (July-September 2016) was still below the average costs of production of the EU industry (around 431 EUR/tonne at the end of the investigation period, as shown in Table 11 of recital (104) of the provisional Regulation). Hence, despite the increased in price levels, the enormous price depression remains, which puts the EU industry into an unsustainable position.(c)One important reason for these global price increases of the product concerned is the increase in the raw material prices. In particular, prices of coking coal nearly doubled (to about 200 EUR/tonne) in October 2016, compared to prices in the first half of 2016. This was caused by the combined effect of mandatory working hours' reductions for Chinese coal mines and a number of disruptions at Australian mines. In this context, it should be noted that the PRC and Australia are among the top producing countries of coking coal in the world. The dramatic price increase of coking coals is shown in the chart below(16).ChartEvolution of coking coal pricesPremium coking coal, contract (USD/t, fob Qld)Chart of the Day: Premium coking coal pricesPremium coking coal (USD/t, fob Qld)USD 250/tUSD 230/tUSD 210/tUSD 190/tUSD 170/tUSD 150/tUSD 130/tUSD 110/tUSD 90/tUSD 70/tApr-14 Oct-14 Apr-15 Oct-15 Apr-16 Oct-16Source: Platts, Bloomberg, CBA estimatesTherefore, it can be assumed that prices for the product concerned will start to decrease again, once the impact of these exceptional circumstances concerning coking coal have faded out. (a) The Chinese import prices were not the only ones to increase after 30 June 2016. Import prices of other main exporting countries to the Union also increased after 30 June 2016. (b) The level reached in the last three months (July-September 2016) was still below the average costs of production of the EU industry (around 431 EUR/tonne at the end of the investigation period, as shown in Table 11 of recital (104) of the provisional Regulation). Hence, despite the increased in price levels, the enormous price depression remains, which puts the EU industry into an unsustainable position. (c) One important reason for these global price increases of the product concerned is the increase in the raw material prices. In particular, prices of coking coal nearly doubled (to about 200 EUR/tonne) in October 2016, compared to prices in the first half of 2016. This was caused by the combined effect of mandatory working hours' reductions for Chinese coal mines and a number of disruptions at Australian mines. In this context, it should be noted that the PRC and Australia are among the top producing countries of coking coal in the world. The dramatic price increase of coking coals is shown in the chart below(16).
(a) The Chinese import prices were not the only ones to increase after 30 June 2016. Import prices of other main exporting countries to the Union also increased after 30 June 2016.
(b) The level reached in the last three months (July-September 2016) was still below the average costs of production of the EU industry (around 431 EUR/tonne at the end of the investigation period, as shown in Table 11 of recital (104) of the provisional Regulation). Hence, despite the increased in price levels, the enormous price depression remains, which puts the EU industry into an unsustainable position.
(c) One important reason for these global price increases of the product concerned is the increase in the raw material prices. In particular, prices of coking coal nearly doubled (to about 200 EUR/tonne) in October 2016, compared to prices in the first half of 2016. This was caused by the combined effect of mandatory working hours' reductions for Chinese coal mines and a number of disruptions at Australian mines. In this context, it should be noted that the PRC and Australia are among the top producing countries of coking coal in the world. The dramatic price increase of coking coals is shown in the chart below(16).
(a) The Chinese import prices were not the only ones to increase after 30 June 2016. Import prices of other main exporting countries to the Union also increased after 30 June 2016.
(b) The level reached in the last three months (July-September 2016) was still below the average costs of production of the EU industry (around 431 EUR/tonne at the end of the investigation period, as shown in Table 11 of recital (104) of the provisional Regulation). Hence, despite the increased in price levels, the enormous price depression remains, which puts the EU industry into an unsustainable position.
(c) One important reason for these global price increases of the product concerned is the increase in the raw material prices. In particular, prices of coking coal nearly doubled (to about 200 EUR/tonne) in October 2016, compared to prices in the first half of 2016. This was caused by the combined effect of mandatory working hours' reductions for Chinese coal mines and a number of disruptions at Australian mines. In this context, it should be noted that the PRC and Australia are among the top producing countries of coking coal in the world. The dramatic price increase of coking coals is shown in the chart below(16).
(86) One interested party mentioned that the analysis of the Commission is limited to June 2016, whereas prices of imports of the product concerned have been continuously increasing after June 2016. It requested the Commission to take into consideration these most recent data. Another interested party also mentioned that the prices of imports recently started increasing.
(87) The Commission confirmed, as laid out in the table under recital (84), that Chinese import prices increased in the period July-September 2016. However, these interested parties failed to mention that prices increased globally, due to a rise in raw material prices, in particular of coking coal, as laid out in recital (85) above.
(88) Following definitive disclosure, the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA) argued again that the Commission was violating the general principle of Article 3(9) of the basic Regulation since a determination of a threat of material must ‘be based on facts and not based on an allegation, conjecture or remote possibility’. It referred in this context to ‘a particular context, which is made up out of mere possibilities’. Second, it alleged that the statement of the Commission that the average import price during the most recent period July-September 2016 was below the cost of production of the Union industry at the end of the IP is misleading since such a comparison is based on two different periods, and therefore, it is not an ‘apple to apple’ comparison. Similar comments were received from an Italian user and from the other Chinese exporting producers. One of these Chinese exporting producers mentioned that the prices of imports have decreased by 13,5 % between January 2016 and September 2016.
(89) Another Chinese exporting producer also commented that a trend of rising import prices is an indication that there is no threat of injury and referred in this respect to the case-law.
(90) First, concerning the allegation that the Commission violated the general principle of Article 3(9) of the basic Regulation, the Commission reiterates that it has based its determination on facts, and not on allegations, conjectures or remote possibilities. The Commission took into consideration facts such as the data in Table 5, and interpreted these data, whereby a decrease in prices had been noted till June 2016, and thereafter an increase, mainly due to an increase in raw material prices as laid out in recital (85) above. Second, CISA itself does not provide an alternative plausible explanation for the evolution of Chinese import prices. Third, the Commission has not analysed the trend of Chinese prices as an isolated factor, but has taken a comprehensive approach. It weighted and assessed not only all the factors which are listed in Article 3(9), second subparagraph, of the basic Regulation but also additional factors such as order intakes and profitability (see Section 4.5) so as to have a strong factual basis for its overall assessment.
(91) Concerning the allegation that the Commission misled the interested parties intentionally by comparing the average import price during the period July-September 2016 with the cost of production of the Union industry at the end of the IP, the Commission clearly distinguished both periods. Furthermore, in this context, it is important to highlight that the cost of production-data of the Union industry at the end of the IP were the most recent available data in this proceeding since post-IP data on the costs of production of the Union industry are not collected. In any case, even if — hypothetically — the cost of production of the Union industry in the most recent period had decreased, this would not invalidate the fact that the level of Chinese prices in September 2016 had been still exerting an enormous prices pressure on the Union steel industry.
(92) Concerning the allegation that the Commission did not follow the case-law, the Commission noted that this argument is inoperative, as the Commission in the present case did analyse the development of prices of raw materials in the post-investigation period, as shown in recital (85). Hence, this argument is rejected.
(93) Even with the rising prices of Chinese import prices from July 2016 onwards, and absent any other comments, the post-IP data on prices do as a whole not invalidate the finding that the Chinese price decreases had led to a threat of injury. This threat of injury was not removed by the recent rising Chinese import prices from July 2016 onwards. As set out in recital (85), even this increased price level does not stop the enormous price depression which puts the EU industry into an unsustainable position when comparing the increased Chinese prices with the cost of production of the Union producers at the end of the investigation period. Finally, the Commission concluded that increasing import prices might only be a temporary trend, which is likely to stop once the reasons for the raw material price increases have faded out. The Chinese exporting producers had an aggressive price setting in the Union market, in particular in the second half of 2015 and the first half of 2016. If no measures are taken, and taking into account the massive existing Chinese excess capacity in steel, including the product concerned, Chinese exporting producers could maintain an aggressive price strategy, lowering their sales prices to minimal levels.
(94) Concerning the level of inventories, recital (147) of the provisional Regulation mentioned that the Commission did not consider this factor of any particular significance, mainly because Union producers produce on order, a feature which enables them to keep their inventory at low levels.
(95) With regards to stocks in the PRC, the Commission was again unable to find comprehensive post-investigation data on stocks despite requests to Chinese cooperating producers and its own researches.
(96) Nevertheless, the Commission found that steel inventories in the warehouses of 40 major Chinese cities reportedly decreased to 8,89 million tonnes late October 2016 from 9,41 million tonnes late September 2016. Furthermore, the steel inventories of 80 major Chinese mills amounted to 13,46 million tonnes late September 2016(17)compared to 16,07 million tonnes late September 2015.
(97) No comments were received from interested parties concerning the level of inventories.
(98) In conclusion, steel inventories in the PRC remained at about the same levels after 30 June 2016 as the one laid out in recital (150) of the provisional Regulation. The Commission therefore confirmed its finding in recital (151) of the provisional Regulation.
(99) As set out in recital (155) of the provisional Regulation, order intakes developed negatively. In addition, the investigation established a further deterioration of the profitability of the complainants which represent about 90 % of the total production of the Union industry.The available data for the period July 2015 up to June 2016 show a further deterioration in profitability, despite a more positive trend (compared to 2015) for its order intakes as follows:Table 6Evolution of profitability and order intakes of the ComplainantsDescription201320142015April 2015-March 2016July 2015-June 2016Profitability– 4,86 %– 1,28 %– 3 % to – 5 %– 5 % to – 7 %– 7 % to – 9 %Order intakes16 631 63016 677 09915 529 15515 636 44415 944 183Source: Eurofer, all verified except last column Description 2013 2014 2015 April 2015-March 2016 July 2015-June 2016 Profitability – 4,86 % – 1,28 % – 3 % to – 5 % – 5 % to – 7 % – 7 % to – 9 % Order intakes 16 631 630 16 677 099 15 529 155 15 636 444 15 944 183 Source: Eurofer, all verified except last column
Description 2013 2014 2015 April 2015-March 2016 July 2015-June 2016
Profitability – 4,86 % – 1,28 % – 3 % to – 5 % – 5 % to – 7 % – 7 % to – 9 %
Order intakes 16 631 630 16 677 099 15 529 155 15 636 444 15 944 183
Source: Eurofer, all verified except last column
Description 2013 2014 2015 April 2015-March 2016 July 2015-June 2016
Profitability – 4,86 % – 1,28 % – 3 % to – 5 % – 5 % to – 7 % – 7 % to – 9 %
Order intakes 16 631 630 16 677 099 15 529 155 15 636 444 15 944 183
Source: Eurofer, all verified except last column
(100) Following definitive disclosure, the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA) argued that, because the order intakes in the post-IP have increased, the Union producers have received more orders and therefore that the Union industry has a positive future.
(101) The Commission agreed that the order intakes had increased slightly, but referred at the same time to the record losses incurred by the complainants which also figured in this same table. As a consequence, even if there would be a possible recovery for the Union producers during the most recent post-IP period, such a recovery would not compensate for the dramatically increasing losses incurred during the same period.
(102) In conclusion, and absent any other comments, the Commission found a further deterioration of the profitability of the complainants in the most recent period. Accordingly, the assessment that a threat of imminent injury existed at the end of 2015 has not been invalidated. Rather the further deterioration in profitability in the entire first half of 2016 confirmed the accuracy of the Commission's assessment of this indicator.
(103) Article 3(9) of the basic Regulation provides that ‘… the change in circumstances which would create a situation in which the dumping would cause injury must have been clearly foreseen and must be imminent’.
(104) As set out in recital (157) of the provisional Regulation, all the abovementioned factors have been analysed and verified with respect to the investigation period. In particular, the profitability of the sampled Union producers reached the unsustainable level of – 10 % in the fourth quarter of 2015 when Chinese price pressure was felt most.
(105) Furthermore, the post-investigation period data revealed that the negative trend in the Union profitability, which started in the second half of 2015, continued during the first half of 2016.
(106) The available data for the period July-September 2016 presented a mixed picture. While the Chinese import volumes decreased, the overcapacity remained threatening. Concerning the increase in Chinese prices during the same recent period, even if — hypothetically — the cost of production of the Union industry in the most recent period had decreased, the fact remains that the level of Chinese prices in September 2016 had been still exerting an enormous prices pressure on the Union steel industry. It follows that the threat of injury was imminent and foreseeable after the end of the investigation period.
(107) The Commission thus confirmed that there was a clearly foreseeable and imminent change in circumstances at the end of the investigation period, which would have created a situation in which the dumping would have caused injury.
(108) As mentioned in recital (158) of the provisional Regulation, while the Union industry was recovering during 2014 and the first two quarters of 2015, almost all injury indicators started to fall dramatically during the second half of 2015. The investigation revealed that this negative trend, which started in the second half of 2015, was not invalidated during the first half of 2016. As a result, all factors assessed in the framework of Article 3(9) of the basic Regulation, in particular the significant rate of increase of dumped imports in 2015 at further decreasing prices, the huge excess capacity in the PRC, and the negative developments in profitability of the Union industry point to the same direction.
(109) The available data for the period July-September 2016 present a mixed picture. While the Chinese import volumes decreased, the overcapacity remained threatening and the prices remained below the Union industry's cost of production despite their more recent increase.
(110) In the view of this analysis, the Commission concluded that there was a threat of a clearly foreseeable and imminent injury to the Union industry at the end of the investigation period. This assessment was not invalidated by the post-IP developments analysed above.
(111) Furthermore, the Commission rejected the claims of CISA — following definitive disclosure — that the Commission's assessment was not in line with the case-law, by noting the following two main differences between its approach in the present case and the one that led to the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009(18):—first, as mentioned in recital (119) of the provisional Regulation, the Union industry was found to be in the present case in a weak situation at the end of the investigation period, but not to the extent that it suffered material injury during the period considered within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation,—second, the Commission analysed and assessed thoroughly post-IP data to the extent possible in the present case in order to confirm or invalidate its findings, as authorised by the case-law. — first, as mentioned in recital (119) of the provisional Regulation, the Union industry was found to be in the present case in a weak situation at the end of the investigation period, but not to the extent that it suffered material injury during the period considered within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, — second, the Commission analysed and assessed thoroughly post-IP data to the extent possible in the present case in order to confirm or invalidate its findings, as authorised by the case-law.
— first, as mentioned in recital (119) of the provisional Regulation, the Union industry was found to be in the present case in a weak situation at the end of the investigation period, but not to the extent that it suffered material injury during the period considered within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation,
— second, the Commission analysed and assessed thoroughly post-IP data to the extent possible in the present case in order to confirm or invalidate its findings, as authorised by the case-law.
— first, as mentioned in recital (119) of the provisional Regulation, the Union industry was found to be in the present case in a weak situation at the end of the investigation period, but not to the extent that it suffered material injury during the period considered within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation,
— second, the Commission analysed and assessed thoroughly post-IP data to the extent possible in the present case in order to confirm or invalidate its findings, as authorised by the case-law.
(112) An interested party reiterated that during the investigation period Russia had the largest volume of imports into the Union and that the market share of the Chinese imports, although increasing throughout the period considered, still remained at a very low level, that is, around 4 %. Following definitive disclosure, another interested party commented also that a mere 4 % market share of the Chinese imports precluded a finding of causation.
(113) These allegations were already dealt with in recitals (177) to (188) of the provisional Regulation. Furthermore, concerning the market share, recital (77) of the provisional Regulation stated that the total market share of the Chinese imports into the Union increased more than five times during the period considered.
(114) According to the complainant it would be appropriate to cumulate the effects of the dumped imports from China with the dumped imports of five other countries covered by an investigation, which is currently ongoing. Following definitive disclosure, the complainant reiterated this point.
(115) The Commission did not find it possible in this case to cumulate the dumped imports by merging the two investigations. The concept of imports being ‘simultaneously subject to anti-dumping investigations,’ under Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation requires either imports that are under the same investigation or imports that are under two different investigations running simultaneously and that have the same or largely overlapping investigation periods. In the present case, both investigations have different investigation periods, with a six-month overlap of the IP only.
(116) In view of the above, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (197) to (198) of the provisional Regulation.
(117) In the absence of any comments regarding the interest of the Union industry, the conclusion reached in recital (203) of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.
(118) In the absence of any comments regarding the interest of importers, the Commission confirmed its conclusion reached in recital (204) of the provisional Regulation as well.
(119) Following provisional disclosure, some users claimed that it would not be in the Union interest to impose anti-dumping measures against the country concerned. They alleged that anti-dumping measures would be against the interests of users because they would:(a)have an anti-competitive effect; and(b)lead to greater volumes of imports of downstream products manufactured in third counties. (a) have an anti-competitive effect; and (b) lead to greater volumes of imports of downstream products manufactured in third counties.
(a) have an anti-competitive effect; and
(b) lead to greater volumes of imports of downstream products manufactured in third counties.
(a) have an anti-competitive effect; and
(b) lead to greater volumes of imports of downstream products manufactured in third counties.
(120) The allegation that anti-dumping measures would have an anti-competitive effect was already dealt with in recitals (205) to (212) of the provisional Regulation. The allegation that anti-dumping measures on the product concerned would lead to greater volumes of imports of downstream products manufactured in third countries was not supported with substantive additional information. Thus, the Commission rejected this argument.
(121) The Italian user who cooperated during the investigation argued that recital (210) of the provisional Regulation should be complemented by indicating also the impact of anti-dumping measures on its profit margin. In this respect, the Italian user mentioned that — under the assumption of an anti-dumping duty of 22,6 % — his pre-tax profit would decrease by 2,3 percentage points. As a result, it concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would have a significant impact on its profitability and, a fortiori, on the other smaller unrelated users which are active in processing the product concerned. The Commission acknowledged that anti-dumping duties will have a negative effect on the profitability of the Italian user. Nevertheless, the Commission also noted that the user is not exclusively dependent on Chinese imports, but also purchased the product concerned during the investigation period from Union producers as well as from other producers in third countries. In addition, its profitability would remain positive, albeit at a lower level.
(122) Following definitive disclosure, the complainant argued that the results of this Italian user in terms of growth and profits are in stark contrast to those of the Union producers, which are suffering heavy losses. The Commission considered that this argument did not change the analysis on the impact on users. Rather, the Union producer's interests were already taken into account as set out in Section 6.1.
(123) Lastly, the Commission could not assess the impact of the imposition of measures on other users, since they did not cooperate during this investigation.
(124) In view of the above and absent any other comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusion reached in recital (213) of the provisional Regulation.
(125) In the absence of any other comments concerning the Union interest, the conclusions reached in recitals (214) to (217) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(126) The Commission chose to provisionally establish the target profit at 7 % based on an OECD study, which simulated how the recovery of the Union industry from the recession caused by the economic and financial crisis in 2009 would have developed. After the imposition of provisional measures and as mentioned in recital (224) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission further looked into this issue not only in view of the comments received following disclosure, but also by requesting and analysing more information in this respect.
(127) Following provisional and definitive disclosure, several parties made comments on the 7 % target profit. One interested party claimed that it was far too low, whereas another interested party submitted that it was excessive.
(128) Eurofer considered that the 7 % target profit was far too low. Firstly, it maintained that the most appropriate method to determine the profit margin was either relying on the data from the previous investigation on hot-rolled flat products (in 2000), or relying on the profitability achieved by the steel industry during the year 2008. Basing the target profit on the profits achieved in the year 2000 would lead to a target profit of 12,9 %, whereas basing it on the achieved profits during the year 2008 would lead to a target profit of 14,4 %. Eurofer alleged that in the context of no technological and financial changes in the Union since 2000, using the profits achieved in that 2000 would be appropriate. Using the profits achieved in 2008 would be another option, since the Commission verified profitability data for a period of 10 years, including the year 2008, which was the year before the onset of the financial crisis. Eurofer added that the target profit should not derive from years affected either by the economic crisis or by dumped imports from the country concerned. Secondly, if the Commission rejected both approaches, Eurofer claimed that the target profit supported by the OECD's 2013 study should be adjusted in light of the actual results achieved during the IP by the European HRF industry. This would then lead to a reasonable profit margin of 10 %.
(129) As explained in recital (220) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation established that basing the target profit on the profits achieved in the year 2000 is not a reasonable option. Even under the unlikely assumption that — as Eurofer alleges — there were no technological and financial changes in the Union since the year 2000, there have been at least some changes in the size of the Union market since 2000 as a result of the growing number of Member States during the period 2000-2016. Second, for the reasons as explained in recital (222) of the provisional Regulation, to base the target profit on the profits achieved in the year 2008 is also not an appropriate option, mainly because a threat of injury case requires rather a prospective analysis. Finally, Eurofer's request to increase the target profit from 7 % to 10 % — in case the target profit would not be based on either the year 2000 or the year 2008 — was not sufficiently substantiated.
(130) The Chinese exporting producer Hebei Iron & Steel Group(19)and its related importer Duferco S.A. submitted that using a 7 % target profit was excessive, inappropriate and inaccurate for the following reasons: First, it reflects an estimate of earnings which is fraught with uncertainty and of which the underlying parameters have changed in the meantime. Second, it reflects a profitability needed for the survival of the global Union steel industry, not specifically of the Union steel producers of the product concerned. Third, since the Commission had provisionally determined that imports were dumped in 2015, there wasa contrariono dumping in the years 2012-2014, whereby profits were achieved during the latter period ranging between – 3,3 % (loss) and 0,4 % (profit). In the alternative, assuming that there was dumping during the years 2012-2014, the most recent year in which there is no evidence of dumped imports of the product concerned is the year 2011 in which profits were achieved amounting to 3,11 % on average. Moreover, following definitive disclosure, the same Chinese exporting producer alleged that this approach was manifestly in violation of Court's case law, since it accounted for other factors than dumping and rather is meant to ensure the survival of the Union steel industry.
(131) First, in the Commission's view, the interested party did not substantiate its allegations that the underlying parameters which are at the basis of the study used to determine the 7 % target profit had changed in the meantime.
(132) Second, the interested party also argued that the study reflects on a profitability needed for the survival of the global Union steel industry, not specifically of the Union steel producers of the product concerned. In this respect, as already set out in recital (223) of the provisional Regulation, absent any other reliable data, the Commission equated these figures made for the steel industry as a whole to the product concerned, as HRF makes up a big proportion of the crude steel production.
(133) Third, concerning the remark to either use profitability data from the period 2012-2014 or from the year 2011, this does not seem appropriate. The target profit is the price which the Union industry could reasonably count on under normal conditions of competition, in the absence of the dumped imports. As mentioned in recital (106) of the provisional Regulation, the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 cannot be considered to be years under normal conditions of competition, given the aftermath of the Eurozone debt crisis, and the decline of steel demand in 2012. Furthermore, as found in the cold-rolled case(20), data of 2011 cannot be relied upon due to the impact of the 2009 financial crisis which still impacted the profitability data two years later.
(134) On the basis of the above the Commission confirmed that the 7 % target profit was the most appropriate basis in this threat of injury-case. This understanding is in line with the judgment of the Court(21)that the analysis of whether there is a threat of injury requires, by its very nature, a prospective analysis.
(135) The legal representative of a Chinese exporting producer claimed that the information disclosed in the provisional disclosure does not allow him commenting on the correctness and relevance of the Commission's findings concerning dumping margin, price effects and injury margin calculations, including whether the undercutting and underselling calculations took into account all of the sampled Union producers' sales, or only those for which there were sales of matching product types by the Chinese exporting producers. In this context, on 8 November 2016 the Chinese exporting producer requested clarifications. Moreover, on 8 November 2016 and following definitive disclosure, the Chinese exporting producer also requested access to certain confidential information. It suggested that this confidential information would only be accessed by the legal representatives, or in the alternative, to involve the Hearing Officer.
(136) The Commission services replied on 8 December 2016 that the undercutting and underselling calculations took only into account the matching product types to compare the sales data of the Chinese exporting producer with the sales data from EU producers. In any case, the volume of comparable products sold by the Union industry represented 62 % of its total export volume. In this regard, products exported to the Union by this specific exporting producer could be matched with a comparable Union product. Furthermore, they informed the legal representative of that party that his request to access confidential information could not be accepted since the Commission is bound to protect the confidentiality of the data of the other interested parties. Since under current law there are no other means to protect the confidentiality and, at the same time, to provide parties with the requested information, the Commission services invited him to contact the Hearing Officer to have the latter to verify the confidential information.
(137) In this context, following definitive disclosure, the complainant commented in this respect that the Commission is legally obliged to protect the confidential data submitted by all interested parties. It therefore refused to waive the protection granted to its confidential data by Article 19 of the Basic Regulation.
(138) Under current Union law, as interpreted by the case-law, it is not legally possible to grant access to the confidential data provided by an interested party to any other party, unless with the consent of the provider of the data, or in case of litigation before the Union Courts. The only alternative is the control mechanism provided by Article 15 of the Decision of the President of the Commission of 29 February 2012 on the function and terms of reference of the Hearing Officer(22). A hearing in the presence of the Hearing Officer took place on 7 February 2017, discussing the legal framework concerning access to confidential data.
(139) Following definitive disclosure, the legal representative of the same Chinese exporting producer was first heard on 12 January 2017 to discuss in detail its requested clarifications. After this meeting, he reiterated in its written submission of the same day his request to be provided with information about the injury calculations ‘to understand the nature and extent of the price effects that allegedly exist’.
(140) On 18 January 2017, the Commission services provided in a separate letter all clarifications to the extent possible — i.e. without violating the legal obligation of the basic regulation to protect confidential data — which the legal representative of this Chinese exporting producer had requested. Furthermore, the Commission noted that there is 100 % matching between the 10 product types of the product concerned sold by this Chinese exporting producer and those sold by the Union producers. Moreover, only one out of the 10 product types represents about 75 % of his total sales volumes in the Union during the IP.
(141) Following provisional and definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer challenged the way the Commission had calculated the injury margin. This interested party alleged that the Chinese sales prices must be adjusted by a so-called ‘importers margin’, i.e. including customs clearance, handling, financing, SG&A, and profit (in an amount of 5 %). As such, the importer ex-warehouse price would include similar cost elements to those of the Union industry's corresponding ex-works selling price. Furthermore, the interested party alleged that the Commission took a mere landed price (that is, without any adjustment for SG&A and profit) which is not sufficient to carry out an appropriate comparison between the respective prices of Chinese exporting producers and Union producers for undercutting and underselling calculations. To support its point, the interested party referred to two provisional Regulations, both dating from over 20 years ago. This Chinese exporting producer also alleged that the Commission had disregarded the fact that the export price at the Union frontier level would be affected by the relationship between the exporter and the importer. By doing so, the Commission would end up using, in fine, the transfer price between the related companies as a basis for the comparison with the ex-factory prices of the Union industry.
(142) The Commission rejected this claim, for the following reason: the purpose of calculating an injury margin is to determine whether imposing a lower (than the one based on the dumping margin) duty rate to the export price of the dumped imports would be sufficient to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports. This assessment should be based on the export price at the Union frontier level which is considered to be a level comparable to the Union industry ex-works price. The methodology followed by the Commission to compare data of the Chinese exporting producers and Union producers for undercutting and underselling calculations ensures that both exporting and Union producers receive on the contrary equal treatment: The Commission considered that the determination of the relevant import price for undercutting and underselling calculations should not be influenced by whether the exports are made to related or independent operations in the Union. To that end, the relevant price to be taken into account is the price at which the product concerned is sold to the Union, and not the price at which the imported materials are then resold by importing producers in the Union. Moreover, the Commission refers to recital (144) of this Regulation. Therefore, the Commission considered that its approach was accurate.
(143) The complainant commented that the Commission should apply Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation when determining export prices for sales made via related importers in the context of the injury margin calculation. This interested party also commented that, unlike the cold rolled case, the provisional disclosure did not explicitly confirm that this methodology was used.
(144) The Commission confirmed that the purpose of calculating an injury margin is to determine whether imposing a lower duty rate (than the one based on the dumping margin) to the export price of the dumped imports would be sufficient to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports. This assessment should be based on the export price at the Union frontier level which is considered to be a level comparable to the Union industry ex-works price. In the case of export sales via related importers, the export price is constructed on the basis of the resale price to the first independent customer duly adjusted pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. As the export price is an indispensable element in the injury margin calculation and as this provision of the basic Regulation is the only provision which gives guidance on the construction of the export price, the application of this provision by analogy is justified.
(145) Following definitive disclosure, CISA argued that it was surprised that the Commission applied by analogy Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. It alleged that such application was in breach of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation itself, and vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. It also alleged that at least one sampled Chinese exporting producer was exporting via related importers and that consequently its definitive duty rate would be overstated.
(146) First, the Commission reiterated that Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation is the only provision of the basic Regulation which gives guidance on the construction of the export price. Therefore its application is justified in the framework of calculating an injury margin. Second, contrary to what is alleged, it is Commission's practise in recent cases to consistently(23)apply Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation by analogy in the framework of calculating an injury margin. Third, the purpose of the injury margin calculations is not to measure to what extent the sales of the related importers are causing injury to the Union producers, but rather whether the exports from the Chinese exporting producer have such detrimental effect through undercutting and underselling the prices of Union producers. To that end, the relevant price to be taken into account is the price at which the product concerned is sold to the Union, and not the price at which the imported materials are then resold by importing producers in the Union. In conclusion, the Commission confirmed that it has used this methodology when determining export prices for sales made via related importers.
(147) The complainant criticised the fact that the Commission had provisionally applied a standard material injury approach by taking the average injury margin over the whole IP (i.e. 2015). It alleged that this is not a correct approach, since the threat of injury margin needs to reflect the threat, and when the threat materialises later on during the IP, the injury margin must reflect the concrete impact of the threat. In order to effectively remove the impact of the threat of injury the Commission should look at those parts of the IP where the threat of injury started to materialise. In this context, the complainant referred to the fact that the threat of injury started to impact the Union steel industry from the second half of 2015 onwards. Therefore, only the second half of 2015 should be used for calculating underselling and undercutting margins. The complainant also mentioned that threat of injury cases are aimed at allowing the Commission to act effectively and preventively before the threat of injury has caused injury. If the Commission would not be inclined to change its method of calculating the (threat of) injury margin, industries would have to wait longer, until they suffer material injury for a full year, to request protection from dumped imports in order to obtain a realistic injury margin. Such behaviour would be at the detriment of jobs and industrial activities on the Union market, and it would also undermine the objectives of the threat-of-injury complaints.
(148) After a detailed analysis of the arguments of the complainant, the Commission recalled that it had provisionally concluded that there was a clearly foreseeable and imminent change in circumstances at the end of the investigation period, which would create a situation in which the dumping will cause injury. In this respect, the Commission referred, inter alia, to recitals (157), (159) and (198) of the provisional Regulation stating that ‘while the Union industry was recovering during 2014 and the first two quarters of 2015, almost all injury indicators started to fall dramatically during the second half of 2015. The investigation revealed that this negative trend, which started in the second half of 2015, was not invalidated during the first half of 2016.’ It further provided in recital (163) of the provisional Regulation that ‘In view of the coincidence in time between, on the one hand, the ever-increasing level of dumped imports at continuously decreasing prices and, on the other hand, the Union industry's loss of market share and price depression resulting in further losses, in particular from the second half of 2015 onwards, the Commission concluded that the dumped imports had a negative impact on the situation of the Union industry.’
(149) Second, as to the substance of the matter, the Commission established that, as laid out in recital (157) of the provisional Regulation, the negative trend started in the second half of 2015 and led to a clearly foreseeable and imminent change in circumstances at the end of the investigation period, which would create a situation in which the dumping would cause injury, if no measures were taken. This is in line with what was stated by the Commission in recital (113) of the provisional Regulation that ‘the Union producers could partly recover during 2014 and the first half of 2015’. As a result, the second half of 2015 better reflects the actual impact of the threat of injury to the Union industry that should be removed.
(150) Third, the Court held that the analysis of post-investigation period data is particularly appropriate in an investigation to determine whether there is a threat-of-injury which, by its very nature, requires a prospective analysis. For the Commission, the second half of 2015 seems to better respond to this requirement, as it is closer to future developments than the full IP.
(151) Fourth, a calculation on the basis of a full investigation period, irrespective whether there were signs of negative trends, would undermine the objective of a threat of injury-case to act effectively and preventively before the threat of injury has caused injury.
(152) For all the reasons above, the Commission accepted the view that the period for calculating the injury margins in this particular case should be based on the second half of 2015 and not on the entire investigation period.
(153) As a result, the Commission requested additional data to cooperating producers. It received additional quarterly IP data on the cost of production per product type from the sampled Union producers and verified these data afterwards. The verifications concerned solely the additional data provided which were not requested before and ensured that the data on which the Commission eventually based its findings were reliable.
(154) As the level of cooperation was considered high, the definitive injury margin for the PRC, applicable to non-sampled cooperating exporting producers, was calculated as the average of the three sampled exporting producers/groups of companies. The definitive injury margin for the PRC, applicable to non-cooperating exporting producers, was established at the level of the highest margin of the three cooperating companies/groups of companies.
(155) Following definitive disclosure, CISA commented that the full IP was used as a basis to calculate the Union industry target's unit price, whereas only 6 months of the IP was used to calculate the Union free circulation unit sales price of the Chinese exporting producers, belonging to the Shagang group. As a result, CISA requested the Commission to recalculate both elements using the available data for the same period.
(156) After analysis, this comment was found to be accurate. The Commission therefore recalculated the Union industry's target unit price for the Chinese exporting producers, belonging to the Shagang group, using as such the cost of production-data for the same period (second half of 2015) as the period used for the calculation of the Union free circulation unit sales price of all Chinese exporting producers.
(157) The revised calculation led to the finding that the injury margins for the companies belonging to the Shagang Group went down from 36,6 % to 35,9 %
(158) Furthermore, the Commission reviewed the initial calculations of the injury margins for the two other Chinese exporting producers. Whereas the initial calculation for the Hebei-group was assessed to be correct, the review of the initial calculation for Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd showed that it contained the following clerical errors:—One product type was found to be wrongly excluded from the initial calculation. As a result, the revised calculation included this product type since this product type was both sold by the Union producers and by Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd.—A few values in the data of the Union industry had been wrongly linked in the calculation sheet.As a result of the abovementioned effects, the injury margin for this Chinese exporting producer increased to 28,1 % (instead of 25,5 %). — One product type was found to be wrongly excluded from the initial calculation. As a result, the revised calculation included this product type since this product type was both sold by the Union producers and by Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd. — A few values in the data of the Union industry had been wrongly linked in the calculation sheet.
— One product type was found to be wrongly excluded from the initial calculation. As a result, the revised calculation included this product type since this product type was both sold by the Union producers and by Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd.
— A few values in the data of the Union industry had been wrongly linked in the calculation sheet.
— One product type was found to be wrongly excluded from the initial calculation. As a result, the revised calculation included this product type since this product type was both sold by the Union producers and by Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd.
— A few values in the data of the Union industry had been wrongly linked in the calculation sheet.
(159) The revised calculation of the Union industry's target unit price was communicated to both the Shagang group and Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd on 16 January 2017. Since the only element which changed compared to the Commission's definitive disclosure dated 22 December 2016 was the Union industry's target price, both interested parties were asked to comment concerning these limited additional disclosures by 18 January 2017. No comments, though, came in by that date.
(160) Following definitive disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer also commented that it was not persuaded by the reasons given that using only data covering the second half of 2015 would reflect more properly the situation of the impact of the threat. It also alleged that any selective use of the period for the purpose of the injury margin calculation would make the comparison of the dumping and injury margins for the purpose of the ‘lesser-duty rule’ illogic and distortive, and leading to higher margins than in case the full year of 2015 would have been used. Consequently, it requested the Commission to use a period of 12 months to calculate the injury margin, similar to the period used to calculate the dumping margins. Similar comments were received from the Italian user, who added that the selective use of information relating to part of the IP does not allow for an objective assessment of the injury elimination level in the present case.
(161) A similar comment was received by CISA and by two Chinese exporting producers, both alleging that the choice of a six months' period is a breach of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. In this respect, whereas the other Chinese exporting producer alleged mainly that limiting the data set to a mere six months period cannot qualify as positive evidence within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, CISA referred to point 5.1 of the Notice of Initiation stating that ‘the investigation of dumping and injury will cover the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 and the case-law’.
(162) Moreover, one Chinese exporting producer also mentioned that it is the Commission's established practice to refrain from using data referring to only part of the investigation period and that the methodology applied in this case is not in line with the WTO Anti-Dumping Committee's recommendation that ‘the period of data collection…should include the entirety of the period of data collection for the dumping investigation.’
(163) The Commission rejected all these arguments as follows. First, the determination of dumping and injury is made on the basis of an investigation period and a period considered defined in line with the relevant provisions of the basic Regulation and announced in the Notice of Initiation. On the other hand, the basic Regulation does not provide any specific method for the calculation of the injury margin used for the application of the lesser-duty rule. Second, the basic regulation also does not provide specific criteria for the definition of the period during which the parameters for the calculation of the injury margin are assessed. In the present case, the Commission considered that the period chosen reflects the specificity of the case and is appropriate in the context of a prospective analysis. Moreover, the Commission used for the injury margin calculation the same 6-months period for comparing the export price and the target price to ensure an objective assessment.
(164) Taking into account the issues mentioned above in recitals (135) to (163) above, and absent any other comments, the definitive injury margins were recalculated using the data for the second half of 2015. These definitive margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows. Also shown here are definitive duty rates.Table 7Definitive Margins and Duty RatesChinese exporting producersDefinitive dumping marginDefinitive injury marginDefinitive duty rateBengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd97,3 %28,1 %28,1 %Hesteel Group Co., Ltd95,5 %18,1 %18,1 %Jiangsu Shagang Group106,9 %35,9 %35,9 %Other cooperating companies100,5 %27,3 %27,3 %All other companies106,9 %35,9 %35,9 % Chinese exporting producers Definitive dumping margin Definitive injury margin Definitive duty rate Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd 97,3 % 28,1 % 28,1 % Hesteel Group Co., Ltd 95,5 % 18,1 % 18,1 % Jiangsu Shagang Group 106,9 % 35,9 % 35,9 % Other cooperating companies 100,5 % 27,3 % 27,3 % All other companies 106,9 % 35,9 % 35,9 %
Chinese exporting producers Definitive dumping margin Definitive injury margin Definitive duty rate
Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd 97,3 % 28,1 % 28,1 %
Hesteel Group Co., Ltd 95,5 % 18,1 % 18,1 %
Jiangsu Shagang Group 106,9 % 35,9 % 35,9 %
Other cooperating companies 100,5 % 27,3 % 27,3 %
All other companies 106,9 % 35,9 % 35,9 %
Chinese exporting producers Definitive dumping margin Definitive injury margin Definitive duty rate
Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd 97,3 % 28,1 % 28,1 %
Hesteel Group Co., Ltd 95,5 % 18,1 % 18,1 %
Jiangsu Shagang Group 106,9 % 35,9 % 35,9 %
Other cooperating companies 100,5 % 27,3 % 27,3 %
All other companies 106,9 % 35,9 % 35,9 %
(165) The abovementioned injury margins were rounded down, where appropriate, to the nearest tenth of a digit following comments from an exporting producer after the definitive disclosure.
(166) 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 this investigation with 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 product concerned originating in the country concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported product concerned produced by any other company whose name is not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should not benefit from these rates and should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(167) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (for example 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(*1)with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the present Regulation will be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.
(168) ‘Hebei Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd’ changed its name to ‘Hesteel Group Co., Ltd’ during the investigation. Some of its related companies have also changed their names. The Commission duly acknowledged these name changes and adapted Article 1 paragraph 2 accordingly.
(169) In order to minimise the risks of circumvention, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping measures. These special measures include the following: the presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice which shall conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the duty rate applicable to all other companies.
(170) Following definitive disclosure, one interested party claimed that the Commission cannot definitively collect the provisional duties pursuant to Article 10(2) of the basic Regulation unless it is demonstrated that in the absence of provisional measures, the situation would have developed into material injury before the adoption of definitive measures.
(171) In light of the findings in the present case, the Commission considers that, pursuant to Article 10(2) of the basic Regulation, the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, should be released.
(172) 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,
— products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel,
— products of tool steel and high-speed steel,
— products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more, and
— products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.
Country Company Definitive duty rate TARIC Additional Code
PRC Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd 28,1 % C157
Handan Iron & Steel Group Han-Bao Co., Ltd 18,1 % C158
Hesteel Co., Ltd Tangshan Branch(24) 18,1 % C159
Hesteel Co., Ltd Chengde Branch(25) 18,1 % C160
Zhangjiagang Hongchang Plate Co., Ltd 35,9 % C161
Zhangjiagang GTA Plate Co., Ltd 35,9 % C162
Other cooperating companies listed in Annex I 27,3 % See the Annex
All other companies 35,9 % C999
(1) it did not export to the Union the product described in paragraph 1 in the period between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2015 (investigation period);
(2) it is not related to any exporter or producer in the People's Republic of China which is subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by this Regulation;
(3) 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,
— Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 217/2013 of 11 March 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foils in rolls originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 11),
— Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1953 of 29 October 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain-oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the People's Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America(OJ L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109).
Country Name TARIC additional code
People's Republic of China Angang Steel Company Limited C150
Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Union Co., Ltd C151
Jiangyin Xingcheng Special Steel Works Co., Ltd C147
Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co., Ltd C163
Shougang Jingtang United Iron & Steel Co., Ltd C164
Maanshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd C165
Rizhao Steel Wire Co., Ltd C166
Rizhao Baohua New Material Co., Ltd C167
Tangshan Yanshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd C168
Wuhan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd C156
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union(1)(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of imports of certain flat-rolled products of iron, non-alloy steel or other alloy steel, whether or not in coils (including ‘cut-to-length’ and ‘narrow strip’ products), not further worked than hot-rolled, not clad, plated or coated, originating in the People’s Republic of China.
The product concerned does not include:
—
products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel,
—
products of tool steel and high-speed steel,
—
products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more, and
—
products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.
The product concerned is currently falling within CN codes 7208 10 00, 7208 25 00, 7208 26 00, 7208 27 00, 7208 36 00, 7208 37 00, 7208 38 00, 7208 39 00, 7208 40 00, 7208 52 10, 7208 52 99, 7208 53 10, 7208 53 90, 7208 54 00, 7211 13 00, 7211 14 00, 7211 19 00, ex 7225 19 10 (TARIC code 7225191090), 7225 30 90, ex 7225 40 60 (TARIC code 7225406090), 7225 40 90, ex 7226 19 10 (TARIC code 7226191090), 7226 91 91 and 7226 91 99.
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 manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:
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, on which shall appear a declaration dated and signed by an official of the entity issuing such invoice, identified by his/her name and function, drafted as follows: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of hot-rolled flat steel products sold for export to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) in the (country concerned). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’ If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’ shall apply.
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
5. Where any new exporting producer in the People’s Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:
(1)
it did not export to the Union the product described in paragraph 1 in the period between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2015 (investigation period);
(2)
it is not related to any exporter or producer in the People’s Republic of China which is subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by this Regulation;
(3)
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,
paragraph 2 may be amended by adding the new exporting producer to the cooperating companies not included in the sample and thus subject to an individual duty not exceeding the weighted average duty of 27,3 %.

Article 2
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/181(26)shall be definitively released.

Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union(1)(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of imports of certain flat-rolled products of iron, non-alloy steel or other alloy steel, whether or not in coils (including ‘cut-to-length’ and ‘narrow strip’ products), not further worked than hot-rolled, not clad, plated or coated, originating in the People’s Republic of China.
The product concerned does not include:
—
products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel,
—
products of tool steel and high-speed steel,
—
products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more, and
—
products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.
The product concerned is currently falling within CN codes 7208 10 00, 7208 25 00, 7208 26 00, 7208 27 00, 7208 36 00, 7208 37 00, 7208 38 00, 7208 39 00, 7208 40 00, 7208 52 10, 7208 52 99, 7208 53 10, 7208 53 90, 7208 54 00, 7211 13 00, 7211 14 00, 7211 19 00, ex 7225 19 10 (TARIC code 7225191090), 7225 30 90, ex 7225 40 60 (TARIC code 7225406090), 7225 40 90, ex 7226 19 10 (TARIC code 7226191090), 7226 91 91 and 7226 91 99.
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 manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:
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, on which shall appear a declaration dated and signed by an official of the entity issuing such invoice, identified by his/her name and function, drafted as follows: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of hot-rolled flat steel products sold for export to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) in the (country concerned). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’ If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’ shall apply.
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
5. Where any new exporting producer in the People’s Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:
(1)
it did not export to the Union the product described in paragraph 1 in the period between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2015 (investigation period);
(2)
it is not related to any exporter or producer in the People’s Republic of China which is subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by this Regulation;
(3)
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,
paragraph 2 may be amended by adding the new exporting producer to the cooperating companies not included in the sample and thus subject to an individual duty not exceeding the weighted average duty of 27,3 %.
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/181(26)shall be definitively released.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.
ANNEX
Country | Name | TARIC additional code
People’s Republic of China | Angang Steel Company Limited | C150
Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Union Co., Ltd | C151
Jiangyin Xingcheng Special Steel Works Co., Ltd | C147
Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co., Ltd | C163
Shougang Jingtang United Iron & Steel Co., Ltd | C164
Maanshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd | C165
Rizhao Steel Wire Co., Ltd | C166
Rizhao Baohua New Material Co., Ltd | C167
Tangshan Yanshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd | C168
Wuhan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd | C156

Pending: 32017R0141

27.1.2017 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 22/14
(1) On 29 October 2015, pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009(2), the Commission announced by a notice (‘Notice of Initiation’) published in theOfficial Journal of the European Union(3)the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the European Union of certain stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, whether or not finished, originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) and Taiwan (‘the countries concerned’).
(2) The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 14 September 2015 by the Defence Committee of the Stainless Steel Butt-welding Fittings Industry of the European Union (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing between 37 % and 48 % of the total Union production. One producer expressing its opposition has come forward.
(3) Therefore, the relevant thresholds as set out in the Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation, i.e. ‘an investigation shall not be initiated pursuant to paragraph 1 unless it has been determined, on the basis of an examination as to the degree of support for, or opposition to, the complaint expressed by Union producers of the like product, that the complaint has been made by, or on behalf of, the Union industry. The complaint shall be considered to have been made by, or on behalf of, the Union industry if it is supported by those Union producers whose collective output constitutes more than 50 % of the total production of the like product produced by that portion of the Union industry expressing either support for or opposition to the complaint. However, no investigation shall be initiated where Union producers expressly supporting the complaint account for less than 25 % of total production of the like product produced by the Union industry.’, were met at the time of the initiation of the case. Once the investigation is opened, it is not necessary that the conditions for standing are met throughout the entire investigation. The Court has confirmed this for the situation where a company withdraws its support for the complaint(4); the same reasoning applies by analogy in a situation where the product scope changes.
(4) At initiation stage, one of the interested party claimed that the Commission had wrongly calculated the representativity of the complainant on the total production of the Union industry. They claimed that the current complainant cannot represent 43 %-49 % of the Union production as in the previous case covering a similar product scope eight companies had represented 48 % of the Union production. The Commission noted that while the product scope of the two investigations are indeed similar the exact product scope and the period covered in the current investigation differ from the product scope and the period covered in the previous investigation. Therefore the assessments performed and the results of that assessment were different (i.e. different Union producers came forward in the investigation at hand than in the investigation initiated in 2012; and those Union producers were defined on the basis of the like product of the investigation of 2012). The note to file on standing dated 28 October 2015 establishes the total production of the like product in the Union at 8 600 tonnes for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. For the previous investigation initiated in 2012 the note to the file on standing dated on 9 November 2012 established the total production of the like product in the Union at 21 600 tonnes.
(5) The same interested party claimed that the number of companies supporting the complaint is low, 3 out of 16 Union producers, and requested the Commission to investigate why the other Union producers remained silent. In reply to this comment, the Commission noted that the number of producers supporting a complaint does not matter at the time of the initiation of a case, only their part in the production volume of the Union industry as defined in the Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.
(6) Moreover, the interested party questioned the inclusion of a Union producer in the definition of the Union industry as this Union producer was producing significantly higher added value fittings than the other Union producers. However, the investigation confirmed that this Union producer was also producing and selling the like product and its inclusion in the sample was justified. It only covered those volumes of that producer which fall in the scope of the investigation. Therefore, this claim was rejected.
(7) The Commission officially advised the complainant, all the Union producers, importers, traders and users known to be concerned and their associations, as well as the exporting producers and the authorities of the countries concerned of the initiation of the investigation.
(8) The Commission also contacted producers in Brazil, India, Malaysia, Korea, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States of America (‘the USA’) which were listed in the Notice of Initiation as possible analogue countries for the purpose of establishing a normal value for the PRC.
(9) Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of Initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.
(10) In its 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, in view of the large number of Union producers involved in the investigation, it would limit its analysis to a reasonable number the Union producers. At the time of the initiation, the producers mentioned in recital 2, i.e. one Union producer and a group of two subsidiaries, located in the Union producing the like product came forward.
(12) Following the publication of the Notice of Initiation, another Union producer requested to be included in the sample. The four cooperating Union producers were therefore included in the sample. The sampled Union producers accounted for around 47 % of the total estimated Union production, and the sample was considered representative of the Union industry.
(13) However, one of the sampled Union producers, i.e. Springer GmbH, subsequently informed the Commission of its decision not to cooperate. This producer was therefore not further investigated. The Commission nevertheless concluded that the three remaining Union producers in the sample, which account for ca. 43 % of the total estimated Union production, were still representative of the Union industry. That Union producer also informed the Commission that it was not only a Union producer, but also had an outward processing arrangement with a Chinese producer.
(14) In addition, the Commission assessed the impact of the exclusion of the flanged and low-roughness fittings (see section 2.2 below) on the representativity of the sample. It found that flanged and low-roughness fittings production was not substantial either regarding the sampled Union producers or regarding the total Union production and, therefore, had no impact on the representativity of the sample already selected.
(15) One interested party stated that the Union producers other than ones supporting the complaint were increasing their sales during the period 2010-2015 and selling at higher prices and volume, based on Eurostat Intra Union trade statistics.
(16) The Commission analysed the potential injury caused by the imports from the countries concerned in relation to the Union industry, including all Union producers through the macro economic data (see recitals 193-207) Furthermore, the Commission noted the party based its analysis on CN codes including not only the product concerned but also products outside of the scope of this investigation. Moreover, in general the volume reported in the Intra Union trade statistics does not concern only Union production but also re-sales of imported products. Therefore, no conclusion could be drawn concerning the sales prices or the volume of the Union producers. In any event, it remains that the microeconomic data of the sample are deemed representative for the Union industry. That this data does not comprise the non-complaining producers is the consequence of the fact that those did not come forward to be included in the sample.
(17) In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all unrelated importers were requested to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.
(18) Three unrelated importers provided information and agreed to be included in the sample. Together they represented 10 % of the estimated volumes imported from the PRC and Taiwan during the investigation period. Given that the Commission could examine all importers that came forward, no sampling was necessary.
(19) In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers in Taiwan were requested in the Notice of Initiation to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. The information on the initiation of the investigation and the Notice of Initiation (which included a sampling form) were sent to the 10 Taiwanese companies identified in the complaint as exporting producers of the product concerned to the Union. In addition, the Taipei Representative Office in the European Union was requested to identify and/or contact additional exporting producers, if any.
(20) Four exporting producers in Taiwan provided the information requested in the Notice of Initiation and agreed to be included in the sample. Taking into account the number of cooperating Taiwanese exporting producers, sampling was not considered necessary.
(21) During the investigation, two of the four companies did not further cooperate. The Commission informed these companies that, according to Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, provisional or final findings, affirmative or negative, may be made on the basis of the facts available.
(22) In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers in the PRC were requested to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Mission of the People's Republic of China to the European Union was requested to identify and/or contact additional exporting producers, if any.
(23) Nine exporting producers in the PRC provided the requested information and requested to be included in the sample. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of four companies or groups of companies, representing around 79 % of the exports of the cooperating exporting producers to the Union and an estimated 35 % of the total quantities exported from PRC to the Union during the investigation period. The criterion used to select the four companies included in the sample was the volumes of exports of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned and the authorities of the country concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample, and no comments were received.
(24) In the course of the investigation, one of the four sampled companies did not further cooperate. The Commission informed this company that according to Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, provisional or final findings, affirmative or negative, may be made on the basis of the facts available.
(25) None of the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC claimed market economy treatment (‘MET’). However, five exporting producers in the PRC which were not included in the sample requested individual examination under Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. As mentioned in recital 99, these requests were not granted.
(26) Questionnaires were sent to the four companies in Taiwan and the four sampled companies in the PRC, to the four sampled Union producers and to the three sampled importers.
(27) Questionnaire replies were received only from two companies in Taiwan, three in the PRC, three Union producers and three importers.
(28) After provisional disclosure, a questionnaire reply was also received from one of the potential analogue country producers located in Switzerland.
(29) The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation were carried out at the premises of the following companies/association:—union producers:—OSTP Sweden AB, Sweden,—OSTP Finland OY, Finland,—Erne Fittings, Austria,—unrelated importer:—Arcus Nederland BV, the Netherlands,—exporting producers in Taiwan:—Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co. Ltd, Taichung,—King Lai Hygienic Materials Co. Ltd Tainan,—exporting producers in the PRC:—Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd and its related companies, Suzhou, Jiangsu and Shanghai,—Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd, Wenzhou,—Zhejiang Good Fittings Co. Ltd, Wenzhou. — union producers:—OSTP Sweden AB, Sweden,—OSTP Finland OY, Finland,—Erne Fittings, Austria, — OSTP Sweden AB, Sweden, — OSTP Finland OY, Finland, — Erne Fittings, Austria, — unrelated importer:—Arcus Nederland BV, the Netherlands, — Arcus Nederland BV, the Netherlands, — exporting producers in Taiwan:—Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co. Ltd, Taichung,—King Lai Hygienic Materials Co. Ltd Tainan, — Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co. Ltd, Taichung, — King Lai Hygienic Materials Co. Ltd Tainan, — exporting producers in the PRC:—Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd and its related companies, Suzhou, Jiangsu and Shanghai,—Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd, Wenzhou,—Zhejiang Good Fittings Co. Ltd, Wenzhou. — Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd and its related companies, Suzhou, Jiangsu and Shanghai, — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd, Wenzhou, — Zhejiang Good Fittings Co. Ltd, Wenzhou.
— union producers:—OSTP Sweden AB, Sweden,—OSTP Finland OY, Finland,—Erne Fittings, Austria, — OSTP Sweden AB, Sweden, — OSTP Finland OY, Finland, — Erne Fittings, Austria,
— OSTP Sweden AB, Sweden,
— OSTP Finland OY, Finland,
— Erne Fittings, Austria,
— unrelated importer:—Arcus Nederland BV, the Netherlands, — Arcus Nederland BV, the Netherlands,
— Arcus Nederland BV, the Netherlands,
— exporting producers in Taiwan:—Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co. Ltd, Taichung,—King Lai Hygienic Materials Co. Ltd Tainan, — Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co. Ltd, Taichung, — King Lai Hygienic Materials Co. Ltd Tainan,
— Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co. Ltd, Taichung,
— King Lai Hygienic Materials Co. Ltd Tainan,
— exporting producers in the PRC:—Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd and its related companies, Suzhou, Jiangsu and Shanghai,—Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd, Wenzhou,—Zhejiang Good Fittings Co. Ltd, Wenzhou. — Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd and its related companies, Suzhou, Jiangsu and Shanghai, — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd, Wenzhou, — Zhejiang Good Fittings Co. Ltd, Wenzhou.
— Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd and its related companies, Suzhou, Jiangsu and Shanghai,
— Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd, Wenzhou,
— Zhejiang Good Fittings Co. Ltd, Wenzhou.
— union producers:—OSTP Sweden AB, Sweden,—OSTP Finland OY, Finland,—Erne Fittings, Austria, — OSTP Sweden AB, Sweden, — OSTP Finland OY, Finland, — Erne Fittings, Austria,
— OSTP Sweden AB, Sweden,
— OSTP Finland OY, Finland,
— Erne Fittings, Austria,
— OSTP Sweden AB, Sweden,
— OSTP Finland OY, Finland,
— Erne Fittings, Austria,
— unrelated importer:—Arcus Nederland BV, the Netherlands, — Arcus Nederland BV, the Netherlands,
— Arcus Nederland BV, the Netherlands,
— Arcus Nederland BV, the Netherlands,
— exporting producers in Taiwan:—Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co. Ltd, Taichung,—King Lai Hygienic Materials Co. Ltd Tainan, — Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co. Ltd, Taichung, — King Lai Hygienic Materials Co. Ltd Tainan,
— Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co. Ltd, Taichung,
— King Lai Hygienic Materials Co. Ltd Tainan,
— Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co. Ltd, Taichung,
— King Lai Hygienic Materials Co. Ltd Tainan,
— exporting producers in the PRC:—Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd and its related companies, Suzhou, Jiangsu and Shanghai,—Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd, Wenzhou,—Zhejiang Good Fittings Co. Ltd, Wenzhou. — Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd and its related companies, Suzhou, Jiangsu and Shanghai, — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd, Wenzhou, — Zhejiang Good Fittings Co. Ltd, Wenzhou.
— Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd and its related companies, Suzhou, Jiangsu and Shanghai,
— Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd, Wenzhou,
— Zhejiang Good Fittings Co. Ltd, Wenzhou.
— Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd and its related companies, Suzhou, Jiangsu and Shanghai,
— Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd, Wenzhou,
— Zhejiang Good Fittings Co. Ltd, Wenzhou.
(30) A verification visit was also carried out at the premises of the Swiss company Rohrbogen AG (Basel), which was considered as potential analogue country producer. This verification visit took place after provisional disclosure.
(31) At the provisional stage of the investigation the Commission decided not to impose provisional anti-dumping measures. The main reason for this decision was the ongoing search for an appropriate analogue country on the basis of which normal value would be established for the Chinese exporting producers. In the absence of a dumping margin determination for the PRC, also the level of cumulated dumped imports from both countries concerned could not be established. While the data with regard to the Union industry was available for the purposes of the analysis of the various injury indicators, the volume and prices of the dumped imports are an indispensable element in the determination of injury in accordance with Article 3 of the basic Regulation. Therefore, no determination of injury, and consequently of the causal link between injury and dumped imports, was made at the provisional stage of the investigation.
(32) Interested parties received a provisional disclosure on 13 July 2016. Submissions after provisional disclosure were received from one Taiwanese exporting producer, one Chinese exporting producer, the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemical Importers & Exporters (‘CCCMC’) and the complainant. All these submissions are dealt with in the following recitals.
(33) Interested parties received the final disclosure document on 27 October 2016. The Commission invited the interested parties to submit written comments and/or to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings by 16 November 2016.
(34) Three Chinese exporting producers, the CCCMC, two Union importers and the complainant submitted comments after final disclosure, and a hearing with the hearing officer was requested by the Union producer that also had an outward processing arrangement and a hearing with the Commission services was requested by the CCCMC.
(35) During the hearing with the Hearing Officer, the Union producer has requested that the products that are re-imported following the outward-processing be exempted from the duties, because they are not causing injury to the Union industry as there is very little overlap with the production of the complainants and because it would not be in the Union interest to impose duties, taking into account its status as SME, the fact that it has received EU structural funds to establish its factory, and the fact that imposing duties would destroy its business. The Commission invited interested parties to express any views they may have in this regard.
(36) In addition, one Chinese exporting producer requested the correction of its name which had been misspelled, and one Union importer suggested a more precise definition of ‘low roughness fittings’, which was accepted by the Commission.
(37) With regard to the final disclosure, two Chinese exporting producers and CCCMC claimed that the period provided by the Commission for the submission of the comments by interested parties was inadequate and did not allow them to fully and comprehensively address all the data and reasoning, which had been presented for the first time in the final disclosure. They considered that a serious breach of the interested parties' rights of defence in this proceeding.
(38) The Commission noted that an anti-dumping proceeding initiated under Article (5) of the basic Regulation is conducted under strict deadlines. The interested parties in question have received disclosure of the Commission's decision not to impose provisional measures and of the Commission's proposal for the imposition of definitive measures and have been reasonable time to respond. Under Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission must set a deadline for at least 10 days for comments after final disclosure. By giving 22 days the Commission has complied with this requirement. No interested party requested any extension in this respect. It is also stressed that no additional data could be disclosed at the provisional stage, not only with regard to dumping findings concerning PRC but also with regard to injury. In the absence of dumping margin determination for the PRC, the level of dumped imports from the countries concerned could not be established. While the data with regard to the Union industry is available for the purposes of the analysis of the various injury indicators, the volume and prices of the dumped imports are an indispensable element in the determination of injury in accordance with Article 3 of the basic Regulation. Therefore, no determination of injury was made at the provisional stage of the investigation. The claim was therefore rejected.
(39) Following comments and requests of some of the interested parties after final disclosure the Commission disclosed additional data and information. This additional disclosure took place on 25 November 2016. Subsequent submissions were received from two Chinese exporting producers, the CCCMC, the Complainant and three Union importers.
(40) During the hearing with the Hearing Officer, the Complainant requested that the exemption request for an outward processing scheme submitted by one of the Union producer as explained in recital 35 above should not be granted as the Union producer in question is also importing the product concerned produced in China. Furthermore, contrary to what it had claimed, its products are in competition with the product produced by the Union industry. During the same hearing the Complainant also explained that majority of the traders in the Union store products that are double certified both under the EN/DIN and ASME/ANSI standards. Moreover contrary to the claim of one the traders products subject to different standards are interchangeable.
(41) Two Chinese exporting producers and CCCMC reiterated their claims, especially with regard to the lack of disclosure of the injury findings at the provisional stage which in their opinion could not be justified by the lack of data.
(42) In response to the above the Commission notes that conclusions on injury indicators can only be disclosed once the volume of dumped imports is determined. In this particular case at provisional stage no dumping determination had been made for the PRC. The fact that the raw data for injury indicators had been collected and does not mean that the conclusion on injury indicators could be established. The Commission provided an adequate disclosure within the meaning of Article 20 of the basic Regulation. The Commission considers that the rights of defence of these interested parties were respected.
(43) The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2014 to 30 September 2015 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
(44) The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2012 to the end of the investigation period (‘period considered’).
(45) Following the definitive disclosure, several interested parties claimed that the Commission should have examined the period 2010 — IP instead of 2012 — IP. It is the standard practice of the Commission to use 4 years period to analyse the injury trends. The parties failed to submit any evidence that would have supported the conclusion that the period considered was inappropriate.
(46) Following the additional disclosure, two Chinese exporting producers and CCCMC reiterated their claim regarding the period considered for the injury trends. As stated above it is the standard practice of the Commission to use a 4-year period for its injury assessment, on the basis of its wide discretion in trade defence investigations. Furthermore the interested parties did not submit any compelling evidence that would have required the Commission to deviate from its standard practice. Furthermore the case(5)the interested parties are referred to was terminated by the withdrawal of the complaint. Therefore no injury determination was made in that case. Furthermore, the product concerned of this investigation differs from the product concerned of the terminated investigation. Therefore this claim was rejected.
(47) The product subject to this investigation is tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, of austenitic stainless steel grades, corresponding to AISI types 304, 304L, 316, 316L, 316Ti, 321 and 321H and their equivalent in the other norms, with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm and a wall thickness of 16 mm or less, with a roughness not less than 0,8 micrometres, not flanged, whether or not finished, originating in the PRC and Taiwan. The product falls under CN codes ex 7307 23 10 and ex 7307 23 90.
(48) The product concerned is manufactured essentially by cutting and forming tubes and pipes. The product concerned is used to join pipes and tubes of stainless steel and exist in different shapes such as elbows, reducers, tees and caps.
(49) The product concerned is used in a wide range of consumer industries and final applications. Examples of these are:—petro-chemical industry,—beverages and food processing and pharmaceuticals industries,—shipbuilding,—energy generation, power plants,—constructions and industrial installations. — petro-chemical industry, — beverages and food processing and pharmaceuticals industries, — shipbuilding, — energy generation, power plants, — constructions and industrial installations.
— petro-chemical industry,
— beverages and food processing and pharmaceuticals industries,
— shipbuilding,
— energy generation, power plants,
— constructions and industrial installations.
— petro-chemical industry,
— beverages and food processing and pharmaceuticals industries,
— shipbuilding,
— energy generation, power plants,
— constructions and industrial installations.
(50) Following the final disclosure, one of the Union importers claimed that caps should not be included in the product scope as they are not produced by cutting and forming pipes.
(51) In response to this claim it is noted that product concerned is ‘essentially’ but not ‘exclusively’ manufactured by cutting and forming tubes and pipes. It is further noted that from market perspective point of view cups are types of fittings and are presented as such in the companies' catalogues. The claim was therefore rejected.
(52) Following the definitive disclosure, several parties claimed that the imported products and the Union production are not technically interchangeable due to different technical standards, i.e. EN/DIN and ASME/ANSI, or that products produced according to EN/DIN standards should be excluded from the product scope.
(53) First, it is important to clarify that both the Union industry and the exporting producers subject to the investigation produce both types of technical standards. That holds also true for the sampled companies. Furthermore, the machines used to produce for different standards are the same, and the production process is the same.
(54) Second, the investigation and a hearing with the Union producer that also has an outward processing arrangement have shown that the physical, technical and chemical characteristics of products approved under the EN/DIN and under the ASME/ANSI standards are comparable. Whereas standards may require slight differences as to thickness and resistance, those differences vary for each product type, and for many product types, there is substantial or complete overlap.
(55) Third, both product types are in competition to each other. Whereas it is true that for certain projects, the specifications will require the use of EN/DIN or ASME/ANSI, at the point in time at which the engineers decide on the choice of the standard, both specifications compete. This is witnessed by the fact that the use of EN/DIN and ASME/ANSI standards differs between Member States based on historical patterns, but there is no barrier for new projects to use either standard everywhere in the Union.
(56) Finally, there is even direct competition after the choice of the standard where the standards completely overlap, as is the case for certain product types.
(57) The Commission also notes that despite specific requests made to the cooperating importer, the Commission did not receive any evidence demonstrating that the like product and the product concerned are not in competition.
(58) Therefore the claim was rejected.
(59) Following additional disclosure several interested parties, including an unrelated importer, confirmed the above findings of the investigation. These interested parties reiterated that ASME/ANSI and EN/DIN standard to a large extend are interchangeable. Furthermore, one interested party stated that Union pipe and tube suppliers deliver double certified products and any manufacturer of the product concerned can also acquire double certification. This interested party further stated that, in fact, the majority of the traders' stocks of the product concerned and the like product is double certified.
(60) In absence of any further comments regarding the product standards, the claim that product concerned and like product should have been separately analysed based on ASME/ANSI and EN/DIN standard was rejected.
(61) Three unrelated importers, CCCMC and two Chinese exporting producers claimed that the product definition does not sufficiently distinguish between industrial and so-called ‘sanitary fittings’, although they have different physical characteristics. Moreover, they stated that the Union industry does not produce ‘sanitary fittings’ and that therefore only ‘industrial fittings’ should be included in this anti-dumping proceeding.
(62) During a joint hearing the three unrelated importers submitted evidence supporting their claim and demonstrated a number of key differences between ‘industrial’ and ‘sanitary’ fittings, based on physical characteristics, packaging, end use and price level.
(63) The difference needed to be redefined in terms of physical characteristics and the appropriate distinction was based on the surface roughness of the fittings. Instead of using the term ‘sanitary’ fittings, it is appropriate to talk about ‘low roughness fittings’ i.e. fittings with a roughness average (Ra) of the surface finish below 0,8 micrometer. These fittings are used in the food and beverage industry, the semiconductor industry and the pharmaceutical and health care industries.
(64) There are important differences in surface smoothness and surface finish. The end of low roughness fittings is typically square (as opposed to bevelled), and they in general have lower wall thickness and outside diameter. The existence of separate standards is not visible nor is the fact that the raw material for low roughness fittings is always cold rolled coil or cold drawn tube (as opposed to hot rolled for high roughness fittings). Finally, low roughness fittings are packaged individually in a plastic bag, whereas high roughness fittings are packaged in bulk in carton.
(65) There is no interchangeability: the industry using low roughness fittings cannot use high roughness fittings because of the hygienic requirements; on the other hand, low roughness fittings are not suitable for applications using high roughness fittings because of their lower pressure and temperature resistance requirements and higher price levels. The investigation showed that the price level of low roughness fittings is on average 2 to 3 times higher per kg. This is mainly due to the labour intensity linked to polishing and additional quality control.
(66) Since questionnaires had already been sent out at the time of the hearing, a fundamental change to the product code number (‘PCN’) reporting was no longer possible. However, by adding the sole physical characteristic of ‘roughness’ as a column in the transaction-by-transaction table and a supplementary criterion in the cost of production table in the questionnaire reply, the distinction between both types of fittings could be made. Both the Union industry and the Union importers eventually agreed that fittings with a roughness average (Ra) of the surface roughness below 0,8 micrometre are not to be considered product concerned. Therefore the Commission services at the provisional stage of the investigation considered that these fittings should be excluded from the scope of the investigation.
(67) After provisional disclosure one of the sampled Chinese producers claimed that low roughness fittings should not be excluded from the product scope. The company in question challenged also the statements made by interested parties regarding the differences in physical characteristics, packing materials, cost/price levels, and the lack of interchangeability between low roughness fittings and high roughness fittings. However, the issue regarding the differences in the physical characteristics, packing materials and price levels between low and high roughness fittings were verified and confirmed on spot in Taiwan. Therefore this claim was rejected.
(68) A Chinese-Taiwanese exporting producer claimed that flanged fittings, meaning fittings having ends shaped as flanges, are not the product concerned based on the definition in the Notice of Initiation.
(69) It should be mentioned that the shape of the end is the determinant for the technique which may be used for the connection of the fittings to the tubes. Different techniques are used to produce butt-welding fittings and flanged fittings. Butt-welding fittings are produced using the welding technique, while in contrast the clamping and bolting technique is used in the production of flanged fittings. In addition, the explanatory notes of the CN codes of the product definition specify that the ends of the butt-welding fitting should be shaped square cut or chamfered to facilitate welding to the tubes.
(70) It has also been found that the production of flanged fitting requires additional costs, because of a larger input of raw and intermediate material and a more elaborate manufacturing process. From a production process point of view, butt-welding fittings can be considered as semi-finished products for the production of flanged fittings.
(71) The Union industry agreed with the view that flanged fittings were a different product and with its exclusion from the product scope.
(72) The Commission services already at the provisional stage considered that flanged fittings should be excluded from the scope of the investigation. No comments of interested parties were received challenging this finding, therefore this decision is sustained.
(73) The investigation showed that the following products have the same basic physical characteristics as well as the same basic uses:(a)the product concerned;(b)the product produced and sold on the domestic market of Taiwan (which was also used as the analogue country for the PRC — see recital105);(c)the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry. (a) the product concerned; (b) the product produced and sold on the domestic market of Taiwan (which was also used as the analogue country for the PRC — see recital105); (c) the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry.
(a) the product concerned;
(b) the product produced and sold on the domestic market of Taiwan (which was also used as the analogue country for the PRC — see recital105);
(c) the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry.
(a) the product concerned;
(b) the product produced and sold on the domestic market of Taiwan (which was also used as the analogue country for the PRC — see recital105);
(c) the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry.
(74) The Commission therefore decided that these products are like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
(75) As indicated in recital 27, only two Taiwanese companies cooperated in the investigation providing full replies to the anti-dumping questionnaires. The sales of these companies accounted for 36 % of the imports of the product concerned into the Union from Taiwan in the investigation period.
(76) One of the cooperating companies produced mainly fittings which are not covered by the revised product scope of the investigation as explained in recitals 61 to 71 (fittings with a roughness average (Ra) of the surface finish below 0,8 micrometre and/or flanged fittings). This producer did not have domestic sales of the like product during the investigation period.
(77) The second cooperating company by contrast engages in the extensive production of most of the standard types of fittings, which are covered by the scope of the investigation. The company produces only on the basis of welded pipes, only from 304 and 316 grades of steel and only elbow and tee shapes (and tee shapes only with the same diameter of main and branch pipe which are not welded but produced from one piece of pipe with its centre ‘pulled down’ to make a T-shape). The producer did not have domestic sales of the like product during the investigation period.
(78) In the case of both Taiwanese exporting producers, due to the lack of domestic sales of the like product, the normal value was constructed in line with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation by adding to the average cost of manufacturing of the relevant product the selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses incurred and a reasonable profit.
(79) In the case of the first cooperating company, the amount of SG&A expenses and profit were determined, in accordance with Article 2(6)(b) of the basic Regulation, that is, on the basis of the actual amounts applicable to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the same general category of products for the producer in question in the domestic market of the country of origin, namely domestic sales of the fittings with roughness average (Ra) of the surface finish below 0,8 micrometre.
(80) In the case of the second cooperating company, due to the lack of own domestic sales of the like product or of the same general category of products, Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation was applied. To this end, the Commission used in the construction of normal value the same amounts of SG&A expenses and profit used for the first company, which was the only available and verified data and referred to sales of the same general category of product on the Taiwanese market.
(81) Following the provisional disclosure, the second Taiwanese exporting producer raised certain claims against the use of the data of the first Taiwanese producer for the construction of its normal value. First, the company claimed (on the basis of the open version of the questionnaire response and the deficiency letter responses of the other producer) that the first producer cannot be considered at all an exporting producer of the product concerned as it allegedly produces and exports to the Union only types of product which were excluded from the product scope, that is, low-roughness fittings and flanged fittings. Second, the company claimed that the use of a single company's SG&A figures for the purpose of the construction of the normal value for another company contradicts the findings of the WTO Appellate Body(6)that a single company's SG&A cannot be used to construct normal values.
(82) In response to the above claims, the Commission established during the on spot verification at the premises of the company in question that part of the company's production and sales to the Union during the IP (namely vacuum fittings with additional surface treatment which result in surface roughness of above 0,8 micrometre) fell within the product scope of this investigation. Therefore, the company was considered as an exporting producer of the product concerned and a dumping margin for this company was calculated. It should be stressed that the company in question was not selling this type of product on the domestic market in Taiwan during the IP, which affects the methodology of construction of normal value for both Taiwanese exporting producers as explained in recitals 79 and 80. Second, it should also be noted that the WTO Appellate Body ruling quoted by the interested party refers to the situation described in the Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation; that is the use of weighted average of SG&A costs of other producers in respect to production and sales of the like product in the domestic market of the country of origin. In this case however the construction of the normal value was based on Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation; that is with SG&A costs determined on the basis of ‘any other reasonable method, provided that the amount for profit so established shall not exceed the profit normally realized by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin’. Taking into account the above, the Commission sustains its decision as to the source of data used for the construction of normal value. It should be noted that the Commission looked also at the alternative source of data for establishment of SG&A costs for the construction of normal value that is data provided by the cooperating analogue producer in Switzerland. The figure in question was not provided for the IP but it is confirmed that for the financial years 2014 and 2015 it was in the range of 8 % to 12 % which is comparable with the adjusted SG&A figure finally used in the calculation as indicated in recital 86.
(83) The Taiwanese exporting producer further claimed in its submission an inadequate disclosure of the critical data used for the determination of the normal value. Indeed, for business confidentiality reasons, this specific disclosure could not reveal SG&A, profit and allowances on costs figures used in the calculations. The company, knowing its own cost of manufacturing, could easily estimate the overall average adjustment made. However, it requested disclosure of the specific figures with regard to certain elements of the calculation, namely the SG&A and profit levels, levels of normal value allowances on costs and prices and VAT adjustment to normal value.
(84) In response to this request, it has to be underlined that exact figures of SG&A costs, profit and allowances on costs applied in the construction of normal value cannot be disclosed, as the data originate from one single company, which is a Taiwanese competitor of the company requesting this information, and that company requested confidential treatment because the data contains business secrets. That request is obviously justified. However, the most important figures, that is, the SG&A and profit used for the final calculation, are disclosed in ranges in recital 86 below. It should also be noted that the level of allowances on costs was very low and had an insignificant impact on the level of normal value and the dumping margin. No allowances on prices were applied as domestic prices were not used in the calculation of the normal value. Also in case of Taiwan no VAT adjustment to normal value was done.
(85) Finally, this company submitted that the level of SG&A and profit of its competitor is not representative for them. It claimed that the other producer in Taiwan operates a small scale production and sells highly specialised products, while it was involved in massive production and sales of standard products.
(86) Indeed, it was confirmed during the verification visits that the products produced and sold by the two companies are different, and thus their SG&A cost structures are also different. Therefore, the Commission decided to reduce the level of SG&A costs used for construction of normal value for this second cooperating exporting producer by the proportion of labour costs related to quality control and research and development costs. This resulted in a reduction of the SG&A adjustment to the level of 7 %-13 % expressed as a percentage of turnover, which subsequently reduced the level of its individual dumping margin. At the same time, the Commission considered that the profit margin used for the normal value construction (1 %-5 % on turnover) was reasonable. Final overall adjustment made to the costs of manufacturing in the calculation of the normal value for the exporting producer in question was 15,36 %.
(87) The two cooperating exporting producers made export sales to the Union directly to independent customers located in the Union.
(88) Export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export from the exporting country in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
(89) The normal value and export price of the cooperating exporting producers were compared on an ex-works basis.
(90) For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
(91) On this basis, adjustments were made for transport, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, discounts and commissions which were demonstrated to affect price comparability. The total adjustments were in the range of 1 %-10 %, based on actual values reported by the Taiwanese exporting producers and verified on spot. Those figures are the ones reported for the relevant cost items by the Taiwanese companies, and have been disclosed to them for verification in the specific disclosures.
(92) It is noted that in the calculation, the Commission rejected an adjustment for currency conversion requested by one of the interested parties. The party has asked the Commission to use instead of the exchange rate on the date of invoicing the exchange rate on the day of payment. The basic Regulation stipulates that normally, the date of invoicing is used for establishing the exchange rate, but that in extraordinary situations, an earlier date can be used (date of contract for example). However, the basic Regulation does not provide any legal basis for using a date after the date of invoicing. The rational for this is that at the date of invoicing, the price is fixed and the company no longer has any influence to decide to dump or not. In any event, even if the use of a later date was possible, quod non, as explained already in the provisional disclosure, the applicant has not shown that the additional condition, namely a sustained movement in the exchange rates took place.
(93) As provided by Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, for each cooperating company, the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned.
(94) On this basis, the weighted average dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:CompanyDumping margin established (%)King Lai Hygienic Materials Co., Ltd0,0Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co., Ltd5,1 Company Dumping margin established (%) King Lai Hygienic Materials Co., Ltd 0,0 Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co., Ltd 5,1
Company Dumping margin established (%)
King Lai Hygienic Materials Co., Ltd 0,0
Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co., Ltd 5,1
Company Dumping margin established (%)
King Lai Hygienic Materials Co., Ltd 0,0
Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co., Ltd 5,1
(95) For non-cooperating producers, the Commission had to rely on facts available pursuant to Article 18(6) of the basic Regulation. Non-cooperation allows the concerned exporting producers not to share their company specific data on the basis of which their actual export behaviour can be assessed and it obliges the Commission to use best facts available in their respect. The Commission, in its decision practice, distinguishes for that purpose between investigations where cooperation is high (i.e. above 80 % of reported exports to the Union), and situations where cooperation is low (80 % and less of cooperation). In the present case, the level of cooperation was substantially below 80 %. In such a situation, the Commission considers that the highest dumping rate of the cooperating producers does not constitute a good approximation for the dumping rate of the non-cooperating producers, for the following reason: it has to be suspected that one of the reasons why so many producers decided not to cooperate is that they were aware that their dumping rates would be far higher than the ones of the cooperating producers. The fact that, in the present case, cooperation was withdrawn during the investigation supports this understanding. Therefore, the Commission considers that the dumping rate of the non-cooperating producers is best reflected at the level of the highest dumping margin established for a representative product type in terms of volume, namely representing more than 10 % of exports to the Union, for the cooperating exporting producer who was found to be dumping.
(96) After adjustment of SG&A costs used for the calculation of the dumping margin for the Taiwanese cooperating exporting producer as described in recital 86, the country-wide dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, amounts to 12,1 %.
(97) Following the final disclosure, the complainant claimed in this regard that the residual duty for Taiwan should be based on complaint and amount to 34,8 %. The complainant claimed that most of the Taiwanese producers of the product concerned deliberately failed to cooperate in the procedure in order not to allow the Commission to use their domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value. Therefore, according to the complainant, normal value calculation in the complaint, which was based on domestic prices in Taiwan, should be used as best fact available.
(98) In response to the above it is noted that in its calculation of the residual duty for Taiwan the Commission is using best facts available based on data collected and verified in the investigation. This claim is therefore rejected.
(99) According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, the normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the prices or constructed value in a third market country (‘analogue country’). None of the cooperating exporting producers claimed MET.
(100) The complainant proposed the USA as a potential analogue country. In addition, according to available information, the production of the like product takes place in a number of other countries worldwide such as Brazil, India, Japan, Malaysia, Korea, Switzerland and Thailand. These countries were all considered as potential analogue countries.
(101) All known producers (52) of the like product in the above mentioned countries were contacted, but none of them cooperated. Only one Malaysian company agreed to cooperate but provided insufficient information. The company was not able to provide per PCN data with regard to costs and domestic prices. Therefore, its deficient data could not be used for determination of the normal value. Furthermore, it is noted that the Malaysian company in question has refused on spot verification of the data provided.
(102) At a later stage a Swiss producer came forward, as a potential analogue producer and agreed to cooperate. The company submitted the requested questionnaire reply which was verified on spot. Nevertheless, due to the rather limited range of product types produced by this company compared to the wide range of product types exported by the sampled Chinese exporting producers to the Union, the Commission decided that the data provided by the Swiss company would be inappropriate for the determination of the normal value for the Chinese exporting producers. With this regard it is noted that only 4,6 % of product types exported to the Union by Chinese producers covering 4,2 % of Chinese export volume were directly matching with product types produced by the Swiss producer. In case of Taiwan, finally used as the analogue country, the level of direct matching with product types exported to the Union by the Chinese producers was 7,7 % for the number of product types and 11,1 % for the export volume.
(103) In this situation, the Commission decided to use the other country subject to the investigation, i.e. Taiwan, as the analogue country despite arguments initially presented by the complainants claiming that Taiwanese companies mainly produced fittings types based on welded tubes as raw material (as opposed to the Chinese producers, which use mainly seamless tubes). The same argument was put forward also by the Chinese exporting producers. On the other hand, the CCCMC in its submission after provisional disclosure considered that the Taiwanese manufacturing cost data would be more appropriate for the basis of construction of the normal value than data of the Union producers, which was also considered by the Commission as an alternative in the provisional disclosure.
(104) Taiwan was considered appropriate as an analogue country because, contrary to what was claimed by the complainants and notwithstanding the different use of raw materials, the data provided allowed for a proper attribution methodology of costs in relation to the different characteristic of the product coding. Furthermore, the level of competition on Taiwanese market is high since there are at least 10 known domestic producers of the product concerned and this is also reflected in a strong presence of imports from different origins, in a situation where the level of custom duties is moderate (7,5 % to 10 %).
(105) For the reasons above, the Commission decided to use Taiwan as the analogue country for the PRC.
(106) Following the final disclosure, two Chinese exporting producers and the CCCMC claimed that the choice of Taiwan as analogue country was inappropriate as the manufacturing costs used came only from one Taiwanese company that did not have any domestic sales. The parties in question also submitted that the matching level of comparable products was too low. The claim of low matching level of comparable products was also raised by one of the Union importer. The latter company indicated also that the China could not be compared to Taiwan as the two entities have different levels of Human Development Index (‘HDI’) and GDP per capita.
(107) With regard to these claims, it is first recalled that the WTO ruling(7)implies that all product types exported by the Chinese exporting producers should be assigned a normal value. The Commission considers that the data found at the level of one analogue country exporting producer is sufficient to base the remaining product types upon as the types found allow for further construction of the missing product types. The occurrence of only one such exporting producer is by no means exceptional or a new practice. The basic Regulation further foresees that the normal value can be constructed based on the cost of production, in the absence of domestic sales. Secondly, it is recalled that the HDI and GDP levels are not factors which are taken into account in the establishment as to whether an analogue country is appropriate. In order to determine the proper analogue country, the Commission proceeds as explained in recital 104. The above claims were therefore rejected.
(108) Finally, two Chinese exporting producers and the CCCMC raised questions on allegedly a serious procedural flaw based on the fact that the Commission calculated the Chinese producers' dumping margins on the basis of the non-market economy (NME) provisions of the basic Regulation. The parties claimed that the legal authority to apply NME methodology for the determination of normal value for the Chinese exporting producers expires on 11 December 2016. Therefore, according to the parties in question, for any definitive anti-dumping measures adopted after this date, which will be the case in this proceeding, the Commission is obliged under the WTO law to apply the standard dumping calculation methodology.
(109) In this regard, the Commission notes that it has no discretion on whether or not to apply the current rules as set out in the basic Regulation. This claim was therefore rejected.
(110) As explained in recital 103, the normal value for the exporting producers in the PRC was determined on the basis of constructed value in the analogue country, in this case Taiwan, in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(111) Furthermore, due to lack of domestic sales of the like product in Taiwan, normal value was constructed in line with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation by adding to the average cost of manufacturing of the relevant product type SG&A costs incurred and profit realised on the Taiwanese market during the investigation period.
(112) As a basis for establishing of manufacturing costs, the Commission used data of one of the cooperating Taiwanese producers (Ta Chen). It should be noted that the second Taiwanese cooperating producer (King Lai) had very limited production volume of the product concerned in the investigation period and this production related to highly specialised product types. In this small part of their production which is still considered product concerned King Lai is producing products which could be considered low-roughness fittings but with an extra surface treatment which makes their surface roughness to raise above 0,8 micrometer and thus according to the definition of recital 47 it is product concerned. These fittings have very high costs of manufacturing and taking them into account would distort calculations. Furthermore, these types of product are not exported by the Chinese sampled producers to the EU (although they might be covered by their PCNs as roughness is not one of the parameters of the PCN construction). Therefore, manufacturing costs data of this company were considered by Commission as not appropriate for the construction of normal value for the Chinese producers.
(113) With regard to the construction of the normal value, one Union importer claimed that manufacturing costs of the Taiwanese company King Lai could not be used as basis for calculation of the normal value for the Chinese companies as King Lai produces a different product which cannot be considered as industrial fitting and that it also implies a different production method and range of profits.
(114) In response to this claim, it is reiterated that the Commission did not use any manufacturing costs data of King Lai for comparison with other companies. For constructing the normal value of other companies, the Commission used only King Lai's SG&A costs and profit of the same general category of product sold on the domestic market, in accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. It is also recalled that the SG&A cost used for these calculations was adjusted in order to take into account differences between the products produced by King Lai and other companies. With regard to the profit used, it is stressed that is not in a different range (1 %-5 %) than those of other companies.
(115) The same Union importer also claimed that the second Taiwanese producer, Ta Chen, whose manufacturing costs were used as the basis of calculation for the normal value of Chinese exporting producers, is a large and integrated company and, as such, is able to ‘optimise costs’. Thus, the company in question cannot be compared with the small Chinese factories.
(116) In this regard, the Commission recalled that the manufacturing costs of the Chinese producers were not part of the analysis in this procedure as none of the Chinese producers had claimed MET status. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the allegedly ‘optimised costs’ of the Taiwanese producer can only result in a lower constructed normal value and therefore in lower dumping margins for the Chinese exporting producers.
(117) Taking into account that only a limited number of product types exported to the Union by the sampled Chinese exporting producers could be identified in Taiwan, the Commission has constructed the normal value of the remaining product types based on the costs of manufacturing of the most resembling product types produced in Taiwan in order to achieve a full and fair comparison, based on the costs of manufacturing adjusted for:(a)differences in raw material used — on the basis of verified Union Industry cost data, whereby fittings produced from seamless tubes are between 2,12 and 2,97 times more expensive to produce than those from welded tubes;(b)differences in grade of steel — on the basis of verified Union industry data, whereby a steel grade cost adjustment is made to the cost of the least expensive steel grades used for fittings produced based on welded tubes as raw material; this adjustment ranges from 1,49 to 3,60 times depending on the steel grades used;(c)differences in shapes — on the basis of observed price differences in the sales transactions of the Chinese exporters, whereby an elbow is considered the most basic shape and the other shapes (tees, reducers, caps and specialty forms) are between 1,08 and 1,74 times more expensive. (a) differences in raw material used — on the basis of verified Union Industry cost data, whereby fittings produced from seamless tubes are between 2,12 and 2,97 times more expensive to produce than those from welded tubes; (b) differences in grade of steel — on the basis of verified Union industry data, whereby a steel grade cost adjustment is made to the cost of the least expensive steel grades used for fittings produced based on welded tubes as raw material; this adjustment ranges from 1,49 to 3,60 times depending on the steel grades used; (c) differences in shapes — on the basis of observed price differences in the sales transactions of the Chinese exporters, whereby an elbow is considered the most basic shape and the other shapes (tees, reducers, caps and specialty forms) are between 1,08 and 1,74 times more expensive.
(a) differences in raw material used — on the basis of verified Union Industry cost data, whereby fittings produced from seamless tubes are between 2,12 and 2,97 times more expensive to produce than those from welded tubes;
(b) differences in grade of steel — on the basis of verified Union industry data, whereby a steel grade cost adjustment is made to the cost of the least expensive steel grades used for fittings produced based on welded tubes as raw material; this adjustment ranges from 1,49 to 3,60 times depending on the steel grades used;
(c) differences in shapes — on the basis of observed price differences in the sales transactions of the Chinese exporters, whereby an elbow is considered the most basic shape and the other shapes (tees, reducers, caps and specialty forms) are between 1,08 and 1,74 times more expensive.
(a) differences in raw material used — on the basis of verified Union Industry cost data, whereby fittings produced from seamless tubes are between 2,12 and 2,97 times more expensive to produce than those from welded tubes;
(b) differences in grade of steel — on the basis of verified Union industry data, whereby a steel grade cost adjustment is made to the cost of the least expensive steel grades used for fittings produced based on welded tubes as raw material; this adjustment ranges from 1,49 to 3,60 times depending on the steel grades used;
(c) differences in shapes — on the basis of observed price differences in the sales transactions of the Chinese exporters, whereby an elbow is considered the most basic shape and the other shapes (tees, reducers, caps and specialty forms) are between 1,08 and 1,74 times more expensive.
(118) The CCCMC proposed in its submission after provisional disclosure an alternative basis for adjustments of points (a) and (b) and presented data from the Chinese markets in this respect. However, this data are, firstly, unverified and, secondly, originate in a non-market economy country. Therefore, using them would negate the analogue country methodology for the calculation of the normal value. This claim of the CCCMC was thus rejected.
(119) Following the final disclosure, the CCCMC, as well as two Chinese exporting producers, claimed it was unreasonable to adjust the Taiwanese cost data by using the Union industry cost data. The parties in question referred to the Union common practice not to do that in past cases.
(120) As mentioned above, the EU's previous practice was revised in the light of the WTO ruling referred to in recital 107. In order to construct the normal values of the missing product types, the Commission relied on Taiwanese cost data and adjusted the costs found and verified by applying proportional adjustments that were found at the level of the cost of production of the Union industry. The CCCMC failed to substantiate why this was unreasonable and/or to propose an alternative approach.
(121) Following additional disclosure CCCMC and the two Chinese exporting producers reiterated their objection to the use of Union industry data for the adjustment of costs of manufacturing used in construction of the normal value for missing product types. The parties underlined that the Commission did not provide evidence showing that differences in raw material costs in the EU market would be at the same level of that in Taiwan's market. Furthermore, the parties repeated their claim that the Commission could use differences in Chinese export sales prices of seamless and welded fitting for the above adjustment as sales prices ‘to some extent reflect the trend of differences in costs of production’.
(122) In response to the above claims it is first stressed that the Commission could not compare the level of adjustments for types of pipes used as raw materials or grades of steel to the data from Taiwanese market as the Taiwanese producer whose costs of manufacturing were used as a basis for construction of normal value simply did not use certain types of raw materials. That was the basic reason why the Commission at all considered looking for the missing cost data outside the market of the analogue country. Secondly, with regard to the use of Chinese prices, it is reiterated that none of the Chinese exporting producers had claimed MET in this procedure. Therefore, the Chinese costs of production were not available nor examined. Thus, the Commission cannot draw any conclusion ‘to what extent’ differences in sales prices reflect differences in costs of production of different types of fittings(8). Furthermore, even if such conclusions could be drawn it would apply to the costs of production in a NME country. Therefore, the above claims are rejected.
(123) These interested parties further question the adjustment whereby fittings produced from seamless tubes are between 2,12 and 2,97 times more expensive to produce than those from welded tubes. They refer to an unsubstantiated CCCMC claim made after provisional disclosure regarding price levels, whereby the difference between welded and seamless tubes is said to be less than 30 % of the price of welded tubes.
(124) In this regard, it is noted that the adjustment made by the Commission is based on the observed cost difference between fittings produced using seamless tubes and fittings produced using welded tubes, and not on the price difference between welded and seamless tubes as such. It should also be noted that none of the Chinese exporting producers requested MET. As a consequence, the Chinese exporting producers had not submitted any cost of production data and continued to do so even when putting into doubt the cost determinations and differences established by the Commission. Moreover, standard price lists are even further away from cost and price determinations as they do not give evidence of the prices effectively applied, let alone of the costs levels.
(125) To support their submissions, the interested parties provided an analysis of differences based on price levels of the producers Zhejiang Good and Zhejiang Jndia, concluding on this basis that the applicable price adjustment should be between 0,43 and 1,70, and 0,64 and 1,80 respectively.
(126) Apart from the fact that these ranges refer to prices and not costs, the fact that welded tube based fittings are sometimes sold at higher prices than seamless tube based fittings does not give evidence that the costs should be higher. The quoted price levels rather illustrate a complete absence of an economic link between the costs and the price quoted to clients, or alternatively it means that other factors have played a role, such as order size. The Commission, for reasons of confidentiality, cannot disclose the underlying figures but can reveal further factual data, whereby the adjustment from welded tube based to seamless tube based fittings used for the comparison according to the PCN description is as follows:From W1 to S12,97From W2 to S22,21From W3 to S32,14From W4 to S42,12.Other conversions were not needed in order to construct the product types exported by the Chinese exporting producers. From W1 to S1 2,97 From W2 to S2 2,21 From W3 to S3 2,14 From W4 to S4 2,12.
From W1 to S1 2,97
From W2 to S2 2,21
From W3 to S3 2,14
From W4 to S4 2,12.
From W1 to S1 2,97
From W2 to S2 2,21
From W3 to S3 2,14
From W4 to S4 2,12.
(127) The Commission further made adjustments converting the cost of the least expensive steel grade W1 into other grades and/or other grades based on seamless tubes, again using cost of production data of the Union industry. The Commission, again for reasons of confidentiality, cannot disclose the underlying figures but can give further factual data:From W1 to S23,14From W1 to S33,60From W1 to S43,16From W1 to W31,69From W1 to W41,49.Other conversions were not needed in order to construct the product types exported by the Chinese exporting producers. From W1 to S2 3,14 From W1 to S3 3,60 From W1 to S4 3,16 From W1 to W3 1,69 From W1 to W4 1,49.
From W1 to S2 3,14
From W1 to S3 3,60
From W1 to S4 3,16
From W1 to W3 1,69
From W1 to W4 1,49.
From W1 to S2 3,14
From W1 to S3 3,60
From W1 to S4 3,16
From W1 to W3 1,69
From W1 to W4 1,49.
(128) The Commission also wishes to highlight that, in its comments on these adjustment factors, the interested parties do not refer to price levels of both Chinese exporting producers as it did for the other adjustments, most probably because the figures do not put the Commission's methodology into doubt.
(129) With regards to differences in shape, the adjustments were made on the basis of the four sampled exporting producers' sales price data which is more comprehensive than the two producers the Chinese interested parties represent.Taking the price level of elbows as the basis, the proportions are the following:Tees1,08Reducers1,22Caps1,29Other shapes1,74. Tees 1,08 Reducers 1,22 Caps 1,29 Other shapes 1,74.
Tees 1,08
Reducers 1,22
Caps 1,29
Other shapes 1,74.
Tees 1,08
Reducers 1,22
Caps 1,29
Other shapes 1,74.
(130) In a subsequent step in the construction of the normal value, the Commission adjusted the costs of manufacturing calculated in accordance with recitals 112 to 117 by adding SG&A and profit. Due to the lack of domestic sales of the like product of both cooperating Taiwanese producers and the lack of sales of same general category of products by one of them (Ta Chen), Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation had to be applied. To this end, in the construction of normal value, the Commission used the amounts of SG&A expenses and profit obtained from the other Taiwanese cooperating company (King Lai) — the only available and verified data referring to sales of the same general category of product on the Taiwanese market.
(131) It should be noted that the SG&A costs used for the calculation of the normal value for Chinese exporting producers were adjusted (reduced), as it was verified that the three Chinese sampled producers are also producing and selling mostly standard products, as explained in recital 86. The final level of the normal value adjustments for SG&A costs and profit is therefore also the same as provided in that recital.
(132) With regard to adjustments for SG&A costs, the two Chinese exporting producers and the CCCMC agree in their submission after final disclosure that reductions should be made when determining the SG&A costs used for construction of the normal value. This is because the Taiwanese exporter whose data was used in this regard does not produce the standard product. At the same time, these parties question whether the Commission made a proper assessment as to the level of this reduction.
(133) It is noted in this respect that the adjustments were made on the basis of comparison of the general SG&A structure of the Taiwanese company King Lai and the second Taiwanese company Ta Chen. This approach was taken because King Lai was the only company which had domestic sales in Taiwan (Ta Chen did not have domestic sales of the PC and any other product within the same general category of products). The adjustments are justified because the first company is a producer of highly sophisticated specialised product, while the second company produces standard products (so some parts of their SG&A costs are clearly different). On the basis of this comparison, the Commission deducted from the SG&A of King Lai R & D costs and part of labour costs related to the quality control department. There were no other significant differences between the two companies in other categories of SG&A costs. It should be underlined that in this adjustment the Commission deducted the two whole categories of SGA costs mentioned above. Thus, the Commission took a conservative approach when granting this adjustment, giving a higher, rather than lower, adjustment.
(134) The interested parties further claim that the Commission did not make a comparison of the structure of SG&A costs between Taiwanese company in question and Chinese exporting producers.
(135) In this regard, it is recalled that, since Taiwan is analogue country, it is the Taiwanese SG&A costs related to domestic sales in Taiwan which should be used. Their adjustment on the basis of comparison with SG&A costs of Chinese producers would mean using as a benchmark costs from the NME country. Nevertheless, it is stressed that, as a result of the adjustment made by the Commission, SG&A cost used for the calculation of normal value were reduced to the level which is not unreasonable in comparison with SG&A costs of the Chinese sampled companies. Actually, two out of three Chinese sampled companies have reported higher levels of SG&A costs than the one used for construction of the normal value.
(136) The cooperating exporting producers made export sales to the Union directly to independent customers or through unrelated trading companies located outside the Union.
(137) Export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export from the exporting country in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
(138) The normal value and export price of the cooperating exporting producers were compared on an ex-works basis.
(139) For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
(140) On this basis, adjustments were made for transport, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, discounts and commissions where demonstrated to affect price comparability. The total adjustments were in the range of 5 %-16 %, based on actual values reported by the Chinese exporting producers and verified on spot. Those figures are the ones reported for the relevant cost items by the Chinese companies, and have been disclosed to them for verification in the specific disclosures.
(141) China applies a policy of reimbursing VAT only partially upon export and in this case 8 % VAT is not reimbursed. To ensure that the normal value was expressed at the same level of taxation as the export price, the normal value was adjusted upward by that part of the VAT charged on exports of large diameter seamless pipes and tubes that was not refunded to the Chinese exporting producers(9).
(142) The above adjustment was commented in the submissions of two Chinese exporting producers and CCCMC after final disclosure. The parties in question undescribed the principle that the non-reimbursed VAT upon export should be corrected for. However, as the normal value is considerably higher than the export price, the interested parties claim that adjustment of 8 % should be implemented on the export price, citing the absence of MET and higher dumping margins.
(143) In this regard it is noted that the Commission adjusted normal value, in line with the Judgement of the General Court in case T-423/09. This claim was therefore rejected.
(144) As provided by Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, for each cooperating company, the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned.
(145) On this basis, the weighted average dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:CompanyDumping margin established (%)Zhejiang Good Fittings Co., Ltd55,3Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd48,9Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*1)30,7Jiangsu Judd Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*1)30,7Weighted average41,9 Company Dumping margin established (%) Zhejiang Good Fittings Co., Ltd 55,3 Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd 48,9 Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*1) 30,7 Jiangsu Judd Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*1) 30,7 Weighted average 41,9
Company Dumping margin established (%)
Zhejiang Good Fittings Co., Ltd 55,3
Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd 48,9
Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*1) 30,7
Jiangsu Judd Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*1) 30,7
Weighted average 41,9
Company Dumping margin established (%)
Zhejiang Good Fittings Co., Ltd 55,3
Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd 48,9
Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*1) 30,7
Jiangsu Judd Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*1) 30,7
Weighted average 41,9
(146) Weighted average dumping margin shall be applied to cooperating, non-sampled Chinese exporting producers.
(147) In relation to the above, one Union importer claimed in its submission after final disclosure that the difference between dumping margins calculated for Taiwanese company King Lai (0 %) and its related company in China (41,9 %) is unreasonable since the two companies manufacture the same kinds of fitting which are excluded from the product scope.
(148) In response to the above, it is first stressed that Taiwanese King Lai did not obtained a 0 % dumping margin because it produces fittings excluded from the product scope as seems to be this Union importer's understanding. Products excluded from the product scope were not taken into account in the dumping margin calculations for King Lai. The company, however, also produced and exported to the Union a small volume of products falling within the product scope of this investigation. Thus, a dumping margin, which was found to be negative, had to be calculated for this company. On the other hand, King Lai in China was not part of the sample and, therefore, no individual dumping margin was calculated for the company. The company thus obtained the weighted average dumping margin of the sampled Chinese companies. Nevertheless, no anti-dumping duty shall apply for the product which is not covered by the product scope of this investigation. Thus, if it is correct that King Lai in China exports to the EU a product which is not covered by the product scope of this investigation, then it will not be subject to anti-dumping duties upon importation.
(149) Due to the low level of cooperation of the Chinese exporting producers and following the reasoning of recital 95, the country-wide dumping margin for the PRC was established at the level of the highest dumping margin established for a representative product type in terms of volume, for the cooperating exporting producer who was found to be dumping.
(150) On this basis, the country-wide dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, amounts to 64,9 %.
(151) Five Chinese exporting producers which were not sampled requested individual examination in this proceeding. Taking into account the high number of applications, the Commission concluded that it would be unduly burdensome for the timely conclusion of the proceeding to accept any of these requests. In this regard it is noted that accepting the requests of the companies in question would more than double the number of companies which would require individual dumping margin calculations as the original sample consisted of four exporting producers. It is further noted that some of the individual examination applicants are part of the groups. According to the preliminary replies of the companies in question (sampling forms) individual examination would require analysis and verification of questionnaire replies of at least seven companies.
(152) Based on the available information from the complaint and subsequent investigation, the like product was manufactured by at least 16 Union producers during the investigation period. The Union producers accounting for the total Union production constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation and will be thereafter referred to as the ‘Union industry’.
(153) The total Union production during the investigation period was estimated at around 8 270 tonnes. The Commission established the figure on the verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers and the estimated data provided by the complainant. As mentioned in recitals 11 to 13, sampling was applied for the determination of possible injury suffered by the Union industry. The Union producers selected in the sample represented ca. 43 % of the total estimated Union production of the like product.
(154) One party requested an explanation why the volume of the total Union production decreased by 80 tonnes between provisional and definitive disclosure. In the provisional disclosure the total Union production was estimated at around 8 350 tonnes. The recital above states that the total Union production was established at around 8 270 tonnes. The reason for the difference is that at provisional stage the Commission services wrongly estimated the production volume of one of the non-sampled Union producer. This Union producer ceased production during the investigation period. Therefore, its production was re-calculated taking into consideration of its shut down. The Commission confirmed that the total Union production was estimated at around 8 270 tonnes during the investigation period.
(155) As the sampled companies is constituted of only one producer and a group of companies, all data concerning micro indicators had to be indexed to protect confidentiality under Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
(156) The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of total estimated sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market and on the total import volume of the product concerned to the Union.
(157) The Union industry's sales volume of the like product was estimated on the basis the actual verified data provided by the sampled producers in their questionnaire replies and, for the non-cooperating producers, the data provided by the complainant.
(158) As explained above in recital 47, the product concerned falls under two CN codes: ex 7307 23 10 and ex 7307 23 90. However, these two CN codes include not only the product concerned but also products outside of the scope of this investigation. Therefore, the volume of imports falling outside of the scope of this investigation needed to be deducted from the total volume of imports registered under the above mentioned CN code.
(159) The complainant estimated the volume of imports of the product concerned for all origins on the basis of its market knowledge. Regarding the countries concerned, it considered that that the products under investigation represented the vast majority of the volume reported under the above mentioned two CN codes for the PRC and Taiwan, 90 % and 100 % respectively.
(160) In order to verify this estimation, the Commission used the information received during a previous investigation concerning stainless steel fittings initiated on 10 November 2012. This investigation covered all the products classified under these two CN codes including the product concerned of this investigation. From the analysis made, it appears that at least 22,3 % of the products exported by the Chinese exporting producers under these CN codes would fall outside the scope of this investigation. For Taiwan, the percentage provided by the complainant is confirmed, i.e. 100 %.
(161) In the case of the PRC, the Commission decided to adjust the import volumes on the basis of the most conservative ratio, i.e. 22,3 %.
(162) Moreover, the consumption was further adjusted for the volume of flanged/low roughness fittings (see sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2), both excluded from the product scope of the investigation. The volume imported was estimated on the basis of the sampling replies at around 150 tonnes for the PRC and 20 tonnes for Taiwan. Therefore, these quantities were deducted from the estimated volume of imports from the PRC and Taiwan. For the Union industry, the investigation revealed that the volume produced and sold of these excluded product types is insignificant.
(163) On this basis, the Union consumption was established as follows:Table 1Union consumption (tonnes)201220132014IPTotal Union consumption13 76614 35014 67114 145Index (2012 = 100)100104107103Source:Eurostat, sampling replies, verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant. 2012 2013 2014 IP Total Union consumption 13 766 14 350 14 671 14 145 Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 107 103 Source:Eurostat, sampling replies, verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Total Union consumption 13 766 14 350 14 671 14 145
Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 107 103
Source:Eurostat, sampling replies, verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Total Union consumption 13 766 14 350 14 671 14 145
Index (2012 = 100) 100 104 107 103
Source:Eurostat, sampling replies, verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
(164) The Union consumption increased by 3 % between 2012 and the investigation period.
(165) The Commission examined whether imports of the product concerned originating in the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.
(166) The margins of dumping established in relation to the imports from the PRC and Taiwan are summarised under recital 145 and recital 94 above.
(167) With the exception of King Lai, all these margins are above thede minimisthreshold laid down in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. As mentioned in recital 94, the volume of the non-dumped imports was insignificant. In any event, these non-dumped imports were excluded from the total volume of Taiwanese imports of the product concerned.
(168) The volume of imports from each of the countries concerned was not negligible within the meaning of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation. The PRC and Taiwan held, in the investigation period, a market share of 22,9 % and 7,8 % respectively, as mentioned in recital 181.
(169) The conditions of competition between the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the like product were also similar. Indeed, the imported products competed with each other and with the product concerned produced in the Union. The products are interchangeable and were marketed in the Union through comparable sales channels, being sold to similar categories of end customers.
(170) Therefore, all criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met and imports from the countries concerned were examined cumulatively for the purposes of the injury determination.
(171) Following the definitive disclosure, several parties claimed that the Commission had insufficiently examined the conditions of competition both between Chinese and Taiwanese fittings when imported into the Union, and between imported fittings and the Union production.
(172) These parties claimed on the basis of their market knowledge that there are important differences between the fittings produced and exported from China and from Taiwan to the Union. These parties considered that there was no competition between exported products due to the physical properties of the products, the extent to which the products are capable of serving the same or similar end-uses and the extent to which consumers perceive and treat the products as alternative means of performing particular functions in order to satisfy a particular demand.
(173) These parties claimed that the extensive adjustments made by the Commission to achieve some resemblance of price comparability between Chinese and Taiwanese products show there are major differences in characteristics relating to raw materials (seamless tubes and welded tubes), grades of steel and manufacturing process. This has an impact on the price which precludes their interchangeability on the market. Moreover, the price trend shows a price disparity between the two origins.
(174) First, the Commission takes the view that the question of competition between different product types is not decisive for the injury assessment. As long as all product types form one product, for the reason set out above in recitals 43 to 50, there is no need to split the injury assessment on the basis of the fact that allegedly, different product types constitute separate product markets from the point of view of competition law.
(175) Second, even if the question of actual competition between product types was relevant, the Commission notes that the assertion of the absence of competition is not underpinned by the evidence on file. In fact, the Commission found that the product concerned exported by the Chinese exporting producer and the Taiwanese exporting producers are indeed in competition in the Union market. These products are to a large extent interchangeable. This conclusion was supported by the average price of the product concerned. There is a clear overlap where the product concerned produced from seamless pipes is similarly priced as the product concerned produced from welded pipes(10). With regard to the competition with the Union industry, the investigation confirmed that the sampled Union producers produced or could produce from both raw materials and all product types. Therefore, these claims were rejected and the cumulative analysis of the effects of the imports was confirmed.
(176) Following the additional disclosure, these interested parties reiterated their claim that the imports from the countries concerned should not have been cumulatively assessed. In this regard the Commission notes that even if competition between imports from the countries concerned are analysed on PCN basis the results are the same, i.e. there is a clear price competition. Therefore, this claim was rejected.
(177) Furthermore, these parties claimed that the production of one Union producer is primarily producing fittings from special stainless steel grades, while 70 % of Chinese production is mainly 304 or 316 austenitic, standard grades, meaning that these products are not competing.
(178) Regarding these claims, the Commission noted that the competitive relationship between the product concerned and the like product was confirmed by the investigation as stated in recital 174 above in the cumulation analysis. Moreover, with regard to the steel grade one of the sampled Union producers was indeed producing the like product from standard stainless steel grades representing around 90 % of its production. If follows that Chinese products are in direct competition with the products of this Union producer. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
(179) In absence of any further comments concerning Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation, the cumulative assessment of the imports from the countries concerned was confirmed.
(180) The Commission established the volume of imports on the basis of the Eurostat database, the market knowledge of the complainant and other information available to the Commission (see recitals 156 to 164). The market share of the imports was established by comparing import volumes with the Union consumption as reported in Table 1 above.Table 2Import volume (tonnes) and market share201220132014IPVolume of dumped imports from the countries concerned3 3953 8774 5084 340Index (2012 = 100)100114133128Market Share countries concerned (excluding non-dumped imports) (%)24,727,030,730,7Index (2012 = 100)100110124124Volume of imports from the PRC2 6862 7593 2483 238Index (2012 = 100)100103121121PRC Market Share (%)19,519,222,122,9Index (2012 = 100)10099113117Volume of dumped imports from Taiwan7091 1181 2601 102Index (2012 = 100)100158178155Taiwan Market Share (excluding non-dumped imports) (%)5,27,88,67,8Index (2012 = 100)100151167151Source:Eurostat, verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant. 2012 2013 2014 IP Volume of dumped imports from the countries concerned 3 395 3 877 4 508 4 340 Index (2012 = 100) 100 114 133 128 Market Share countries concerned (excluding non-dumped imports) (%) 24,7 27,0 30,7 30,7 Index (2012 = 100) 100 110 124 124 Volume of imports from the PRC 2 686 2 759 3 248 3 238 Index (2012 = 100) 100 103 121 121 PRC Market Share (%) 19,5 19,2 22,1 22,9 Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 113 117 Volume of dumped imports from Taiwan 709 1 118 1 260 1 102 Index (2012 = 100) 100 158 178 155 Taiwan Market Share (excluding non-dumped imports) (%) 5,2 7,8 8,6 7,8 Index (2012 = 100) 100 151 167 151 Source:Eurostat, verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Volume of dumped imports from the countries concerned 3 395 3 877 4 508 4 340
Index (2012 = 100) 100 114 133 128
Market Share countries concerned (excluding non-dumped imports) (%) 24,7 27,0 30,7 30,7
Index (2012 = 100) 100 110 124 124
Volume of imports from the PRC 2 686 2 759 3 248 3 238
Index (2012 = 100) 100 103 121 121
PRC Market Share (%) 19,5 19,2 22,1 22,9
Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 113 117
Volume of dumped imports from Taiwan 709 1 118 1 260 1 102
Index (2012 = 100) 100 158 178 155
Taiwan Market Share (excluding non-dumped imports) (%) 5,2 7,8 8,6 7,8
Index (2012 = 100) 100 151 167 151
Source:Eurostat, verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Volume of dumped imports from the countries concerned 3 395 3 877 4 508 4 340
Index (2012 = 100) 100 114 133 128
Market Share countries concerned (excluding non-dumped imports) (%) 24,7 27,0 30,7 30,7
Index (2012 = 100) 100 110 124 124
Volume of imports from the PRC 2 686 2 759 3 248 3 238
Index (2012 = 100) 100 103 121 121
PRC Market Share (%) 19,5 19,2 22,1 22,9
Index (2012 = 100) 100 99 113 117
Volume of dumped imports from Taiwan 709 1 118 1 260 1 102
Index (2012 = 100) 100 158 178 155
Taiwan Market Share (excluding non-dumped imports) (%) 5,2 7,8 8,6 7,8
Index (2012 = 100) 100 151 167 151
Source:Eurostat, verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
(181) Imports into the Union from the countries concerned developed as follows:
(182) The above table shows that, in absolute figures, the imports from the countries concerned have increased significantly during the period considered (by 28 %). The corresponding market share of the dumped imports into the Union increased by 6 percentage points during the period considered.
(183) For the evolution of the import prices, in absence of alternative source, the Commission had to rely on Eurostat to establish average prices of imports. The average price of imports into the Union from the countries concerned developed as follows:Table 3Import prices (EUR/tonnes)201220132014IPPRC8 2858 0786 9166 936Index (2012 = 100)100988384Taiwan7 5435 1894 6535 840Index (2012 = 100)100696277Source:Eurostat. 2012 2013 2014 IP PRC 8 285 8 078 6 916 6 936 Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 83 84 Taiwan 7 543 5 189 4 653 5 840 Index (2012 = 100) 100 69 62 77 Source:Eurostat.
2012 2013 2014 IP
PRC 8 285 8 078 6 916 6 936
Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 83 84
Taiwan 7 543 5 189 4 653 5 840
Index (2012 = 100) 100 69 62 77
Source:Eurostat.
2012 2013 2014 IP
PRC 8 285 8 078 6 916 6 936
Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 83 84
Taiwan 7 543 5 189 4 653 5 840
Index (2012 = 100) 100 69 62 77
Source:Eurostat.
(184) The average prices of the Chinese dumped imports decreased from 8 285 EUR/tonne in 2012 to 6 936 EUR/tonne during the investigation period. During the period considered (2012-IP), the decrease of the average unit price of the dumped Chinese imports was around 16 %. In the same period, the average prices of the Taiwanese dumped imports decreased from 7 543 EUR/tonne, in 2012, to 5 840 EUR/tonne during the investigation period. During the period considered, the decrease of the average unit price of the dumped Taiwanese imports was around 23 %.
(185) Following the definitive disclosure, one interested party claimed that the Commission should have assessed the effect of the decrease in nickel price on the price of the product concerned during the investigation period as the evolution of nickel price is a major factor of stainless steel price. While it is true that nickel is one of the main cost driver for the production of pipes (raw material of the product concerned), there is no direct relationship with the product concerned. Moreover, the Commission found that the price of the product concerned does not correlate with the nickel price.(11)Therefore, the claim was rejected.
(186) The Commission assessed the price undercutting during the investigation period by comparing:(a)the weighted average sales prices per product type of the three Union producers charged to unrelated customers in the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level; and(b)the corresponding weighted average prices at CIF Union frontier level per product type of the imports from the cooperating producers of the countries concerned to the first independent customer on the Union market, with appropriate adjustments for post-importation costs 2 % and import duties 3,7 %. (a) the weighted average sales prices per product type of the three Union producers charged to unrelated customers in the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level; and (b) the corresponding weighted average prices at CIF Union frontier level per product type of the imports from the cooperating producers of the countries concerned to the first independent customer on the Union market, with appropriate adjustments for post-importation costs 2 % and import duties 3,7 %.
(a) the weighted average sales prices per product type of the three Union producers charged to unrelated customers in the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level; and
(b) the corresponding weighted average prices at CIF Union frontier level per product type of the imports from the cooperating producers of the countries concerned to the first independent customer on the Union market, with appropriate adjustments for post-importation costs 2 % and import duties 3,7 %.
(a) the weighted average sales prices per product type of the three Union producers charged to unrelated customers in the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level; and
(b) the corresponding weighted average prices at CIF Union frontier level per product type of the imports from the cooperating producers of the countries concerned to the first independent customer on the Union market, with appropriate adjustments for post-importation costs 2 % and import duties 3,7 %.
(187) The price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted on the basis of the actual costs where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts as reported by the sampled Union producers. The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the Union producers' turnover during the investigation period.
(188) On the basis of the above, the dumped imports from the PRC and Taiwan were found to undercut the Union industry prices by 59,4 % and 76,1 % respectively.
(189) In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry includes an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.
(190) For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of data and information contained in the complaint and Eurostat statistics, where appropriate, so that the data relates to all Union producers. The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the questionnaire replies, duly verified, from the sampled Union producers.
(191) The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, magnitude of the dumping margin, and recovery from past dumping.
(192) The microeconomics indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital.
(193) The total Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation developed over the period considered as follows:Table 4Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation201220132014IPProduction volume8 9678 7808 3048 272Index (2012 = 100)100989392Production capacity22 77921 19421 16319 721Index (2012 = 100)100939387Capacity utilisation (%)39413942Index (2012 = 100)100105100106Source:Verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant. 2012 2013 2014 IP Production volume 8 967 8 780 8 304 8 272 Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 93 92 Production capacity 22 779 21 194 21 163 19 721 Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 93 87 Capacity utilisation (%) 39 41 39 42 Index (2012 = 100) 100 105 100 106 Source:Verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Production volume 8 967 8 780 8 304 8 272
Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 93 92
Production capacity 22 779 21 194 21 163 19 721
Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 93 87
Capacity utilisation (%) 39 41 39 42
Index (2012 = 100) 100 105 100 106
Source:Verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Production volume 8 967 8 780 8 304 8 272
Index (2012 = 100) 100 98 93 92
Production capacity 22 779 21 194 21 163 19 721
Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 93 87
Capacity utilisation (%) 39 41 39 42
Index (2012 = 100) 100 105 100 106
Source:Verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
(194) The production volume remained rather stable between 2012 and 2013. Between 2013 and the investigation period, the Union industry's production volume decreased by 6 %. During the period considered, there was an overall decrease of 8 % in the production volume.
(195) At the same time, the production capacity sharply decreased by 13 %. This can be mainly attributed to the closure of one Union producer, and to a decrease in the production of another Union producer, which resulted in the decrease of around 3 600 tonnes of production capacity.
(196) The reported capacity figures refer to technical capacity, which implies that adjustments, considered as standards by the industry, for set-up time, maintenance, bottle necks and other normal stoppages have been taken into consideration. However, this is the theoretical production capacity of the Union industry.
(197) It is difficult to assess capacity utilisation for this particular industry as it can differ depending on the type of the equipment and the volume produced. One of the sampled Union producers considered that 60 % of capacity utilisation was the maximum achieved in the past. Therefore, the above theoretical production capacity is clearly overstated as compared to the real production capacity.
(198) It follows that the capacity utilisation remained low during the period considered, at around 42 %. Due to the restructuring of one of the sampled Union producers and the closure of one Union producer, the capacity utilisation increased by 3 percentage points throughout the period considered. Low capacity utilisation deteriorates the absorption of fixed costs, which is one of the causes of the low profitability of the Union industry during the period considered.
(199) The Union industry's volume of sales in the Union to unrelated customers and its market share developed as follows:Table 5Sales volume and market share201220132014IPSales volume on the Union market in tonnes7 8567 7177 4017 302Index (2012 = 100)100959189Market share (%)57,153,850,451,6Index (2012 = 100)100948890Source:Eurostat, the complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant. 2012 2013 2014 IP Sales volume on the Union market in tonnes 7 856 7 717 7 401 7 302 Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 91 89 Market share (%) 57,1 53,8 50,4 51,6 Index (2012 = 100) 100 94 88 90 Source:Eurostat, the complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Sales volume on the Union market in tonnes 7 856 7 717 7 401 7 302
Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 91 89
Market share (%) 57,1 53,8 50,4 51,6
Index (2012 = 100) 100 94 88 90
Source:Eurostat, the complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Sales volume on the Union market in tonnes 7 856 7 717 7 401 7 302
Index (2012 = 100) 100 95 91 89
Market share (%) 57,1 53,8 50,4 51,6
Index (2012 = 100) 100 94 88 90
Source:Eurostat, the complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
(200) Over the period considered, Union industry sales volume dropped overall by 11 %, while Union consumption increased by 3 %. Sales volume of Chinese and Taiwanese dumped products increased by 945 tonnes (21 % and 55 % respectively) while the Union consumption increased by 379 tonnes. In the context of increasing consumption on the Union market, the decrease in sales and market share of the Union industry coincides with an increase of imports from the countries concerned. Moreover, due to the continuous price pressure by the dumped imports, the Union industry was forced to lower its production to avoid selling at loss-making prices.
(201) Employment and productivity developed over the period considered as follows:Table 6Employment and productivity201220132014IPNumber of employees581526532484Index (2012 = 100)100919283Productivity (tonne per employee)15,416,715,617,0Index (2012 = 100)100108101110Source:The complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant. 2012 2013 2014 IP Number of employees 581 526 532 484 Index (2012 = 100) 100 91 92 83 Productivity (tonne per employee) 15,4 16,7 15,6 17,0 Index (2012 = 100) 100 108 101 110 Source:The complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Number of employees 581 526 532 484
Index (2012 = 100) 100 91 92 83
Productivity (tonne per employee) 15,4 16,7 15,6 17,0
Index (2012 = 100) 100 108 101 110
Source:The complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Number of employees 581 526 532 484
Index (2012 = 100) 100 91 92 83
Productivity (tonne per employee) 15,4 16,7 15,6 17,0
Index (2012 = 100) 100 108 101 110
Source:The complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
(202) In line with the decline in production and sales, it was also observed that the level of the Union industry's employment decreased significantly. The laying-off of employees was done in order to reduce the workforce, which represented a reduction thereto of 17 %. As a consequence, the 10 % increase in productivity of the Union industry's workforce, measured as output per person employed per year, is much higher than the increase of 3 percentage points in the capacity utilisation (see recital 193). This suggests that the Union industry tried to adapt to the changing market conditions (increasing volume of dumped imports) in order to remain competitive.
(203) Stock levels of the Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:Table 7Inventories201220132014IPClosing stocks (tonnes)2 1911 8502 0021 697Index (2012 = 100)100849177Closing stocks as a percentage of production (%)24,421,124,120,6Index (2012 = 100)100869984Source:Verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant. 2012 2013 2014 IP Closing stocks (tonnes) 2 191 1 850 2 002 1 697 Index (2012 = 100) 100 84 91 77 Closing stocks as a percentage of production (%) 24,4 21,1 24,1 20,6 Index (2012 = 100) 100 86 99 84 Source:Verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Closing stocks (tonnes) 2 191 1 850 2 002 1 697
Index (2012 = 100) 100 84 91 77
Closing stocks as a percentage of production (%) 24,4 21,1 24,1 20,6
Index (2012 = 100) 100 86 99 84
Source:Verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Closing stocks (tonnes) 2 191 1 850 2 002 1 697
Index (2012 = 100) 100 84 91 77
Closing stocks as a percentage of production (%) 24,4 21,1 24,1 20,6
Index (2012 = 100) 100 86 99 84
Source:Verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
(204) During the period considered, the level of closing stocks decreased by 23 %. Most types of the like product produced by the Union industry are based on specific orders from users. However, the industry also has to maintain stocks of a various range of products in order to be able to compete with other producers' fast delivery time. This is also confirmed by analysing the evolution of the closing stocks as a percentage of production. This indicator remained relatively stable at 20 %-24 % of the production volume.
(205) It was concluded that the reduction in the level of stocks was mainly caused by more stringent working capital requirements imposed by the Union industry's management.
(206) With the exception of one minor Taiwanese exporter, all dumping margins were significantly above thede minimislevel. The impact of the magnitude of the actual high margins of dumping on the Union industry was not negligible, given the volume and prices of imports from the countries concerned.
(207) The Union consumption increased by 3 % during the period considered, while the sales volumes of the Union industry decreased by 11 %. Regardless this increase in consumption, the Union industry lost market share. On the other hand, the market share of the imports from the countries concerned increased during the period considered.
(208) The weighted average unit sales prices of the Union producers to unrelated customers in the Union developed over the period considered as follows:Table 8Sales prices in the Union201220132014IPSales priceIndex (2012 = 100)100959695Unit cost of productionIndex (2012 = 100)10010110398Source:Verified questionnaire replies. 2012 2013 2014 IP Sales priceIndex (2012 = 100) 100 95 96 95 Unit cost of productionIndex (2012 = 100) 100 101 103 98 Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Sales priceIndex (2012 = 100) 100 95 96 95
Unit cost of productionIndex (2012 = 100) 100 101 103 98
Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Sales priceIndex (2012 = 100) 100 95 96 95
Unit cost of productionIndex (2012 = 100) 100 101 103 98
Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
(209) The table above shows the evolution of the unit sales price in the Union as compared to the corresponding cost of production. The average unit selling price evolved broadly in line with the cost of production. There is 2 % decrease in the cost of production from 2014 to the investigation period, affected by the reduction in the price of the main raw material, but the unit sales price decreased by 5 %.
(210) Following the definitive disclosure, one interested party claimed that the Commission failed to take into account the general market situation. In particular, there was a drop of oil prices, decreasing the product costs. However, the party did not submit any evidence supporting its claim. In particular, it remained unclear how precisely the drop in the worldwide oil price would relate to the cost of production of this particular like product. Furthermore, the Commission's injury analysis covered a period between 2012 and IP during which all raw materials, including energy, were taken in consideration. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
(211) The average labour costs of the Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:Table 9Average labour costs per employee201220132014IPAverage labour costs per employeeIndex (2012 = 100)100111110110Source:Verified questionnaire replies. 2012 2013 2014 IP Average labour costs per employeeIndex (2012 = 100) 100 111 110 110 Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Average labour costs per employeeIndex (2012 = 100) 100 111 110 110
Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Average labour costs per employeeIndex (2012 = 100) 100 111 110 110
Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
(212) During the period considered, the average wage per employee went up by 10 % which is slightly above the overall increase in prices in the Union due to inflation. This should however be considered in the context of the severe cuts in employment, as explained in recitals 201 and 202.
(213) Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments of the Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:Table 10Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments201220132014IPProfitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)Index (2012 = 100)100332366Cash flow Index(2012 = 100)100613357InvestmentsIndex (2012 = 100)100178128122Return on investmentIndex (2012 = 100)100281948Source:Verified questionnaire replies. 2012 2013 2014 IP Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)Index (2012 = 100) 100 33 23 66 Cash flow Index(2012 = 100) 100 61 33 57 InvestmentsIndex (2012 = 100) 100 178 128 122 Return on investmentIndex (2012 = 100) 100 28 19 48 Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)Index (2012 = 100) 100 33 23 66
Cash flow Index(2012 = 100) 100 61 33 57
InvestmentsIndex (2012 = 100) 100 178 128 122
Return on investmentIndex (2012 = 100) 100 28 19 48
Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)Index (2012 = 100) 100 33 23 66
Cash flow Index(2012 = 100) 100 61 33 57
InvestmentsIndex (2012 = 100) 100 178 128 122
Return on investmentIndex (2012 = 100) 100 28 19 48
Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
(214) The Commission established the profitability of the Union producers by expressing the pre-tax net loss of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales.
(215) Profitability developed negatively from [8 %-10 %] in 2012 to [2 %-4 %] in 2013 and 2014 and improved in the IP to reach [4 %-6 %]. Over the period considered, the sampled companies lost sales volume and market share, and decided to concentrate on high-price segments where dumped imports were less present. This strategy enabled them to increase their profitability during the IP.
(216) As a result, while in 2013 and 2014, the sampled companies were not able to pass on increases of cost of production to clients, during the IP the profitability of sampled companies could benefit from the decrease of its cost of production due to a higher capacity utilisation and less competitive pressure in the high-price segments of the market.
(217) The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. The trend in net cash flow followed a downward trend (– 43 %), mainly due to a reduction in inventories.
(218) The return on investment decreased between 2012 and 2014, and recovered in the IP following the profitability trend. The Union industry increased the level of its investments by 22 % between 2012 and the investigation period. However, this increase of 22 % should be considered in light of the absolute figures. The level of investment for the sample of the Union industry was less than one million euro in 2012 and reached one million during IP mainly for expenses related to normal maintenance and safety equipment.
(219) Several parties claimed that the drop in profitability from 2012 to 2013 should be interpreted in the light of the substantial increase in investments in the Union industry. They observed investments had increased by 78 % between 2012 and 2013. Following the second disclosure, these parties reiterated their claim and stated that the increase of 78 % should be considered as a ‘huge’ investment expense.
(220) In this regard, the Commission noted that the Union producers did not invest in order to improve their product method but into obligatory safety equipment and maintenance as stated above. While indeed investment increased, at the same time the return on investment decreased substantially. Furthermore investment should be compared to total sales of the like product and the investment in question represented only between 2-4 % of the total sales of the like product. Finally, investment is only one of the injury indicators and should not be analysed in isolation.
(221) It is concluded that most of injury indicators show a negative trend during the period considered. In particular, the injury indicators related to the production and market share of the Union producers expose the serious difficulties of the Union industry, as well as the existence of sustained undercutting. The only positive indicator, namely the slight improvement of the profitability during the IP was achieved at the expense of sales volume and market share by moving into the high-price segment. It may not be of duration, if dumped imports also enter high-price segments. Accordingly, an assessment of all macro and micro indicators reveals an overall negative trend. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.
(222) In accordance with Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports from the countries concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. In accordance with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined whether other known factors could at the same time have injured the Union industry. The Commission ensured that any possible injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports from the countries concerned was not attributed to the dumped imports.
(223) These factors are: imports from third countries, the export sales performance of the Union producers, the low capacity utilisation of the Union industry and the non-dumped imports from Taiwan.
(224) Sales prices of the exporting producers decreased on average from 8 129 EUR/tonne in 2012 to 6 658 EUR/tonne during the investigation period (– 18,1 %). By continuously lowering their unit sales price during the period considered, the exporting producers from the countries concerned were able to significantly increase their market share from 2012 (24,7 %) to the investigation period (30,7 %).
(225) Since 2012, the continuous increase in imports from the countries concerned at prices that undercut those of the Union industry had a clear negative impact on the financial performance of the Union industry. Indeed, while the Union industry was cutting its costs by reducing employment and closing plants, the volume of dumped imports increased at constantly lowering prices, which forced the Union industry to decrease its sales volume. As a consequence, the Union industry lost market share and was not able to benefit from the increase in consumption.
(226) In view of the clearly established coincidence in time between, on the one hand, the ever-increasing level of dumped imports at continuously decreasing prices and, on the other hand, the Union industry's loss of sales volume, it is concluded that the dumped imports were responsible for the injurious situation of the Union industry.
(227) Following the definitive disclosure, one interested party claimed that the decrease of sales prices of exporting producers is explained by the drop of nickel price. However, as explained above in recital 185, there is no direct correlation between nickel price and the import prices. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
(228) Several parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry cannot be attributed to the dumped imports from the countries concerned as only one of the sampled Union producer's prices decreased during the period considered and the other sampled Union producers were able to maintain their sales prices. This claim is rejected for the following reasons. The intra-EU statistics are not reliable in this case as they contain not only the product concerned but other also other type of fittings. Moreover the Union industry did not substantially decrease during the period considered (– 5 %), however at the expense of its sales volume, which decreased by 11 %, as well as its market share which decreased by 5,5 % during the same period.
(229) Following the second disclosure the interested parties claimed that, contrary to the Commission statement in recital 228 above, the data reported in Eurostat is indicative of the pricing behaviour of the Union producers and therefore, it is correct to state the Union producers' prices remained stable during the period considered. In this respect the Commission notes the following. As explained above the definition of the relevant CN code is wider than the definition of the product concerned and the like product (see recital 158 above). Furthermore, these interested parties are mistaken when they state that the Union producers are producing only the like product falling under the two CN codes in question. Indeed, the Union industry is also producing products falling outside of the product definition of this regulation and falling under the two CN codes in question. Therefore, this claim was rejected.
(230) In the absence of any further comments the Commission confirmed that dumped imports of the product concerned caused material injury to the Union industry.
(231) The volume of imports from third countries developed over the period considered as follows:Table 11Import volume from other countries (tonnes) and market share201220132014IPVolume of imports from third countries2 5152 7552 7622 503Index (2012 = 100)100110110100Market Share (%)18,319,218,817,7Volume of imports from Switzerland1 2171 3401 4761 503Index (2012 = 100)100110121123Market Share (%)8,89,310,110,6Volume of imports from Brazil339350229278Index (2012 = 100)1001036882Market Share (%)2,52,41,62,0Volume of imports from India120146204201Index (2012 = 100)100121169167Market Share (%)0,91,01,41,4Volume of imports from Malaysia195322297314Index (2012 = 100)100165152161Market Share (%)1,42,22,02,2Volume of imports from other third countries642595554205Index (2012 = 100)100938632Market Share (%)4,74,23,81,5Source:Eurostat, the complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant. 2012 2013 2014 IP Volume of imports from third countries 2 515 2 755 2 762 2 503 Index (2012 = 100) 100 110 110 100 Market Share (%) 18,3 19,2 18,8 17,7 Volume of imports from Switzerland 1 217 1 340 1 476 1 503 Index (2012 = 100) 100 110 121 123 Market Share (%) 8,8 9,3 10,1 10,6 Volume of imports from Brazil 339 350 229 278 Index (2012 = 100) 100 103 68 82 Market Share (%) 2,5 2,4 1,6 2,0 Volume of imports from India 120 146 204 201 Index (2012 = 100) 100 121 169 167 Market Share (%) 0,9 1,0 1,4 1,4 Volume of imports from Malaysia 195 322 297 314 Index (2012 = 100) 100 165 152 161 Market Share (%) 1,4 2,2 2,0 2,2 Volume of imports from other third countries 642 595 554 205 Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 86 32 Market Share (%) 4,7 4,2 3,8 1,5 Source:Eurostat, the complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Volume of imports from third countries 2 515 2 755 2 762 2 503
Index (2012 = 100) 100 110 110 100
Market Share (%) 18,3 19,2 18,8 17,7
Volume of imports from Switzerland 1 217 1 340 1 476 1 503
Index (2012 = 100) 100 110 121 123
Market Share (%) 8,8 9,3 10,1 10,6
Volume of imports from Brazil 339 350 229 278
Index (2012 = 100) 100 103 68 82
Market Share (%) 2,5 2,4 1,6 2,0
Volume of imports from India 120 146 204 201
Index (2012 = 100) 100 121 169 167
Market Share (%) 0,9 1,0 1,4 1,4
Volume of imports from Malaysia 195 322 297 314
Index (2012 = 100) 100 165 152 161
Market Share (%) 1,4 2,2 2,0 2,2
Volume of imports from other third countries 642 595 554 205
Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 86 32
Market Share (%) 4,7 4,2 3,8 1,5
Source:Eurostat, the complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Volume of imports from third countries 2 515 2 755 2 762 2 503
Index (2012 = 100) 100 110 110 100
Market Share (%) 18,3 19,2 18,8 17,7
Volume of imports from Switzerland 1 217 1 340 1 476 1 503
Index (2012 = 100) 100 110 121 123
Market Share (%) 8,8 9,3 10,1 10,6
Volume of imports from Brazil 339 350 229 278
Index (2012 = 100) 100 103 68 82
Market Share (%) 2,5 2,4 1,6 2,0
Volume of imports from India 120 146 204 201
Index (2012 = 100) 100 121 169 167
Market Share (%) 0,9 1,0 1,4 1,4
Volume of imports from Malaysia 195 322 297 314
Index (2012 = 100) 100 165 152 161
Market Share (%) 1,4 2,2 2,0 2,2
Volume of imports from other third countries 642 595 554 205
Index (2012 = 100) 100 93 86 32
Market Share (%) 4,7 4,2 3,8 1,5
Source:Eurostat, the complaint and verified questionnaire replies and information provided by the complainant.
(232) The largest exporter of the product concerned to the Union after PRC is Switzerland with a 10 % market share, compared with PRC/Taiwan's 30,7 %. Prices of these imports were similar to the Union industry prices, i.e. 10 300 EUR/tonne.
(233) The volume and the market share of imports from all other origins remained stable during the period considered; i.e. respectively around 2 500 tonnes and 37 %. It can therefore be concluded that the impact of these imports did not break the causal link between Chinese/Taiwanese dumped imports and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
(234) Several interested parties claimed that the Commission should have analysed the price effect of the import originating from India. Following the second disclosure, this claim was reiterated and parties further stated that average Indian prices were in free fall during the period considered. The Commission observed Indian imports have a market share of 1,4 %. The average price of the like product originating in India was around 9 500 EUR/tonne during the investigation period. While it is true that the average price of the product originating in India decreased from around 13 700 EUR/tonne in 2012 to around 9 500 EUR/tonne in the IP, they were still 27 % higher than the average price of the product concerned originating in China, and 61 % higher when compared to Taiwanese prices. Therefore, these imports did not break the causal link.
(235) Several interested parties claimed that the Commission should have analysed imports of the like product from Russia. In contrast, the complainant claimed that these imports should not be taken into consideration for the causation analysis as the products declared under the CN codes concerned are not like products.
(236) The Commission found that the import prices of Russia, reported by Eurostat for the CN codes concerned stood around 1 000 EUR/tonne for the investigation period. Hence, the Russian imports are related to different product more 7 times cheaper compared to the Chinese imports. Therefore, these imports were considered irrelevant for the causality analysis.
(237) Following the second disclosure, several interested parties claimed that the effect of imports originating in Russia and India should be cumulatively assessed. As stated in recital 236 above, imports originating in Russia were not taken into consideration during the causation analysis because the Commission found that the products originating in Russia are not covered by the definition of the product concerned and therefore are not captured by this investigation. For this reason, these imports cannot be cumulatively assessed with the imports originating in India. Therefore, this claim was rejected.
(238) The volume of exports of the Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:Table 12Export performance201220132014IPExport volume to unrelated customers645553530596Index (2012 = 100)100868292Average price (EUR/tonne)13 56712 38611 89011 619Index (2012 = 100)100918886Source:Verified questionnaire replies. 2012 2013 2014 IP Export volume to unrelated customers 645 553 530 596 Index (2012 = 100) 100 86 82 92 Average price (EUR/tonne) 13 567 12 386 11 890 11 619 Index (2012 = 100) 100 91 88 86 Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Export volume to unrelated customers 645 553 530 596
Index (2012 = 100) 100 86 82 92
Average price (EUR/tonne) 13 567 12 386 11 890 11 619
Index (2012 = 100) 100 91 88 86
Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
2012 2013 2014 IP
Export volume to unrelated customers 645 553 530 596
Index (2012 = 100) 100 86 82 92
Average price (EUR/tonne) 13 567 12 386 11 890 11 619
Index (2012 = 100) 100 91 88 86
Source:Verified questionnaire replies.
(239) According to data from the sampled Union producers, the export prices have decreased by 14 % during the period considered and export volume to unrelated customers in third countries decreased by less than 1 % of the total sales of the Union industry. However, the loss suffered during the IP was not significant, representing less than 0,8 % of the total turnover of the Union industry.
(240) It can be therefore concluded that the export activity of the Union industry does not break the causal link.
(241) In view of the low capacity utilisation of the sampled companies throughout the period considered, the Commission has also investigated whether overcapacity may have contributed to injury or even broken the causal link. At this stage, the Commission considers that this is not the case. First, as explained above in recital 197, the companies need to have an important theoretical capacity in order to be able to meet all customer demands, but it is unrealistic to use that theoretical capacity completely. Second, the Union industry has been profitable with a lower capacity utilisation rate in 2012, indicating that the injury is not caused by overcapacity. Therefore, it is concluded that the impact of such low capacity utilisation is immaterial and thus could not sever the causal link.
(242) The volume of the non-dumped imports was insignificant, 300 kg during the IP, compared to the total Union consumption, 14 145 tonnes. Therefore, it is concluded that the impact of such imports on the Union industry is immaterial and thus could not sever the causal link.
(243) A causal link was established between the injury suffered by the Union producers and the dumped imports from the countries concerned.
(244) The considerable price and volume pressure exerted on the Union industry by the increasing dumped imports from the countries concerned over the period considered have not allowed the Union industry to benefit from the slow recovery of the EU market. The analysis of the injury indicators above shows that the economic situation of the Union industry as a whole has been affected by an increase of low-priced dumped imports from PRC and Taiwan that undercut the Union prices. Chinese/Taiwanese exporters managed to gain significant market share (30,7 % during the IP compared to 24,7 % market share in 2012) at the expense of the Union industry. The Union industry lost 5,5 percentage points of its market share between 2012 and the IP, and 11 % of the sales volumes, while the consumption increased in the Union market.
(245) The Commission distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports. The other identified factors, i.e. the imports from third countries, the export sales performance of the Union producers, the low capacity utilisation of the Union industry and the non-dumped imports from Taiwan, were not found to break the causal link. Even when their combined effect was considered, the Commission's conclusion was not different: in the absence of the dumped imports, the Union industry would not have been negatively affected to such a significant extent. In particular, the market share would not have dropped to such levels and reasonable profitability would have been achieved.
(246) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded at this stage that the material injury to the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports from the countries concerned and that the other factors, considered individually or collectively, did not break the causal link.
(247) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether there was a compelling reason to conclude that it was not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this case, despite the determination of injurious dumping. 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.
(248) The Union industry is located in 10 Member States (Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Sweden), and employs directly around 500 employees in relation to stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings.
(249) None of the known producers opposed the initiation of the investigation. As shown above, when analysing the injury indicators, the whole Union industry experienced a deterioration of its situation and was negatively affected by the dumped imports.
(250) It is expected that the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties will restore fair trade conditions on the Union market and enabling the Union industry to recover. This would result in an improvement of the Union industry's profitability towards levels considered necessary for this capital intensive industry. The Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from the countries concerned. It is recalled that most of the injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered.
(251) In particular, injury indicators related to the production, production capacity and market share of the Union producers were seriously affected. The imposition of measure is therefore important to restore the market to non-dumped and a non-injurious levels, and in order to allow all producers to operate in the Union market under fair trade conditions. In contrast, in the absence of measures, a further deterioration of the Union industry's economic and financial situation would be very likely.
(252) Following the claim set out in recital 35 above the Commission verified the request (including an on-spot verification visit to the Union industry's headquarters). The Commission concluded that contrary to the claim submitted: (i) the products imported under the outward processing scheme are in direct competition with other Union producers' products; (ii) the imposed duty, which is the duty of 41,9 % applicable to the Chinese producer which whom the EU company has the outward-processing arrangement, should have a limited financial impact (10 %-15 %) on the Union producer's revenue generated by outward processing business; (iii) the viability of the Union producer outward processing business should not be jeopardised by the imposition of measures and, as a result, the number of employees should not decrease, and the purpose of the EU funds should not be endangered. Therefore, the claim was rejected. The Commission also recalls in that context that the Union Customs Code foresees that as a rule, trade defence duties do apply to outward processing schemes where the operation performed outside the Union confers non-preferential origin to the good, as seems to be the case here. No duty would apply, on the contrary, if and to the extent that the non-preferential origin of the goods remains the Union.
(253) It is concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would be in the interest of the Union industry. The imposition of anti-dumping measures would allow the Union industry to recover from the effects of injurious dumping found.
(254) As indicated in recital 18, only one importer submitted detailed information regarding the impact of anti-dumping duties. This importer considered that the initial effect will be a price rise with a negative impact on its performance in terms of delivery time and competitiveness. This importer further stated that it would start focusing more on other countries producing fittings like i.e. Malaysia, Vietnam and Korea. However, the process of selecting new partners elsewhere would cost time and money. In addition, it would bring discontinuity in their stock level and product quality, which in turn would have a negative impact on the quality of the service provided to customers.
(255) However, it was found that importers are able switch to other sources of supply, and thus the negative impact of the measures can be mitigated.
(256) Following the definitive disclosure, one interested party contested that finding. It claimed that the Union producers will not be able to serve the Union market. Moreover, the existing fittings producers established, for example in Malaysia and Thailand would not be able to provide the quantity and the quality to serve the Union importers.
(257) The Commission rejected that claim. The Union producers currently operate on average by using 42 % of their capacity. Hence, it is probable that they will be able to increase their production and to supply the Union market more than today. Furthermore, fittings are also produced in several other third countries such as India, Malaysia, Thailand, Korea or Japan. Therefore, the Commission considers that there is no risk of shortage of the product on the Union market.
(258) On this basis, it is concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures will not have substantially negative effects on importers.
(259) Users of the product concerned and the like product are found in various industrial domains. The crucial factor for the users is the availability of the product in the requested quantity and quality.
(260) As only one user cooperated in the investigation, the Commission could not quantify the impact of the measure on users broadly. However, from the reply of this cooperating user, the impact of any anti-dumping in the costs of this company will be insignificant (less than 1 % of its turnover). In any event, the EU industry has the capacity to satisfy the EU demand and that there are also other third countries that can supply the EU, if fair conditions prevail.
(261) For the reasons above, it was concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures will not have a substantial impact on users.
(262) In view of the above, the Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of measures on imports of the product concerned from the countries concerned.
(263) Any negative effects on the unrelated importers and users are mitigated by the availability of alternative sources of supply.
(264) Moreover, when considering the overall impact of the anti-dumping measures on the Union market, the positive effects, in particular on the Union industry, appear to outweigh the potential negative impacts on the other interest groups.
(265) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, definitive measures should be imposed to allow the Union industry to recover from the injury being caused by the dumped imports.
(266) In order to determine the level of the measures, the Commission first established the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury suffered by the Union industry.
(267) The injury would be eliminated if the Union industry was able to cover its costs of production and to obtain a profit before tax on sales of the like product in the Union market that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition by an industry of this type in the sector, namely in the absence of dumped imports.
(268) In order to determine the target profit, the Commission considered the profits made in the unrelated sales which are used for the purpose of determining the injury elimination level.
(269) The target profit margin was provisionally set at [7-12 %], in line with profits reached from the unrelated sales of the sampled Union producers in 2012. While the Chinese and Taiwanese imports were already present in the Union market, in 2012 the prices of the dumped imports had not yet decreased substantially. Therefore, the Commission consider the profitability reached in 2012 as having been achieved under normal market conditions.
(270) The Commission calculated a non-injurious price of the like product for the Union industry by adding the above-mentioned profit margin of [7–12 %] to the cost of production of the sampled Union producers during the investigation period. The cost of manufacturing reported by one of the three Union producers was recalculated on the basis of standard costs (cost of raw material plus conversion cost plus SG&A) since the actual costs were unrepresentative due to the very low quantity produced for certain PCNs sold in the IP.
(271) The Commission determined the injury elimination level on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the cooperating exporting producers in the countries concerned, duly adjusted for importation costs and customs duties, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the weighted average non-injurious price of the like product sold by the sampled Union producers on the Union market during the investigation period. Any difference resulting from this comparison was expressed as a percentage of the weighted average import CIF value.
(272) As a result, the underselling margins range from 75,4 % to 127,1 %, when comparing Chinese CIF prices with the Union industry's EXW prices and 104,4 % to 110,0 % when comparing Taiwanese CIF prices with the Union industry's EXW prices.
(273) Following the definitive disclosure several parties requested a more detailed injury calculation. The Commission was of the opinion that all interested parties had already received a detailed injury calculation. It had followed its standard practises to disclose all relevant findings duly taking into account the confidentiality of the source data.
(274) Several parties claimed that it is inappropriate to base the non-injurious price on the cost of production of the three sampled Union producers as there is no evidence that their cost of production is representative at the level of the whole Union industry. These parties failed to explain why the Commission should deviate from its normal practice of using the cost of production of the sampled Union producers in this particular case. Furthermore contrary to the claim the investigation established that the costs of production of the three sampled Union producer are indeed representative of the Union industry. The Commission during the investigation did not identify any issue or problem that would have indicated that the cost of production of the sampled Union producers were not representative of the like product.
(275) These interested parties further claimed that the calculation of the underselling margins is flawed as statistics show that the average price of one of the three sampled Union producer is significantly higher than the other ones. While the Commission acknowledges the fact that one of the Union producers' prices are higher than the other ones, it noted that analysing prices at CN Code level is misleading as it does not take into consideration of the underlying product mix and the fact that certain products were excluded from the product scope. Furthermore as stated above underselling calculation were performed on the basis of cost of production by product type. Thus, only the cost production of matching product types was used.
(276) Furthermore even if the Commission was to remove the cost data of this particular Union producer and would only use the cost data of the other sampled Union producers, the results would be in the same ball park. The underselling margins based on this methodology range from 60 % to 95 % when comparing Chinese CIF prices with the Union industry's EXW target prices. However granting this claim would have no effect on the final measures. Furthermore would entail comparing product types based on a completely different raw material. Therefore this claim was rejected.
(277) Several parties claimed that using standard cost instead of actual cost had led to a distorted target price as several product characteristics had not been taken into consideration. In this regard, the Commission noted that it had disregarded the manufacturing cost as reported by one sampled Union producer because — contrary to what the interested parties claim — using the actual cost of manufacturing would have led a distorted result. By using standard cost methodology the Commission was able to eliminate the distortion caused by unrepresentatively low quantities. Therefore, the Commission confirmed the appropriateness of the methodology used.
(278) Several parties claimed that the methodology used for the underselling calculation should be applied in an even manner, i.e. the same grouping of product types should be used for the product concerned and the like product. The Commission acknowledged the shortcoming of the methodology initially used and revised the underselling calculation accordingly. The Commission noted that this change only affected product types using seamless tubes or pipes as a raw material and affected only those exporting producers which use the above raw material. Therefore the new underselling margins range from 75,7 % to 112,2 % when comparing Chinese CIF prices with the Union industry's EXW target prices.
(279) Following the second disclosure, several interested parties claimed that it was inappropriate to compare the price of the exporting producers with the target price established on the basis of material grade for fittings produced from seamless tubes. Moreover, the parties reiterated that the target price should have been established for each product type instead of for each material grade.
(280) The Commission states that it try to perform the calculation as requested by the interested parties, i.e. a PCN to PCN analysis. However, it found that the results were unreliable for certain PCNs due to the significantly different quantities imported to the Union and produced by the Union producers. Therefore, it found that the methodology described in recitals 270 and 271 was more adequate and, as a result, this claim was rejected.
(281) In absence of any further comments the Commission confirmed that the underselling margins concerning Taiwan as stated in recital 272 above.
(282) On the basis of the above, the definitive anti-dumping duty rates, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, should be as follows:CompanyInjury margin (%)Dumping margin (%)Definitive anti-dumping duty rate (%)Taiwan:King Lai Hygienic Materials Co., Ltd—0,00,0Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co., Ltd104,45,15,1Residual Duty110,012,112,1The People's Republic of ChinaZhejiang Good Fittings Co., Ltd112,255,355,3Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd105,948,948,9Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*2)75,730,730,7Jiangsu Judd Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*2)75,730,730,7Weighted Average(*3)93,141,941,9Residual Duty(*4)127,164,964,9 Company Injury margin (%) Dumping margin (%) Definitive anti-dumping duty rate (%) Taiwan: King Lai Hygienic Materials Co., Ltd — 0,0 0,0 Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co., Ltd 104,4 5,1 5,1 Residual Duty 110,0 12,1 12,1 The People's Republic of China Zhejiang Good Fittings Co., Ltd 112,2 55,3 55,3 Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd 105,9 48,9 48,9 Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*2) 75,7 30,7 30,7 Jiangsu Judd Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*2) 75,7 30,7 30,7 Weighted Average(*3) 93,1 41,9 41,9 Residual Duty(*4) 127,1 64,9 64,9
Company Injury margin (%) Dumping margin (%) Definitive anti-dumping duty rate (%)
Taiwan:
King Lai Hygienic Materials Co., Ltd — 0,0 0,0
Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co., Ltd 104,4 5,1 5,1
Residual Duty 110,0 12,1 12,1
The People's Republic of China
Zhejiang Good Fittings Co., Ltd 112,2 55,3 55,3
Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd 105,9 48,9 48,9
Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*2) 75,7 30,7 30,7
Jiangsu Judd Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*2) 75,7 30,7 30,7
Weighted Average(*3) 93,1 41,9 41,9
Residual Duty(*4) 127,1 64,9 64,9
Company Injury margin (%) Dumping margin (%) Definitive anti-dumping duty rate (%)
Taiwan:
King Lai Hygienic Materials Co., Ltd — 0,0 0,0
Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co., Ltd 104,4 5,1 5,1
Residual Duty 110,0 12,1 12,1
The People's Republic of China
Zhejiang Good Fittings Co., Ltd 112,2 55,3 55,3
Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd 105,9 48,9 48,9
Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*2) 75,7 30,7 30,7
Jiangsu Judd Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd(*2) 75,7 30,7 30,7
Weighted Average(*3) 93,1 41,9 41,9
Residual Duty(*4) 127,1 64,9 64,9
(283) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of this investigation. Therefore, they reflected the situation found during this investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates are exclusively applicable to imports of the product concerned originating in the countries concerned and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of product concerned 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.
(284) A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes the name of its entity or sets up a new production or sales entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission. The request must contain all the relevant information, including: modification in the company's activities linked to production; domestic and export sales associated with, for example, the name change or the change in the production and sales entities. The Commission will update the list of companies with individual anti-dumping duties, if justified.
(285) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to a difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The companies with individual anti-dumping duties must present 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) hereof. Imports not accompanied by that invoice should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(286) To ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duties, the anti-dumping duty for all other companies should apply not only to the non-cooperating exporting producers in this investigation, but to the producers which did not have exports to the Union during the investigation period.
(287) In the interests of sound administration, the Commission has invited the interested parties to submit written comments and/or to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings within a fixed deadline.
(288) 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.
Company Definitive anti-dumping duty rate (%) TARIC additional code
Taiwan
King Lai Hygienic Materials Co., Ltd 0,0 C175
Ta Chen Stainless Pipes Co., Ltd 5,1 C176
All other companies 12,1 C999
The People's Republic of China
Zhejiang Good Fittings Co., Ltd 55,3 C177
Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd 48,9 C178
Suzhou Yuli Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd 30,7 C179
Jiangsu Judd Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd 30,7 C180
All other cooperating companies:
ALFA Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) Co., Ltd 41,9 C182
Kunshan Kinglai Hygienic Materials Co., Ltd 41,9 C184
Wifang Huoda Pipe Fittings Manufacture Co., Ltd 41,9 C186
Yada Piping Solutions Co., Ltd 41,9 C187
Jiangsu Huayang Metal Pipes Co., Ltd 41,9 C188
All other companies 64,9 C999
(a) it did not export to the Union the product described in Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 October 2014 to 30 September 2015);
(b) 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; and
(c) it has actually exported to the Union the product concerned after the investigation period or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union, the Table in 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 the companies in the sample.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union(1)(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, of austenitic stainless steel grades, corresponding to AISI types 304, 304L, 316, 316L, 316Ti, 321 and 321H and their equivalent in the other norms, with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm and a wall thickness of 16 mm or less, with a roughness average (Ra) of the surface finish not less than 0,8 micrometres, not flanged, whether or not finished, originating in the PRC and Taiwan. The product falls under CN codes ex 7307 23 10 and ex 7307 23 90 (Taric codes 7307231015, 7307231025, 7307239015, 7307239025).
2. The rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed below shall be as follows:
3. Where any exporting producer in the People’s Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:
(a)
it did not export to the Union the product described in Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 October 2014 to 30 September 2015);
(b)
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; and
(c)
it has actually exported to the Union the product concerned after the investigation period or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union, the Table in 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 the companies in the sample.
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union(1)(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, of austenitic stainless steel grades, corresponding to AISI types 304, 304L, 316, 316L, 316Ti, 321 and 321H and their equivalent in the other norms, with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm and a wall thickness of 16 mm or less, with a roughness average (Ra) of the surface finish not less than 0,8 micrometres, not flanged, whether or not finished, originating in the PRC and Taiwan. The product falls under CN codes ex 7307 23 10 and ex 7307 23 90 (Taric codes 7307231015, 7307231025, 7307239015, 7307239025).
2. The rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed below shall be as follows:
3. Where any exporting producer in the People’s Republic of China provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:
(a)
it did not export to the Union the product described in Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 October 2014 to 30 September 2015);
(b)
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; and
(c)
it has actually exported to the Union the product concerned after the investigation period or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union, the Table in 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 the companies in the sample.
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

Pending: 32017R0105

21.1.2017 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 17/17
(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012(2)provides for the use of interim entity identifiers where a legal entity identifier is not available. An infrastructure enabling the attribution of legal entity identifiers to entities has recently become available, and market participants have become familiar with the use of such legal entity identifiers. Therefore, legal entity identifiers should now be the only means allowed for the purpose of identification of legal entities.
(2) Determining whether the reporting counterparty is a buyer or a seller in a contract is particularly complex in the case of swap derivative contracts as such contracts involve the exchange of financial instruments between the parties. Therefore, specific rules should be established in order to ensure the accurate and consistent determination of who are the buyers and who are the sellers in swap derivative contracts.
(3) In order to determine the real exposures of counterparties, competent authorities require complete and accurate information on the collateral exchanged between those counterparties. Accordingly, specific rules ensuring a consistent approach with regard to the reporting of collateralisation for a given derivative contract or portfolio should be determined.
(4) The accurate classification and precise identification of derivatives is essential for the efficient use of data and for the meaningful aggregation of data across trade repositories, and therefore contributes to the objectives of the Financial Stability Board set out in the Feasibility Study on Aggregation of OTC Derivatives Trade Repository Data(3)published on 19 September 2014. Reporting requirements relating to the classification and identification of derivatives should therefore be amended so that this information is available in its entirety to competent authorities.
(5) In order to accommodate for the reporting of new types of derivatives contracts which have become available and are traded on a frequent basis by virtue of financial innovation, swaptions and spreadbets should be added to the list of classes of derivative contracts. More broadly, in view of ongoing financial innovation giving rise to new types of derivative contracts, it is important to ensure that any new types of derivatives contracts that do not fall within an existing classification can nevertheless be reported. Therefore, it is appropriate to maintain the category ‘other’ in the classification of types of derivatives contracts.
(6) Where two counterparties cannot agree on which of them should generate a unique trade identifier within the reporting timeline provided, the correct identification and association of the two reports pertaining to the same transaction may not be possible. It is therefore necessary to establish criteria for the generation of unique trade identifiers so as to avoid counting the same transaction twice.
(7) Counterparties may face significant difficulty in obtaining all of the relevant information with regard to trades that were terminated before the commencement date for reporting. Given the resulting complexity of reporting terminated trades and the fact that such trades do not increase systemic risk, the period for reporting terminated trades should be extended from 3 years to 5 years from the commencement date for reporting.
(8) In order to ensure full harmonisation of the data reported to trade repositories and therefore enable its consistent interpretation and aggregation, the standards and formats to be used in trade reports should be clarified. It is also appropriate to amend the reporting requirements with respect to data formats. Counterparties and trade repositories should therefore be granted sufficient time to take all necessary action to comply with the amended requirements.
(9) Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(10) This Regulation is based on draft implementing technical standards submitted by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to the Commission.
(11) In accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council(4), ESMA has conducted open public consultations on such draft implementing technical standards, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37 of that Regulation,
(1) Article 3 is replaced by the following:‘Article 3Identification of counterparties and other entitiesA report shall use a legal entity identifier to identify:(a)a beneficiary which is a legal entity;(b)a broking entity;(c)a CCP;(d)a clearing member;(e)a counterparty which is a legal entity;(f)a submitting entity.’; (a) a beneficiary which is a legal entity; (b) a broking entity; (c) a CCP; (d) a clearing member; (e) a counterparty which is a legal entity; (f) a submitting entity.’;
(a) a beneficiary which is a legal entity;
(b) a broking entity;
(c) a CCP;
(d) a clearing member;
(e) a counterparty which is a legal entity;
(f) a submitting entity.’;
(a) a beneficiary which is a legal entity;
(b) a broking entity;
(c) a CCP;
(d) a clearing member;
(e) a counterparty which is a legal entity;
(f) a submitting entity.’;
(2) the following Articles 3a and 3b are inserted:‘Article 3aCounterparty side1.   The counterparty side to the derivative contract referred to in field 14 of Table 1 of the Annex shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 10.2.   In the case of options and swaptions, the counterparty that holds the right to exercise the option shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that sells the option and receives a premium shall be identified as the seller.3.   In the case of futures and forwards other than futures and forwards relating to currencies, the counterparty buying the instrument shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty selling the instrument shall be identified as the seller.4.   In the case of swaps related to securities, the counterparty that bears the risk of price movement of the underlying security and receives the security amount shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that pays the security amount shall be identified as the seller.5.   In the case of swaps related to interest rates or inflation indices, the counterparty paying the fixed rate shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty receiving the fixed rate shall be identified as the seller. In the case of basis swaps, the counterparty that pays the spread shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that receives the spread shall be identified as the seller.6.   In the case of cross-currency swaps and swaps and forwards related to currencies, the counterparty receiving the currency which appears first when sorted alphabetically by International Organization for Standardization (ISO 4217) standard shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty delivering that currency shall be identified as the seller.7.   In the case of swaps related to dividends, the counterparty receiving the equivalent actual dividend payments shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty paying the dividend and receiving the fixed rate shall be identified as the seller.8.   With the exception of options and swaptions, in the case of derivative instruments for the transfer of credit risk, the counterparty buying the protection shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty selling the protection shall be identified as the seller.9.   In the case of derivative contracts relating to commodities, the counterparty that receives the commodity specified in the report shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that delivers the commodity shall be identified as the seller.10.   In the case of forward-rate agreements, the counterparty paying the fixed rate shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty receiving the fixed rate shall be identified as the seller.Article 3bCollateralisation1.   The type of collateralisation of the derivative contract referred to in Field 21 of Table 1 of the Annex shall be identified by the reporting counterparty in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5.2.   Where no collateral agreement exists between the counterparties or where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that the reporting counterparty does not post neither initial margin nor variation margin with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as uncollateralised;3.   Where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that the reporting counterparty only posts regularly variation margins with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as partially collateralised;4.   Where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that the reporting counterparty posts the initial margin and regularly posts variation margins and that the other counterparty either posts only variation margins or does not post any margins with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as one-way collateralised;5.   Where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that both counterparties post initial margin and regularly post variation margins with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as fully collateralised’;
(3) Article 4 is replaced by the following:‘Article 4Specification, identification, and classification of derivatives1.   A report shall specify a derivative on the basis of contract type and asset class in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.2.   The derivative shall be specified in Field 1 of Table 2 of the Annex as one of the following contract types:(a)financial contract for difference;(b)forward rate agreement;(c)forward;(d)future;(e)option;(f)spreadbet;(g)swap;(h)swaption;(i)other.3.   The derivative shall be specified in Field 2 of Table 2 of the Annex as one of the following asset classes:(a)commodities and emission allowances;(b)credit;(c)currency;(d)equity;(e)interest rate.4.   Where derivatives do not fall within one of the asset classes specified in paragraph 3, the counterparties shall specify in the report the asset class most closely resembling the derivative. Both counterparties shall specify the same asset class.5.   The derivative shall be identified in Field 6 of Table 2 of the Annex using the following, where available:(a)an ISO 6166 International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) code or an Alternative Instrument Identifier code (AII), as applicable, until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(*1);(b)an ISIN from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.Where an AII code is used, the complete AII code shall be used.6.   The complete AII code referred to in paragraph 5 shall be the result of the concatenation of the following six elements:(a)ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) of the trading venue where the derivative is traded, specified using 4 alphanumeric characters;(b)Code, which is assigned by the trading venue, uniquely associated with a particular underlying instrument and settlement type and other characteristics of the contract, specified using up to 12 alphanumeric characters;(c)single character identifying whether the instrument is an option or a future, specified as “O” where it is an option and as “F” where it is a future;(d)single character identifying whether the option is a put or a call, specified as “P” where it is a put option and as “C” where it is a call option; where the instrument has been identified as a future in accordance with point (c), it shall be specified as “F”;(e)exercise date or maturity date of a derivative contract specified in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD standard;(f)the strike price of an option, specified using up to 19 digits including up to five decimals without any leading or trailing zeros. A decimal point shall be used as the decimal separator. Negative values are not allowed. Where the instrument is a future, the strike price shall be populated with zero.7.   The derivative shall be classified in Field 4 of Table 2 of the Annex using an ISO 10692 Classification of Financial Instrument (CFI) code for products identified through an ISO 6166 ISIN code or an AII code.8.   Derivatives for which an ISO 6166 ISIN code or an AII code are not available shall be classified by means of a designated code. That code shall be:(a)unique;(b)neutral;(c)reliable;(d)open source;(e)scalable;(f)accessible;(g)available at a reasonable cost basis;(h)subject to an appropriate governance framework.9.   Until the code referred to in paragraph 8 is endorsed by ESMA, derivatives for which an ISO 6166 ISIN code or an AII code are not available shall be classified using an ISO 10692 CFI code.(*1)Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 84).’;" (a) financial contract for difference; (b) forward rate agreement; (c) forward; (d) future; (e) option; (f) spreadbet; (g) swap; (h) swaption; (i) other. (a) commodities and emission allowances; (b) credit; (c) currency; (d) equity; (e) interest rate. (a) an ISO 6166 International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) code or an Alternative Instrument Identifier code (AII), as applicable, until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(*1); (b) an ISIN from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. (a) ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) of the trading venue where the derivative is traded, specified using 4 alphanumeric characters; (b) Code, which is assigned by the trading venue, uniquely associated with a particular underlying instrument and settlement type and other characteristics of the contract, specified using up to 12 alphanumeric characters; (c) single character identifying whether the instrument is an option or a future, specified as “O” where it is an option and as “F” where it is a future; (d) single character identifying whether the option is a put or a call, specified as “P” where it is a put option and as “C” where it is a call option; where the instrument has been identified as a future in accordance with point (c), it shall be specified as “F”; (e) exercise date or maturity date of a derivative contract specified in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD standard; (f) the strike price of an option, specified using up to 19 digits including up to five decimals without any leading or trailing zeros. A decimal point shall be used as the decimal separator. Negative values are not allowed. Where the instrument is a future, the strike price shall be populated with zero. (a) unique; (b) neutral; (c) reliable; (d) open source; (e) scalable; (f) accessible; (g) available at a reasonable cost basis; (h) subject to an appropriate governance framework.
(a) financial contract for difference;
(b) forward rate agreement;
(c) forward;
(d) future;
(e) option;
(f) spreadbet;
(g) swap;
(h) swaption;
(i) other.
(a) commodities and emission allowances;
(b) credit;
(c) currency;
(d) equity;
(e) interest rate.
(a) an ISO 6166 International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) code or an Alternative Instrument Identifier code (AII), as applicable, until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(*1);
(b) an ISIN from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.
(a) ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) of the trading venue where the derivative is traded, specified using 4 alphanumeric characters;
(b) Code, which is assigned by the trading venue, uniquely associated with a particular underlying instrument and settlement type and other characteristics of the contract, specified using up to 12 alphanumeric characters;
(c) single character identifying whether the instrument is an option or a future, specified as “O” where it is an option and as “F” where it is a future;
(d) single character identifying whether the option is a put or a call, specified as “P” where it is a put option and as “C” where it is a call option; where the instrument has been identified as a future in accordance with point (c), it shall be specified as “F”;
(e) exercise date or maturity date of a derivative contract specified in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD standard;
(f) the strike price of an option, specified using up to 19 digits including up to five decimals without any leading or trailing zeros. A decimal point shall be used as the decimal separator. Negative values are not allowed. Where the instrument is a future, the strike price shall be populated with zero.
(a) unique;
(b) neutral;
(c) reliable;
(d) open source;
(e) scalable;
(f) accessible;
(g) available at a reasonable cost basis;
(h) subject to an appropriate governance framework.
(a) financial contract for difference;
(b) forward rate agreement;
(c) forward;
(d) future;
(e) option;
(f) spreadbet;
(g) swap;
(h) swaption;
(i) other.
(a) commodities and emission allowances;
(b) credit;
(c) currency;
(d) equity;
(e) interest rate.
(a) an ISO 6166 International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) code or an Alternative Instrument Identifier code (AII), as applicable, until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(*1);
(b) an ISIN from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.
(a) ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) of the trading venue where the derivative is traded, specified using 4 alphanumeric characters;
(b) Code, which is assigned by the trading venue, uniquely associated with a particular underlying instrument and settlement type and other characteristics of the contract, specified using up to 12 alphanumeric characters;
(c) single character identifying whether the instrument is an option or a future, specified as “O” where it is an option and as “F” where it is a future;
(d) single character identifying whether the option is a put or a call, specified as “P” where it is a put option and as “C” where it is a call option; where the instrument has been identified as a future in accordance with point (c), it shall be specified as “F”;
(e) exercise date or maturity date of a derivative contract specified in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD standard;
(f) the strike price of an option, specified using up to 19 digits including up to five decimals without any leading or trailing zeros. A decimal point shall be used as the decimal separator. Negative values are not allowed. Where the instrument is a future, the strike price shall be populated with zero.
(a) unique;
(b) neutral;
(c) reliable;
(d) open source;
(e) scalable;
(f) accessible;
(g) available at a reasonable cost basis;
(h) subject to an appropriate governance framework.
(4) the following Articles 4a and 4b are inserted:‘Article 4aUnique Trade Identifier1.   A report shall be identified through either a global unique trade identifier endorsed by ESMA or, in the absence thereof, a unique trade identifier agreed by the counterparties.2.   Where counterparties fail to agree on the entity responsible for generating the unique trade identifier to be assigned to the report, the counterparties shall determine the entity responsible for generating a unique trade identifier in accordance with the following:(a)for centrally-executed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the central counterparty (CCP) for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty;(b)for centrally-executed but not centrally-cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trading venue of execution for its member;(c)for centrally-confirmed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the CCP for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty;(d)for trades that were centrally-confirmed by electronic means but were not centrally-cleared, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trade confirmation platform at the point of confirmation;(e)for all trades other than those referred to in points (a) to (d), the following shall apply:(i)where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier;(ii)where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier;(iii)for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier.3.   The counterparty generating the unique trade identifier shall communicate that unique trade identifier to the other counterparty in a timely manner so that the latter is able to meet its reporting obligation.Article 4bVenue of executionThe venue of execution of the derivative contract shall be identified in Field 15 of Table 2 of the Annex as follows:(a)until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014:(i)for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA's website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2);(ii)for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site;(b)from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the ISO 10383 MIC.(*2)Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006 of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards recordkeeping obligations for investment firms, transaction reporting, market transparency, admission of financial instruments to trading, and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive (OJ L 241, 2.9.2006, p. 1)’;" (a) for centrally-executed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the central counterparty (CCP) for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty; (b) for centrally-executed but not centrally-cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trading venue of execution for its member; (c) for centrally-confirmed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the CCP for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty; (d) for trades that were centrally-confirmed by electronic means but were not centrally-cleared, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trade confirmation platform at the point of confirmation; (e) for all trades other than those referred to in points (a) to (d), the following shall apply:(i)where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier;(ii)where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier;(iii)for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier. (i) where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier; (ii) where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier; (iii) for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier. (a) until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014:(i)for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA's website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2);(ii)for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site; (i) for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA's website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2); (ii) for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site; (b) from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the ISO 10383 MIC.
(a) for centrally-executed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the central counterparty (CCP) for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty;
(b) for centrally-executed but not centrally-cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trading venue of execution for its member;
(c) for centrally-confirmed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the CCP for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty;
(d) for trades that were centrally-confirmed by electronic means but were not centrally-cleared, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trade confirmation platform at the point of confirmation;
(e) for all trades other than those referred to in points (a) to (d), the following shall apply:(i)where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier;(ii)where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier;(iii)for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier. (i) where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier; (ii) where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier; (iii) for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier.
(i) where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier;
(ii) where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier;
(iii) for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier.
(a) until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014:(i)for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA's website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2);(ii)for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site; (i) for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA's website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2); (ii) for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site;
(i) for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA's website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2);
(ii) for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site;
(b) from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the ISO 10383 MIC.
(a) for centrally-executed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the central counterparty (CCP) for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty;
(b) for centrally-executed but not centrally-cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trading venue of execution for its member;
(c) for centrally-confirmed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the CCP for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty;
(d) for trades that were centrally-confirmed by electronic means but were not centrally-cleared, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trade confirmation platform at the point of confirmation;
(e) for all trades other than those referred to in points (a) to (d), the following shall apply:(i)where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier;(ii)where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier;(iii)for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier. (i) where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier; (ii) where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier; (iii) for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier.
(i) where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier;
(ii) where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier;
(iii) for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier.
(i) where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier;
(ii) where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier;
(iii) for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier.
(a) until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014:(i)for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA's website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2);(ii)for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site; (i) for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA's website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2); (ii) for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site;
(i) for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA's website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2);
(ii) for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site;
(i) for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA's website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2);
(ii) for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site;
(b) from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the ISO 10383 MIC.
(5) in Article 5, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:‘4.   The following derivative contracts which are not outstanding on the commencement date for reporting for a particular derivative class shall be reported to a trade repository within five years of that date:(a)derivative contracts that were entered into before 16 August 2012 and were still outstanding on 16 August 2012;(b)derivative contracts that were entered into on or after 16 August 2012.’; (a) derivative contracts that were entered into before 16 August 2012 and were still outstanding on 16 August 2012; (b) derivative contracts that were entered into on or after 16 August 2012.’;
(a) derivative contracts that were entered into before 16 August 2012 and were still outstanding on 16 August 2012;
(b) derivative contracts that were entered into on or after 16 August 2012.’;
(a) derivative contracts that were entered into before 16 August 2012 and were still outstanding on 16 August 2012;
(b) derivative contracts that were entered into on or after 16 August 2012.’;
(6) the Annex is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Field Format
Parties to the contract
1 Reporting timestamp ISO 8601 date in the format and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ
2 Reporting Counterparty ID ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code.
3 Type of ID of the other Counterparty “LEI” for ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)“CLC” for Client code
4 ID of the other Counterparty ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code.Client code (up to 50 alphanumerical digits).
5 Country of the other Counterparty ISO 3166 — 2 character country code
6 Corporate sector of the reporting counterparty Taxonomy for Financial Counterparties:A = Assurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(1)C = Credit institution authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council(2)F = Investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(3)I = Insurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/ECL = Alternative investment fund managed by Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMs) authorised or registered in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council(4)O = Institution for occupational retirement provision within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(5)R = Reinsurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/ECU = Undertakings for the Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and its management company, authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(6)Taxonomy for Non-Financial Counterparties. The following categories correspond to the main sections of Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community (NACE) as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council(7)1 = Agriculture, forestry and fishing2 = Mining and quarrying3 = Manufacturing4 = Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply5 = Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities6 = Construction7 = Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles8 = Transportation and storage9 = Accommodation and food service activities10 = Information and communication11 = Financial and insurance activities12 = Real estate activities13 = Professional, scientific and technical activities14 = Administrative and support service activities15 = Public administration and defence; compulsory social security16 = Education17 = Human health and social work activities18 = Arts, entertainment and recreation19 = Other service activities20 = Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods — and services — producing activities of households for own use21 = Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodiesWhere more than one activity is reported, list the codes in order of the relative importance of the corresponding activities, separating them with a “-”.Leave blank in the case of CCPs and other type of counterparties in accordance with Article 1(5) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. A = Assurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(1) C = Credit institution authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council(2) F = Investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(3) I = Insurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC L = Alternative investment fund managed by Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMs) authorised or registered in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council(4) O = Institution for occupational retirement provision within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(5) R = Reinsurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC U = Undertakings for the Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and its management company, authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(6) 1 = Agriculture, forestry and fishing 2 = Mining and quarrying 3 = Manufacturing 4 = Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 5 = Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 6 = Construction 7 = Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 8 = Transportation and storage 9 = Accommodation and food service activities 10 = Information and communication 11 = Financial and insurance activities 12 = Real estate activities 13 = Professional, scientific and technical activities 14 = Administrative and support service activities 15 = Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 16 = Education 17 = Human health and social work activities 18 = Arts, entertainment and recreation 19 = Other service activities 20 = Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods — and services — producing activities of households for own use 21 = Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies
A = Assurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(1)
C = Credit institution authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council(2)
F = Investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(3)
I = Insurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC
L = Alternative investment fund managed by Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMs) authorised or registered in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council(4)
O = Institution for occupational retirement provision within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(5)
R = Reinsurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC
U = Undertakings for the Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and its management company, authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(6)
1 = Agriculture, forestry and fishing
2 = Mining and quarrying
3 = Manufacturing
4 = Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
5 = Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
6 = Construction
7 = Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
8 = Transportation and storage
9 = Accommodation and food service activities
10 = Information and communication
11 = Financial and insurance activities
12 = Real estate activities
13 = Professional, scientific and technical activities
14 = Administrative and support service activities
15 = Public administration and defence; compulsory social security
16 = Education
17 = Human health and social work activities
18 = Arts, entertainment and recreation
19 = Other service activities
20 = Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods — and services — producing activities of households for own use
21 = Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies
7 Nature of the reporting counterparty F = Financial CounterpartyN = Non-Financial CounterpartyC = Central CounterpartyO = Other
8 Broker ID ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code.
9 Report submitting entity ID ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code
10 Clearing member ID ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code
11 Type of ID of the Beneficiary “LEI” for ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)“CLC” for Client code
12 Beneficiary ID ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code or up to 50 alphanumerical character client code in the case where the client is not eligible for a Legal Entity Identifier
13 Trading capacity P = PrincipalA = Agent
14 Counterparty side B = BuyerS = SellerPopulated in accordance with Article 3a
15 Directly linked to commercial activity or treasury financing Y = YesN = No
16 Clearing threshold Y = Above the thresholdN = Below the threshold
17 Value of contract Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
18 Currency of the value ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
19 Valuation timestamp ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ
20 Valuation type M = Mark-to-marketO = Mark-to-modelC = CCP's valuation.
21 Collateralisation U = uncollateralisedPC = partially collateralisedOC = one way collateralisedFC = fully collateralisedPopulated in accordance with Article 3b
22 Collateral portfolio Y = YesN = No
23 Collateral portfolio code Up to 52 alphanumerical characters including four special characters: “. – _.”Special characters are not allowed at the beginning and at the end of the code. No space allowed.
24 Initial margin posted Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
25 Currency of the initial margin posted ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
26 Variation margin posted Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
27 Currency of the variation margins posted ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
28 Initial margin received Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
29 Currency of the initial margin received ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
30 Variation margin received Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
31 Currency of the variation margins received ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
32 Excess collateral posted Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
33 Currency of the excess collateral posted ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
34 Excess collateral received Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
35 Currency of the excess collateral received ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
A = Assurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(1)
C = Credit institution authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council(2)
F = Investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(3)
I = Insurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC
L = Alternative investment fund managed by Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMs) authorised or registered in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council(4)
O = Institution for occupational retirement provision within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(5)
R = Reinsurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC
U = Undertakings for the Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and its management company, authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(6)
1 = Agriculture, forestry and fishing
2 = Mining and quarrying
3 = Manufacturing
4 = Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
5 = Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
6 = Construction
7 = Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
8 = Transportation and storage
9 = Accommodation and food service activities
10 = Information and communication
11 = Financial and insurance activities
12 = Real estate activities
13 = Professional, scientific and technical activities
14 = Administrative and support service activities
15 = Public administration and defence; compulsory social security
16 = Education
17 = Human health and social work activities
18 = Arts, entertainment and recreation
19 = Other service activities
20 = Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods — and services — producing activities of households for own use
21 = Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies
Field Format Applicable types of derivative contracts
Section 2a — Contract type All contracts
1 Contract type CD = Financial contracts for differenceFR = Forward rate agreementsFU = FuturesFW = ForwardsOP = OptionSB = SpreadbetSW = SwapST = SwaptionOT = Other
2 Asset class CO = Commodity and emission allowancesCR = CreditCU = CurrencyEQ = EquityIR = Interest Rate
Section 2b — Contract information All contracts
3 Product classification type C = CFIU = UPI
4 Product classification ISO 10692 CFI, 6 characters alphabetical codeEndorsed UPI
5 Product identification type Specify the applicable identification:I = ISINA = AII I = ISIN A = AII
I = ISIN
A = AII
6 Product identification For product identifier type I: ISO 6166 ISIN 12 character alphanumerical codeFor product identifier type A: Complete AII code in accordance with Article 4(8)
7 Underlying identification type I = ISINA = AIIU = UPIB = BasketX = Index
8 Underlying identification For underlying identification type I: ISO 6166 ISIN 12 character alphanumerical codeFor underlying identification type A: complete AII code in accordance with Article 4(8)For underlying identification type U: UPIFor underlying identification type B: all individual components identification through ISO 6166 ISIN or complete AII code in accordance with Article 4(8). Identifiers of individual components shall be separated with a dash “-”.For underlying identification type X: ISO 6166 ISIN if available, otherwise full name of the index as assigned by the index provider
9 Notional currency 1 ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
10 Notional currency 2 ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
11 Deliverable currency ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
Section 2c — Details on the transaction All contracts
12 Trade ID Until global UTI is available, up to 52 alphanumerical character code including four special characters:“. – _.”Special characters are not allowed at the beginning and at the end of the code. No space allowed.
13 Report tracking number An alphanumeric field up to 52 characters
14 Complex trade component ID An alphanumeric field up to 35 characters
15 Venue of execution ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC), 4 alphanumerical characters, in accordance with Article 4(b).
16 Compression Y = contract results from compressionN = contract does not result from compression
17 Price/rate Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.In case the price is reported in percent values, it should be expressed as percentage where 100 % is represented as “100”
18 Price notation U = UnitsP = PercentageY = Yield
19 Currency of price ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetic characters
20 Notional Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
21 Price multiplier Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
22 Quantity Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
23 Up-front payment Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The negative symbol to be used to indicate that the payment was made, not received.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
24 Delivery type C = CashP = PhysicalO = Optional for counterparty or when determined by a third party
25 Execution timestamp ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ
26 Effective date ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY-MM-DD
27 Maturity date ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY-MM-DD
28 Termination date ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY-MM-DD
29 Settlement date ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY-MM-DD
30 Master Agreement type Free Text, field of up to 50 characters, identifying the name of the Master Agreement used, if any
31 Master Agreement version ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY
Section 2d — Risk mitigation/Reporting All contracts
32 Confirmation timestamp ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ
33 Confirmation means Y = Non-electronically confirmedN = Non-confirmedE = Electronically confirmed
Section 2e — Clearing All contracts
34 Clearing obligation Y = YesN = No
35 Cleared Y = YesN = No
36 Clearing timestamp ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ
37 CCP ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)20 alphanumerical character code
38 Intragroup Y = YesN = No
Section 2f — Interest Rates Interest rate derivatives
39 Fixed rate of leg 1 Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals expressed as percentage where 100 % is represented as “100”.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
40 Fixed rate of leg 2 Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals expressed as percentage where 100 % is represented as “100”.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
41 Fixed rate day count leg 1 Numerator/Denominator where both Numerator and Denominator are numerical characters or alphabetic expression “Actual”, e.g. 30/360 or Actual/365
42 Fixed rate day count leg 2 Numerator/Denominator where both Numerator and Denominator are numerical characters or alphabetic expression “Actual”, e.g. 30/360 or Actual/365
43 Fixed rate payment frequency leg 1 –time period Time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments, whereby the following abbreviations apply:Y = YearM = MonthW = WeekD = Day Y = Year M = Month W = Week D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
44 Fixed rate payment frequency leg 1 — multiplier Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments.Up to 3 numerical characters.
45 Fixed rate payment frequency leg 2 — time period Time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments, whereby the following abbreviations apply:Y = YearM = MonthW = WeekD = Day Y = Year M = Month W = Week D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
46 Fixed rate payment frequency leg 2 — multiplier Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments.Up to 3 numerical characters.
47 Floating rate payment frequency leg 1 — time period Time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments, whereby the following abbreviations apply:Y = YearM = MonthW = WeekD = Day Y = Year M = Month W = Week D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
48 Floating rate payment frequency leg 1 — multiplier Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments.Up to 3 numerical characters.
49 Floating rate payment frequency leg 2 — time period Time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments, whereby the following abbreviations apply:Y = YearM = MonthW = WeekD = Day Y = Year M = Month W = Week D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
50 Floating rate payment frequency leg 2 — multiplier Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments.Up to 3 numerical characters.
51 Floating rate reset frequency leg 1 — time period Time period describing how often the counterparties reset the floating rate, whereby the following abbreviations apply:Y = YearM = MonthW = WeekD = Day Y = Year M = Month W = Week D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
52 Floating rate reset frequency leg 1 — multiplier Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties reset the floating rate.Up to 3 numerical characters.
53 Floating rate reset frequency leg 2 — time period Time period describing how often the counterparties reset the floating rate, whereby the following abbreviations apply:Y = YearM = MonthW = WeekD = Day Y = Year M = Month W = Week D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
54 Floating rate reset frequency leg 2 — multiplier Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties reset the floating rate.Up to 3 numerical characters.
55 Floating rate of leg 1 The name of the floating rate index“EONA” — EONIA“EONS” — EONIA SWAP“EURI” — EURIBOR“EUUS” — EURODOLLAR“EUCH” — EuroSwiss“GCFR” — GCF REPO“ISDA” — ISDAFIX“LIBI” — LIBID“LIBO” — LIBOR“MAAA” — Muni AAA“PFAN” — Pfandbriefe“TIBO” — TIBOR“STBO” — STIBOR“BBSW” — BBSW“JIBA” — JIBAR“BUBO” — BUBOR“CDOR” — CDOR“CIBO” — CIBOR“MOSP” — MOSPRIM“NIBO” — NIBOR“PRBO” — PRIBOR“TLBO” — TELBOR“WIBO” — WIBOR“TREA” — Treasury“SWAP” — SWAP“FUSW” — Future SWAPOr up to 25 alphanumerical characters if the reference rate is not included in the above list “EONA” — EONIA “EONS” — EONIA SWAP “EURI” — EURIBOR “EUUS” — EURODOLLAR “EUCH” — EuroSwiss “GCFR” — GCF REPO “ISDA” — ISDAFIX “LIBI” — LIBID “LIBO” — LIBOR “MAAA” — Muni AAA “PFAN” — Pfandbriefe “TIBO” — TIBOR “STBO” — STIBOR “BBSW” — BBSW “JIBA” — JIBAR “BUBO” — BUBOR “CDOR” — CDOR “CIBO” — CIBOR “MOSP” — MOSPRIM “NIBO” — NIBOR “PRBO” — PRIBOR “TLBO” — TELBOR “WIBO” — WIBOR “TREA” — Treasury “SWAP” — SWAP “FUSW” — Future SWAP
“EONA” — EONIA
“EONS” — EONIA SWAP
“EURI” — EURIBOR
“EUUS” — EURODOLLAR
“EUCH” — EuroSwiss
“GCFR” — GCF REPO
“ISDA” — ISDAFIX
“LIBI” — LIBID
“LIBO” — LIBOR
“MAAA” — Muni AAA
“PFAN” — Pfandbriefe
“TIBO” — TIBOR
“STBO” — STIBOR
“BBSW” — BBSW
“JIBA” — JIBAR
“BUBO” — BUBOR
“CDOR” — CDOR
“CIBO” — CIBOR
“MOSP” — MOSPRIM
“NIBO” — NIBOR
“PRBO” — PRIBOR
“TLBO” — TELBOR
“WIBO” — WIBOR
“TREA” — Treasury
“SWAP” — SWAP
“FUSW” — Future SWAP
56 Floating rate reference period leg 1 — time period Time period describing reference period, whereby the following abbreviations apply:Y = YearM = MonthW = WeekD = Day Y = Year M = Month W = Week D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
57 Floating rate reference period leg 1 — multiplier Integer multiplier of the time period describing the reference period.Up to 3 numerical characters.
58 Floating rate of leg 2 The name of the floating rate index“EONA” — EONIA“EONS” — EONIA SWAP“EURI” — EURIBOR“EUUS” — EURODOLLAR“EUCH” — EuroSwiss“GCFR” — GCF REPO“ISDA” — ISDAFIX“LIBI” — LIBID“LIBO” — LIBOR“MAAA” — Muni AAA“PFAN” — Pfandbriefe“TIBO” — TIBOR“STBO” — STIBOR“BBSW” — BBSW“JIBA” — JIBAR“BUBO” — BUBOR“CDOR” — CDOR“CIBO” — CIBOR“MOSP” — MOSPRIM“NIBO” — NIBOR“PRBO” — PRIBOR“TLBO” — TELBOR“WIBO” — WIBOR“TREA” — Treasury“SWAP” — SWAP“FUSW” — Future SWAPOr up to 25 alphanumerical characters if the reference rate is not included in the above list “EONA” — EONIA “EONS” — EONIA SWAP “EURI” — EURIBOR “EUUS” — EURODOLLAR “EUCH” — EuroSwiss “GCFR” — GCF REPO “ISDA” — ISDAFIX “LIBI” — LIBID “LIBO” — LIBOR “MAAA” — Muni AAA “PFAN” — Pfandbriefe “TIBO” — TIBOR “STBO” — STIBOR “BBSW” — BBSW “JIBA” — JIBAR “BUBO” — BUBOR “CDOR” — CDOR “CIBO” — CIBOR “MOSP” — MOSPRIM “NIBO” — NIBOR “PRBO” — PRIBOR “TLBO” — TELBOR “WIBO” — WIBOR “TREA” — Treasury “SWAP” — SWAP “FUSW” — Future SWAP
“EONA” — EONIA
“EONS” — EONIA SWAP
“EURI” — EURIBOR
“EUUS” — EURODOLLAR
“EUCH” — EuroSwiss
“GCFR” — GCF REPO
“ISDA” — ISDAFIX
“LIBI” — LIBID
“LIBO” — LIBOR
“MAAA” — Muni AAA
“PFAN” — Pfandbriefe
“TIBO” — TIBOR
“STBO” — STIBOR
“BBSW” — BBSW
“JIBA” — JIBAR
“BUBO” — BUBOR
“CDOR” — CDOR
“CIBO” — CIBOR
“MOSP” — MOSPRIM
“NIBO” — NIBOR
“PRBO” — PRIBOR
“TLBO” — TELBOR
“WIBO” — WIBOR
“TREA” — Treasury
“SWAP” — SWAP
“FUSW” — Future SWAP
59 Floating rate reference period leg 2 — time period Time period describing reference period, whereby the following abbreviations apply:Y = YearM = MonthW = WeekD = Day Y = Year M = Month W = Week D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
60 Floating rate reference period leg 2 — multiplier Integer multiplier of the time period describing the reference period.Up to 3 numerical characters.
Section 2g — Foreign Exchange Currency derivatives
61 Delivery currency 2 ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical character code
62 Exchange rate 1 Up to 10 numerical digits including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
63 Forward exchange rate Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
64 Exchange rate basis Two ISO 4217 currency codes separated by “/”. First currency code shall indicate the base currency, and the second currency code shall indicate the quote currency.
Section 2h — Commodities and emission allowances Commodity and emission allowance derivatives
General
65 Commodity base AG = AgriculturalEN = EnergyFR = FreightsME = MetalsIN = IndexEV = EnvironmentalEX = ExoticOT = Other
66 Commodity details AgriculturalGO = Grains oilseedsDA = DairyLI = LivestockFO = ForestrySO = SoftsSF = SeafoodOT = OtherEnergyOI = OilNG = Natural gasCO = CoalEL = ElectricityIE = Inter-energyOT = OtherFreightsDR = DryWT = WetOT = OtherMetalsPR = PreciousNP = Non-preciousEnvironmentalWE = WeatherEM = EmissionsOT = Other GO = Grains oilseeds DA = Dairy LI = Livestock FO = Forestry SO = Softs SF = Seafood OT = Other OI = Oil NG = Natural gas CO = Coal EL = Electricity IE = Inter-energy OT = Other DR = Dry WT = Wet OT = Other PR = Precious NP = Non-precious WE = Weather EM = Emissions OT = Other
GO = Grains oilseeds
DA = Dairy
LI = Livestock
FO = Forestry
SO = Softs
SF = Seafood
OT = Other
OI = Oil
NG = Natural gas
CO = Coal
EL = Electricity
IE = Inter-energy
OT = Other
DR = Dry
WT = Wet
OT = Other
PR = Precious
NP = Non-precious
WE = Weather
EM = Emissions
OT = Other
Energy
67 Delivery point or zone EIC code, 16 character alphanumeric codeRepeatable field.
68 Interconnection Point EIC code, 16 character alphanumeric code
69 Load type BL = Base LoadPL = Peak LoadOP = Off-PeakBH = Hour/Block HoursSH = ShapedGD = Gas DayOT = Other
Repeatable section of fields 70 — 77
70 Load delivery intervals hh:mmZ
71 Delivery start date and time ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ
72 Delivery end date and time ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ
73 Duration N = MinutesH = HourD = DayW = WeekM = MonthQ = QuarterS = SeasonY = AnnualO = Other
74 Days of the week WD = WeekdaysWN = WeekendMO = MondayTU = TuesdayWE = WednesdayTH = ThursdayFR = FridaySA = SaturdaySU = SundayMultiple values separated by “/” are permitted
75 Delivery capacity Up to 20 numerical digits including decimalsThe decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
76 Quantity Unit KWKWh/hKWh/dMWMWh/hMWh/dGWGWh/hGWh/dTherm/dKTherm/dMTherm/dcm/dmcm/d
77 Price/time interval quantities Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
Section 2i — Options Contracts that contain an option
78 Option type P = PutC = CallO = where it cannot be determined whether it is a call or a put
79 Option exercise style A = AmericanB = BermudanE = EuropeanS = AsianMore than one value is allowed
80 Strike price (cap/floor rate) Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.Where the strike price is reported in percent values, it should be expressed as percentage where 100 % is represented as “100”
81 Strike price notation U = UnitsP = PercentageY = Yield
82 Maturity date of the underlying ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY-MM-DD
Section 2j — Credit derivatives
83 Seniority SNDB = Senior, such as Senior Unsecured Debt (Corporate/Financial), Foreign Currency Sovereign Debt (Government),SBOD = Subordinated, such as Subordinated or Lower Tier 2 Debt (Banks), Junior Subordinated or Upper Tier 2 Debt (Banks),OTHR = Other, such as Preference Shares or Tier 1 Capital (Banks) or other credit derivatives
84 Reference entity ISO 3166 — 2 character country codeorISO 3166-2 — 2 character country code followed by dash “-” and up to 3 alphanumeric character country subdivision codeorISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code
85 Frequency of payment MNTH = MonthlyQURT = QuarterlyMIAN = Semi-annuallyYEAR = Yearly
86 The calculation basis Numerator/Denominator where both, Numerator and Denominator are numerical characters or alphabetic expression “Actual”, e.g. 30/360 or Actual/365
87 Series Integer field up to 5 characters
88 Version Integer field up to 5 characters
89 Index factor Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
90 Tranche T = TranchedU = Untranched
91 Attachment point Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals expressed as a decimal fraction between 0 and 1.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
92 Detachment point Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals expressed as a decimal fraction between 0 and 1.The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
Section 2k — Modifications to the contract
93 Action type N = NewM = ModifyE = ErrorC = Early TerminationR = CorrectionZ = CompressionV = Valuation updateP = Position component
94 Level T = TradeP = Position’
I = ISIN
A = AII
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
“EONA” — EONIA
“EONS” — EONIA SWAP
“EURI” — EURIBOR
“EUUS” — EURODOLLAR
“EUCH” — EuroSwiss
“GCFR” — GCF REPO
“ISDA” — ISDAFIX
“LIBI” — LIBID
“LIBO” — LIBOR
“MAAA” — Muni AAA
“PFAN” — Pfandbriefe
“TIBO” — TIBOR
“STBO” — STIBOR
“BBSW” — BBSW
“JIBA” — JIBAR
“BUBO” — BUBOR
“CDOR” — CDOR
“CIBO” — CIBOR
“MOSP” — MOSPRIM
“NIBO” — NIBOR
“PRBO” — PRIBOR
“TLBO” — TELBOR
“WIBO” — WIBOR
“TREA” — Treasury
“SWAP” — SWAP
“FUSW” — Future SWAP
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
“EONA” — EONIA
“EONS” — EONIA SWAP
“EURI” — EURIBOR
“EUUS” — EURODOLLAR
“EUCH” — EuroSwiss
“GCFR” — GCF REPO
“ISDA” — ISDAFIX
“LIBI” — LIBID
“LIBO” — LIBOR
“MAAA” — Muni AAA
“PFAN” — Pfandbriefe
“TIBO” — TIBOR
“STBO” — STIBOR
“BBSW” — BBSW
“JIBA” — JIBAR
“BUBO” — BUBOR
“CDOR” — CDOR
“CIBO” — CIBOR
“MOSP” — MOSPRIM
“NIBO” — NIBOR
“PRBO” — PRIBOR
“TLBO” — TELBOR
“WIBO” — WIBOR
“TREA” — Treasury
“SWAP” — SWAP
“FUSW” — Future SWAP
Y = Year
M = Month
W = Week
D = Day
GO = Grains oilseeds
DA = Dairy
LI = Livestock
FO = Forestry
SO = Softs
SF = Seafood
OT = Other
OI = Oil
NG = Natural gas
CO = Coal
EL = Electricity
IE = Inter-energy
OT = Other
DR = Dry
WT = Wet
OT = Other
PR = Precious
NP = Non-precious
WE = Weather
EM = Emissions
OT = Other
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories(1)and in particular Article 9(6) thereof,
(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012(2)provides for the use of interim entity identifiers where a legal entity identifier is not available. An infrastructure enabling the attribution of legal entity identifiers to entities has recently become available, and market participants have become familiar with the use of such legal entity identifiers. Therefore, legal entity identifiers should now be the only means allowed for the purpose of identification of legal entities.
(2) Determining whether the reporting counterparty is a buyer or a seller in a contract is particularly complex in the case of swap derivative contracts as such contracts involve the exchange of financial instruments between the parties. Therefore, specific rules should be established in order to ensure the accurate and consistent determination of who are the buyers and who are the sellers in swap derivative contracts.
(3) In order to determine the real exposures of counterparties, competent authorities require complete and accurate information on the collateral exchanged between those counterparties. Accordingly, specific rules ensuring a consistent approach with regard to the reporting of collateralisation for a given derivative contract or portfolio should be determined.
(4) The accurate classification and precise identification of derivatives is essential for the efficient use of data and for the meaningful aggregation of data across trade repositories, and therefore contributes to the objectives of the Financial Stability Board set out in the Feasibility Study on Aggregation of OTC Derivatives Trade Repository Data(3)published on 19 September 2014. Reporting requirements relating to the classification and identification of derivatives should therefore be amended so that this information is available in its entirety to competent authorities.
(5) In order to accommodate for the reporting of new types of derivatives contracts which have become available and are traded on a frequent basis by virtue of financial innovation, swaptions and spreadbets should be added to the list of classes of derivative contracts. More broadly, in view of ongoing financial innovation giving rise to new types of derivative contracts, it is important to ensure that any new types of derivatives contracts that do not fall within an existing classification can nevertheless be reported. Therefore, it is appropriate to maintain the category ‘other’ in the classification of types of derivatives contracts.
(6) Where two counterparties cannot agree on which of them should generate a unique trade identifier within the reporting timeline provided, the correct identification and association of the two reports pertaining to the same transaction may not be possible. It is therefore necessary to establish criteria for the generation of unique trade identifiers so as to avoid counting the same transaction twice.
(7) Counterparties may face significant difficulty in obtaining all of the relevant information with regard to trades that were terminated before the commencement date for reporting. Given the resulting complexity of reporting terminated trades and the fact that such trades do not increase systemic risk, the period for reporting terminated trades should be extended from 3 years to 5 years from the commencement date for reporting.
(8) In order to ensure full harmonisation of the data reported to trade repositories and therefore enable its consistent interpretation and aggregation, the standards and formats to be used in trade reports should be clarified. It is also appropriate to amend the reporting requirements with respect to data formats. Counterparties and trade repositories should therefore be granted sufficient time to take all necessary action to comply with the amended requirements.
(9) Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(10) This Regulation is based on draft implementing technical standards submitted by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to the Commission.
(11) In accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council(4), ESMA has conducted open public consultations on such draft implementing technical standards, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37 of that Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 is amended as follows:
(1)
Article 3 is replaced by the following:
A report shall use a legal entity identifier to identify:
(a)
a beneficiary which is a legal entity;
(b)
a broking entity;
(c)
a CCP;
(d)
a clearing member;
(e)
a counterparty which is a legal entity;
(f)
a submitting entity.’;
(2)
the following Articles 3a and 3b are inserted:
1. The counterparty side to the derivative contract referred to in field 14 of Table 1 of the Annex shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 10.
2. In the case of options and swaptions, the counterparty that holds the right to exercise the option shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that sells the option and receives a premium shall be identified as the seller.
3. In the case of futures and forwards other than futures and forwards relating to currencies, the counterparty buying the instrument shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty selling the instrument shall be identified as the seller.
4. In the case of swaps related to securities, the counterparty that bears the risk of price movement of the underlying security and receives the security amount shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that pays the security amount shall be identified as the seller.
5. In the case of swaps related to interest rates or inflation indices, the counterparty paying the fixed rate shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty receiving the fixed rate shall be identified as the seller. In the case of basis swaps, the counterparty that pays the spread shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that receives the spread shall be identified as the seller.
6. In the case of cross-currency swaps and swaps and forwards related to currencies, the counterparty receiving the currency which appears first when sorted alphabetically by International Organization for Standardization (ISO 4217) standard shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty delivering that currency shall be identified as the seller.
7. In the case of swaps related to dividends, the counterparty receiving the equivalent actual dividend payments shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty paying the dividend and receiving the fixed rate shall be identified as the seller.
8. With the exception of options and swaptions, in the case of derivative instruments for the transfer of credit risk, the counterparty buying the protection shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty selling the protection shall be identified as the seller.
9. In the case of derivative contracts relating to commodities, the counterparty that receives the commodity specified in the report shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that delivers the commodity shall be identified as the seller.
10. In the case of forward-rate agreements, the counterparty paying the fixed rate shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty receiving the fixed rate shall be identified as the seller.
1. The type of collateralisation of the derivative contract referred to in Field 21 of Table 1 of the Annex shall be identified by the reporting counterparty in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5.
2. Where no collateral agreement exists between the counterparties or where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that the reporting counterparty does not post neither initial margin nor variation margin with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as uncollateralised;
3. Where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that the reporting counterparty only posts regularly variation margins with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as partially collateralised;
4. Where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that the reporting counterparty posts the initial margin and regularly posts variation margins and that the other counterparty either posts only variation margins or does not post any margins with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as one-way collateralised;
5. Where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that both counterparties post initial margin and regularly post variation margins with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as fully collateralised’;
(3)
Article 4 is replaced by the following:
1. A report shall specify a derivative on the basis of contract type and asset class in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.
2. The derivative shall be specified in Field 1 of Table 2 of the Annex as one of the following contract types:
(a)
financial contract for difference;
(b)
forward rate agreement;
(c)
forward;
(d)
future;
(e)
option;
(f)
spreadbet;
(g)
swap;
(h)
swaption;
(i)
other.
3. The derivative shall be specified in Field 2 of Table 2 of the Annex as one of the following asset classes:
(a)
commodities and emission allowances;
(b)
credit;
(c)
currency;
(d)
equity;
(e)
interest rate.
4. Where derivatives do not fall within one of the asset classes specified in paragraph 3, the counterparties shall specify in the report the asset class most closely resembling the derivative. Both counterparties shall specify the same asset class.
5. The derivative shall be identified in Field 6 of Table 2 of the Annex using the following, where available:
(a)
an ISO 6166 International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) code or an Alternative Instrument Identifier code (AII), as applicable, until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(*1);
(b)
an ISIN from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.
Where an AII code is used, the complete AII code shall be used.
6. The complete AII code referred to in paragraph 5 shall be the result of the concatenation of the following six elements:
(a)
ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) of the trading venue where the derivative is traded, specified using 4 alphanumeric characters;
(b)
Code, which is assigned by the trading venue, uniquely associated with a particular underlying instrument and settlement type and other characteristics of the contract, specified using up to 12 alphanumeric characters;
(c)
single character identifying whether the instrument is an option or a future, specified as “O” where it is an option and as “F” where it is a future;
(d)
single character identifying whether the option is a put or a call, specified as “P” where it is a put option and as “C” where it is a call option; where the instrument has been identified as a future in accordance with point (c), it shall be specified as “F”;
(e)
exercise date or maturity date of a derivative contract specified in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD standard;
(f)
the strike price of an option, specified using up to 19 digits including up to five decimals without any leading or trailing zeros. A decimal point shall be used as the decimal separator. Negative values are not allowed. Where the instrument is a future, the strike price shall be populated with zero.
7. The derivative shall be classified in Field 4 of Table 2 of the Annex using an ISO 10692 Classification of Financial Instrument (CFI) code for products identified through an ISO 6166 ISIN code or an AII code.
8. Derivatives for which an ISO 6166 ISIN code or an AII code are not available shall be classified by means of a designated code. That code shall be:
(a)
unique;
(b)
neutral;
(c)
reliable;
(d)
open source;
(e)
scalable;
(f)
accessible;
(g)
available at a reasonable cost basis;
(h)
subject to an appropriate governance framework.
9. Until the code referred to in paragraph 8 is endorsed by ESMA, derivatives for which an ISO 6166 ISIN code or an AII code are not available shall be classified using an ISO 10692 CFI code.
(4)
the following Articles 4a and 4b are inserted:
1. A report shall be identified through either a global unique trade identifier endorsed by ESMA or, in the absence thereof, a unique trade identifier agreed by the counterparties.
2. Where counterparties fail to agree on the entity responsible for generating the unique trade identifier to be assigned to the report, the counterparties shall determine the entity responsible for generating a unique trade identifier in accordance with the following:
(a)
for centrally-executed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the central counterparty (CCP) for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty;
(b)
for centrally-executed but not centrally-cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trading venue of execution for its member;
(c)
for centrally-confirmed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the CCP for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty;
(d)
for trades that were centrally-confirmed by electronic means but were not centrally-cleared, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trade confirmation platform at the point of confirmation;
(e)
for all trades other than those referred to in points (a) to (d), the following shall apply:
(i)
where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier;
(ii)
where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier;
(iii)
for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier.
3. The counterparty generating the unique trade identifier shall communicate that unique trade identifier to the other counterparty in a timely manner so that the latter is able to meet its reporting obligation.
The venue of execution of the derivative contract shall be identified in Field 15 of Table 2 of the Annex as follows:
(a)
until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014:
(i)
for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA’s website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2);
(ii)
for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site;
(b)
from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the ISO 10383 MIC.
(5)
in Article 5, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:
‘4. The following derivative contracts which are not outstanding on the commencement date for reporting for a particular derivative class shall be reported to a trade repository within five years of that date:
(a)
derivative contracts that were entered into before 16 August 2012 and were still outstanding on 16 August 2012;
(b)
derivative contracts that were entered into on or after 16 August 2012.’;
(6)
the Annex is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 November 2017, with the exception of Article 1(5), which shall apply from the date of entry into force.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories(1)and in particular Article 9(6) thereof,
(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012(2)provides for the use of interim entity identifiers where a legal entity identifier is not available. An infrastructure enabling the attribution of legal entity identifiers to entities has recently become available, and market participants have become familiar with the use of such legal entity identifiers. Therefore, legal entity identifiers should now be the only means allowed for the purpose of identification of legal entities.
(2) Determining whether the reporting counterparty is a buyer or a seller in a contract is particularly complex in the case of swap derivative contracts as such contracts involve the exchange of financial instruments between the parties. Therefore, specific rules should be established in order to ensure the accurate and consistent determination of who are the buyers and who are the sellers in swap derivative contracts.
(3) In order to determine the real exposures of counterparties, competent authorities require complete and accurate information on the collateral exchanged between those counterparties. Accordingly, specific rules ensuring a consistent approach with regard to the reporting of collateralisation for a given derivative contract or portfolio should be determined.
(4) The accurate classification and precise identification of derivatives is essential for the efficient use of data and for the meaningful aggregation of data across trade repositories, and therefore contributes to the objectives of the Financial Stability Board set out in the Feasibility Study on Aggregation of OTC Derivatives Trade Repository Data(3)published on 19 September 2014. Reporting requirements relating to the classification and identification of derivatives should therefore be amended so that this information is available in its entirety to competent authorities.
(5) In order to accommodate for the reporting of new types of derivatives contracts which have become available and are traded on a frequent basis by virtue of financial innovation, swaptions and spreadbets should be added to the list of classes of derivative contracts. More broadly, in view of ongoing financial innovation giving rise to new types of derivative contracts, it is important to ensure that any new types of derivatives contracts that do not fall within an existing classification can nevertheless be reported. Therefore, it is appropriate to maintain the category ‘other’ in the classification of types of derivatives contracts.
(6) Where two counterparties cannot agree on which of them should generate a unique trade identifier within the reporting timeline provided, the correct identification and association of the two reports pertaining to the same transaction may not be possible. It is therefore necessary to establish criteria for the generation of unique trade identifiers so as to avoid counting the same transaction twice.
(7) Counterparties may face significant difficulty in obtaining all of the relevant information with regard to trades that were terminated before the commencement date for reporting. Given the resulting complexity of reporting terminated trades and the fact that such trades do not increase systemic risk, the period for reporting terminated trades should be extended from 3 years to 5 years from the commencement date for reporting.
(8) In order to ensure full harmonisation of the data reported to trade repositories and therefore enable its consistent interpretation and aggregation, the standards and formats to be used in trade reports should be clarified. It is also appropriate to amend the reporting requirements with respect to data formats. Counterparties and trade repositories should therefore be granted sufficient time to take all necessary action to comply with the amended requirements.
(9) Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(10) This Regulation is based on draft implementing technical standards submitted by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to the Commission.
(11) In accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council(4), ESMA has conducted open public consultations on such draft implementing technical standards, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37 of that Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 is amended as follows:
(1)
Article 3 is replaced by the following:
A report shall use a legal entity identifier to identify:
(a)
a beneficiary which is a legal entity;
(b)
a broking entity;
(c)
a CCP;
(d)
a clearing member;
(e)
a counterparty which is a legal entity;
(f)
a submitting entity.’;
(2)
the following Articles 3a and 3b are inserted:
1. The counterparty side to the derivative contract referred to in field 14 of Table 1 of the Annex shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 10.
2. In the case of options and swaptions, the counterparty that holds the right to exercise the option shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that sells the option and receives a premium shall be identified as the seller.
3. In the case of futures and forwards other than futures and forwards relating to currencies, the counterparty buying the instrument shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty selling the instrument shall be identified as the seller.
4. In the case of swaps related to securities, the counterparty that bears the risk of price movement of the underlying security and receives the security amount shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that pays the security amount shall be identified as the seller.
5. In the case of swaps related to interest rates or inflation indices, the counterparty paying the fixed rate shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty receiving the fixed rate shall be identified as the seller. In the case of basis swaps, the counterparty that pays the spread shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that receives the spread shall be identified as the seller.
6. In the case of cross-currency swaps and swaps and forwards related to currencies, the counterparty receiving the currency which appears first when sorted alphabetically by International Organization for Standardization (ISO 4217) standard shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty delivering that currency shall be identified as the seller.
7. In the case of swaps related to dividends, the counterparty receiving the equivalent actual dividend payments shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty paying the dividend and receiving the fixed rate shall be identified as the seller.
8. With the exception of options and swaptions, in the case of derivative instruments for the transfer of credit risk, the counterparty buying the protection shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty selling the protection shall be identified as the seller.
9. In the case of derivative contracts relating to commodities, the counterparty that receives the commodity specified in the report shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty that delivers the commodity shall be identified as the seller.
10. In the case of forward-rate agreements, the counterparty paying the fixed rate shall be identified as the buyer and the counterparty receiving the fixed rate shall be identified as the seller.
1. The type of collateralisation of the derivative contract referred to in Field 21 of Table 1 of the Annex shall be identified by the reporting counterparty in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5.
2. Where no collateral agreement exists between the counterparties or where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that the reporting counterparty does not post neither initial margin nor variation margin with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as uncollateralised;
3. Where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that the reporting counterparty only posts regularly variation margins with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as partially collateralised;
4. Where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that the reporting counterparty posts the initial margin and regularly posts variation margins and that the other counterparty either posts only variation margins or does not post any margins with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as one-way collateralised;
5. Where the collateral agreement between the counterparties stipulates that both counterparties post initial margin and regularly post variation margins with respect to the derivative contract, the type of collateralisation of the derivative contract shall be identified as fully collateralised’;
(3)
Article 4 is replaced by the following:
1. A report shall specify a derivative on the basis of contract type and asset class in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.
2. The derivative shall be specified in Field 1 of Table 2 of the Annex as one of the following contract types:
(a)
financial contract for difference;
(b)
forward rate agreement;
(c)
forward;
(d)
future;
(e)
option;
(f)
spreadbet;
(g)
swap;
(h)
swaption;
(i)
other.
3. The derivative shall be specified in Field 2 of Table 2 of the Annex as one of the following asset classes:
(a)
commodities and emission allowances;
(b)
credit;
(c)
currency;
(d)
equity;
(e)
interest rate.
4. Where derivatives do not fall within one of the asset classes specified in paragraph 3, the counterparties shall specify in the report the asset class most closely resembling the derivative. Both counterparties shall specify the same asset class.
5. The derivative shall be identified in Field 6 of Table 2 of the Annex using the following, where available:
(a)
an ISO 6166 International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) code or an Alternative Instrument Identifier code (AII), as applicable, until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(*1);
(b)
an ISIN from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.
Where an AII code is used, the complete AII code shall be used.
6. The complete AII code referred to in paragraph 5 shall be the result of the concatenation of the following six elements:
(a)
ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) of the trading venue where the derivative is traded, specified using 4 alphanumeric characters;
(b)
Code, which is assigned by the trading venue, uniquely associated with a particular underlying instrument and settlement type and other characteristics of the contract, specified using up to 12 alphanumeric characters;
(c)
single character identifying whether the instrument is an option or a future, specified as “O” where it is an option and as “F” where it is a future;
(d)
single character identifying whether the option is a put or a call, specified as “P” where it is a put option and as “C” where it is a call option; where the instrument has been identified as a future in accordance with point (c), it shall be specified as “F”;
(e)
exercise date or maturity date of a derivative contract specified in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD standard;
(f)
the strike price of an option, specified using up to 19 digits including up to five decimals without any leading or trailing zeros. A decimal point shall be used as the decimal separator. Negative values are not allowed. Where the instrument is a future, the strike price shall be populated with zero.
7. The derivative shall be classified in Field 4 of Table 2 of the Annex using an ISO 10692 Classification of Financial Instrument (CFI) code for products identified through an ISO 6166 ISIN code or an AII code.
8. Derivatives for which an ISO 6166 ISIN code or an AII code are not available shall be classified by means of a designated code. That code shall be:
(a)
unique;
(b)
neutral;
(c)
reliable;
(d)
open source;
(e)
scalable;
(f)
accessible;
(g)
available at a reasonable cost basis;
(h)
subject to an appropriate governance framework.
9. Until the code referred to in paragraph 8 is endorsed by ESMA, derivatives for which an ISO 6166 ISIN code or an AII code are not available shall be classified using an ISO 10692 CFI code.
(4)
the following Articles 4a and 4b are inserted:
1. A report shall be identified through either a global unique trade identifier endorsed by ESMA or, in the absence thereof, a unique trade identifier agreed by the counterparties.
2. Where counterparties fail to agree on the entity responsible for generating the unique trade identifier to be assigned to the report, the counterparties shall determine the entity responsible for generating a unique trade identifier in accordance with the following:
(a)
for centrally-executed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the central counterparty (CCP) for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty;
(b)
for centrally-executed but not centrally-cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trading venue of execution for its member;
(c)
for centrally-confirmed and cleared trades, the unique trade identifier shall be generated at the point of clearing by the CCP for the clearing member. Another unique trade identifier shall be generated by the clearing member for its counterparty;
(d)
for trades that were centrally-confirmed by electronic means but were not centrally-cleared, the unique trade identifier shall be generated by the trade confirmation platform at the point of confirmation;
(e)
for all trades other than those referred to in points (a) to (d), the following shall apply:
(i)
where financial counterparties trade with non-financial counterparties, the financial counterparties shall generate the unique trade identifier;
(ii)
where non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold trade with non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold, those non-financial counterparties above the clearing threshold shall generate the unique trade identifier;
(iii)
for all trades other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii), the seller shall generate the unique trade identifier.
3. The counterparty generating the unique trade identifier shall communicate that unique trade identifier to the other counterparty in a timely manner so that the latter is able to meet its reporting obligation.
The venue of execution of the derivative contract shall be identified in Field 15 of Table 2 of the Annex as follows:
(a)
until the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014:
(i)
for a venue of execution inside the Union, the ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC) published on ESMA’s website in the register set up on the basis of information provided by competent authorities pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006(*2);
(ii)
for a venue of execution outside the Union, the ISO 10383 MIC included in the list of MIC codes maintained and updated by ISO and published at ISO web site;
(b)
from the date of application of the delegated act adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the ISO 10383 MIC.
(5)
in Article 5, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:
‘4. The following derivative contracts which are not outstanding on the commencement date for reporting for a particular derivative class shall be reported to a trade repository within five years of that date:
(a)
derivative contracts that were entered into before 16 August 2012 and were still outstanding on 16 August 2012;
(b)
derivative contracts that were entered into on or after 16 August 2012.’;
(6)
the Annex is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 November 2017, with the exception of Article 1(5), which shall apply from the date of entry into force.
ANNEX
‘ANNEX
Table 1
Counterparty Data

Field
Format

Parties to the contract
1
Reporting timestamp
ISO 8601 date in the format and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ
2
Reporting Counterparty ID
ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code.
3
Type of ID of the other Counterparty
“LEI” for ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)
“CLC” for Client code
4
ID of the other Counterparty
ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code.
Client code (up to 50 alphanumerical digits).
5
Country of the other Counterparty
ISO 3166 — 2 character country code
6
Corporate sector of the reporting counterparty
Taxonomy for Financial Counterparties:

A = Assurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)
C = Credit institution authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (2)
F = Investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3)
I = Insurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC

L = Alternative investment fund managed by Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMs) authorised or registered in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (4)
O = Institution for occupational retirement provision within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5)
R = Reinsurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC

U = Undertakings for the Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and its management company, authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) Taxonomy for Non-Financial Counterparties. The following categories correspond to the main sections of Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community (NACE) as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7)
1 = Agriculture, forestry and fishing

2 = Mining and quarrying

3 = Manufacturing

4 = Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply

5 = Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities

6 = Construction

7 = Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles

8 = Transportation and storage

9 = Accommodation and food service activities

10 = Information and communication

11 = Financial and insurance activities

12 = Real estate activities

13 = Professional, scientific and technical activities

14 = Administrative and support service activities

15 = Public administration and defence; compulsory social security

16 = Education

17 = Human health and social work activities

18 = Arts, entertainment and recreation

19 = Other service activities

20 = Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods — and services — producing activities of households for own use

21 = Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies
Where more than one activity is reported, list the codes in order of the relative importance of the corresponding activities, separating them with a “-”.
Leave blank in the case of CCPs and other type of counterparties in accordance with Article 1(5) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. 7
Nature of the reporting counterparty
F = Financial Counterparty
N = Non-Financial Counterparty
C = Central Counterparty
O = Other
8
Broker ID
ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code.
9
Report submitting entity ID
ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code
10
Clearing member ID
ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code
11
Type of ID of the Beneficiary
“LEI” for ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)
“CLC” for Client code
12
Beneficiary ID
ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code or up to 50 alphanumerical character client code in the case where the client is not eligible for a Legal Entity Identifier
13
Trading capacity
P = Principal
A = Agent
14
Counterparty side
B = Buyer
S = Seller
Populated in accordance with Article 3a
15
Directly linked to commercial activity or treasury financing
Y = Yes
N = No
16
Clearing threshold
Y = Above the threshold
N = Below the threshold
17
Value of contract
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
18
Currency of the value
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
19
Valuation timestamp
ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ
20
Valuation type
M = Mark-to-market
O = Mark-to-model
C = CCP’s valuation.
21
Collateralisation
U = uncollateralised
PC = partially collateralised
OC = one way collateralised
FC = fully collateralised
Populated in accordance with Article 3b
22
Collateral portfolio
Y = Yes
N = No
23
Collateral portfolio code
Up to 52 alphanumerical characters including four special characters: “. – _.”
Special characters are not allowed at the beginning and at the end of the code. No space allowed.
24
Initial margin posted
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
25
Currency of the initial margin posted
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
26
Variation margin posted
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
27
Currency of the variation margins posted
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
28
Initial margin received
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
29
Currency of the initial margin received
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
30
Variation margin received
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
31
Currency of the variation margins received
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
32
Excess collateral posted
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
33
Currency of the excess collateral posted
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
34
Excess collateral received
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
35
Currency of the excess collateral received
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters
Table 2
Common Data

Field
Format
Applicable types of derivative contracts

Section 2a — Contract type

All contracts
1
Contract type
CD = Financial contracts for difference
FR = Forward rate agreements
FU = Futures
FW = Forwards
OP = Option
SB = Spreadbet
SW = Swap
ST = Swaption
OT = Other

2
Asset class
CO = Commodity and emission allowances
CR = Credit
CU = Currency
EQ = Equity
IR = Interest Rate

Section 2b — Contract information

All contracts
3
Product classification type
C = CFI
U = UPI

4
Product classification
ISO 10692 CFI, 6 characters alphabetical code
Endorsed UPI

5
Product identification type
Specify the applicable identification:

I = ISIN

A = AII

6
Product identification
For product identifier type I: ISO 6166 ISIN 12 character alphanumerical code
For product identifier type A: Complete AII code in accordance with Article 4(8)
7
Underlying identification type
I = ISIN
A = AII
U = UPI
B = Basket
X = Index

8
Underlying identification
For underlying identification type I: ISO 6166 ISIN 12 character alphanumerical code
For underlying identification type A: complete AII code in accordance with Article 4(8) For underlying identification type U: UPI
For underlying identification type B: all individual components identification through ISO 6166 ISIN or complete AII code in accordance with Article 4(8). Identifiers of individual components shall be separated with a dash “-”.
For underlying identification type X: ISO 6166 ISIN if available, otherwise full name of the index as assigned by the index provider

9
Notional currency 1
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters

10
Notional currency 2
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters

11
Deliverable currency
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical characters

Section 2c — Details on the transaction

All contracts
12
Trade ID
Until global UTI is available, up to 52 alphanumerical character code including four special characters:“. – _.”
Special characters are not allowed at the beginning and at the end of the code. No space allowed.

13
Report tracking number
An alphanumeric field up to 52 characters

14
Complex trade component ID
An alphanumeric field up to 35 characters

15
Venue of execution
ISO 10383 Market Identifier Code (MIC), 4 alphanumerical characters, in accordance with Article 4(b).

16
Compression
Y = contract results from compression
N = contract does not result from compression

17
Price/rate
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
In case the price is reported in percent values, it should be expressed as percentage where 100 % is represented as “100”

18
Price notation
U = Units
P = Percentage
Y = Yield

19
Currency of price
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetic characters

20
Notional
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.

21
Price multiplier
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.

22
Quantity
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.

23
Up-front payment
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The negative symbol to be used to indicate that the payment was made, not received.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.

24
Delivery type
C = Cash
P = Physical
O = Optional for counterparty or when determined by a third party

25
Execution timestamp
ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ

26
Effective date
ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY-MM-DD

27
Maturity date
ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY-MM-DD

28
Termination date
ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY-MM-DD

29
Settlement date
ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY-MM-DD

30
Master Agreement type
Free Text, field of up to 50 characters, identifying the name of the Master Agreement used, if any

31
Master Agreement version
ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY

Section 2d — Risk mitigation/Reporting

All contracts
32
Confirmation timestamp
ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ

33
Confirmation means
Y = Non-electronically confirmed
N = Non-confirmed
E = Electronically confirmed

Section 2e — Clearing

All contracts
34
Clearing obligation
Y = Yes
N = No

35
Cleared
Y = Yes
N = No

36
Clearing timestamp
ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ

37
CCP
ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)
20 alphanumerical character code

38
Intragroup
Y = Yes
N = No

Section 2f — Interest Rates

Interest rate derivatives
39
Fixed rate of leg 1
Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals expressed as percentage where 100 % is represented as “100”.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.

40
Fixed rate of leg 2
Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals expressed as percentage where 100 % is represented as “100”.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.

41
Fixed rate day count leg 1
Numerator/Denominator where both Numerator and Denominator are numerical characters or alphabetic expression “Actual”, e.g. 30/360 or Actual/365

42
Fixed rate day count leg 2
Numerator/Denominator where both Numerator and Denominator are numerical characters or alphabetic expression “Actual”, e.g. 30/360 or Actual/365

43
Fixed rate payment frequency leg 1 –time period
Time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments, whereby the following abbreviations apply:

Y = Year

M = Month

W = Week

D = Day

44
Fixed rate payment frequency leg 1 — multiplier
Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments.
Up to 3 numerical characters.

45
Fixed rate payment frequency leg 2 — time period
Time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments, whereby the following abbreviations apply:

Y = Year

M = Month

W = Week

D = Day

46
Fixed rate payment frequency leg 2 — multiplier
Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments.
Up to 3 numerical characters.

47
Floating rate payment frequency leg 1 — time period
Time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments, whereby the following abbreviations apply:

Y = Year

M = Month

W = Week

D = Day

48
Floating rate payment frequency leg 1 — multiplier
Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments.
Up to 3 numerical characters.

49
Floating rate payment frequency leg 2 — time period
Time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments, whereby the following abbreviations apply:

Y = Year

M = Month

W = Week

D = Day

50
Floating rate payment frequency leg 2 — multiplier
Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties exchange payments.
Up to 3 numerical characters.

51
Floating rate reset frequency leg 1 — time period
Time period describing how often the counterparties reset the floating rate, whereby the following abbreviations apply:

Y = Year

M = Month

W = Week

D = Day

52
Floating rate reset frequency leg 1 — multiplier
Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties reset the floating rate.
Up to 3 numerical characters.

53
Floating rate reset frequency leg 2 — time period
Time period describing how often the counterparties reset the floating rate, whereby the following abbreviations apply:

Y = Year

M = Month

W = Week

D = Day

54
Floating rate reset frequency leg 2 — multiplier
Integer multiplier of the time period describing how often the counterparties reset the floating rate.
Up to 3 numerical characters.

55
Floating rate of leg 1
The name of the floating rate index

“EONA” — EONIA

“EONS” — EONIA SWAP

“EURI” — EURIBOR

“EUUS” — EURODOLLAR

“EUCH” — EuroSwiss

“GCFR” — GCF REPO

“ISDA” — ISDAFIX

“LIBI” — LIBID

“LIBO” — LIBOR

“MAAA” — Muni AAA

“PFAN” — Pfandbriefe

“TIBO” — TIBOR

“STBO” — STIBOR

“BBSW” — BBSW

“JIBA” — JIBAR

“BUBO” — BUBOR

“CDOR” — CDOR

“CIBO” — CIBOR

“MOSP” — MOSPRIM

“NIBO” — NIBOR

“PRBO” — PRIBOR

“TLBO” — TELBOR

“WIBO” — WIBOR

“TREA” — Treasury

“SWAP” — SWAP

“FUSW” — Future SWAP
Or up to 25 alphanumerical characters if the reference rate is not included in the above list

56
Floating rate reference period leg 1 — time period
Time period describing reference period, whereby the following abbreviations apply:

Y = Year

M = Month

W = Week

D = Day

57
Floating rate reference period leg 1 — multiplier
Integer multiplier of the time period describing the reference period.
Up to 3 numerical characters.

58
Floating rate of leg 2
The name of the floating rate index

“EONA” — EONIA

“EONS” — EONIA SWAP

“EURI” — EURIBOR

“EUUS” — EURODOLLAR

“EUCH” — EuroSwiss

“GCFR” — GCF REPO

“ISDA” — ISDAFIX

“LIBI” — LIBID

“LIBO” — LIBOR

“MAAA” — Muni AAA

“PFAN” — Pfandbriefe

“TIBO” — TIBOR

“STBO” — STIBOR

“BBSW” — BBSW

“JIBA” — JIBAR

“BUBO” — BUBOR

“CDOR” — CDOR

“CIBO” — CIBOR

“MOSP” — MOSPRIM

“NIBO” — NIBOR

“PRBO” — PRIBOR

“TLBO” — TELBOR

“WIBO” — WIBOR

“TREA” — Treasury

“SWAP” — SWAP

“FUSW” — Future SWAP
Or up to 25 alphanumerical characters if the reference rate is not included in the above list

59
Floating rate reference period leg 2 — time period
Time period describing reference period, whereby the following abbreviations apply:

Y = Year

M = Month

W = Week

D = Day

60
Floating rate reference period leg 2 — multiplier
Integer multiplier of the time period describing the reference period.
Up to 3 numerical characters.

Section 2g — Foreign Exchange

Currency derivatives
61
Delivery currency 2
ISO 4217 Currency Code, 3 alphabetical character code

62
Exchange rate 1
Up to 10 numerical digits including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.

63
Forward exchange rate
Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.

64
Exchange rate basis
Two ISO 4217 currency codes separated by “/”. First currency code shall indicate the base currency, and the second currency code shall indicate the quote currency.

Section 2h — Commodities and emission allowances

Commodity and emission allowance derivatives

General
65
Commodity base
AG = Agricultural
EN = Energy
FR = Freights
ME = Metals
IN = Index
EV = Environmental
EX = Exotic
OT = Other

66
Commodity details
Agricultural

GO = Grains oilseeds

DA = Dairy

LI = Livestock

FO = Forestry

SO = Softs

SF = Seafood

OT = Other
Energy

OI = Oil

NG = Natural gas

CO = Coal

EL = Electricity

IE = Inter-energy

OT = Other
Freights

DR = Dry

WT = Wet

OT = Other
Metals

PR = Precious

NP = Non-precious
Environmental

WE = Weather

EM = Emissions

OT = Other

Energy
67
Delivery point or zone
EIC code, 16 character alphanumeric code
Repeatable field.

68
Interconnection Point
EIC code, 16 character alphanumeric code

69
Load type
BL = Base Load
PL = Peak Load
OP = Off-Peak
BH = Hour/Block Hours
SH = Shaped
GD = Gas Day
OT = Other

Repeatable section of fields 70 — 77
70
Load delivery intervals
hh:mmZ

71
Delivery start date and time
ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ

72
Delivery end date and time
ISO 8601 date in the UTC time format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ

73
Duration
N = Minutes
H = Hour
D = Day
W = Week
M = Month
Q = Quarter
S = Season
Y = Annual
O = Other

74
Days of the week
WD = Weekdays
WN = Weekend
MO = Monday
TU = Tuesday
WE = Wednesday
TH = Thursday
FR = Friday
SA = Saturday
SU = Sunday
Multiple values separated by “/” are permitted

75
Delivery capacity
Up to 20 numerical digits including decimals
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.

76
Quantity Unit
KW
KWh/h
KWh/d
MW
MWh/h
MWh/d
GW
GWh/h
GWh/d
Therm/d
KTherm/d
MTherm/d
cm/d
mcm/d

77
Price/time interval quantities
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.

Section 2i — Options

Contracts that contain an option
78
Option type
P = Put
C = Call
O = where it cannot be determined whether it is a call or a put

79
Option exercise style
A = American
B = Bermudan
E = European
S = Asian
More than one value is allowed

80
Strike price (cap/floor rate)
Up to 20 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.
The negative symbol, if populated, is not counted as a numerical character.
Where the strike price is reported in percent values, it should be expressed as percentage where 100 % is represented as “100”

81
Strike price notation
U = Units
P = Percentage
Y = Yield

82
Maturity date of the underlying
ISO 8601 date in the format YYYY-MM-DD

Section 2j — Credit derivatives

83
Seniority
SNDB = Senior, such as Senior Unsecured Debt (Corporate/Financial), Foreign Currency Sovereign Debt (Government),
SBOD = Subordinated, such as Subordinated or Lower Tier 2 Debt (Banks), Junior Subordinated or Upper Tier 2 Debt (Banks),
OTHR = Other, such as Preference Shares or Tier 1 Capital (Banks) or other credit derivatives

84
Reference entity
ISO 3166 — 2 character country code
or
ISO 3166-2 — 2 character country code followed by dash “-” and up to 3 alphanumeric character country subdivision code
or
ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 20 alphanumerical character code

85
Frequency of payment
MNTH = Monthly
QURT = Quarterly
MIAN = Semi-annually
YEAR = Yearly

86
The calculation basis
Numerator/Denominator where both, Numerator and Denominator are numerical characters or alphabetic expression “Actual”, e.g. 30/360 or Actual/365

87
Series
Integer field up to 5 characters

88
Version
Integer field up to 5 characters

89
Index factor
Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals.
The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.

90
Tranche
T = Tranched
U = Untranched

91
Attachment point
Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals expressed as a decimal fraction between 0 and 1. The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.

92
Detachment point
Up to 10 numerical characters including decimals expressed as a decimal fraction between 0 and 1. The decimal mark is not counted as a numerical character. If populated, it shall be represented by a dot.

Section 2k — Modifications to the contract

93
Action type
N = New
M = Modify
E = Error
C = Early Termination
R = Correction
Z = Compression
V = Valuation update
P = Position component

94
Level
T = Trade
P = Position’

(1) Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p. 1).
(2) Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 338).
(3) Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p. 1).
(4) Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010 (OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 1).
(5) Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (OJ L 235, 23.9.2003, p. 10).
(6) Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (OJ L 302, 17.11.2009, p. 32).
(7) Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 as well as certain EC Regulations on specific statistical domains (OJ L 393, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

Pending: 32017R0086

18.1.2017 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 14/4
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 aims to progressively eliminate discards in all Union fisheries through the introduction of a landing obligation.
(2) Article 15(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 empowers the Commission to adopt discard plans by means of delegated acts for a period of no more than three years on the basis of joint recommendations developed by Member States in consultation with the relevant Advisory Councils.
(3) Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia have a direct fisheries management interest in the Mediterranean Sea. On 4 and 7 July 2016 those Member States have submitted three joint recommendations to the Commission concerning discard plans for demersal fisheries in the Adriatic Sea, the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea and the western Mediterranean Sea, respectively(2), after consultation of the Mediterranean Sea Advisory Council. Scientific contribution was obtained from relevant scientific bodies. In line with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, only those measures in the joint recommendations which comply with Article 15(6) of that Regulation should be included in this Regulation.
(4) As regards the Mediterranean Sea, Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 establishes a landing obligation for all catches of species which are subject to catch limits and also for catches of species which are subject to minimum sizes as defined in Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006(3). According to Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the landing obligation should apply to species which define the fisheries at the latest from 1 January 2017.
(5) The joint recommendations suggested that an exemption from the landing obligation be applied to common sole (Solea solea) in the Adriatic Sea and the mollusc bivalves scallop (Pecten jacobeus), carpet clams (Venerupisspp.) and Venus shells (Venusspp.) in the western Mediterranean Sea, as high survival rates can occur, taking into account the characteristics of the gear, of the fishing practices and of the ecosystem.
(6) The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) concludes in its evaluation(4)that more studies are needed to corroborate the existing findings related to high survivability of the common sole, scallop, carpet clams and Venus shells. As there are no conclusive evidences on the survival rates of these species, the Commission considers that the survivability exemption allowed under Article 15(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 should be included in this Regulation for one year only. The Member States concerned should submit relevant data to the Commission to allow STECF to fully assess the justifications for the exemption and the Commission to review the relevant exemptions.
(7) Based on the scientific evidences provided in the joint recommendation, the revision by the STECF and taking into account the characteristics of the gears, the high number of species in each fishing operations, the fishing patterns and the particularities of the Mediterranean Sea (e.g. predominance of small-scale fisheries), the Commission considers that, in order to avoid disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches and in accordance with Article 15(5)(c)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, it is appropriate to establish ade minimisexemption in accordance with the percentage level proposed in the joint recommendations, within the limits set out in Article 15(5)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
(8) In order to ensure appropriate control, specific requirements for the Member States to establish lists of vessels covered by this Regulation should be laid down.
(9) Since the measures provided for in this Regulation have a direct impact on the economic activities linked to and the planning of the fishing season of Union vessels, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication. In accordance with the joint recommendations and taking into account the time-frame set out in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2017,
(a) ‘Mediterranean Sea’ means maritime waters of the Mediterranean to the east of line 5°36′ West;
(b) ‘GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas’ (GSAs) means General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) Geographical Sub-Areas as defined in the Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council(5);
(c) ‘Western Mediterranean Sea’ means GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11;
(d) ‘Adriatic Sea’ means GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas 17 and 18;
(e) ‘South-eastern Mediterranean Sea’ means GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 25.
(a) common sole (Solea solea) caught with rapido (beam trawl), (TBB)(6)in GSAs 17 and 18;
(b) scallop (Pecten jacobeus) caught with mechanised dredges (HMD) in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6;
(c) carpet clams (Venerupisspp.) caught with mechanised dredges (HMD) in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6;
(d) Venus shells (Venusspp.) caught with mechanised dredges (HMD) in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6.
(a) in the western Mediterranean Sea (point 1 of the Annex):(i)for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets; and(ii)for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets; (i) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets; and (ii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets;
(i) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets; and
(ii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets;
(i) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets; and
(ii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets;
(b) in the Adriatic Sea (point 2 of the Annex):(i)for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets;(ii)for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets;(iii)for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using rapido (beam trawl);(iv)for common sole (Solea solea), up to 3 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 2 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets; and(v)for common sole (Solea solea), 0 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using gillnets; (i) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets; (ii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets; (iii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using rapido (beam trawl); (iv) for common sole (Solea solea), up to 3 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 2 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets; and (v) for common sole (Solea solea), 0 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using gillnets;
(i) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets;
(ii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets;
(iii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using rapido (beam trawl);
(iv) for common sole (Solea solea), up to 3 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 2 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets; and
(v) for common sole (Solea solea), 0 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using gillnets;
(i) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets;
(ii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets;
(iii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using rapido (beam trawl);
(iv) for common sole (Solea solea), up to 3 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 2 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets; and
(v) for common sole (Solea solea), 0 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using gillnets;
(c) in the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea (point 3 of the Annex):(i)for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets;(ii)for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets; and(iii)for deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), up to 7 % for 2017and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets. (i) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets; (ii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets; and (iii) for deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), up to 7 % for 2017and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets.
(i) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets;
(ii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets; and
(iii) for deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), up to 7 % for 2017and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets.
(i) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets;
(ii) for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets; and
(iii) for deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), up to 7 % for 2017and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets.
Fisheries Fishing gear Landing obligation
Hake (Merluccius merluccius) All bottom trawls(OTB, OTT, PTB, TBN, TBS, TB, OT, PT, TX) Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2014 and 2015 consist of more than 25 % of hake, the landing obligation shall apply to hake.
All longlines(LL, LLS, LLD, LX, LTL, LHP, LHM)
All gillnets and trammel nets(GNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN)
Red mullet (Mullus barbatus) All bottom trawls(OTB, OTT, PTB, TBN, TBS, TB, OT, PT, TX) Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2014 and 2015 consist of more than 25 % of red mullet, the landing obligation shall apply to red mullet.
All longlines(LL, LLS, LLD, LX, LTL, LHP, LHM)
All gillnets and trammel nets(GNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN)
Scallop (Pecten jacobeus), Carpet clams (Venerupisspp.), Venus shells (Venusspp.) in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6 HMD All mechanised dredges.
Fisheries Fishing gear Landing obligation
Hake (Merluccius merluccius), Red mullet (Mullus barbatus), Common sole (Solea solea) All bottom trawls(OTB, OTT, PTB, TBN, TBS, TB, OT, PT, TX, TBB) Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2014 and 2015 consist of more than 25 % of either hake, or red mullet, or common sole, the landing obligation shall apply to hake, or red mullet, or common sole, or all together.
All gillnets and trammel nets(GNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN)
Fisheries Fishing gear Landing obligation
Hake (Merluccius merluccius), Red mullet (Mullus barbatus), Deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) All bottom trawls(OTB, OTT, PTB, TBN, TBS, TB, OT, PT, TX) Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2014 and 2015 consist of more than 25 % of either hake, or red mullet, or deep-water rose shrimp, the landing obligation shall apply to hake, or red mullet, or deep-water rose shrimp, or all together.
All gillnets and trammel nets(GNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC(1), and in particular Article 15(6) thereof,
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 aims to progressively eliminate discards in all Union fisheries through the introduction of a landing obligation.
(2) Article 15(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 empowers the Commission to adopt discard plans by means of delegated acts for a period of no more than three years on the basis of joint recommendations developed by Member States in consultation with the relevant Advisory Councils.
(3) Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia have a direct fisheries management interest in the Mediterranean Sea. On 4 and 7 July 2016 those Member States have submitted three joint recommendations to the Commission concerning discard plans for demersal fisheries in the Adriatic Sea, the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea and the western Mediterranean Sea, respectively(2), after consultation of the Mediterranean Sea Advisory Council. Scientific contribution was obtained from relevant scientific bodies. In line with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, only those measures in the joint recommendations which comply with Article 15(6) of that Regulation should be included in this Regulation.
(4) As regards the Mediterranean Sea, Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 establishes a landing obligation for all catches of species which are subject to catch limits and also for catches of species which are subject to minimum sizes as defined in Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006(3). According to Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the landing obligation should apply to species which define the fisheries at the latest from 1 January 2017.
(5) The joint recommendations suggested that an exemption from the landing obligation be applied to common sole (Solea solea) in the Adriatic Sea and the mollusc bivalves scallop (Pecten jacobeus), carpet clams (Venerupisspp.) and Venus shells (Venusspp.) in the western Mediterranean Sea, as high survival rates can occur, taking into account the characteristics of the gear, of the fishing practices and of the ecosystem.
(6) The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) concludes in its evaluation(4)that more studies are needed to corroborate the existing findings related to high survivability of the common sole, scallop, carpet clams and Venus shells. As there are no conclusive evidences on the survival rates of these species, the Commission considers that the survivability exemption allowed under Article 15(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 should be included in this Regulation for one year only. The Member States concerned should submit relevant data to the Commission to allow STECF to fully assess the justifications for the exemption and the Commission to review the relevant exemptions.
(7) Based on the scientific evidences provided in the joint recommendation, the revision by the STECF and taking into account the characteristics of the gears, the high number of species in each fishing operations, the fishing patterns and the particularities of the Mediterranean Sea (e.g. predominance of small-scale fisheries), the Commission considers that, in order to avoid disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches and in accordance with Article 15(5)(c)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, it is appropriate to establish ade minimisexemption in accordance with the percentage level proposed in the joint recommendations, within the limits set out in Article 15(5)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
(8) In order to ensure appropriate control, specific requirements for the Member States to establish lists of vessels covered by this Regulation should be laid down.
(9) Since the measures provided for in this Regulation have a direct impact on the economic activities linked to and the planning of the fishing season of Union vessels, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication. In accordance with the joint recommendations and taking into account the time-frame set out in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2017,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Implementation of the landing obligation
Article 1
The landing obligation provided for in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 shall apply in the Mediterranean Sea to the fisheries as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
That landing obligation shall apply to the species referred to in that Annex when caught during fishing activities in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels outside the Union waters in waters not subject to third countries’ sovereignty or jurisdiction.

Definitions
Article 2
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
(a)
‘Mediterranean Sea’ means maritime waters of the Mediterranean to the east of line 5°36′ West;
(b)
‘GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas’ (GSAs) means General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) Geographical Sub-Areas as defined in the Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council(5);
(c)
‘Western Mediterranean Sea’ means GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11;
(d)
‘Adriatic Sea’ means GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas 17 and 18;
(e)
‘South-eastern Mediterranean Sea’ means GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 25.

Survivability exemption
Article 3
1. The exemption from the landing obligation pursuant to Article 15(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for species for which scientific evidence demonstrates high survival rates shall apply in 2017 to:
(a)
common sole (Solea solea) caught with rapido (beam trawl), (TBB)(6)in GSAs 17 and 18;
(b)
scallop (Pecten jacobeus) caught with mechanised dredges (HMD) in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6;
(c)
carpet clams (Venerupisspp.) caught with mechanised dredges (HMD) in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6;
(d)
Venus shells (Venusspp.) caught with mechanised dredges (HMD) in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6.
2. Common sole (Solea solea), scallop (Pecten jacobeus), carpet clams (Venerupisspp.) and Venus shells (Venusspp.) caught in the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 shall be released immediately in the area where they have been caught.
3. By 1 May 2017, Member States having a direct management interest in the fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea shall submit to the Commission additional discard data to those provided for in the Joint Recommendations of 4 and 7 July 2016 and any other relevant scientific information supporting the exemption laid down in paragraph 1. The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) shall assess those data and that information by July 2017 at the latest.

De minimisexemption
Article 4
By way of derogation from Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the following quantities of species which define the fisheries as set out in the Annex to this Regulation may be discarded pursuant to Article 15(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013:
(a)
in the western Mediterranean Sea (point 1 of the Annex):
(i)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets; and
(ii)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets;
(b)
in the Adriatic Sea (point 2 of the Annex):
(i)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets;
(ii)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets;
(iii)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using rapido (beam trawl);
(iv)
for common sole (Solea solea), up to 3 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 2 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets; and
(v)
for common sole (Solea solea), 0 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using gillnets;
(c)
in the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea (point 3 of the Annex):
(i)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets;
(ii)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets; and
(iii)
for deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), up to 7 % for 2017and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets.

List of vessels
Article 5
1. The Member States concerned shall determine, in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Annex, the vessels subject to the landing obligation for each particular fishery.
2. By 31 December 2016, the Member States concerned shall submit to the Commission and to the other Member States, using the secure Union control website, the lists of all vessels targeting hake, red mullet, common sole and deep-water rose shrimp. They shall keep those lists updated.

Entry into force and application
Article 6
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC(1), and in particular Article 15(6) thereof,
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 aims to progressively eliminate discards in all Union fisheries through the introduction of a landing obligation.
(2) Article 15(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 empowers the Commission to adopt discard plans by means of delegated acts for a period of no more than three years on the basis of joint recommendations developed by Member States in consultation with the relevant Advisory Councils.
(3) Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia have a direct fisheries management interest in the Mediterranean Sea. On 4 and 7 July 2016 those Member States have submitted three joint recommendations to the Commission concerning discard plans for demersal fisheries in the Adriatic Sea, the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea and the western Mediterranean Sea, respectively(2), after consultation of the Mediterranean Sea Advisory Council. Scientific contribution was obtained from relevant scientific bodies. In line with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, only those measures in the joint recommendations which comply with Article 15(6) of that Regulation should be included in this Regulation.
(4) As regards the Mediterranean Sea, Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 establishes a landing obligation for all catches of species which are subject to catch limits and also for catches of species which are subject to minimum sizes as defined in Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006(3). According to Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the landing obligation should apply to species which define the fisheries at the latest from 1 January 2017.
(5) The joint recommendations suggested that an exemption from the landing obligation be applied to common sole (Solea solea) in the Adriatic Sea and the mollusc bivalves scallop (Pecten jacobeus), carpet clams (Venerupisspp.) and Venus shells (Venusspp.) in the western Mediterranean Sea, as high survival rates can occur, taking into account the characteristics of the gear, of the fishing practices and of the ecosystem.
(6) The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) concludes in its evaluation(4)that more studies are needed to corroborate the existing findings related to high survivability of the common sole, scallop, carpet clams and Venus shells. As there are no conclusive evidences on the survival rates of these species, the Commission considers that the survivability exemption allowed under Article 15(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 should be included in this Regulation for one year only. The Member States concerned should submit relevant data to the Commission to allow STECF to fully assess the justifications for the exemption and the Commission to review the relevant exemptions.
(7) Based on the scientific evidences provided in the joint recommendation, the revision by the STECF and taking into account the characteristics of the gears, the high number of species in each fishing operations, the fishing patterns and the particularities of the Mediterranean Sea (e.g. predominance of small-scale fisheries), the Commission considers that, in order to avoid disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches and in accordance with Article 15(5)(c)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, it is appropriate to establish ade minimisexemption in accordance with the percentage level proposed in the joint recommendations, within the limits set out in Article 15(5)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
(8) In order to ensure appropriate control, specific requirements for the Member States to establish lists of vessels covered by this Regulation should be laid down.
(9) Since the measures provided for in this Regulation have a direct impact on the economic activities linked to and the planning of the fishing season of Union vessels, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication. In accordance with the joint recommendations and taking into account the time-frame set out in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2017,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Implementation of the landing obligation

The landing obligation provided for in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 shall apply in the Mediterranean Sea to the fisheries as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
That landing obligation shall apply to the species referred to in that Annex when caught during fishing activities in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels outside the Union waters in waters not subject to third countries’ sovereignty or jurisdiction.

Definitions

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
(a)
‘Mediterranean Sea’ means maritime waters of the Mediterranean to the east of line 5°36′ West;
(b)
‘GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas’ (GSAs) means General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) Geographical Sub-Areas as defined in the Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council(5);
(c)
‘Western Mediterranean Sea’ means GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11;
(d)
‘Adriatic Sea’ means GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas 17 and 18;
(e)
‘South-eastern Mediterranean Sea’ means GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 25.

Survivability exemption

1. The exemption from the landing obligation pursuant to Article 15(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for species for which scientific evidence demonstrates high survival rates shall apply in 2017 to:
(a)
common sole (Solea solea) caught with rapido (beam trawl), (TBB)(6)in GSAs 17 and 18;
(b)
scallop (Pecten jacobeus) caught with mechanised dredges (HMD) in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6;
(c)
carpet clams (Venerupisspp.) caught with mechanised dredges (HMD) in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6;
(d)
Venus shells (Venusspp.) caught with mechanised dredges (HMD) in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6.
2. Common sole (Solea solea), scallop (Pecten jacobeus), carpet clams (Venerupisspp.) and Venus shells (Venusspp.) caught in the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 shall be released immediately in the area where they have been caught.
3. By 1 May 2017, Member States having a direct management interest in the fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea shall submit to the Commission additional discard data to those provided for in the Joint Recommendations of 4 and 7 July 2016 and any other relevant scientific information supporting the exemption laid down in paragraph 1. The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) shall assess those data and that information by July 2017 at the latest.

De minimisexemption

By way of derogation from Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, the following quantities of species which define the fisheries as set out in the Annex to this Regulation may be discarded pursuant to Article 15(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013:
(a)
in the western Mediterranean Sea (point 1 of the Annex):
(i)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to a maximum of 6 % in 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets; and
(ii)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to a maximum of 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets;
(b)
in the Adriatic Sea (point 2 of the Annex):
(i)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets;
(ii)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets;
(iii)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using rapido (beam trawl);
(iv)
for common sole (Solea solea), up to 3 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 2 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets; and
(v)
for common sole (Solea solea), 0 % of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using gillnets;
(c)
in the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea (point 3 of the Annex):
(i)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 7 % for 2017 and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using trawl nets;
(ii)
for hake (Merluccius merluccius) and red mullet (Mullusspp.), up to 1 % of the total annual catches of these species by vessels using gillnets; and
(iii)
for deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), up to 7 % for 2017and 2018 and up to 6 % for 2019 of the total annual catches of this species by vessels using trawl nets.

List of vessels

1. The Member States concerned shall determine, in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Annex, the vessels subject to the landing obligation for each particular fishery.
2. By 31 December 2016, the Member States concerned shall submit to the Commission and to the other Member States, using the secure Union control website, the lists of all vessels targeting hake, red mullet, common sole and deep-water rose shrimp. They shall keep those lists updated.

Entry into force and application

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019.

1.   Western Mediterranean Sea

ANNEX
Fisheries | Fishing gear | Landing obligation
Hake (Merluccius merluccius) | All bottom trawls(OTB, OTT, PTB, TBN, TBS, TB, OT, PT, TX) | Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2014 and 2015 consist of more than 25 % of hake, the landing obligation shall apply to hake.
All longlines(LL, LLS, LLD, LX, LTL, LHP, LHM)
All gillnets and trammel nets(GNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN)
Red mullet (Mullus barbatus) | All bottom trawls(OTB, OTT, PTB, TBN, TBS, TB, OT, PT, TX) | Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2014 and 2015 consist of more than 25 % of red mullet, the landing obligation shall apply to red mullet.
All longlines(LL, LLS, LLD, LX, LTL, LHP, LHM)
All gillnets and trammel nets(GNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN)
Scallop (Pecten jacobeus), Carpet clams (Venerupisspp.), Venus shells (Venusspp.) in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6 | HMD | All mechanised dredges.2. Adriatic Sea

Fisheries | Fishing gear | Landing obligation
Hake (Merluccius merluccius), Red mullet (Mullus barbatus), Common sole (Solea solea) | All bottom trawls(OTB, OTT, PTB, TBN, TBS, TB, OT, PT, TX, TBB) | Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2014 and 2015 consist of more than 25 % of either hake, or red mullet, or common sole, the landing obligation shall apply to hake, or red mullet, or common sole, or all together.
All gillnets and trammel nets(GNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN)3. South-eastern Mediterranean Sea

Fisheries | Fishing gear | Landing obligation
Hake (Merluccius merluccius), Red mullet (Mullus barbatus), Deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) | All bottom trawls(OTB, OTT, PTB, TBN, TBS, TB, OT, PT, TX) | Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2014 and 2015 consist of more than 25 % of either hake, or red mullet, or deep-water rose shrimp, the landing obligation shall apply to hake, or red mullet, or deep-water rose shrimp, or all together.
All gillnets and trammel nets(GNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN)

Pending: 32016R1810

13.10.2016 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 276/9
(1) According to point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 the sugar produced during a marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 136 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit fixed by the Commission.
(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1713(3)sets such quantitative limits.
(3) The quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1713. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for from 3 to 7 October 2016. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 7 October 2016 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector(2), and in particular Article 7e in conjunction with Article 9(1) thereof,
(1) According to point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 the sugar produced during a marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 136 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit fixed by the Commission.
(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1713(3)sets such quantitative limits.
(3) The quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1713. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for from 3 to 7 October 2016. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 7 October 2016 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1
1. Export licences for out-of-quota sugar for which applications were lodged from 3 to 7 October 2016 shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 33,246381 %.
2. Applications for export licences for out-of-quota sugar submitted on 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 October 2016 are hereby rejected.
3. The lodging of applications for export licences for out-of-quota sugar shall be suspended for the period 17 October 2016 to 30 September 2017.

Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector(2), and in particular Article 7e in conjunction with Article 9(1) thereof,
(1) According to point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 the sugar produced during a marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 136 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit fixed by the Commission.
(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1713(3)sets such quantitative limits.
(3) The quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1713. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for from 3 to 7 October 2016. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 7 October 2016 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
1. Export licences for out-of-quota sugar for which applications were lodged from 3 to 7 October 2016 shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 33,246381 %.
2. Applications for export licences for out-of-quota sugar submitted on 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 October 2016 are hereby rejected.
3. The lodging of applications for export licences for out-of-quota sugar shall be suspended for the period 17 October 2016 to 30 September 2017.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

Pending: 32016R1713

24.9.2016 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 258/8
(1) According to point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the sugar or isoglucose produced in excess of the quota referred to in Article 136 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed by the Commission.
(2) Detailed implementing rules for out-of-quota exports, in particular concerning the issue of export licences are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006(2). However, the quantitative limit should be fixed per marketing year in view of the possible opportunities on the export markets.
(3) For certain Union producers of sugar and isoglucose, exports from the Union represent an important part of their economic activities and they have established traditional markets outside the Union. Exports of sugar and isoglucose to those markets could be economically viable also without granting export refunds. To that end it is necessary to fix a quantitative limit for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose exports so that the EU producers concerned may continue to supply their traditional markets.
(4) For the 2016/2017 marketing year it is estimated that fixing the quantitative limit initially at 650 000 tonnes, in white sugar equivalent, for out-of-quota sugar exports and 70 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for out-of-quota isoglucose would correspond to the market demand.
(5) Exports of sugar from the Union to certain close destinations and to third countries granting Union products a preferential import treatment are currently in a particular favourable competitive position. In view of the absence of appropriate instruments of mutual assistance to fight against irregularities and in order to minimize the risk of fraud and to prevent any abuse associated with the re-import or reintroduction into the Union of out-of-quota sugar certain close destinations should be excluded from the eligible destinations.
(6) In view of the estimated lower risks for eventual frauds regarding isoglucose due to the nature of the product it is not necessary to restrict the eligible destinations for the export of out-of-quota isoglucose.
(7) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,
a) third countries: Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Holy See (Vatican City State), Kosovo(3), Liechtenstein, Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia;
b) territories of Member States not forming part of the customs territory of the Union: the Faeroe Islands, Greenland, Heligoland, Ceuta, Melilla, the communes of Livigno and Campione d'Italia, and the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control;
c) European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible, not forming part of the customs territory of the Union: Gibraltar.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(1), and in particular Article 139(2) and point (g) of the first paragraph of Article 144 thereof,
(1) According to point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the sugar or isoglucose produced in excess of the quota referred to in Article 136 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed by the Commission.
(2) Detailed implementing rules for out-of-quota exports, in particular concerning the issue of export licences are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006(2). However, the quantitative limit should be fixed per marketing year in view of the possible opportunities on the export markets.
(3) For certain Union producers of sugar and isoglucose, exports from the Union represent an important part of their economic activities and they have established traditional markets outside the Union. Exports of sugar and isoglucose to those markets could be economically viable also without granting export refunds. To that end it is necessary to fix a quantitative limit for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose exports so that the EU producers concerned may continue to supply their traditional markets.
(4) For the 2016/2017 marketing year it is estimated that fixing the quantitative limit initially at 650 000 tonnes, in white sugar equivalent, for out-of-quota sugar exports and 70 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for out-of-quota isoglucose would correspond to the market demand.
(5) Exports of sugar from the Union to certain close destinations and to third countries granting Union products a preferential import treatment are currently in a particular favourable competitive position. In view of the absence of appropriate instruments of mutual assistance to fight against irregularities and in order to minimize the risk of fraud and to prevent any abuse associated with the re-import or reintroduction into the Union of out-of-quota sugar certain close destinations should be excluded from the eligible destinations.
(6) In view of the estimated lower risks for eventual frauds regarding isoglucose due to the nature of the product it is not necessary to restrict the eligible destinations for the export of out-of-quota isoglucose.
(7) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1
1. For the 2016/2017 marketing year the quantitative limit referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 shall be 650 000 tonnes for exports without refund of out-of-quota white sugar falling within CN code 1701 99.
2. Exports within the quantitative limit fixed in paragraph 1 shall be allowed for all destinations excluding:
a)
third countries: Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Holy See (Vatican City State), Kosovo(3), Liechtenstein, Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia;
b)
territories of Member States not forming part of the customs territory of the Union: the Faeroe Islands, Greenland, Heligoland, Ceuta, Melilla, the communes of Livigno and Campione d’Italia, and the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control;
c)
European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible, not forming part of the customs territory of the Union: Gibraltar.

Fixing the quantitative limit for out-of-quota isoglucose exports
Article 2
1. For the 2016/2017 marketing year the quantitative limit referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 shall be 70 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for exports without refund of out-of-quota isoglucose falling within CN codes 1702 40 10, 1702 60 10 and 1702 90 30.
2. Exports of the products referred to in paragraph 1 shall only be allowed where they comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.

Entry into force and application
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 October 2016.
It shall expire on 30 September 2017.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(1), and in particular Article 139(2) and point (g) of the first paragraph of Article 144 thereof,
(1) According to point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the sugar or isoglucose produced in excess of the quota referred to in Article 136 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed by the Commission.
(2) Detailed implementing rules for out-of-quota exports, in particular concerning the issue of export licences are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006(2). However, the quantitative limit should be fixed per marketing year in view of the possible opportunities on the export markets.
(3) For certain Union producers of sugar and isoglucose, exports from the Union represent an important part of their economic activities and they have established traditional markets outside the Union. Exports of sugar and isoglucose to those markets could be economically viable also without granting export refunds. To that end it is necessary to fix a quantitative limit for out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose exports so that the EU producers concerned may continue to supply their traditional markets.
(4) For the 2016/2017 marketing year it is estimated that fixing the quantitative limit initially at 650 000 tonnes, in white sugar equivalent, for out-of-quota sugar exports and 70 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for out-of-quota isoglucose would correspond to the market demand.
(5) Exports of sugar from the Union to certain close destinations and to third countries granting Union products a preferential import treatment are currently in a particular favourable competitive position. In view of the absence of appropriate instruments of mutual assistance to fight against irregularities and in order to minimize the risk of fraud and to prevent any abuse associated with the re-import or reintroduction into the Union of out-of-quota sugar certain close destinations should be excluded from the eligible destinations.
(6) In view of the estimated lower risks for eventual frauds regarding isoglucose due to the nature of the product it is not necessary to restrict the eligible destinations for the export of out-of-quota isoglucose.
(7) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
1. For the 2016/2017 marketing year the quantitative limit referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 shall be 650 000 tonnes for exports without refund of out-of-quota white sugar falling within CN code 1701 99.
2. Exports within the quantitative limit fixed in paragraph 1 shall be allowed for all destinations excluding:
a)
third countries: Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Holy See (Vatican City State), Kosovo(3), Liechtenstein, Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia;
b)
territories of Member States not forming part of the customs territory of the Union: the Faeroe Islands, Greenland, Heligoland, Ceuta, Melilla, the communes of Livigno and Campione d’Italia, and the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control;
c)
European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible, not forming part of the customs territory of the Union: Gibraltar.

Fixing the quantitative limit for out-of-quota isoglucose exports

1. For the 2016/2017 marketing year the quantitative limit referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 shall be 70 000 tonnes, in dry matter, for exports without refund of out-of-quota isoglucose falling within CN codes 1702 40 10, 1702 60 10 and 1702 90 30.
2. Exports of the products referred to in paragraph 1 shall only be allowed where they comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.

Entry into force and application

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 October 2016.
It shall expire on 30 September 2017.

Pending: 32016R1627

16.9.2016 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 252/1
(1) The objective of the common fisheries policy (CFP), as set out in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council(3), is to ensure an exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions.
(2) The Union is Party to the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas(4)(‘the Convention’).
(3) At its 15th special meeting in 2006, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (‘ICCAT’), established by the Convention, adopted Recommendation 06-05 establishing a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean ending in 2022 (‘the recovery plan’). That Recommendation entered into force on 13 June 2007.
(4) The recovery plan takes into account the specificities of the different types of gear and fishing techniques. When implementing the recovery plan, the Union and Member States should endeavour to promote coastal fishing activities and the use of fishing gear and techniques which are selective and have a reduced environmental impact, including gear and techniques used in traditional and artisanal fisheries, thereby contributing to a fair standard of living for local economies.
(5) ICCAT Recommendation 06-05 was implemented into Union law by Council Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007(5).
(6) At its 16th special meeting in 2008, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 08-05 amending Recommendation 06-05. In order to rebuild the stock of bluefin tuna, Recommendation 08-05 provided for a gradual reduction in the total allowable catch level from 2007 to 2011, restrictions on fishing within certain areas and time periods, a new minimum size for bluefin tuna, measures concerning sport and recreational fishing activities, farming and fishing capacity measures, as well as reinforcing the ICCAT Scheme of Joint International Inspection.
(7) ICCAT Recommendation 08-05 was implemented into Union law by Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009(6).
(8) At its 17th special meeting in 2010, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 10-04 amending Recommendation 08-05. In order to rebuild the stock of bluefin tuna, Recommendation 10-04 established a further reduction of the total allowable catch and the fishing capacity and it reinforced the control measures, in particular those concerning transfer and caging operations. It also provided for additional advice by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics of ICCAT (‘SCRS’) in 2012 on the identification of spawning grounds and on the creation of sanctuaries.
(9) In order to implement the revised international conservation measures set out in Recommendation 10-04 into Union law, Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 was amended by Regulation (EU) No 500/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council(7).
(10) At its 18th special meeting in 2012, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 12-03 amending Recommendation 10-04. In order to strengthen the effectiveness of the recovery plan, Recommendation 12-03 set up technical measures concerning the transfer and caging operations of live bluefin tuna, new catch reporting requirements, the implementation of the ICCAT regional observer programme and changes of the fishing seasons. Furthermore, it reinforced the role of the SCRS with regard to the assessment of bluefin tuna stock.
(11) At its 23rd regular meeting in 2013, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 13-07 amending Recommendation 12-03 by introducing small changes on fishing seasons which do not affect the Union fleet. Furthermore, Recommendation 13-08 was adopted which complements the recovery plan. Recommendation 13-08 set up a common procedure for the use of stereoscopical camera systems to estimate the quantities of bluefin tuna at the point of caging and introduced a flexible starting date for the fishing season of baitboats and trolling boats in the eastern Atlantic.
(12) In order to implement essential measures, such as those on fishing seasons, of Recommendations 12-03 and 13-08 into Union law, Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 was further amended by Regulation (EU) No 544/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(8).
(13) At its 19th special meeting in 2014, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 14-04 amending Recommendation 13-07 and repealing Recommendation 13-08. Whilst some of the existing control provisions were rationalised, the procedures for the use of stereoscopic camera at the point of caging were further specified and measures specific to release operations and the treatment of dead fish were introduced in the recovery plan.
(14) Recommendation 14-04 is binding on the Union.
(15) All the amendments to the recovery plan adopted by ICCAT in 2012, 2013 and 2014, which have not yet been subject to implementation, should be implemented into Union law. As that implementation concerns the recovery plan whose objectives and measures were defined by ICCAT, this Regulation does not cover all the content of multiannual plans as set out in Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
(16) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 establishes the concept of minimum conservation reference sizes. In order to ensure consistency, the ICCAT concept of minimum sizes should be transposed into Union law as minimum conservation reference sizes. Consequently, the references in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98(9)to minimum sizes of bluefin tuna should be read as references to minimum conservation reference sizes in this Regulation.
(17) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the provisions of this Regulation relating to transfer operations, caging operations and recording and reporting of trap and vessel activities, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council(10).
(18) Certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 have become obsolete, in particular since they are now covered by other Union acts. Other provisions should be updated in order to reflect changes in legislation, in particular those resulting from the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
(19) In particular, Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009(11)establishes a Union system for control, inspection and enforcement with a global and integrated approach so as to ensure compliance with all the rules of the CFP, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011(12)lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008(13)establishes a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Those acts now cover some matters governed by Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 and, in particular, Article 33 thereof on enforcement measures and Annex VIII on vessel monitoring system (VMS) transmission. It is therefore not necessary to include those provisions in this Regulation.
(20) In accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011, the conversion factors adopted by the SCRS apply to calculate the equivalent round weight of processed bluefin tuna, including for the purpose of this Regulation.
(21) Moreover, in accordance with Article 95 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Commission Implementing Decision 2014/156/EU(14)has been adopted. That Implementing Decision establishes, inter alia, target benchmarks and objectives for the control of the bluefin tuna fishery in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
(22) ICCAT Recommendation 06-07 set up a sampling programme for the estimation of the number-at-size in the context of bluefin tuna farming activities. That provision was implemented by Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009. It is not necessary that this Regulation specifically provides for the sampling programme, as the needs of that sampling programme are now fully covered by the programmes set up by paragraph 83 of Recommendation 14-04, which is to be implemented by this Regulation.
(23) For reasons of clarity, simplification and legal certainty, Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 should therefore be repealed.
(24) For the purpose of the Union's compliance with its international obligations under the Convention, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98 provides for derogations from the landing obligation for bluefin tuna set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98 implements certain provisions of ICCAT Recommendation 13-07 that establish a discard and release obligation for vessels and traps catching bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean in certain cases. This Regulation therefore does not need to cover such discard and release obligations and will consequently be without prejudice to the corresponding provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98,
(1) ‘recovery plan’ means the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna, which applies from 2007 to 2022 and was recommended by ICCAT;
(2) ‘fishing vessel’ means any powered vessel used or intended for use for the purposes of the commercial exploitation of bluefin tuna resources, including catching vessels, processing vessels, support vessels, towing vessels, vessels engaged in transhipment and transport vessels equipped for the transportation of tuna products and auxiliary vessels, except container vessels;
(3) ‘catching vessel’ means a vessel used for the purposes of the commercial capture of bluefin tuna resources;
(4) ‘processing vessel’ means a vessel on board of which fisheries products are subject to one or more of the following operations, prior to their packaging: filleting or slicing, freezing and/or processing;
(5) ‘auxiliary vessel’ means any vessel used to transport dead bluefin tuna (not processed) from a transport/farming cage, a purse seine net or a trap to a designated port and/or to a processing vessel;
(6) ‘towing vessel’ means any vessel used for towing cages;
(7) ‘support vessel’ means any other fishing vessel referred to under point (2);
(8) ‘fishing actively’ means, for any catching vessel and trap, the fact that it targets bluefin tuna during a given fishing season;
(9) ‘joint fishing operation’ means any operation between two or more purse seiners where the catch of one purse seiner is attributed to one or more other purse seiners in accordance with an allocation key;
(10) ‘transfer operations’ means:(i)any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the catching vessel's net to the transport cage;(ii)any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the transport cage to another transport cage;(iii)any transfer of the cage with bluefin tuna from a towing vessel to another towing vessel;(iv)any transfer of live bluefin tuna from one farm to another;(v)any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the trap to the transport cage; (i) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the catching vessel's net to the transport cage; (ii) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the transport cage to another transport cage; (iii) any transfer of the cage with bluefin tuna from a towing vessel to another towing vessel; (iv) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from one farm to another; (v) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the trap to the transport cage;
(i) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the catching vessel's net to the transport cage;
(ii) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the transport cage to another transport cage;
(iii) any transfer of the cage with bluefin tuna from a towing vessel to another towing vessel;
(iv) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from one farm to another;
(v) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the trap to the transport cage;
(i) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the catching vessel's net to the transport cage;
(ii) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the transport cage to another transport cage;
(iii) any transfer of the cage with bluefin tuna from a towing vessel to another towing vessel;
(iv) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from one farm to another;
(v) any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the trap to the transport cage;
(11) ‘control transfer’ means any additional transfer being implemented at the request of the fishing/farming operators or the control authorities for the purpose of verifying the number of fish being transferred;
(12) ‘trap’ means fixed gear anchored to the bottom, usually containing a guide net that leads bluefin tuna into an enclosure or series of enclosures where it is kept prior to harvesting;
(13) ‘caging’ means the transfer of live bluefin tuna from the transport cage or trap to the farming cages;
(14) ‘farming’ means caging of bluefin tuna in farms and subsequent feeding aiming to fatten and increase their total biomass;
(15) ‘farm’ means an installation used for the farming of bluefin tuna caught by traps and/or purse seiners;
(16) ‘harvesting’ means the killing of bluefin tuna in farms or traps;
(17) ‘transhipment’ means the unloading of all or any of the fish on board a fishing vessel to another fishing vessel. Unloading of dead bluefin tuna from the purse seiner net or the towing vessel to an auxiliary vessel shall not be considered as a transhipment;
(18) ‘sport fishery’ means non-commercial fisheries whose members adhere to a national sport organisation or are issued with a national sport licence;
(19) ‘recreational fishery’ means non-commercial fisheries whose members do not adhere to a national sport organisation and are not issued with a national sport licence;
(20) ‘stereoscopic camera’ means a camera with two or more lenses, with a separate image sensor or film frame for each lens, enabling the taking of three-dimensional images;
(21) ‘control camera’ means a stereoscopic camera and/or conventional video camera for the purpose of the controls provided for in this Regulation;
(22) ‘BCD’ or ‘electronic BCD’ means a bluefin catch document for bluefin tuna. As appropriate, the reference to BCD shall be replaced by eBCD;
(23) ‘responsible Member State’ or ‘Member State responsible’ means the flag Member State or the Member State in whose jurisdiction the trap or farm is located or, if the farm or trap is located on the high seas, the Member State where the trap or farm operator is established;
(24) ‘Task II’ means Task II as defined by ICCAT in the ‘Field manual for statistics and sampling Atlantic tunas and tuna-like fish’ (third edition, ICCAT, 1990);
(25) ‘CPC’ means Contracting Parties to the Convention and cooperating non-contracting parties, entities or fishing entities;
(26) ‘Convention area’ means the geographical area covered by ICCAT measures as set out in Article 1 of the Convention.
(a) an annual fishing plan for the catching vessels and traps fishing bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean;
(b) an annual fishing capacity management plan ensuring that the Member State's fishing capacity is commensurate with its allocated quota.
(a) for catching vessels over 24 metres included in the vessel list referred to in point (a) of Article 20(1) — the individual quota allocated to them and the measures in place to ensure compliance with the individual quotas and by-catch allowances;
(b) for catching vessels less than 24 metres and for traps — at least the quota allocated to producer organisations or groups of vessels fishing with a similar gear type.
(a) bluefin tuna caught in the eastern Atlantic by baitboats and trolling boats;
(b) bluefin tuna caught in the Adriatic Sea for farming purposes;
(c) bluefin tuna caught in the Mediterranean Sea by the coastal and artisanal fishery for fresh fish by baitboats, longliners and handliners.
(a) a list of all catching vessels flying its flag authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean by the issuing of a fishing authorisation;
(b) a list of all other fishing vessels, other than catching vessels, flying its flag authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
(a) full details of the fishing vessel(s) intended to replace a vessel included in the lists referred to in paragraph 1; and
(b) a comprehensive account of the reasons justifying the replacement and any relevant supporting evidence or references.
(a) the duration;
(b) the identity of the operators involved;
(c) the individual vessels' quotas;
(d) the allocation key between the fishing vessels for the catches involved; and
(e) information on the farms of destination.
(a) the name and ICCAT number of each catching vessel;
(b) the period of authorisation(s) for each catching vessel;
(c) the total catches of each catching vessel including when the catch was zero throughout the period of authorisation(s);
(d) the total number of days each catching vessel fished in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean throughout the period of authorisation(s); and
(e) the total catch of each catching vessel outside the period of authorisation (by-catch), including when the catch was zero.
(a) the name and ICCAT number or national registry number of the vessel, if not registered with ICCAT; and
(b) the total catches of bluefin tuna.
(a) estimated time of arrival;
(b) estimated quantity of bluefin tuna retained on board; and
(c) information on the geographical area where the catches were taken.
(a) estimated date and time of arrival, and port of arrival;
(b) estimated quantity of bluefin tuna retained on board, and information on the geographical area where it was taken;
(c) the name of the transhipping fishing vessel and its number in the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna or in the ICCAT record of other fishing vessels authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean;
(d) the name of the receiving fishing vessel, its number in the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna or in the ICCAT record of other fishing vessels authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean; and
(e) the tonnage and the geographical area of the catch of bluefin tuna to be transhipped.
(a) the quantities of bluefin tuna to be transhipped;
(b) the date and port of the transhipment;
(c) the name, registration number and flag of the receiving fishing vessel and its number in the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna or in the ICCAT record of other fishing vessels authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean; and
(d) the geographical area of the catch of bluefin tuna.
(a) inspect the receiving fishing vessel on arrival and check the cargo and documentation related to the transhipment operation;
(b) send a record of the transhipment to the flag State authority of the transhipping fishing vessel, within five days after the transhipment has ended.
(a) the name of the catching vessel, towing vessel, farm or trap and the ICCAT register number;
(b) the estimated time of transfer;
(c) the estimate of the quantity of bluefin tuna to be transferred;
(d) information on the position (latitude/longitude) where the transfer will take place as well as the identifiable cage numbers;
(e) the name of the receiving towing vessel, the number of cages towed and, where appropriate, the ICCAT register number;
(f) the port, farm or cage of destination of the bluefin tuna.
(a) the catching vessel or the trap that is declared to have caught the fish does not have sufficient quota;
(b) the quantity of fish has not been duly reported by the catching vessel or the trap operator or has not been authorised to be caged, or has not been taken into account for the consumption of the quota that may be applicable;
(c) the catching vessel or trap that is declared to have caught the fish is not authorised to fish for bluefin tuna; or
(d) the towing vessel declared to be the one to receive the transfer of fish is not registered in the ICCAT record of all other fishing vessels (catching vessels excluded) authorised to operate for bluefin tuna, as referred to in point (b) of Article 20(1), or is not equipped with a VMS.
(a) the Member State responsible for the catching vessel or trap shall issue a release order to the master of the catching vessel or to the operator of the trap or farm as appropriate and inform them that the transfer is not authorised and that the fish have to be released into the sea;
(b) the master of the catching vessel, the farm operator or the trap operator, as appropriate, shall release the fish;
(c) the release of bluefin tuna shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in Annex XI.
(a) the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap; or
(b) the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm if it has been agreed among the Member States involved or with the flag CPC involved.
(a) the catching vessel or trap that is declared to have caught the fish did not have sufficient quota for the bluefin tuna that were put into the cage;
(b) the quantity of fish has not been duly reported by the catching vessel or trap or has not been taken into account for the calculation of the quota applicable; or
(c) the catching vessel or trap that is declared to have caught the fish is not authorised to fish for bluefin tuna.
(a) determine the final catch figures to be deducted from the national quota;
(b) fill in those figures in the caging declarations and relevant sections of the BCD.
(a) VMS messages from the fishing vessels flying their flag are forwarded to the Commission at least every two hours;
(b) in the event of technical malfunction of the VMS, alternative messages from the fishing vessels flying their flag received under Article 25(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 are forwarded to the Commission within 24 hours of receipt by their fisheries monitoring centres;
(c) messages forwarded to the Commission are sequentially numbered (with a unique identifier) in order to avoid duplication;
(d) messages forwarded to the Commission are in accordance with Article 24(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011.
(a) 20 % of its pelagic trawlers (over 15 metres);
(b) 20 % of its long line vessels (over 15 metres);
(c) 20 % of its bait boats (over 15 metres);
(d) 100 % of towing vessels;
(e) 100 % of harvesting operations from traps.
(a) monitor compliance by fishing vessels and traps with this Regulation;
(b) record, and report upon, the fishing activity which shall include the following:(i)amount of catch (including by-catch) that also includes species disposition, such as retained on board or discarded dead or alive;(ii)area of catch by latitude and longitude;(iii)measure of effort (such as the number of sets, number of hooks), as defined in the ICCAT Field Manual for different gears;(iv)date of catch; (i) amount of catch (including by-catch) that also includes species disposition, such as retained on board or discarded dead or alive; (ii) area of catch by latitude and longitude; (iii) measure of effort (such as the number of sets, number of hooks), as defined in the ICCAT Field Manual for different gears; (iv) date of catch;
(i) amount of catch (including by-catch) that also includes species disposition, such as retained on board or discarded dead or alive;
(ii) area of catch by latitude and longitude;
(iii) measure of effort (such as the number of sets, number of hooks), as defined in the ICCAT Field Manual for different gears;
(iv) date of catch;
(i) amount of catch (including by-catch) that also includes species disposition, such as retained on board or discarded dead or alive;
(ii) area of catch by latitude and longitude;
(iii) measure of effort (such as the number of sets, number of hooks), as defined in the ICCAT Field Manual for different gears;
(iv) date of catch;
(c) observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;
(d) sight and record vessels which may be fishing contrary to ICCAT conservation and management measures.
(a) representative temporal and spatial presence of national observers on its vessels and traps to ensure that the Commission receives adequate and appropriate data and information on catch, effort and other scientific and management aspects, taking into account characteristics of the fleets and fisheries;
(b) robust data collection protocols;
(c) that national observers are properly trained and approved before deployment;
(d) to the extent possible, minimal disruption to the operations of fishing vessels and traps fishing in the Convention Area.
(a) on all purse seiners authorised to fish bluefin tuna;
(b) during all transfers of bluefin tuna from purse seiners;
(c) during all transfers of bluefin tuna from traps to transport cages;
(d) during all transfers from one farm to another;
(e) during all caging operations of bluefin tuna in farms;
(f) during all harvesting of bluefin tuna from farms.
(a) observe and monitor that fishing and farming operations are in compliance with the relevant ICCAT conservation and management measures;
(b) sign the ICCAT transfer declarations referred to in Article 38, caging reports referred to in Article 47 and BCDs when they agree that the information contained therein is consistent with their observations;
(c) carry out scientific work, such as collecting samples, as required by ICCAT, based on the instructions from the SCRS.
(a) the objectives, priorities, and procedures as well as benchmarks for inspection activities set up in the Specific control and inspection programme for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean established under Article 95 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;
(b) the National control action programme for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean established under Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.
(a) failed in its reporting requirement referred to in Articles 25 and 26; or
(b) committed an infringement of the provisions of this Regulation, Articles 89 to 93 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 or Chapter IX of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008.
(a) the bluefin tuna was caught by fishing vessels or traps whose flag State does not have a quota, catch limit or allocation of fishing effort for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, under the terms of ICCAT conservation and management measures; or
(b) the bluefin tuna was caught by a fishing vessel or a trap whose individual quota or whose state's fishing opportunities were exhausted at the time of the catch.
1. In addition to the provisions set out in Article 9(3), the maximum number of baitboats and trolling boats authorised to fish for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic under the specific conditions applying to the derogation referred to in point (a) of Article 14(2) is set at the number of Union catching vessels participating in the directed fishery for bluefin tuna in 2006.
2 In addition to the provisions set out in Article 9(3), the maximum number of catching vessels authorised to fish for bluefin tuna in the Adriatic sea for farming purposes under the specific conditions applying to the derogation referred to in point (b) of Article 14(2) is set at the number of Union catching vessels participating in the directed fishery for bluefin tuna in 2008. For that purpose, the number of Croatian catching vessels participating in the directed fishery for bluefin tuna in 2008 shall be taken into account.
3. In addition to the provisions set out in Article 9(3), the maximum number of baitboats, longliners and handliners authorised to fish for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean under the specific conditions applying to the derogation referred to in point (c) of Article 14(2) is set at the number of Union catching vessels participating in the directed fishery for bluefin tuna in 2008.
4. The maximum number of catching vessels determined in accordance with points 1, 2 and 3 of this Annex shall be allocated among the Member States in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
5. No more than 7 % of the Union quota for bluefin tuna between 8 kg or 75 cm and 30 kg or 115 cm shall be allocated among the authorised catching vessels referred to in point (a) of Article 14(2) and in point 1 of this Annex. That quota shall be allocated among Member States in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
6. By way of derogation from point (a) of Article 14(2), within the quota of 7 % referred to in point 5 of this Annex, up to 100 tonnes may be allocated for the capture of bluefin tuna of no less than 6,4 kg or 70 cm by baitboats of less than 17 metres.
7. The maximum allocation of the Union quota among Member States to fish under the specific conditions applying to the derogation referred to in point (b) of Article 14(2) and point 2 of this Annex shall be determined in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
8. No more than 2 % of the Union quota for bluefin tuna between 8 kg or 75 cm and 30 kg or 115 cm shall be allocated among the authorised catching vessels referred to in point (c) of Article 14(2) and point 3 of this Annex. That quota shall be allocated among Member States in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
9. Each Member State whose baitboats, longliners, handliners and trolling boats are authorised to fish for bluefin tuna in accordance with Article 14(2) and this Annex shall establish the following tail tag requirements:(a)tail tags are affixed on each bluefin tuna immediately upon offloading;(b)each tail tag has a unique identification number which is included in bluefin tuna statistical documents and written on the outside of any package containing tuna. (a) tail tags are affixed on each bluefin tuna immediately upon offloading; (b) each tail tag has a unique identification number which is included in bluefin tuna statistical documents and written on the outside of any package containing tuna.
(a) tail tags are affixed on each bluefin tuna immediately upon offloading;
(b) each tail tag has a unique identification number which is included in bluefin tuna statistical documents and written on the outside of any package containing tuna.
(a) tail tags are affixed on each bluefin tuna immediately upon offloading;
(b) each tail tag has a unique identification number which is included in bluefin tuna statistical documents and written on the outside of any package containing tuna.
1. The logbook shall be numbered by sheet.
2. The logbook shall be completed every day (midnight) or before port arrival.
3. The logbook shall be completed in case of at-sea inspections.
4. One copy of the sheets shall remain attached to the logbook.
5. Logbooks shall be kept on board to cover a period of one year of operation.
1. Master's name and address.
2. Dates and ports of departure, dates and ports of arrival.
3. Vessel's name, register number, ICCAT number, international radio call sign and IMO number (if available).
4. Fishing gear:(a)type FAO code;(b)dimension (e.g. length, mesh size, number of hooks). (a) type FAO code; (b) dimension (e.g. length, mesh size, number of hooks).
(a) type FAO code;
(b) dimension (e.g. length, mesh size, number of hooks).
(a) type FAO code;
(b) dimension (e.g. length, mesh size, number of hooks).
5. Operations at sea with one line (minimum) per day of trip, providing:(a)activity (e.g. fishing, steaming);(b)position: exact daily positions (in degree and minutes), recorded for each fishing operation or at midday when no fishing has been conducted during that day;(c)record of catches, including:(1)FAO code;(2)round (RWT) weight in kg per day;(3)number of pieces per day.For purse seiners that should be recorded by fishing operation, including nil return. (a) activity (e.g. fishing, steaming); (b) position: exact daily positions (in degree and minutes), recorded for each fishing operation or at midday when no fishing has been conducted during that day; (c) record of catches, including:(1)FAO code;(2)round (RWT) weight in kg per day;(3)number of pieces per day. (1) FAO code; (2) round (RWT) weight in kg per day; (3) number of pieces per day.
(a) activity (e.g. fishing, steaming);
(b) position: exact daily positions (in degree and minutes), recorded for each fishing operation or at midday when no fishing has been conducted during that day;
(c) record of catches, including:(1)FAO code;(2)round (RWT) weight in kg per day;(3)number of pieces per day. (1) FAO code; (2) round (RWT) weight in kg per day; (3) number of pieces per day.
(1) FAO code;
(2) round (RWT) weight in kg per day;
(3) number of pieces per day.
(a) activity (e.g. fishing, steaming);
(b) position: exact daily positions (in degree and minutes), recorded for each fishing operation or at midday when no fishing has been conducted during that day;
(c) record of catches, including:(1)FAO code;(2)round (RWT) weight in kg per day;(3)number of pieces per day. (1) FAO code; (2) round (RWT) weight in kg per day; (3) number of pieces per day.
(1) FAO code;
(2) round (RWT) weight in kg per day;
(3) number of pieces per day.
(1) FAO code;
(2) round (RWT) weight in kg per day;
(3) number of pieces per day.
6. Master's signature.
7. Means of weight measure: estimation, weighing on board.
8. The logbook shall be kept in equivalent live weight of fish and shall mention the conversion factors used in the evaluation.
1. Dates and port of landing/transhipment.
2. Products:(a)species and presentation by FAO code;(b)number of fish or boxes and quantity in kg. (a) species and presentation by FAO code; (b) number of fish or boxes and quantity in kg.
(a) species and presentation by FAO code;
(b) number of fish or boxes and quantity in kg.
(a) species and presentation by FAO code;
(b) number of fish or boxes and quantity in kg.
3. Signature of the master or vessel agent.
4. In case of transhipment: receiving vessel name, its flag and ICCAT number.
1. Date, time and position (latitude/longitude) of transfer.
2. Products:(a)species identification by FAO code;(b)number of fish and quantity in kg transferred into cages. (a) species identification by FAO code; (b) number of fish and quantity in kg transferred into cages.
(a) species identification by FAO code;
(b) number of fish and quantity in kg transferred into cages.
(a) species identification by FAO code;
(b) number of fish and quantity in kg transferred into cages.
3. Name of towing vessel, its flag and ICCAT number.
4. Name of the farm of destination and its ICCAT number.
5. In the case of a JFO, in addition to the information laid down in points 1 to 4, the masters shall record in their logbook:(a)as regards the catching vessel transferring the fish into cages:—amount of catches taken on board,—amount of catches counted against its individual quota,—the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO;(b)as regards the other catching vessels of the same JFO not involved in the transfer of the fish:—the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers,—that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages,—amount of catches counted against their individual quotas,—the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a). (a) as regards the catching vessel transferring the fish into cages:—amount of catches taken on board,—amount of catches counted against its individual quota,—the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO; — amount of catches taken on board, — amount of catches counted against its individual quota, — the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO; (b) as regards the other catching vessels of the same JFO not involved in the transfer of the fish:—the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers,—that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages,—amount of catches counted against their individual quotas,—the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a). — the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers, — that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages, — amount of catches counted against their individual quotas, — the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a).
(a) as regards the catching vessel transferring the fish into cages:—amount of catches taken on board,—amount of catches counted against its individual quota,—the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO; — amount of catches taken on board, — amount of catches counted against its individual quota, — the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO;
— amount of catches taken on board,
— amount of catches counted against its individual quota,
— the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO;
(b) as regards the other catching vessels of the same JFO not involved in the transfer of the fish:—the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers,—that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages,—amount of catches counted against their individual quotas,—the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a). — the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers, — that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages, — amount of catches counted against their individual quotas, — the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a).
— the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers,
— that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages,
— amount of catches counted against their individual quotas,
— the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a).
(a) as regards the catching vessel transferring the fish into cages:—amount of catches taken on board,—amount of catches counted against its individual quota,—the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO; — amount of catches taken on board, — amount of catches counted against its individual quota, — the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO;
— amount of catches taken on board,
— amount of catches counted against its individual quota,
— the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO;
— amount of catches taken on board,
— amount of catches counted against its individual quota,
— the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO;
(b) as regards the other catching vessels of the same JFO not involved in the transfer of the fish:—the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers,—that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages,—amount of catches counted against their individual quotas,—the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a). — the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers, — that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages, — amount of catches counted against their individual quotas, — the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a).
— the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers,
— that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages,
— amount of catches counted against their individual quotas,
— the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a).
— the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers,
— that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages,
— amount of catches counted against their individual quotas,
— the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a).
1. The master of a towing vessel shall record in the daily logbook the date, time and position of transfer, the quantities transferred (number of fish and quantity in kg), the cage number, as well as the catching vessel's name, flag and ICCAT number, the name of the other vessel(s) involved and their ICCAT number, the farm of destination and its ICCAT number, and the ICCAT transfer declaration number.
2. Further transfers to auxiliary vessels or to other towing vessel shall be reported, including the same information as in point 1, as well as the auxiliary or towing vessel's name, flag and ICCAT number and the ICCAT transfer declaration number.
3. The daily logbook shall contain the details of all transfers carried out during the fishing season. The daily logbook shall be kept on board and be accessible at any time for control purposes.
1. The master of an auxiliary vessel shall record the activities daily in the logbook, including the date, time and positions, the quantities of bluefin tuna taken on board, and the fishing vessel, farm or trap name he/she is operating in association with.
2. The daily logbook shall contain the details of all activities carried out during the fishing season. The daily logbook shall be kept on board and be accessible at any time for control purposes.
1. The master of a processing vessel shall report in the daily logbook the date, time and position of the activities and the quantities transhipped and the number and weight of bluefin tuna received from farms, traps or catching vessels, where applicable. The master should also report the names and ICCAT numbers of those farms, traps or catching vessels.
2. The master of a processing vessel shall maintain a daily processing logbook specifying the round weight and number of fish transferred or transhipped, the conversion factor used, and the weights and quantities by product presentation.
3. The master of a processing vessel shall maintain a stowage plan that shows the location and the quantities of each species and presentation.
4. The daily logbook shall contain the details of all transhipments carried out during the fishing season. The daily logbook, processing logbook, stowage plan and the originals of ICCAT transhipment declarations shall be kept on board and be accessible at any time for control purposes.
Catch report form
Flag ICCAT Number Vessel name Report start date Report end date Report duration (d) Catch date Location of the catch Catch Attributed weight in case of a joint fishing operation (kg)
Latitude Longitude Weight (kg) Number of pieces Average weight (kg)
Joint fishing operation
Flag State Vessel name ICCAT No Duration of the operation Identity of the operators Vessel's individual quota Allocation key per vessel Fattening and farming farm destination
CPC ICCAT No
1. Each ICCAT regional observer shall have the following qualifications to accomplish their tasks:(a)sufficient experience to identify species and fishing gear;(b)satisfactory knowledge of the ICCAT conservation and management measures assessed by a certificate provided by the Member States and based on ICCAT training guidelines;(c)the ability to observe and record accurately;(d)a satisfactory knowledge of the language of the flag of the vessel or farm observed. (a) sufficient experience to identify species and fishing gear; (b) satisfactory knowledge of the ICCAT conservation and management measures assessed by a certificate provided by the Member States and based on ICCAT training guidelines; (c) the ability to observe and record accurately; (d) a satisfactory knowledge of the language of the flag of the vessel or farm observed.
(a) sufficient experience to identify species and fishing gear;
(b) satisfactory knowledge of the ICCAT conservation and management measures assessed by a certificate provided by the Member States and based on ICCAT training guidelines;
(c) the ability to observe and record accurately;
(d) a satisfactory knowledge of the language of the flag of the vessel or farm observed.
(a) sufficient experience to identify species and fishing gear;
(b) satisfactory knowledge of the ICCAT conservation and management measures assessed by a certificate provided by the Member States and based on ICCAT training guidelines;
(c) the ability to observe and record accurately;
(d) a satisfactory knowledge of the language of the flag of the vessel or farm observed.
2. The ICCAT regional observers shall:(a)have completed the technical training required by the guidelines established by ICCAT;(b)be nationals of one of the Member States and, to the extent possible, not of the farm or trap state or the flag State of the purse seiner. If, however, bluefin tuna is harvested from the cage and traded as fresh products, the ICCAT regional observer that observes the harvest may be a national of the Member State responsible for the farm;(c)be capable of performing the tasks set out in point 3;(d)be included in the list of ICCAT regional observers maintained by ICCAT;(e)not have current financial or beneficial interests in the bluefin tuna fishery. (a) have completed the technical training required by the guidelines established by ICCAT; (b) be nationals of one of the Member States and, to the extent possible, not of the farm or trap state or the flag State of the purse seiner. If, however, bluefin tuna is harvested from the cage and traded as fresh products, the ICCAT regional observer that observes the harvest may be a national of the Member State responsible for the farm; (c) be capable of performing the tasks set out in point 3; (d) be included in the list of ICCAT regional observers maintained by ICCAT; (e) not have current financial or beneficial interests in the bluefin tuna fishery.
(a) have completed the technical training required by the guidelines established by ICCAT;
(b) be nationals of one of the Member States and, to the extent possible, not of the farm or trap state or the flag State of the purse seiner. If, however, bluefin tuna is harvested from the cage and traded as fresh products, the ICCAT regional observer that observes the harvest may be a national of the Member State responsible for the farm;
(c) be capable of performing the tasks set out in point 3;
(d) be included in the list of ICCAT regional observers maintained by ICCAT;
(e) not have current financial or beneficial interests in the bluefin tuna fishery.
(a) have completed the technical training required by the guidelines established by ICCAT;
(b) be nationals of one of the Member States and, to the extent possible, not of the farm or trap state or the flag State of the purse seiner. If, however, bluefin tuna is harvested from the cage and traded as fresh products, the ICCAT regional observer that observes the harvest may be a national of the Member State responsible for the farm;
(c) be capable of performing the tasks set out in point 3;
(d) be included in the list of ICCAT regional observers maintained by ICCAT;
(e) not have current financial or beneficial interests in the bluefin tuna fishery.
3. The tasks of ICCAT regional observers shall be, in particular:(a)as regards observers on purse seine vessels, to monitor the purse seine vessels' compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the regional observer shall:(1)in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel;(2)record and report upon the fishing activities carried out;(3)observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;(4)issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels' transfer activities;(5)sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures;(6)record and report upon the transfer activities carried out;(7)verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer;(8)observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings;(9)verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number;(10)carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;(b)as regards ICCAT regional observers in farms and traps, to monitor their compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the ICCAT regional observer shall:(1)verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records;(2)certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs;(3)issue a daily report of the farms' and traps' transfer activities;(4)countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1);(5)carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;(6)register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals;(c)establish general reports compiling the information collected in accordance with this point and provide the master and farm operator with the opportunity to include therein any relevant information;(d)submit to the Secretariat the general report referred to in point (c) within 20 days from the end of the period of observation;(e)exercise any other functions as defined by the ICCAT Commission. (a) as regards observers on purse seine vessels, to monitor the purse seine vessels' compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the regional observer shall:(1)in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel;(2)record and report upon the fishing activities carried out;(3)observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;(4)issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels' transfer activities;(5)sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures;(6)record and report upon the transfer activities carried out;(7)verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer;(8)observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings;(9)verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number;(10)carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; (1) in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel; (2) record and report upon the fishing activities carried out; (3) observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook; (4) issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels' transfer activities; (5) sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures; (6) record and report upon the transfer activities carried out; (7) verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer; (8) observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings; (9) verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number; (10) carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; (b) as regards ICCAT regional observers in farms and traps, to monitor their compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the ICCAT regional observer shall:(1)verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records;(2)certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs;(3)issue a daily report of the farms' and traps' transfer activities;(4)countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1);(5)carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;(6)register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals; (1) verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records; (2) certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs; (3) issue a daily report of the farms' and traps' transfer activities; (4) countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1); (5) carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; (6) register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals; (c) establish general reports compiling the information collected in accordance with this point and provide the master and farm operator with the opportunity to include therein any relevant information; (d) submit to the Secretariat the general report referred to in point (c) within 20 days from the end of the period of observation; (e) exercise any other functions as defined by the ICCAT Commission.
(a) as regards observers on purse seine vessels, to monitor the purse seine vessels' compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the regional observer shall:(1)in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel;(2)record and report upon the fishing activities carried out;(3)observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;(4)issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels' transfer activities;(5)sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures;(6)record and report upon the transfer activities carried out;(7)verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer;(8)observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings;(9)verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number;(10)carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; (1) in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel; (2) record and report upon the fishing activities carried out; (3) observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook; (4) issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels' transfer activities; (5) sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures; (6) record and report upon the transfer activities carried out; (7) verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer; (8) observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings; (9) verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number; (10) carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;
(1) in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel;
(2) record and report upon the fishing activities carried out;
(3) observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;
(4) issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels' transfer activities;
(5) sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures;
(6) record and report upon the transfer activities carried out;
(7) verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer;
(8) observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings;
(9) verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number;
(10) carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;
(b) as regards ICCAT regional observers in farms and traps, to monitor their compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the ICCAT regional observer shall:(1)verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records;(2)certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs;(3)issue a daily report of the farms' and traps' transfer activities;(4)countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1);(5)carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;(6)register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals; (1) verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records; (2) certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs; (3) issue a daily report of the farms' and traps' transfer activities; (4) countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1); (5) carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; (6) register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals;
(1) verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records;
(2) certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs;
(3) issue a daily report of the farms' and traps' transfer activities;
(4) countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1);
(5) carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;
(6) register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals;
(c) establish general reports compiling the information collected in accordance with this point and provide the master and farm operator with the opportunity to include therein any relevant information;
(d) submit to the Secretariat the general report referred to in point (c) within 20 days from the end of the period of observation;
(e) exercise any other functions as defined by the ICCAT Commission.
(a) as regards observers on purse seine vessels, to monitor the purse seine vessels' compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the regional observer shall:(1)in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel;(2)record and report upon the fishing activities carried out;(3)observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;(4)issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels' transfer activities;(5)sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures;(6)record and report upon the transfer activities carried out;(7)verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer;(8)observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings;(9)verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number;(10)carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; (1) in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel; (2) record and report upon the fishing activities carried out; (3) observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook; (4) issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels' transfer activities; (5) sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures; (6) record and report upon the transfer activities carried out; (7) verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer; (8) observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings; (9) verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number; (10) carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;
(1) in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel;
(2) record and report upon the fishing activities carried out;
(3) observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;
(4) issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels' transfer activities;
(5) sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures;
(6) record and report upon the transfer activities carried out;
(7) verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer;
(8) observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings;
(9) verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number;
(10) carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;
(1) in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel;
(2) record and report upon the fishing activities carried out;
(3) observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;
(4) issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels' transfer activities;
(5) sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures;
(6) record and report upon the transfer activities carried out;
(7) verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer;
(8) observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings;
(9) verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number;
(10) carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;
(b) as regards ICCAT regional observers in farms and traps, to monitor their compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the ICCAT regional observer shall:(1)verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records;(2)certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs;(3)issue a daily report of the farms' and traps' transfer activities;(4)countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1);(5)carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;(6)register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals; (1) verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records; (2) certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs; (3) issue a daily report of the farms' and traps' transfer activities; (4) countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1); (5) carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; (6) register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals;
(1) verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records;
(2) certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs;
(3) issue a daily report of the farms' and traps' transfer activities;
(4) countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1);
(5) carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;
(6) register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals;
(1) verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records;
(2) certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs;
(3) issue a daily report of the farms' and traps' transfer activities;
(4) countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1);
(5) carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;
(6) register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals;
(c) establish general reports compiling the information collected in accordance with this point and provide the master and farm operator with the opportunity to include therein any relevant information;
(d) submit to the Secretariat the general report referred to in point (c) within 20 days from the end of the period of observation;
(e) exercise any other functions as defined by the ICCAT Commission.
4. The ICCAT regional observer shall treat as confidential all information with respect to the fishing and transfer operations of the purse seiners and of the farms and shall accept that requirement in writing as a condition of appointment as an ICCAT regional observer.
5. The ICCAT regional observer shall comply with requirements established in the laws and regulations of the flag or farm state which exercises jurisdiction over the vessel or farm to which the ICCAT regional observer is assigned.
6. The ICCAT regional observer shall respect the hierarchy and general rules of behaviour which apply to all vessel and farm personnel, provided such rules do not interfere with the duties of the ICCAT regional observer under this programme, and with the obligations of vessel and farm personnel set out in point 7 of this Annex and Article 51(6).
7. Member States responsible for the purse seiner, farm or trap, shall ensure that ICCAT regional observers are:(a)allowed access to the vessel, farm and trap personnel and to the gear, cages and equipment;(b)allowed access, upon request, to the following equipment, if present on the vessels to which they are assigned, in order to facilitate the carrying out of their duties set out in point 3 of this Annex:(1)satellite navigation equipment,(2)radar display viewing screens when in use,(3)electronic means of communication;(c)provided with accommodation, including lodging, food and adequate sanitary facilities, equal to those of officers;(d)provided with adequate space on the bridge or pilot house for clerical work, as well as space on deck adequate for carrying out observer duties. (a) allowed access to the vessel, farm and trap personnel and to the gear, cages and equipment; (b) allowed access, upon request, to the following equipment, if present on the vessels to which they are assigned, in order to facilitate the carrying out of their duties set out in point 3 of this Annex:(1)satellite navigation equipment,(2)radar display viewing screens when in use,(3)electronic means of communication; (1) satellite navigation equipment, (2) radar display viewing screens when in use, (3) electronic means of communication; (c) provided with accommodation, including lodging, food and adequate sanitary facilities, equal to those of officers; (d) provided with adequate space on the bridge or pilot house for clerical work, as well as space on deck adequate for carrying out observer duties.
(a) allowed access to the vessel, farm and trap personnel and to the gear, cages and equipment;
(b) allowed access, upon request, to the following equipment, if present on the vessels to which they are assigned, in order to facilitate the carrying out of their duties set out in point 3 of this Annex:(1)satellite navigation equipment,(2)radar display viewing screens when in use,(3)electronic means of communication; (1) satellite navigation equipment, (2) radar display viewing screens when in use, (3) electronic means of communication;
(1) satellite navigation equipment,
(2) radar display viewing screens when in use,
(3) electronic means of communication;
(c) provided with accommodation, including lodging, food and adequate sanitary facilities, equal to those of officers;
(d) provided with adequate space on the bridge or pilot house for clerical work, as well as space on deck adequate for carrying out observer duties.
(a) allowed access to the vessel, farm and trap personnel and to the gear, cages and equipment;
(b) allowed access, upon request, to the following equipment, if present on the vessels to which they are assigned, in order to facilitate the carrying out of their duties set out in point 3 of this Annex:(1)satellite navigation equipment,(2)radar display viewing screens when in use,(3)electronic means of communication; (1) satellite navigation equipment, (2) radar display viewing screens when in use, (3) electronic means of communication;
(1) satellite navigation equipment,
(2) radar display viewing screens when in use,
(3) electronic means of communication;
(1) satellite navigation equipment,
(2) radar display viewing screens when in use,
(3) electronic means of communication;
(c) provided with accommodation, including lodging, food and adequate sanitary facilities, equal to those of officers;
(d) provided with adequate space on the bridge or pilot house for clerical work, as well as space on deck adequate for carrying out observer duties.
8. All costs arising from the operation of ICCAT regional observers shall be borne by each farm operator or owner of purse seiners.
1. For the purposes of these procedures, a serious violation means the following violations of the provisions of the ICCAT conservation and management measures adopted by the ICCAT Commission:(a)fishing without a licence, permit or authorisation issued by the flag CPC;(b)failure to maintain sufficient records of catch and catch-related data in accordance with the ICCAT Commission's reporting requirements or significant misreporting of such catch and/or catch-related data;(c)fishing in a closed area;(d)fishing during a closed season;(e)intentional taking or retention of species in contravention of any applicable conservation and management measure adopted by ICCAT;(f)significant violation of catch limits or quotas in force pursuant to ICCAT rules;(g)using prohibited fishing gear;(h)falsifying or intentionally concealing the markings, identity or registration of a fishing vessel;(i)concealing, tampering with or disposing of evidence relating to the investigation of a violation;(j)multiple violations which, taken together, constitute a serious disregard of measures in force pursuant to ICCAT;(k)assault, resist, intimidate, sexually harass, interfere with, or unduly obstruct or delay an authorised inspector or observer;(l)intentionally tampering with or disabling the VMS;(m)such other violations as may be determined by the ICCAT, once those are included and circulated in a revised version of those procedures;(n)fishing with the assistance of spotter planes;(o)interference with the satellite monitoring system and/or operation of a vessel without the VMS;(p)transfer activity without transfer declaration;(q)transhipment at sea. (a) fishing without a licence, permit or authorisation issued by the flag CPC; (b) failure to maintain sufficient records of catch and catch-related data in accordance with the ICCAT Commission's reporting requirements or significant misreporting of such catch and/or catch-related data; (c) fishing in a closed area; (d) fishing during a closed season; (e) intentional taking or retention of species in contravention of any applicable conservation and management measure adopted by ICCAT; (f) significant violation of catch limits or quotas in force pursuant to ICCAT rules; (g) using prohibited fishing gear; (h) falsifying or intentionally concealing the markings, identity or registration of a fishing vessel; (i) concealing, tampering with or disposing of evidence relating to the investigation of a violation; (j) multiple violations which, taken together, constitute a serious disregard of measures in force pursuant to ICCAT; (k) assault, resist, intimidate, sexually harass, interfere with, or unduly obstruct or delay an authorised inspector or observer; (l) intentionally tampering with or disabling the VMS; (m) such other violations as may be determined by the ICCAT, once those are included and circulated in a revised version of those procedures; (n) fishing with the assistance of spotter planes; (o) interference with the satellite monitoring system and/or operation of a vessel without the VMS; (p) transfer activity without transfer declaration; (q) transhipment at sea.
(a) fishing without a licence, permit or authorisation issued by the flag CPC;
(b) failure to maintain sufficient records of catch and catch-related data in accordance with the ICCAT Commission's reporting requirements or significant misreporting of such catch and/or catch-related data;
(c) fishing in a closed area;
(d) fishing during a closed season;
(e) intentional taking or retention of species in contravention of any applicable conservation and management measure adopted by ICCAT;
(f) significant violation of catch limits or quotas in force pursuant to ICCAT rules;
(g) using prohibited fishing gear;
(h) falsifying or intentionally concealing the markings, identity or registration of a fishing vessel;
(i) concealing, tampering with or disposing of evidence relating to the investigation of a violation;
(j) multiple violations which, taken together, constitute a serious disregard of measures in force pursuant to ICCAT;
(k) assault, resist, intimidate, sexually harass, interfere with, or unduly obstruct or delay an authorised inspector or observer;
(l) intentionally tampering with or disabling the VMS;
(m) such other violations as may be determined by the ICCAT, once those are included and circulated in a revised version of those procedures;
(n) fishing with the assistance of spotter planes;
(o) interference with the satellite monitoring system and/or operation of a vessel without the VMS;
(p) transfer activity without transfer declaration;
(q) transhipment at sea.
(a) fishing without a licence, permit or authorisation issued by the flag CPC;
(b) failure to maintain sufficient records of catch and catch-related data in accordance with the ICCAT Commission's reporting requirements or significant misreporting of such catch and/or catch-related data;
(c) fishing in a closed area;
(d) fishing during a closed season;
(e) intentional taking or retention of species in contravention of any applicable conservation and management measure adopted by ICCAT;
(f) significant violation of catch limits or quotas in force pursuant to ICCAT rules;
(g) using prohibited fishing gear;
(h) falsifying or intentionally concealing the markings, identity or registration of a fishing vessel;
(i) concealing, tampering with or disposing of evidence relating to the investigation of a violation;
(j) multiple violations which, taken together, constitute a serious disregard of measures in force pursuant to ICCAT;
(k) assault, resist, intimidate, sexually harass, interfere with, or unduly obstruct or delay an authorised inspector or observer;
(l) intentionally tampering with or disabling the VMS;
(m) such other violations as may be determined by the ICCAT, once those are included and circulated in a revised version of those procedures;
(n) fishing with the assistance of spotter planes;
(o) interference with the satellite monitoring system and/or operation of a vessel without the VMS;
(p) transfer activity without transfer declaration;
(q) transhipment at sea.
2. In the case of any boarding and inspection of a fishing vessel during which the authorised inspector observes an activity or condition that would constitute a serious violation, as defined in point 1, the authorities of the flag State of the inspection vessels shall immediately notify the flag State of the fishing vessel, directly as well as through the ICCAT Secretariat. In such situations, the inspector shall also inform any inspection ship of the flag State of the fishing vessel known to be in the vicinity.
3. The ICCAT inspector shall register, in the fishing vessel's logbook, the inspections undertaken and any infringements detected.
4. The flag Member State shall ensure that, following the inspection referred to in point 2, the fishing vessel concerned ceases all fishing activities. The flag Member State shall require the fishing vessel to proceed within 72 hours to a port designated by it, where an investigation shall be initiated.
5. If the vessel is not called to port, the flag Member State shall provide due justification in a timely manner to the European Commission which shall forward the information to the ICCAT Secretariat, who shall make it available on request to other Contracting Parties.
6. Inspections shall be carried out by inspectors designated by the Contracting Parties. The names of the authorised government agencies and each inspector designated for that purpose by their respective governments shall be notified to the ICCAT Commission.
7. Ships carrying out international boarding and inspection duties in accordance with this Annex shall fly a special flag or pennant approved by the ICCAT Commission and issued by the ICCAT Secretariat. The names of the ships so used shall be notified to the ICCAT Secretariat as soon as practical in advance of the commencement of inspection activities. The ICCAT Secretariat shall make information regarding designated inspection vessels available to all CPCs, including by posting on its password-protected website.
8. Each inspector shall carry an appropriate identity document issued by the authorities of the flag State, which shall be in the form shown in point 21 of this Annex.
9. Subject to the arrangements agreed under point 16, a vessel flagged to a Contracting Party and fishing for tuna or tuna-like fish in the Convention area outside the waters within its national jurisdiction shall stop when given the appropriate signal in the International Code of Signals by a ship flying the ICCAT pennant described in point 7 and carrying an inspector, unless the vessel is actually carrying out fishing operations, in which case it shall stop immediately once it has finished such operations. The master of the vessel shall permit the inspection party, as specified in point 10, to board it and shall provide a boarding ladder. The master shall enable the inspection party to make such examination of equipment, catch or gear and any relevant documents as an inspector deems necessary to verify the compliance with the ICCAT Commission's recommendations in force in relation to the flag State of the vessel being inspected. Further, an inspector may ask for any explanations that are deemed necessary.
10. The size of the inspection party shall be determined by the commanding officer of the inspection vessel, taking into account relevant circumstances. The inspection party shall be as small as possible to safely and securely accomplish the duties set out in this Annex.
11. Upon boarding the vessel, the inspector shall produce the identity documentation described in point 8. The inspector shall observe generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices relating to the safety of the vessel being inspected and its crew, and shall minimise interference with fishing activities or stowage of product and, to the extent practicable, avoid action which would adversely affect the quality of the catch on board.Each inspector shall limit his/her enquiries to the ascertainment of the observance of the ICCAT Commission's recommendations in force in relation to the flag State of the vessel concerned. In making the inspection, an inspector may ask the master of the fishing vessel for any assistance that may be required. The inspector shall draw up a report of the inspection in a form approved by the ICCAT Commission. The inspector shall sign the report in the presence of the master of the vessel who shall be entitled to add or have added to the report any observations which he/she may think suitable and shall sign such observations.
12. Copies of the report shall be given to the master of the vessel and to the government of the inspection party, which shall transmit copies to the appropriate authorities of the flag State of the inspected vessel and to the ICCAT Commission. Where any infringement of ICCAT recommendations is discovered, the inspector shall, where possible, also inform any inspection ship of the flag State of the fishing vessel known to be in the vicinity.
13. Resistance to an inspector or failure to comply with his/her directions shall be treated by the flag State of the inspected vessel in a manner similar to such conduct committed with respect to a national inspector.
14. The inspector shall carry out his/her duties under these arrangements in accordance with the rules set out in this Regulation, but they shall remain under the operational control of their national authorities and shall be responsible to them.
15. Contracting Parties shall consider and act on inspection reports, sighting information sheets as per Recommendation 94-09 and statements resulting from documentary inspections of foreign inspectors under these arrangements on a similar basis in accordance with their national legislation to the reports of national inspectors. The provisions of this point shall not impose any obligation on a Contracting Party to give the report of a foreign inspector a higher evidential value than it would possess in the inspector's own country. Contracting Parties shall collaborate in order to facilitate judicial or other proceedings arising from a report of an inspector under these arrangements.
16. (a)Contracting Parties shall inform the ICCAT Commission by 15 February each year of their provisional plans for conducting inspection activities under this Regulation in that calendar year and the ICCAT Commission may make suggestions to Contracting Parties for the coordination of national operations in this field, including the number of inspectors and ships carrying inspectors.(b)The arrangements set out in this Regulation and the plans for participation shall apply between Contracting Parties unless otherwise agreed between them, and such agreement shall be notified to the ICCAT Commission. However, the implementation of the scheme shall be suspended between any two Contracting Parties if either of them has notified the ICCAT Commission to that effect, pending completion of such an agreement. (a) Contracting Parties shall inform the ICCAT Commission by 15 February each year of their provisional plans for conducting inspection activities under this Regulation in that calendar year and the ICCAT Commission may make suggestions to Contracting Parties for the coordination of national operations in this field, including the number of inspectors and ships carrying inspectors. (b) The arrangements set out in this Regulation and the plans for participation shall apply between Contracting Parties unless otherwise agreed between them, and such agreement shall be notified to the ICCAT Commission. However, the implementation of the scheme shall be suspended between any two Contracting Parties if either of them has notified the ICCAT Commission to that effect, pending completion of such an agreement.
(a) Contracting Parties shall inform the ICCAT Commission by 15 February each year of their provisional plans for conducting inspection activities under this Regulation in that calendar year and the ICCAT Commission may make suggestions to Contracting Parties for the coordination of national operations in this field, including the number of inspectors and ships carrying inspectors.
(b) The arrangements set out in this Regulation and the plans for participation shall apply between Contracting Parties unless otherwise agreed between them, and such agreement shall be notified to the ICCAT Commission. However, the implementation of the scheme shall be suspended between any two Contracting Parties if either of them has notified the ICCAT Commission to that effect, pending completion of such an agreement.
(a) Contracting Parties shall inform the ICCAT Commission by 15 February each year of their provisional plans for conducting inspection activities under this Regulation in that calendar year and the ICCAT Commission may make suggestions to Contracting Parties for the coordination of national operations in this field, including the number of inspectors and ships carrying inspectors.
(b) The arrangements set out in this Regulation and the plans for participation shall apply between Contracting Parties unless otherwise agreed between them, and such agreement shall be notified to the ICCAT Commission. However, the implementation of the scheme shall be suspended between any two Contracting Parties if either of them has notified the ICCAT Commission to that effect, pending completion of such an agreement.
17. (a)The fishing gear shall be inspected in accordance with the regulations in force for the subarea in which the inspection takes place. The inspector shall state the subarea for which the inspection took place, and a description of any violations found in the inspection report.(b)The inspector shall be entitled to inspect all fishing gear in use or on board. (a) The fishing gear shall be inspected in accordance with the regulations in force for the subarea in which the inspection takes place. The inspector shall state the subarea for which the inspection took place, and a description of any violations found in the inspection report. (b) The inspector shall be entitled to inspect all fishing gear in use or on board.
(a) The fishing gear shall be inspected in accordance with the regulations in force for the subarea in which the inspection takes place. The inspector shall state the subarea for which the inspection took place, and a description of any violations found in the inspection report.
(b) The inspector shall be entitled to inspect all fishing gear in use or on board.
(a) The fishing gear shall be inspected in accordance with the regulations in force for the subarea in which the inspection takes place. The inspector shall state the subarea for which the inspection took place, and a description of any violations found in the inspection report.
(b) The inspector shall be entitled to inspect all fishing gear in use or on board.
18. The inspector shall affix an identification mark approved by the ICCAT Commission to any fishing gear inspected which appears to be in contravention of the ICCAT Commission recommendations in force in relation to the flag State of the vessel concerned and shall record this fact in the inspection report.
19. The inspector may photograph the gear, equipment, documentation and any other element he/she consider necessary in such a way as to reveal those features which in his/her opinion are not in conformity with the regulation in force, in which case the subjects photographed shall be listed in the report and copies of the photographs shall be attached to the copy of the report to the flag State.
20. The inspector shall, as necessary, inspect all catch on board to determine compliance with ICCAT recommendations.
21. The model identity card for inspectors is as follows:
1. The electronic storage device containing the original video record shall be provided to the ICCAT regional observer as soon as possible after the end of the transfer operation, who shall immediately initialise it to avoid any further manipulation.
2. The original recording shall be kept on board the catching vessel or by the farm or trap operator, where appropriate, during its entire period of authorisation.
3. Two identical copies of the video record shall be produced. One copy shall be transmitted to the ICCAT regional observer on board the purse seiner and one to the national observer on board the towing vessel, the latter of which shall accompany the transfer declaration and the associated catches to which it relates. That procedure shall only apply to national observers in the case of transfers between towing vessels.
4. At the beginning and/or the end of each video, the ICCAT transfer authorisation number shall be displayed.
5. The time and the date of the video shall be continuously displayed throughout each video record.
6. Before the start of the transfer, the video shall include the opening and closing of the net/door and footage showing whether the receiving and donor cages already contain bluefin tuna.
7. The video recording shall be continuous without any interruptions and cuts and cover the entire transfer operation.
8. The video record shall be of sufficient quality to estimate the number of bluefin tuna being transferred.
9. If the video record is of insufficient quality to estimate the number of bluefin tuna being transferred, then a new transfer shall be requested by the control authorities. The new transfer shall include all the bluefin tuna in the receiving cage into another cage which must be empty.
1. The electronic storage device containing the original video record shall be provided to the ICCAT regional observer as soon as possible after the end of the caging operation, who shall immediately initialise it to avoid any further manipulation.
2. The original recording shall be kept by the farm, where applicable, during their entire period of authorisation.
3. Two identical copies of the video record shall be produced. One copy shall be transmitted to the ICCAT regional observer deployed on the farm.
4. At the beginning and/or the end of each video, the ICCAT caging authorisation number shall be displayed.
5. The time and the date of the video shall be continuously displayed throughout each video record.
6. Before the start of the caging, the video shall include the opening and closing of the net/door and whether the receiving and donor cages already contain bluefin tuna.
7. The video recording shall be continuous without any interruptions and cuts and cover the entire caging operation.
8. The video record shall be of sufficient quality to estimate the number of bluefin tuna being transferred.
9. If the video record is of insufficient quality to estimate the number of bluefin tuna being transferred, then a new caging operation shall be requested by the control authorities. The new caging operation shall include all the bluefin tuna in the receiving farm cage into another farm cage which shall be empty.
1. The sampling intensity of live fish shall not be below 20 % of the amount of fish being caged. When technically possible, the sampling of live fish shall be sequential, one in every five specimens being measured; such a sample shall be made up of fish measured at a distance between 2 and 8 metres from the camera.
2. The dimensions of the transfer gate connecting the donor cage and the receiving cage shall be set at a maximum width of 10 metres and a maximum height of 10 metres.
3. When the length measurements of the fish present a multi-modal distribution (two or more cohorts of distinct sizes), it shall be possible to use more than one conversion algorithm for the same caging operation; the most up-to-date algorithm(s) established by SCRS shall be used to convert fork lengths into total weights, according to the size category of the fish measured during the caging operation.
4. Validation of the stereoscopical length measurements shall be undertaken prior to each caging operation using a scale bar at a distance of between 2 and 8 metres.
5. When the results of the stereoscopical programme are communicated, the information shall indicate the margin of error inherent to the technical specifications of the stereoscopic camera system, which shall not exceed a range of +/– 5 %.
6. The report on the results of the stereoscopical programme shall include details on all the technical specifications above, including the sampling intensity, the way of sampling methodology, the distance from the camera, the dimensions of the transfer gate, and the algorithms (length-weight relationship). SCRS shall review those specifications and, if necessary, provide recommendations to modify them.
7. In cases where the stereoscopic camera footage is of insufficient quality to estimate the weight of bluefin tuna being caged, a new caging operation shall be ordered by the Member State authorities responsible for the catching vessel, trap or farm.
1. Decisions regarding differences between the catch report and the results from the stereoscopical system programme shall be taken at the level of the JFO or total trap catches, for JFOs and trap catches destined to a farm facility involving a single CPC and/or Member State. The decision regarding differences between the catch report and the results from the stereoscopical system programme shall be taken at the level of the caging operations for JFOs involving more than one CPC and/or Member State, unless otherwise agreed by all the flag CPC and/or Member State authorities of the catching vessels involved in the JFO.
2. The Member State responsible for the farm shall provide a report to the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap and to the Commission, including the following documents:(a)technical stereoscopical system report including:—general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm,—sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution;(b)detailed results of the programme, with the size and weight of every fish that was sampled;(c)caging report including:—general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name,—algorithm used to convert length into weight,—comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100),—margin of error of the system,—for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports. (a) technical stereoscopical system report including:—general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm,—sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution; — general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm, — sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution; (b) detailed results of the programme, with the size and weight of every fish that was sampled; (c) caging report including:—general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name,—algorithm used to convert length into weight,—comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100),—margin of error of the system,—for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports. — general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name, — algorithm used to convert length into weight, — comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100), — margin of error of the system, — for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports.
(a) technical stereoscopical system report including:—general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm,—sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution; — general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm, — sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution;
— general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm,
— sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution;
(b) detailed results of the programme, with the size and weight of every fish that was sampled;
(c) caging report including:—general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name,—algorithm used to convert length into weight,—comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100),—margin of error of the system,—for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports. — general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name, — algorithm used to convert length into weight, — comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100), — margin of error of the system, — for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports.
— general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name,
— algorithm used to convert length into weight,
— comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100),
— margin of error of the system,
— for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports.
(a) technical stereoscopical system report including:—general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm,—sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution; — general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm, — sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution;
— general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm,
— sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution;
— general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm,
— sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution;
(b) detailed results of the programme, with the size and weight of every fish that was sampled;
(c) caging report including:—general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name,—algorithm used to convert length into weight,—comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100),—margin of error of the system,—for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports. — general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name, — algorithm used to convert length into weight, — comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100), — margin of error of the system, — for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports.
— general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name,
— algorithm used to convert length into weight,
— comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100),
— margin of error of the system,
— for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports.
— general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name,
— algorithm used to convert length into weight,
— comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100),
— margin of error of the system,
— for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports.
3. When receiving the caging report, the Member State authorities of the catching vessel or trap shall take all the necessary measures according to the following situations:(a)the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is within the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;(b)the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is below the lowest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results,—the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI,—after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;(c)the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD exceeds the highest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly. (a) the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is within the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; — no release shall be ordered, — the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; (b) the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is below the lowest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results,—the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI,—after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; — a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results, — the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI, — after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; (c) the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD exceeds the highest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly. — no release shall be ordered, — the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly.
(a) the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is within the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; — no release shall be ordered, — the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
— no release shall be ordered,
— the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
(b) the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is below the lowest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results,—the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI,—after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; — a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results, — the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI, — after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
— a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results,
— the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI,
— after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
(c) the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD exceeds the highest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly. — no release shall be ordered, — the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly.
— no release shall be ordered,
— the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly.
(a) the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is within the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; — no release shall be ordered, — the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
— no release shall be ordered,
— the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
— no release shall be ordered,
— the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
(b) the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is below the lowest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results,—the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI,—after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; — a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results, — the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI, — after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
— a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results,
— the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI,
— after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
— a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results,
— the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI,
— after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
(c) the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD exceeds the highest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly. — no release shall be ordered, — the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly.
— no release shall be ordered,
— the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly.
— no release shall be ordered,
— the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly.
4. For any relevant modification of the BCD, the values (number and weight) entered in Section 2 shall be consistent with those in Section 6 and the values in Sections 3, 4 and 6, shall be not higher those in Section 2.
5. In case of compensation of differences found in individual caging reports across all cagings from a JFO/trap, whether or not a release operation is required, all relevant BCDs shall be modified on the basis of the lowest range of the stereoscopical system results. The BCDs related to the quantities of bluefin tuna released shall also be modified to reflect the weight/number released. The BCDs related to bluefin tuna not released but for which the results from the stereoscopical systems or alternative techniques differ from those reported caught and transferred shall also be amended to reflect those differences.The BCDs relating to the catches from where the release operation took place shall also be modified to reflect the weight/number released.
1. The release of bluefin tuna from farming cages into the sea shall be recorded by video camera and observed by an ICCAT regional observer, who shall draft and submit a report together with the video records to the ICCAT Secretariat.
2. When a release order has been issued, the farm operator shall request the deployment of an ICCAT regional observer.
3. The release of bluefin tuna from transport cages or traps into the sea shall be observed by a national observer of the Member State responsible for the towing vessel or trap, who shall draft and submit a report to the responsible Member State control authorities.
4. Before a release operation takes place, Member State control authorities might order a control transfer using standard and/or stereoscopic cameras to estimate the number and weight of the fish that need to be released.
5. Member State authorities may implement any additional measures they consider necessary to guarantee that the release operations take place at the most appropriate time and place in order to increase the probability of the fish going back to the stock. The operator shall be responsible for the fish survival until the release operation has taken place. Those release operations shall take place within three weeks of the completion of the caging operations.
6. Following completion of harvesting operations, fish remaining in a farm and not covered by the BCD shall be released in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 34(2) and this Annex.
(1) The BCD shall be provided to the operator of the towing vessel with Section 2 (Total catch), Section 3 (Live fish trade) and Section 4 (Transfer — including ‘dead’ fish) completed.The total quantities reported in Sections 3 and 4 shall be equal to the quantities reported in Section 2. The BCD shall be accompanied by the original ICCAT Transfer Declaration (ITD) in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation. The quantities reported in the ITD (transferred live), shall be equal to the quantities reported in Section 3 in the associated BCD.
(2) A split of the BCD with Section 8 (Trade information) shall be completed and given to the operator of the auxiliary vessel which transports the dead bluefin tuna to shore (or retained on the catching vessel if landed directly to shore). The dead fish and split BCD shall be accompanied by a copy of the ITD.
(3) The quantities of dead fish shall be recorded in the BCD of the catching vessel which made the catch or, in the case of JFOs, in the BCD of the catching vessels or of a vessel flying another flag participating in the JFO.
Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 This Regulation
Article 1 Articles 1 and 2
Article 2 Article 3
Article 3 Article 4
Article 4(1) Article 5(1)
Article 4(2) Article 6(1)(a)
Article 4(3) and (5) Article 7
Article 4(4), second subparagraph Article 6(1)(a) and (2)
Article 4(6)(a),(b) and second subparagraph Article 54
Article 4(6), third subparagraph Article 20(2)
Article 4(7) to (12) —
Article 4(13) Article 5(3)
Article 4(15) Article 17
Article 5(1) Article 6(1)(b)
Article 5(2) to (6) Article 9(1) to (6)
Article 5(7),(8) and the first subparagraph of paragraph 9 —
Article 5(9), second subparagraph Article 6(2)
Article 6 Article 10
Article 7 Articles 11 and 12
Article 8 Article 17
Article 9(1) and (2) Article 14(1) and (2)
Article 9(3),(4),(5) and (7) to (10) Annex I
Article 9(6) —
Article 9(11) Article 14(3)
Article 9(12) to (15) Article 15
Article 10 —
Article 11 Article 16(2),(3) and (5)
Article 12(1) to (4) Article 19
Article 12(5) —
Article 13(1),(2) and (3) Article 19
Article 13(4) —
Article 14(1),(2),(3) and (5) Article 20
Article 14(4) Article 22(1)
Article 15 Article 23
Article 16 Article 29(1),(3) and (4)
Article 17 Article 30
Article 18(1) Article 25
Article 18(2) Annex II
Article 19 Article 24(1),(2) and (3)
Article 20(1) and (2) Article 26(1),(2) and (3)
Article 20(3) and (4) Article 27
Article 21 Article 31(1) to (4) and (6)
Article 22(1) and the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 Article 33(1),(3) and (5)
Article 22(2), second subparagraph Article 34(1)
Article 22(3) Article 34(2)
Article 22(4) Article 38(1),(2) and (3)
Article 22(5) Annex II
Article 22(6) Article 33(6)
Article 22(7) Article 35(1) and Annex IX
Article 22(8) and the first subparagraph of paragraph 9 Article 36
Article 22(9), second subparagraph —
Article 22(10) Article 39
Article 23 Article 32
Article 24(1) Article 47(1)
Article 24(2),(4) and (6) Article 40(2) to (5)
Article 24(3) Article 41(1) and (2)
Article 24(5) Article 42
Article 24(7) Article 44(1) and Annex IX
Article 24(8), first subparagraph Article 45(1) and (2)
Article 24(9) —
Article 24(10) Article 48
Article 24a Annex X
Article 25 Article 49
Article 26(1) Article 26(4)
Article 26(2) Article 27(1)
Article 26(3) Article 26(5)
Article 27(1) Article 31(5)
Article 27(2) Article 41
Article 27(3) Article 3 point (24)
Article 28 Article 55
Article 29 Article 52
Article 30 Article 50
Article 31(1) and (2)(a),(b),(c) and (h) Article 51 (2) to (6)
Article 31(2)(d) to (g) Annex VII
Article 31(3) and (4) Annex VII
Article 32 Article 35(2),(3) and (4)Article 44(2),(3) and (4)
Article 33 —
Article 33a Article 53
Article 34 Article 56
Article 35 —
Article 36 —
Article 37 Article 57
Article 38 Article 58
Article 38a Article 59(1) and (2)
Article 39 Article 60
Article 40 —
Article 41 Article 61
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(1),
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure(2),
(1) The objective of the common fisheries policy (CFP), as set out in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council(3), is to ensure an exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions.
(2) The Union is Party to the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas(4)(‘the Convention’).
(3) At its 15th special meeting in 2006, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (‘ICCAT’), established by the Convention, adopted Recommendation 06-05 establishing a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean ending in 2022 (‘the recovery plan’). That Recommendation entered into force on 13 June 2007.
(4) The recovery plan takes into account the specificities of the different types of gear and fishing techniques. When implementing the recovery plan, the Union and Member States should endeavour to promote coastal fishing activities and the use of fishing gear and techniques which are selective and have a reduced environmental impact, including gear and techniques used in traditional and artisanal fisheries, thereby contributing to a fair standard of living for local economies.
(5) ICCAT Recommendation 06-05 was implemented into Union law by Council Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007(5).
(6) At its 16th special meeting in 2008, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 08-05 amending Recommendation 06-05. In order to rebuild the stock of bluefin tuna, Recommendation 08-05 provided for a gradual reduction in the total allowable catch level from 2007 to 2011, restrictions on fishing within certain areas and time periods, a new minimum size for bluefin tuna, measures concerning sport and recreational fishing activities, farming and fishing capacity measures, as well as reinforcing the ICCAT Scheme of Joint International Inspection.
(7) ICCAT Recommendation 08-05 was implemented into Union law by Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009(6).
(8) At its 17th special meeting in 2010, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 10-04 amending Recommendation 08-05. In order to rebuild the stock of bluefin tuna, Recommendation 10-04 established a further reduction of the total allowable catch and the fishing capacity and it reinforced the control measures, in particular those concerning transfer and caging operations. It also provided for additional advice by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics of ICCAT (‘SCRS’) in 2012 on the identification of spawning grounds and on the creation of sanctuaries.
(9) In order to implement the revised international conservation measures set out in Recommendation 10-04 into Union law, Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 was amended by Regulation (EU) No 500/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council(7).
(10) At its 18th special meeting in 2012, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 12-03 amending Recommendation 10-04. In order to strengthen the effectiveness of the recovery plan, Recommendation 12-03 set up technical measures concerning the transfer and caging operations of live bluefin tuna, new catch reporting requirements, the implementation of the ICCAT regional observer programme and changes of the fishing seasons. Furthermore, it reinforced the role of the SCRS with regard to the assessment of bluefin tuna stock.
(11) At its 23rd regular meeting in 2013, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 13-07 amending Recommendation 12-03 by introducing small changes on fishing seasons which do not affect the Union fleet. Furthermore, Recommendation 13-08 was adopted which complements the recovery plan. Recommendation 13-08 set up a common procedure for the use of stereoscopical camera systems to estimate the quantities of bluefin tuna at the point of caging and introduced a flexible starting date for the fishing season of baitboats and trolling boats in the eastern Atlantic.
(12) In order to implement essential measures, such as those on fishing seasons, of Recommendations 12-03 and 13-08 into Union law, Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 was further amended by Regulation (EU) No 544/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(8).
(13) At its 19th special meeting in 2014, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 14-04 amending Recommendation 13-07 and repealing Recommendation 13-08. Whilst some of the existing control provisions were rationalised, the procedures for the use of stereoscopic camera at the point of caging were further specified and measures specific to release operations and the treatment of dead fish were introduced in the recovery plan.
(14) Recommendation 14-04 is binding on the Union.
(15) All the amendments to the recovery plan adopted by ICCAT in 2012, 2013 and 2014, which have not yet been subject to implementation, should be implemented into Union law. As that implementation concerns the recovery plan whose objectives and measures were defined by ICCAT, this Regulation does not cover all the content of multiannual plans as set out in Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
(16) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 establishes the concept of minimum conservation reference sizes. In order to ensure consistency, the ICCAT concept of minimum sizes should be transposed into Union law as minimum conservation reference sizes. Consequently, the references in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98(9)to minimum sizes of bluefin tuna should be read as references to minimum conservation reference sizes in this Regulation.
(17) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the provisions of this Regulation relating to transfer operations, caging operations and recording and reporting of trap and vessel activities, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council(10).
(18) Certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 have become obsolete, in particular since they are now covered by other Union acts. Other provisions should be updated in order to reflect changes in legislation, in particular those resulting from the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
(19) In particular, Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009(11)establishes a Union system for control, inspection and enforcement with a global and integrated approach so as to ensure compliance with all the rules of the CFP, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011(12)lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008(13)establishes a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Those acts now cover some matters governed by Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 and, in particular, Article 33 thereof on enforcement measures and Annex VIII on vessel monitoring system (VMS) transmission. It is therefore not necessary to include those provisions in this Regulation.
(20) In accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011, the conversion factors adopted by the SCRS apply to calculate the equivalent round weight of processed bluefin tuna, including for the purpose of this Regulation.
(21) Moreover, in accordance with Article 95 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Commission Implementing Decision 2014/156/EU(14)has been adopted. That Implementing Decision establishes, inter alia, target benchmarks and objectives for the control of the bluefin tuna fishery in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
(22) ICCAT Recommendation 06-07 set up a sampling programme for the estimation of the number-at-size in the context of bluefin tuna farming activities. That provision was implemented by Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009. It is not necessary that this Regulation specifically provides for the sampling programme, as the needs of that sampling programme are now fully covered by the programmes set up by paragraph 83 of Recommendation 14-04, which is to be implemented by this Regulation.
(23) For reasons of clarity, simplification and legal certainty, Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 should therefore be repealed.
(24) For the purpose of the Union’s compliance with its international obligations under the Convention, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98 provides for derogations from the landing obligation for bluefin tuna set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98 implements certain provisions of ICCAT Recommendation 13-07 that establish a discard and release obligation for vessels and traps catching bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean in certain cases. This Regulation therefore does not need to cover such discard and release obligations and will consequently be without prejudice to the corresponding provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Subject matter and scope
Article 1
1. This Regulation lays down the general rules for the application by the Union of the recovery plan as defined in point (1) of Article 3.
2. This Regulation applies to bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

Objective
Article 2
The objective of this Regulation, in accordance with the recovery plan as defined in point (1) of Article 3, is to achieve a biomass of bluefin tuna corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield by 2022 with at least a 60 % probability of achieving that objective.

Definitions
Article 3
For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:
(1)
‘recovery plan’ means the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna, which applies from 2007 to 2022 and was recommended by ICCAT;
(2)
‘fishing vessel’ means any powered vessel used or intended for use for the purposes of the commercial exploitation of bluefin tuna resources, including catching vessels, processing vessels, support vessels, towing vessels, vessels engaged in transhipment and transport vessels equipped for the transportation of tuna products and auxiliary vessels, except container vessels;
(3)
‘catching vessel’ means a vessel used for the purposes of the commercial capture of bluefin tuna resources;
(4)
‘processing vessel’ means a vessel on board of which fisheries products are subject to one or more of the following operations, prior to their packaging: filleting or slicing, freezing and/or processing;
(5)
‘auxiliary vessel’ means any vessel used to transport dead bluefin tuna (not processed) from a transport/farming cage, a purse seine net or a trap to a designated port and/or to a processing vessel;
(6)
‘towing vessel’ means any vessel used for towing cages;
(7)
‘support vessel’ means any other fishing vessel referred to under point (2);
(8)
‘fishing actively’ means, for any catching vessel and trap, the fact that it targets bluefin tuna during a given fishing season;
(9)
‘joint fishing operation’ means any operation between two or more purse seiners where the catch of one purse seiner is attributed to one or more other purse seiners in accordance with an allocation key;
(10)
‘transfer operations’ means:
(i)
any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the catching vessel’s net to the transport cage;
(ii)
any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the transport cage to another transport cage;
(iii)
any transfer of the cage with bluefin tuna from a towing vessel to another towing vessel;
(iv)
any transfer of live bluefin tuna from one farm to another;
(v)
any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the trap to the transport cage;
(11)
‘control transfer’ means any additional transfer being implemented at the request of the fishing/farming operators or the control authorities for the purpose of verifying the number of fish being transferred;
(12)
‘trap’ means fixed gear anchored to the bottom, usually containing a guide net that leads bluefin tuna into an enclosure or series of enclosures where it is kept prior to harvesting;
(13)
‘caging’ means the transfer of live bluefin tuna from the transport cage or trap to the farming cages;
(14)
‘farming’ means caging of bluefin tuna in farms and subsequent feeding aiming to fatten and increase their total biomass;
(15)
‘farm’ means an installation used for the farming of bluefin tuna caught by traps and/or purse seiners;
(16)
‘harvesting’ means the killing of bluefin tuna in farms or traps;
(17)
‘transhipment’ means the unloading of all or any of the fish on board a fishing vessel to another fishing vessel. Unloading of dead bluefin tuna from the purse seiner net or the towing vessel to an auxiliary vessel shall not be considered as a transhipment;
(18)
‘sport fishery’ means non-commercial fisheries whose members adhere to a national sport organisation or are issued with a national sport licence;
(19)
‘recreational fishery’ means non-commercial fisheries whose members do not adhere to a national sport organisation and are not issued with a national sport licence;
(20)
‘stereoscopic camera’ means a camera with two or more lenses, with a separate image sensor or film frame for each lens, enabling the taking of three-dimensional images;
(21)
‘control camera’ means a stereoscopic camera and/or conventional video camera for the purpose of the controls provided for in this Regulation;
(22)
‘BCD’ or ‘electronic BCD’ means a bluefin catch document for bluefin tuna. As appropriate, the reference to BCD shall be replaced by eBCD;
(23)
‘responsible Member State’ or ‘Member State responsible’ means the flag Member State or the Member State in whose jurisdiction the trap or farm is located or, if the farm or trap is located on the high seas, the Member State where the trap or farm operator is established;
(24)
‘Task II’ means Task II as defined by ICCAT in the ‘Field manual for statistics and sampling Atlantic tunas and tuna-like fish’ (third edition, ICCAT, 1990);
(25)
‘CPC’ means Contracting Parties to the Convention and cooperating non-contracting parties, entities or fishing entities;
(26)
‘Convention area’ means the geographical area covered by ICCAT measures as set out in Article 1 of the Convention.

Length of vessels
Article 4
Lengths of vessels referred to in this Regulation shall be understood as overall lengths.

Conditions associated with management measures
Article 5
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the fishing effort of its catching vessels and its traps are commensurate with the bluefin tuna fishing opportunities available to that Member State in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
2. The carrying-over of any unused quota shall be prohibited.
3. The chartering of Union fishing vessels for bluefin tuna fishing in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean shall be prohibited.

Submission of annual fishing plans, fishing capacity management plans and farming management plans
Article 6
1. By 31 January each year, each Member State with a bluefin tuna quota shall transmit to the Commission:
(a)
an annual fishing plan for the catching vessels and traps fishing bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean;
(b)
an annual fishing capacity management plan ensuring that the Member State’s fishing capacity is commensurate with its allocated quota.
2. The Commission shall compile the plans referred to in paragraph 1 and integrate them into the Union fishing and capacity management plan. The Commission shall transmit that plan to the ICCAT Secretariat by 15 February of each year for discussion and approval by ICCAT.
3. By 15 April of each year, each Member State that intends to modify the ICCAT plan for farming capacity in force shall transmit an annual farming management plan to the Commission, which shall transmit it to the ICCAT Secretariat.

Annual fishing plans
Article 7
1. The annual fishing plan submitted by each Member State with a bluefin tuna quota shall identify the quotas allocated to each gear group referred to in Articles 11 and 12, including information on:
(a)
for catching vessels over 24 metres included in the vessel list referred to in point (a) of Article 20(1) — the individual quota allocated to them and the measures in place to ensure compliance with the individual quotas and by-catch allowances;
(b)
for catching vessels less than 24 metres and for traps — at least the quota allocated to producer organisations or groups of vessels fishing with a similar gear type.
2. By way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 1, the individual quota allocated to each catching vessel over 24 metres may be submitted not later than 30 days before the start of the fishing season applicable to each such vessel.
3. Any subsequent modification to the annual fishing plan or the individual quotas allocated for catching vessels over 24 metres and included in the list referred to in point (a) of Article 20(1) shall be transmitted by the Member State concerned to the Commission at least three days before the exercise of the activity corresponding to that modification. The Commission shall transmit such modification to the ICCAT Secretariat at least 48 hours before the exercise of the activity corresponding to that modification.

Allocation of fishing opportunities
Article 8
In accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, when allocating the fishing opportunities available to them, Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria, including those of an environmental, social and economic nature, and shall also endeavour to distribute national quotas fairly among the various fleet segments giving consideration to traditional and artisanal fisheries, and to provide incentives to Union fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact.

Fishing capacity management plans
Article 9
1. The annual fishing capacity management plan submitted by each Member State with a bluefin tuna quota shall comply with the conditions set out in this Article.
2. The maximum number of traps registered in a Member State and of fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State that may fish for, retain on board, tranship, transport, or land bluefin tuna, shall be determined in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
3. The maximum number and the corresponding gross tonnage of fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State engaged in bluefin tuna fishery shall be limited to the number, and the total corresponding gross tonnage, of fishing vessels flying the flag of that Member State that fished for, retained on board, transhipped, transported or landed bluefin tuna from 1 January 2007 to 1 July 2008. That limit shall apply by gear type for catching vessels.
4. For vessels authorised to fish for bluefin tuna under the derogation referred to in Article 14(2), additional conditions to determine the maximum number of fishing vessels are set out in Annex I.
5. The maximum number of traps of a Member State engaged in bluefin tuna fishery shall be limited to the number of traps authorised by that Member State by 1 July 2008.
6. By way of derogation from paragraphs 3 and 5 of this Article, for the years 2016 and 2017, when a Member State can demonstrate that its fishing capacity might not allow the use of its full quota, that Member State may decide to include a higher number of vessels and traps in its annual fishing plans referred to in Article 7.
7. For the years 2016 and 2017, each Member State shall limit the numbers of its purse seiners to the numbers of purse seiners it authorised in 2013 or 2014. That shall not apply to purse seiners operating under the derogation provided for in point (b) of Article 14(2).
8. When setting up its fishing capacity management plans, calculation of the fishing capacity of each Member State shall be based on the best catch rates per vessel and gear estimated by the SCRS in its Report of 2009 and agreed by ICCAT in the 2010 Inter-sessional meeting of the ICCAT Compliance Committee(15). Following any revisions of those catch rates by the SCRS, Member States shall always apply the most recent catch rates agreed by the ICCAT.

Farming management plans
Article 10
1. The annual farming management plan submitted by each Member State shall comply with the conditions set out in this Article.
2. The maximum bluefin tuna farming and fattening capacity for each Member State and the maximum input of wild-caught bluefin tuna that each Member State may allocate shall be determined in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
3. The maximum bluefin tuna farming and fattening capacity of a Member State shall be limited to the bluefin tuna farming and fattening capacity of the farms of that Member State that were registered in the ICCAT record of farming facilities or authorised and declared to ICCAT on 1 July 2008.
4. The maximum input of wild-caught bluefin tuna into the farms of a Member State shall be limited to the level of the input quantities registered with ICCAT by the farms of that Member State in the years 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008.
5. Within the maximum input quantity of wild-caught bluefin tuna referred to in paragraph 4, each Member State shall allocate maximum annual inputs to its farms.

Longliners, purse seiners, pelagic trawlers, traps and sport and recreational fisheries
Article 11
1. Bluefin tuna fishing by large-scale pelagic longline catching vessels over 24 metres shall be permitted in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean from 1 January to 31 May, with the exception of the area delimited by west of 10° W and north of 42° N as well as of the Norwegian exclusive economic zone, where such fishing shall be permitted from 1 August to 31 January.
2. Purse seine fishing for bluefin tuna shall be permitted in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean from 26 May to 24 June, with the exception of the Norwegian exclusive economic zone, where such fishing shall be permitted from 25 June to 31 October.
3. Bluefin tuna fishing by pelagic trawlers shall be permitted in the eastern Atlantic from 16 June to 14 October.
4. Bluefin tuna sport and recreational fishing shall be permitted in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean from 16 June to 14 October.
5. Fishing for bluefin tuna by gears other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article and Article 12, including traps, shall be permitted throughout the year in accordance with ICCAT conservation and management measures.

Baitboats and trolling boats
Article 12
1. Bluefin tuna fishing by baitboats and trolling boats shall be permitted in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean from 1 July to 31 October.
2. Provided that the protection of the spawning grounds is not affected and that the total duration of the fishing season for those fisheries does not exceed four months, each Member State may decide on a different starting date for baitboats and trolling boats flying their flag and operating in the eastern Atlantic.
3. Each Member State shall specify, in its annual fishing plan referred to in Article 7, whether the starting dates for those fisheries have been modified, as well as the coordinates of the areas concerned.

The landing obligation
Article 13
The provisions of this Section shall be without prejudice to Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, including any applicable derogations thereto.

Minimum conservation reference size
Article 14
1. The minimum conservation reference size for bluefin tuna caught in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean shall be 30 kg or 115 cm fork length.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, a minimum conservation reference size for bluefin tuna of 8 kg or 75 cm fork length shall apply to the following fisheries:
(a)
bluefin tuna caught in the eastern Atlantic by baitboats and trolling boats;
(b)
bluefin tuna caught in the Adriatic Sea for farming purposes;
(c)
bluefin tuna caught in the Mediterranean Sea by the coastal and artisanal fishery for fresh fish by baitboats, longliners and handliners.
3. The specific conditions applying to the derogation referred to in paragraph 2 are set out in Annex I.
4. Member States concerned shall issue specific authorisations to vessels fishing under the derogation referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. The vessels concerned shall be indicated in the list of catching vessels referred to in point (a) of Article 20(1). For that purpose, the provisions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 shall apply.

Incidental catches
Article 15
1. Without prejudice to Article 14(1), incidental catches of a maximum 5 % of bluefin tuna weighing between 8 and 30 kg or with a fork length between 75 and 115 cm shall be allowed for all catching vessels and traps fishing actively for bluefin tuna.
2. The percentage of 5 % referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated on the basis of the total catches of bluefin tuna in number of fish retained on board the vessel or inside the trap at any time after each fishing operation.
3. Incidental catches shall be deducted from the quota of the Member State responsible for the catching vessel or trap.
4. Incidental catches of bluefin tuna shall be subject to Articles 25, 30, 31 and 32.

By-catch
Article 16
1. Each Member State shall make provision for by-catch of bluefin tuna within its quota and shall inform the Commission thereof when transmitting its fishing plan. Such provision shall ensure that all dead fish are deducted from the quota.
2. Union fishing vessels not fishing actively for bluefin tuna shall avoid by-catches of bluefin tuna exceeding, at any time following a fishing operation, 5 % of the total catch on board by weight or number of fish. The calculation of that percentage by number of fish shall only apply to tuna and tuna-like species managed by ICCAT. Each Member State shall deduct all dead fish within the by-catch from its quota.
3. For Member States without a bluefin tuna quota, the by-catches concerned shall be deducted from the specific Union bluefin tuna by-catch quota established in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
4. If the quota allocated to the Member State of the fishing vessel or trap concerned has already been exhausted, the catching of any bluefin tuna shall be avoided. Dead bluefin tuna shall be landed whole and unprocessed and shall be subject to confiscation and the appropriate follow-up action. In accordance with Article 29, each Member State shall provide information on the quantity of such dead bluefin tuna on an annual basis to the Commission who shall forward it to the ICCAT Secretariat.
5. The procedures referred to in Articles 27, 30, 31, 32 and 56 shall apply to by-catch.

Use of aerial means
Article 17
The use of any aerial means, including aircraft, helicopters or any types of unmanned aerial vehicles for searching for bluefin tuna shall be prohibited.

Specific quota for sport and recreational fisheries
Article 18
Each Member State with a bluefin tuna quota shall regulate sport and recreational fisheries by allocating a specific quota for the purpose of those fisheries and shall inform the Commission thereof when transmitting its fishing plan.

Sport and recreational fisheries
Article 19
1. Each Member State with a bluefin tuna quota shall regulate sport and recreational fisheries by issuing fishing authorisations to vessels for the purpose of sport and recreational fishing.
2. For sport and recreational fisheries no more than one bluefin tuna shall be caught per vessel per day.
3. Any bluefin tuna landed shall be whole, gilled and/or gutted. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, the release of bluefin tuna, especially juveniles, caught alive in the framework of sport and recreational fishing.
4. The marketing of bluefin tuna caught during sport and recreational fishing shall be prohibited.
5. Each Member State shall record catch data including weight and length of each bluefin tuna caught during sport and recreational fishing and communicate the data for the preceding year to the Commission by 30 June each year. The Commission shall forward that information to the SCRS.
6. Each Member State shall count dead catches from sport and recreational fisheries against the quota it allocated in accordance with Article 7(1) and Article 18.

Records of vessels
Article 20
1. Each Member State shall submit electronically each year to the Commission one month before the start of the fishing seasons referred to in Articles 11 and 12, where applicable, and otherwise one month before the start of the period of authorisation:
(a)
a list of all catching vessels flying its flag authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean by the issuing of a fishing authorisation;
(b)
a list of all other fishing vessels, other than catching vessels, flying its flag authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
2. Both lists shall be set up in accordance with the format set in the Guidelines by ICCAT for submitting the data and information required.
3. During a calendar year, a fishing vessel may be included in both of the lists referred to in paragraph 1 provided that it is not included in both lists at the same time.
4. The lists referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall contain the vessel’s name and Union fleet register number (CFR) as defined in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 26/2004(16).
5. No retroactive submission shall be accepted. Subsequent changes to the lists referred to in paragraph 1 during a calendar year shall only be accepted if the notified fishing vessel is prevented from participating due to legitimate operational reasons orforce majeure. In such circumstances, the Member State concerned shall immediately inform the Commission of that fact, and shall provide:
(a)
full details of the fishing vessel(s) intended to replace a vessel included in the lists referred to in paragraph 1; and
(b)
a comprehensive account of the reasons justifying the replacement and any relevant supporting evidence or references.
6. The Commission shall send the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 to the ICCAT Secretariat so that the vessels can be entered into the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna or in the ICCAT record of all other fishing vessels (catching vessels excluded) authorised to operate for bluefin tuna.
7. Article 8a(2), (6), (7) and (8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1936/2001(17)shall apply with the necessary modifications.

Relationship with Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009
Article 21
The control measures provided for in this Chapter shall apply in addition to those provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, except where otherwise provided for in this Chapter.

Fishing authorisations for vessels
Article 22
1. Without prejudice to Article 16, Union fishing vessels not entered into the ICCAT records referred to in Article 20(1) shall not be authorised to fish for, retain on board, tranship, transport, transfer, process or land bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
2. The flag Member State shall withdraw the fishing authorisation for bluefin tuna and may require the vessel to proceed immediately to a port designated by it when the individual quota is deemed to be exhausted.

Records of traps authorised to fish for bluefin tuna
Article 23
1. By 15 February each year, each Member State shall send to the Commission electronically a list of its traps authorised, by the issuing of a fishing authorisation, to fish for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. The list shall include the name of the traps and the register number and shall be set up in accordance with the format set in the Guidelines by ICCAT for submitting data and information required.
2. The Commission shall send the list to the ICCAT Secretariat so that those traps can be entered into the ICCAT record of traps authorised to fish for bluefin tuna.
3. Union traps that are not entered into the ICCAT record shall not be authorised to fish for, retain, transfer, cage or land bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
4. Article 8a(2), (4), (6), (7) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 1936/2001 shall apply with the necessary modifications.

Joint fishing operation
Article 24
1. Any joint fishing operation (‘JFO’) for bluefin tuna shall only be authorised with the consent of the flag Member State(s) concerned. To be authorised, each purse seiner shall be equipped to fish for bluefin tuna and have an individual quota. JFOs with other CPCs shall not be permitted.
2. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to obtain the following information from its fishing vessels applying for an authorisation to take part in the JFO:
(a)
the duration;
(b)
the identity of the operators involved;
(c)
the individual vessels’ quotas;
(d)
the allocation key between the fishing vessels for the catches involved; and
(e)
information on the farms of destination.
3. At least 15 days before the start of the operation, each Member State shall send the information referred to in paragraph 2 to the Commission in the format set out in Annex VI. The Commission shall forward that information to the ICCAT Secretariat and to the flag State of other fishing vessels participating in the JFO at least 10 days before the start of the operation.
4. In the case offorce majeure, the deadline set out in paragraph 3 shall not apply for the information requested under point (e) of paragraph 2. In that case, Member States may submit to the Commission an update of that information as soon as possible, together with a description of the events constitutingforce majeure. The Commission shall forward that information to the ICCAT Secretariat.

Recording requirements
Article 25
1. In addition to complying with Articles 14, 15, 23 and 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, the master of a Union catching vessel shall, if applicable, enter into the logbook the information listed in Part A of Annex II to this Regulation.
2. Masters of Union towing vessels, auxiliary vessels and processing vessels shall record their activities in accordance with the requirements set out in Parts B, C and D of Annex II.

Catch reports sent by masters and trap operators
Article 26
1. Masters of catching vessels fishing actively for bluefin tuna shall send to the authorities of the flag Member State daily information from logbooks, including the ICCAT register number, the vessel name, the beginning and end of the period of authorisation, date, time, location (latitude and longitude) and the weight and number of bluefin tuna caught in the Convention area. They shall send that information electronically in the format set out in Annex V during the whole period in which the vessel is authorised to fish bluefin tuna.
2. Masters of purse seiners shall produce daily reports as referred to in paragraph 1 on a fishing operation by fishing operation basis, including operations where the catch was zero.
3. The reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be transmitted by the operator to its flag Member State authorities on a daily basis for purse seiners and vessels over 24 metres by 9.00 GMT for the preceding day and for other catching vessels by Monday 24.00 (midnight) for the preceding week ending Sunday 24.00 (midnight) GMT.
4. Trap operators fishing actively for bluefin tuna shall send a daily catch report including the ICCAT register number, date, time, catches (weight and number of fish), including zero catches. They shall send that information within 48 hours electronically in the format set out in Annex V to their Member State authorities during the whole period they are authorised to fish bluefin tuna.
5. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules for the recording and reporting of vessel and trap activities referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article and Annex V. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 59(2).

Weekly and monthly catch reports sent by the Member States
Article 27
1. Each Member State shall, upon receipt of the catch reports referred to in Article 26, promptly forward them electronically to the Commission and shall provide promptly to the Commission weekly catch reports for all catching vessels and traps in accordance with the format set out in Annex V. The Commission shall forward that information on a weekly basis to the ICCAT Secretariat in accordance with the format set out in the Guidelines for submitting data and information required by ICCAT.
2. Each Member State shall inform the Commission, before the 15th day of each month, of the quantities of bluefin tuna caught in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean which have been landed, transhipped, trapped or caged during the preceding month by the fishing vessels or traps flying the flag of or registered in that Member State. The information provided shall be structured by gear type including by-catch, catches in sport and recreational fisheries and zero catches. The Commission shall promptly forward that information to the ICCAT Secretariat.

Information on quota exhaustion
Article 28
1. In addition to the provisions of Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, each Member State shall inform the Commission when the quota allocated to a gear group referred to in Article 11 or Article 12 of this Regulation is deemed to have reached 80 %.
2. In addition to the provisions of Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, each Member State shall inform the Commission when the quota allocated to a gear group referred to in Article 11 or Article 12 of this Regulation or to a JFO or to a purse seiner is deemed to be exhausted.
3. The information referred to in paragraph 2 shall be accompanied by official documentation proving the fishing stop or the call back to port issued by the Member State for the fleet, the gear group, the JFO, or the vessels with an individual quota including a clear indication of the date and the time of the closure.

Yearly reporting of catches by the Member States
Article 29
1. By 15 March each year, each Member State shall submit to the Commission detailed information on any bluefin tuna catches in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean in the preceding fishing year. That information shall include:
(a)
the name and ICCAT number of each catching vessel;
(b)
the period of authorisation(s) for each catching vessel;
(c)
the total catches of each catching vessel including when the catch was zero throughout the period of authorisation(s);
(d)
the total number of days each catching vessel fished in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean throughout the period of authorisation(s); and
(e)
the total catch of each catching vessel outside the period of authorisation (by-catch), including when the catch was zero.
2. For vessels not authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean but which caught bluefin tuna as by-catch, the information to be submitted to the Commission at the same date as referred to in paragraph 1 shall include:
(a)
the name and ICCAT number or national registry number of the vessel, if not registered with ICCAT; and
(b)
the total catches of bluefin tuna.
3. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission any information on vessels not subject to paragraphs 1 and 2 but known or presumed to have fished for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
4. The Commission shall transmit to the ICCAT Secretariat the information received under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.

Designated ports
Article 30
1. Each Member State shall designate ports or places close to the shore (designated ports) where landing or transhipping operations of bluefin tuna are permitted.
2. For a port to be determined as a designated port, the port Member State shall specify permitted landing and transhipping times and places.
3. By 15 February of each year, each Member State shall transmit a list of designated ports to the Commission which shall transmit that information to the ICCAT Secretariat.
4. It shall be prohibited to land or tranship from fishing vessels any quantity of bluefin tuna fished in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean at any place other than ports or places close to the shore designated by CPCs and Member States in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.

Landings
Article 31
1. Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 shall apply to masters of Union fishing vessels of 12 metres’ length overall or more included in the list of vessels referred to in Article 20 of this Regulation. The prior arrival notification under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 shall be sent to the competent authority of the Member State (including the flag Member State) or CPC whose ports or landing facility they wish to use.
2. In addition, masters of Union fishing vessels under 12 metres’ length overall included in the list of vessels referred to in Article 20 shall, at least four hours before the estimated time of arrival at the port, notify the competent authority of the Member State (including the flag Member State) or the CPC whose ports or landing facility they wish to use, at least of the following:
(a)
estimated time of arrival;
(b)
estimated quantity of bluefin tuna retained on board; and
(c)
information on the geographical area where the catches were taken.
3. Where Member States are authorised under applicable Union legislation to apply a shorter notification period than that referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the estimated quantities of bluefin tuna retained on board may be notified at the thus applicable time of notification prior to arrival. If the fishing grounds are less than four hours from the port, the estimated quantities of bluefin tuna retained on board may be modified at any time prior to arrival.
4. Authorities of the port Member State shall keep a record of all prior notifications for the current year.
5. All landings shall be controlled, in accordance with Article 55(2), by the relevant control authorities of the port Member State and a percentage shall be inspected based on a risk assessment system involving quota, fleet size and fishing effort. Full details of such control system adopted by each Member State shall be detailed in the annual inspection plan referred to in Article 53. That control system shall also apply to harvest operations.
6. In addition to Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, after each trip, masters of a Union catching vessel, whatever the length of the vessel, shall submit a landing declaration to the competent authorities of the flag Member State and, if the landing has taken place in a port of another Member State or CPC, to the competent authorities of the port Member State or CPC concerned.
7. All landed catches shall be weighed.

Transhipment
Article 32
1. Transhipment at sea of bluefin tuna in the Convention area shall be prohibited in all circumstances.
2. Fishing vessels shall only tranship bluefin tuna catches in designated ports under the conditions set out in Article 30.
3. The port Member State shall ensure full inspection coverage during all transhipping times and at all transhipping places.
4. Prior to entry into any port, the masters or representatives of the receiving fishing vessels shall, at least 48 hours before the estimated time of arrival, provide the competent authorities of the Member State or CPC whose port they want to use with the following:
(a)
estimated date and time of arrival, and port of arrival;
(b)
estimated quantity of bluefin tuna retained on board, and information on the geographical area where it was taken;
(c)
the name of the transhipping fishing vessel and its number in the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna or in the ICCAT record of other fishing vessels authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean;
(d)
the name of the receiving fishing vessel, its number in the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna or in the ICCAT record of other fishing vessels authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean; and
(e)
the tonnage and the geographical area of the catch of bluefin tuna to be transhipped.
5. Fishing vessels shall not be allowed to tranship unless they have obtained prior authorisation from their flag State.
6. Masters of transhipping fishing vessels shall, before the transhipment starts, inform their flag State of the following:
(a)
the quantities of bluefin tuna to be transhipped;
(b)
the date and port of the transhipment;
(c)
the name, registration number and flag of the receiving fishing vessel and its number in the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna or in the ICCAT record of other fishing vessels authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean; and
(d)
the geographical area of the catch of bluefin tuna.
7. All transhipments shall be inspected by the competent Member State authorities at the designated port. Those authorities shall:
(a)
inspect the receiving fishing vessel on arrival and check the cargo and documentation related to the transhipment operation;
(b)
send a record of the transhipment to the flag State authority of the transhipping fishing vessel, within five days after the transhipment has ended.
8. By way of derogation from Articles 21 and 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, masters of a Union fishing vessel shall, whatever the length of the vessel, complete and send the ICCAT transhipment declaration to the competent authorities of the Member State whose flag the fishing vessel is flying. The declaration shall be transmitted no later than 48 hours after the date of transhipment in port in accordance with the format set out in Annex III to this Regulation.

Transfer authorisation
Article 33
1. Before any transfer operation, the master of a catching vessel or towing vessel or the operator of the farm or trap where the transfer in question originates shall send to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State a prior notification of transfer indicating:
(a)
the name of the catching vessel, towing vessel, farm or trap and the ICCAT register number;
(b)
the estimated time of transfer;
(c)
the estimate of the quantity of bluefin tuna to be transferred;
(d)
information on the position (latitude/longitude) where the transfer will take place as well as the identifiable cage numbers;
(e)
the name of the receiving towing vessel, the number of cages towed and, where appropriate, the ICCAT register number;
(f)
the port, farm or cage of destination of the bluefin tuna.
2. For the purpose referred to in paragraph 1, a unique cage number shall be assigned to each cage. Numbers shall be issued with a unique numbering system that includes at least three alfa-code letters corresponding to the flag of the towing vessel followed by three numbers.
3. Catching vessels, towing vessels, farms or traps shall not be allowed to transfer unless they have obtained prior authorisation from the relevant Member State. The authorities of that Member State shall decide for each transfer operation whether to grant authorisation. For that purpose, a unique identification number shall, for each transfer operation, be assigned and communicated to the master of the fishing vessel, the trap operator or the farm operator, as appropriate. Where authorisation is granted, that number shall comprise the three-letter code of the Member State, the four numbers indicating the year, and the three letters ‘AUT’ (authorisation), followed by sequential numbers. Where authorisation is refused, the number shall comprise the three-letter code of the Member State, the four numbers indicating the year, and the three letters ‘NEG’ (non-authorisation), followed by sequential numbers.
4. In the event that fish die during the transfer operation, the relevant Member States and operators involved in the transfer shall proceed in accordance with Annex XII.
5. The transfer authorisation shall be granted or refused by the Member State responsible for the catching vessel, towing vessel, farm or trap, as appropriate, within 48 hours following the submission of the prior notification of transfer.
6. The authorisation for transfer by the relevant Member State shall not prejudge the authorisation of the caging operation.

Refusal of transfer authorisation
Article 34
1. The Member State responsible for the vessel, trap or farm shall not authorise the transfer if, on receipt of the prior notification of transfer, it considers that:
(a)
the catching vessel or the trap that is declared to have caught the fish does not have sufficient quota;
(b)
the quantity of fish has not been duly reported by the catching vessel or the trap operator or has not been authorised to be caged, or has not been taken into account for the consumption of the quota that may be applicable;
(c)
the catching vessel or trap that is declared to have caught the fish is not authorised to fish for bluefin tuna; or
(d)
the towing vessel declared to be the one to receive the transfer of fish is not registered in the ICCAT record of all other fishing vessels (catching vessels excluded) authorised to operate for bluefin tuna, as referred to in point (b) of Article 20(1), or is not equipped with a VMS.
2. If the transfer is not authorised:
(a)
the Member State responsible for the catching vessel or trap shall issue a release order to the master of the catching vessel or to the operator of the trap or farm as appropriate and inform them that the transfer is not authorised and that the fish have to be released into the sea;
(b)
the master of the catching vessel, the farm operator or the trap operator, as appropriate, shall release the fish;
(c)
the release of bluefin tuna shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in Annex XI.

Monitoring by video camera
Article 35
1. For transfer operations, the master of the catching vessel, towing vessel, farm operator or trap operator that transfers bluefin tuna shall ensure that the transfer operations are monitored by video camera in the water in order to verify the number of fish being transferred. The minimum standards and procedures for video recording shall be in accordance with Annex IX.
2. Each Member State responsible for the vessel, trap or farm shall ensure that the video records referred to in paragraph 1 are made available to the ICCAT inspectors and regional observers.
3. Each Member State responsible for the vessel, trap or farm shall ensure that the video records referred to in paragraph 1 are made available to Union inspectors and national observers.
4. Each Member State responsible for the vessel, trap or farm shall take the necessary measures to avoid any replacement, editing or manipulation of the original video record.

Verification by ICCAT regional observers and launching and conduct of investigation
Article 36
1. ICCAT regional observers on board the catching vessel or present at a trap, as set out in Article 51 and Annex VII, shall record and report on the transfer operations carried out, observe and estimate catches transferred and verify entries made in the prior transfer authorisation referred to in Article 33 and in the ICCAT transfer declaration referred to in Article 38.
2. In cases where there is more than 10 % difference by number between the estimates of catch made by the ICCAT regional observer, relevant control authorities and/or the master of the catching vessel, or representative of the trap, or where the video record is of insufficient quality or clarity to make such estimations, the Member State responsible for the catching vessel, farm or trap shall launch an investigation which shall be concluded prior to the time of caging at the farm or in any case within 96 hours after being launched. Pending the results of that investigation, caging shall not be authorised and the catch section of the bluefin tuna catch document (‘BCD’) shall not be validated.
3. However, when the video record is of insufficient quality or clarity to estimate the number, the operator may request authorisation from the flag State authorities of the vessel, trap or farm to conduct a new transfer operation and to provide the corresponding video record to the ICCAT regional observer.
4. Without prejudice to the verifications conducted by an inspector, ICCAT regional observers shall sign the ICCAT transfer declaration only when their observations are in accordance with the ICCAT conservation and management measures and when the information contained in the transfer declaration is consistent with their observations including a compliant video record as required under Article 35(1). They shall sign that declaration with clearly written name and ICCAT number.
5. ICCAT regional observers shall also verify that the ICCAT transfer declaration is transmitted to the master of the towing vessel or to the farm or trap representative.

Measures to estimate the number and weight of bluefin tuna to be caged
Article 37
Member States shall take the necessary measures and actions to further explore methodologies to improve the estimate of both the number and weight of bluefin tuna at the point of capture and caging. Each Member State shall report on the measures taken by 22 August of each year to the Commission who shall submit those reports to the SCRS.

Transfer declaration
Article 38
1. Masters of catching or towing vessels, trap operators or farm operators shall, at the end of the transfer operation, complete and transmit to the competent authorities of their Member State the ICCAT transfer declaration, in accordance with the format set out in Annex IV.
2. Transfer declaration forms shall be numbered by the competent authorities of the Member State responsible for the vessels, farms or traps from which the transfers originate. The numbering system shall include the three-letter code of the Member State, followed by the four numbers indicating the year and three sequential numbers followed by the three letters ‘ITD’ (MS-20**/xxx/ITD).
3. The original transfer declaration shall accompany the transfer of the fish. A copy of the declaration shall be kept by the master of the catching vessel, the trap operator, the master of the towing vessel or the farm operator.
4. Masters of vessels carrying out transfer operations (including towing vessels) shall report their activities in accordance with the requirements set out in Annex II.

Implementing acts
Article 39
The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules for transfer operations referred to in Articles 33 to 38 and the Annexes referred to in those Articles. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 59(2).

Caging authorisation
Article 40
1. Prior to the start of each caging operation the anchoring of transport cages within 0,5 nautical miles of farming facilities shall be prohibited.
2. Before any caging operation, the competent authority of the Member State responsible for the farm shall inform the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap of the quantities caught by that vessel or trap and request a caging authorisation.
3. The caging operation shall not begin without the prior authorisation by:
(a)
the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap; or
(b)
the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm if it has been agreed among the Member States involved or with the flag CPC involved.
4. The caging authorisation shall be granted or refused by the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel, trap or, if applicable, farm, within one working day following the request and the submission of the information referred to in paragraph 2. If no response is received within one working day from the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap, the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm may authorise the caging.
5. Bluefin tuna shall be caged before 15 August, unless the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm receiving the fish provides duly justified reasons. Such reasons shall be submitted with the caging report.

Refusal of caging authorisation
Article 41
1. The Member State responsible for the catching vessel, trap or, if applicable, farm, shall refuse the caging authorisation if it considers, on receipt of the information referred to in Article 40(2), that:
(a)
the catching vessel or trap that is declared to have caught the fish did not have sufficient quota for the bluefin tuna that were put into the cage;
(b)
the quantity of fish has not been duly reported by the catching vessel or trap or has not been taken into account for the calculation of the quota applicable; or
(c)
the catching vessel or trap that is declared to have caught the fish is not authorised to fish for bluefin tuna.
2. If the caging is not authorised, the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel shall request the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm to seize the catches and to release the fish by issuing a release order.
3. Upon receipt of the release order, the farm operator shall proceed with the releases in accordance with Annex XI.

Bluefin tuna catch documentation
Article 42
Member States responsible for farms shall prohibit any placing of bluefin tuna in cages for the purpose of farming that is not accompanied by the documentation required by ICCAT and in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 640/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council(18). The documentation shall be accurate, complete and confirmed and validated by the Member State or CPC authorities of the catching vessels or traps.

Inspections
Article 43
Member States responsible for farms shall take the necessary measures to inspect each caging operation in the farms.

Monitoring by video camera
Article 44
1. Each Member State responsible for the farm shall ensure that caging operations are monitored by video camera in the water. A video record shall be produced for each caging operation in accordance with Annex IX.
2. Each Member State responsible for the farm shall ensure that the video records referred to in paragraph 1 are made available to the ICCAT inspectors and regional observers.
3. Each Member State responsible for the farm shall ensure that the video records referred to in paragraph 1 are made available to Union inspectors and national observers.
4. Each Member State responsible for the farm shall take the necessary measures to avoid any replacement, editing or manipulation of the original video record.

Launching and conduct of investigations
Article 45
1. Where there is a difference of more than 10 % in the number of bluefin tuna between the estimates made by the ICCAT regional observer, the relevant Member State control authorities or the farm operator, the Member State responsible for the farm shall, in cooperation with the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap, launch an investigation.
2. Pending the results of that investigation, harvesting shall not take place and the farming section of the BCD shall not be validated.
3. The Member States responsible for the farm and for the catching vessel or trap which undertake the investigations may use other information at their disposal including the results of the programmes referred to in Article 46 to conclude the investigation.

Measures and programmes to estimate the number and weight of bluefin tuna to be caged
Article 46
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures and actions as referred to in Article 37.
2. A programme using stereoscopic camera systems or alternative techniques that provide the equivalent precision shall cover 100 % of the caging operations in order to refine the number and weight of the fish in each caging operation.
3. That programme shall be implemented in accordance with the procedures set out in Section B of Annex X.
4. The results of that programme shall be communicated by the Member State responsible for the farm to the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap and to the Commission in accordance with Section B of Annex X. The Commission shall transmit them to the ICCAT Secretariat for transmission to the ICCAT regional observer.
5. When the results of the programme indicate that the quantities of bluefin tuna being caged differ from the quantities reported caught and transferred, the Member State responsible for the farm shall, in cooperation with the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap, launch an investigation. If the investigation is not concluded within 10 working days from the communication of the results referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article or if the outcome of the investigation indicates that the number or average weight of bluefin tuna is in excess of that reported caught and transferred, the flag Member State or CPC authorities of the catching vessel or trap shall issue a release order for the excess which must be released in accordance with the procedures laid down in Annex XI.
6. In accordance with the procedures set out in point 3 of Section B of Annex X and following the release, if applicable, the quantities derived from the programme shall be used to:
(a)
determine the final catch figures to be deducted from the national quota;
(b)
fill in those figures in the caging declarations and relevant sections of the BCD.
7. Each Member State responsible for the farm shall report on the results of those programmes by 30 August of each year to the Commission who shall submit those reports to the SCRS.
8. The transfer of live bluefin tuna from one farming cage to another farming cage shall not take place without the authorisation and the presence of the farm state control authorities.
9. A difference superior or equal to 10 % between the quantities of bluefin tuna reported caught by the vessel/trap and the quantities established by the control cameras, as referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article and Article 45, shall constitute a potential non-compliance by the vessel/trap concerned and Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the appropriate follow-up.

Caging report
Article 47
1. Within one week of the completion of the caging operation, the Member State responsible for the farm shall submit a caging report containing the elements set up in Section B of Annex X to the Member State or CPC whose vessels or traps have caught the bluefin tuna, and to the Commission. The report shall also contain the information included in the caging declaration as set out in Article 4b of and Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1936/2001. The Commission shall forward the report to the ICCAT Secretariat.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, a caging operation shall not be deemed to be completed until any investigation launched and, if applicable, any release operation ordered, is concluded.

Implementing acts
Article 48
The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules for caging operations referred to in Articles 40 to 47 and the Annexes referred to in those Articles. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 59(2).

Vessel monitoring system
Article 49
1. By way of derogation from Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, the obligation concerning the VMS shall apply to all tug and towing vessels included in the ICCAT record of vessels referred to in Article 20(6) of this Regulation, irrespective of their length.
2. Fishing vessels over 15 metres length that are included in the list of vessels referred to in point (a) of Article 20(1) or in the list of vessels referred to in point (b) of Article 20(1) shall begin to transmit VMS data to ICCAT at least 15 days before the opening of the fishing season and shall continue to transmit those data for at least 15 days after the closure of the fishing season, unless a request is sent in advance to the Commission for the vessel to be removed from the ICCAT record of vessels.
3. For control purposes, the transmission of VMS data from catching vessels that are authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna shall not be interrupted when vessels are in port.
4. Member States shall ensure that their fisheries monitoring centres forward to the Commission and a body designated by it, in real time and using the format ‘https data feed’, the VMS messages received from the fishing vessels flying their flag. The Commission shall send those messages electronically to the ICCAT Secretariat.
5. Member States shall ensure that:
(a)
VMS messages from the fishing vessels flying their flag are forwarded to the Commission at least every two hours;
(b)
in the event of technical malfunction of the VMS, alternative messages from the fishing vessels flying their flag received under Article 25(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 are forwarded to the Commission within 24 hours of receipt by their fisheries monitoring centres;
(c)
messages forwarded to the Commission are sequentially numbered (with a unique identifier) in order to avoid duplication;
(d)
messages forwarded to the Commission are in accordance with Article 24(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011.
6. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all messages made available to its inspection vessels are treated in a confidential manner and are limited to inspection at sea operations.

National observer programme
Article 50
1. In respect of vessels active in the bluefin tuna fishery, Member States shall ensure at least the following percentage levels of national observer coverage:
(a)
20 % of its pelagic trawlers (over 15 metres);
(b)
20 % of its long line vessels (over 15 metres);
(c)
20 % of its bait boats (over 15 metres);
(d)
100 % of towing vessels;
(e)
100 % of harvesting operations from traps.
2. Member States shall issue national observers with an official identification document.
3. The national observer tasks shall be, in particular, to:
(a)
monitor compliance by fishing vessels and traps with this Regulation;
(b)
record, and report upon, the fishing activity which shall include the following:
(i)
amount of catch (including by-catch) that also includes species disposition, such as retained on board or discarded dead or alive;
(ii)
area of catch by latitude and longitude;
(iii)
measure of effort (such as the number of sets, number of hooks), as defined in the ICCAT Field Manual for different gears;
(iv)
date of catch;
(c)
observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;
(d)
sight and record vessels which may be fishing contrary to ICCAT conservation and management measures.
4. National observers shall also carry out scientific work, such as collecting Task II data as defined by ICCAT, when required by ICCAT, based on the instructions from the SCRS.
5. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 4, each Member State shall also ensure:
(a)
representative temporal and spatial presence of national observers on its vessels and traps to ensure that the Commission receives adequate and appropriate data and information on catch, effort and other scientific and management aspects, taking into account characteristics of the fleets and fisheries;
(b)
robust data collection protocols;
(c)
that national observers are properly trained and approved before deployment;
(d)
to the extent possible, minimal disruption to the operations of fishing vessels and traps fishing in the Convention Area.
6. Data and information collected under each Member State’s observer programme shall be provided to the Commission by 15 July each year. The Commission shall forward that data and information to the SCRS and the ICCAT Secretariat, as appropriate.

ICCAT regional observer programme
Article 51
1. The ICCAT regional observer programme as set out in paragraphs 2 to 6 and as further specified in Annex VII shall apply in the Union.
2. Member States shall ensure that an ICCAT regional observer is present:
(a)
on all purse seiners authorised to fish bluefin tuna;
(b)
during all transfers of bluefin tuna from purse seiners;
(c)
during all transfers of bluefin tuna from traps to transport cages;
(d)
during all transfers from one farm to another;
(e)
during all caging operations of bluefin tuna in farms;
(f)
during all harvesting of bluefin tuna from farms.
3. Purse seiners without an ICCAT regional observer shall not be authorised to fish or to operate in the bluefin tuna fishery.
4. Member States responsible for farms shall ensure an ICCAT regional observer’s presence during all caging operations and all harvesting of fish from those farms.
5. The tasks of ICCAT regional observers shall be, in particular, to:
(a)
observe and monitor that fishing and farming operations are in compliance with the relevant ICCAT conservation and management measures;
(b)
sign the ICCAT transfer declarations referred to in Article 38, caging reports referred to in Article 47 and BCDs when they agree that the information contained therein is consistent with their observations;
(c)
carry out scientific work, such as collecting samples, as required by ICCAT, based on the instructions from the SCRS.
6. The flag Member State shall ensure that masters, crew, farm, trap and vessel owners do not obstruct, intimidate, interfere with, influence, bribe or attempt to bribe ICCAT regional observers in the performance of their duties.

ICCAT Scheme of Joint International Inspection
Article 52
1. The ICCAT Scheme of Joint International Inspection (‘the ICCAT scheme’) set out in Annex VIII shall apply in the Union.
2. Member States whose fishing vessels are authorised to fish bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean shall assign inspectors and carry out inspections at sea under the ICCAT scheme.
3. If, at any time, more than 15 fishing vessels flagged to a Member State are engaged in bluefin tuna fishing activities in the Convention area, that Member State shall deploy an inspection vessel for the purpose of inspection and control at sea in the Convention area throughout the period that those vessels are there. That obligation shall be deemed to have been complied with where Member States cooperate to deploy an inspection vessel or where a Union inspection vessel is deployed in the Convention area.
4. The Commission or a body designated by it may assign Union inspectors to the ICCAT scheme.
5. The Commission or a body designated by it shall coordinate the surveillance and inspection activities for the Union. The Commission may draw up, in coordination with the Member States concerned, joint inspection programmes to enable the Union to fulfil its obligation under the ICCAT scheme. Member States whose fishing vessels are engaged in the fishery of bluefin tuna shall adopt the necessary measures to facilitate the implementation of those programmes particularly as regards the human and material resources required and the periods and geographical areas when those resources are to be deployed.
6. Member States shall inform the Commission by 1 April of each year of the names of the inspectors and the inspection vessels they intend to assign to the ICCAT scheme during the year. Using that information, the Commission shall draw up, in collaboration with the Member States, a plan for the Union participation in the ICCAT scheme each year, which it shall send to the ICCAT Secretariat and the Member States.

Transmission of inspection plans
Article 53
1. By 31 January each year, Member States shall transmit their inspection plans to the Commission. The inspection plans shall be set up in accordance with:
(a)
the objectives, priorities, and procedures as well as benchmarks for inspection activities set up in the Specific control and inspection programme for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean established under Article 95 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;
(b)
the National control action programme for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean established under Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.
2. The Commission shall compile the national inspection plans and integrate them into the Union inspection plan. That plan shall be transmitted by the Commission to the ICCAT Secretariat, for endorsement by ICCAT, together with the plans referred to in Article 6(1).

Inspections in case of infringements
Article 54
1. The flag Member State shall take the action under paragraph 2 of this Article if a vessel flying its flag has:
(a)
failed in its reporting requirement referred to in Articles 25 and 26; or
(b)
committed an infringement of the provisions of this Regulation, Articles 89 to 93 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 or Chapter IX of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008.
2. The flag Member State shall ensure that a physical inspection takes place under its authority in its ports or by another person designated by the flag Member State when the vessel is not in one of its ports.

Cross-check
Article 55
1. Each Member State shall verify, including by using inspection reports, observer reports and VMS data, the submission of logbooks and relevant information recorded in the logbooks of its fishing vessels, transfer or transhipment documents and BCDs, in accordance with Article 109 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.
2. Each Member State shall carry out cross-checks on all landings, transhipments or cagings between the quantities by species recorded in the fishing vessels logbook or quantities by species recorded in the transfer or transhipment declaration and the quantities recorded in the landing declaration or caging declaration, and any other relevant document, such as an invoice and/or sales notes, in accordance with Article 109 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.

Marketing measures
Article 56
1. Without prejudice to Regulations (EC) No 1224/2009, (EC) No 1005/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council(19), Union trade, landing, import, export, placing in cages for fattening or farming, re-export and transhipment of bluefin tuna that are not accompanied by accurate, complete and validated documentation set out in this Regulation, Regulation (EU) No 640/2010 and Article 4b of Regulation (EC) No 1936/2001, shall be prohibited.
2. Union trade, import, landing, placing in cages for fattening or farming, processing, export, re-export and transhipment of bluefin tuna shall be prohibited if:
(a)
the bluefin tuna was caught by fishing vessels or traps whose flag State does not have a quota, catch limit or allocation of fishing effort for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, under the terms of ICCAT conservation and management measures; or
(b)
the bluefin tuna was caught by a fishing vessel or a trap whose individual quota or whose state’s fishing opportunities were exhausted at the time of the catch.
3. Without prejudice to Regulations (EC) No 1224/2009, (EC) No 1005/2008 and (EU) No 1379/2013, Union trade, imports, landings, processing and exports of bluefin tuna from fattening or farming farms that do not comply with the Regulations referred to in paragraph 1 shall be prohibited.

Evaluation
Article 57
Member States shall submit to the Commission by 15 September each year a detailed report on their implementation of this Regulation. Based on the information received from Member States, the Commission shall submit by 15 October each year to the ICCAT Secretariat a detailed report on the implementation of ICCAT Recommendation 14-04.

Financing
Article 58
For the purposes of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(20), the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean shall be deemed to be a multiannual plan within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Implementation
Article 59
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture established by Article 47 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.

Repeal
Article 60
1. Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 is hereby repealed.
2. References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex XIII.

Entry into force
Article 61
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(1),
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure(2),
(1) The objective of the common fisheries policy (CFP), as set out in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council(3), is to ensure an exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions.
(2) The Union is Party to the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas(4)(‘the Convention’).
(3) At its 15th special meeting in 2006, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (‘ICCAT’), established by the Convention, adopted Recommendation 06-05 establishing a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean ending in 2022 (‘the recovery plan’). That Recommendation entered into force on 13 June 2007.
(4) The recovery plan takes into account the specificities of the different types of gear and fishing techniques. When implementing the recovery plan, the Union and Member States should endeavour to promote coastal fishing activities and the use of fishing gear and techniques which are selective and have a reduced environmental impact, including gear and techniques used in traditional and artisanal fisheries, thereby contributing to a fair standard of living for local economies.
(5) ICCAT Recommendation 06-05 was implemented into Union law by Council Regulation (EC) No 1559/2007(5).
(6) At its 16th special meeting in 2008, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 08-05 amending Recommendation 06-05. In order to rebuild the stock of bluefin tuna, Recommendation 08-05 provided for a gradual reduction in the total allowable catch level from 2007 to 2011, restrictions on fishing within certain areas and time periods, a new minimum size for bluefin tuna, measures concerning sport and recreational fishing activities, farming and fishing capacity measures, as well as reinforcing the ICCAT Scheme of Joint International Inspection.
(7) ICCAT Recommendation 08-05 was implemented into Union law by Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009(6).
(8) At its 17th special meeting in 2010, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 10-04 amending Recommendation 08-05. In order to rebuild the stock of bluefin tuna, Recommendation 10-04 established a further reduction of the total allowable catch and the fishing capacity and it reinforced the control measures, in particular those concerning transfer and caging operations. It also provided for additional advice by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics of ICCAT (‘SCRS’) in 2012 on the identification of spawning grounds and on the creation of sanctuaries.
(9) In order to implement the revised international conservation measures set out in Recommendation 10-04 into Union law, Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 was amended by Regulation (EU) No 500/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council(7).
(10) At its 18th special meeting in 2012, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 12-03 amending Recommendation 10-04. In order to strengthen the effectiveness of the recovery plan, Recommendation 12-03 set up technical measures concerning the transfer and caging operations of live bluefin tuna, new catch reporting requirements, the implementation of the ICCAT regional observer programme and changes of the fishing seasons. Furthermore, it reinforced the role of the SCRS with regard to the assessment of bluefin tuna stock.
(11) At its 23rd regular meeting in 2013, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 13-07 amending Recommendation 12-03 by introducing small changes on fishing seasons which do not affect the Union fleet. Furthermore, Recommendation 13-08 was adopted which complements the recovery plan. Recommendation 13-08 set up a common procedure for the use of stereoscopical camera systems to estimate the quantities of bluefin tuna at the point of caging and introduced a flexible starting date for the fishing season of baitboats and trolling boats in the eastern Atlantic.
(12) In order to implement essential measures, such as those on fishing seasons, of Recommendations 12-03 and 13-08 into Union law, Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 was further amended by Regulation (EU) No 544/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(8).
(13) At its 19th special meeting in 2014, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 14-04 amending Recommendation 13-07 and repealing Recommendation 13-08. Whilst some of the existing control provisions were rationalised, the procedures for the use of stereoscopic camera at the point of caging were further specified and measures specific to release operations and the treatment of dead fish were introduced in the recovery plan.
(14) Recommendation 14-04 is binding on the Union.
(15) All the amendments to the recovery plan adopted by ICCAT in 2012, 2013 and 2014, which have not yet been subject to implementation, should be implemented into Union law. As that implementation concerns the recovery plan whose objectives and measures were defined by ICCAT, this Regulation does not cover all the content of multiannual plans as set out in Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
(16) Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 establishes the concept of minimum conservation reference sizes. In order to ensure consistency, the ICCAT concept of minimum sizes should be transposed into Union law as minimum conservation reference sizes. Consequently, the references in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98(9)to minimum sizes of bluefin tuna should be read as references to minimum conservation reference sizes in this Regulation.
(17) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the provisions of this Regulation relating to transfer operations, caging operations and recording and reporting of trap and vessel activities, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council(10).
(18) Certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 have become obsolete, in particular since they are now covered by other Union acts. Other provisions should be updated in order to reflect changes in legislation, in particular those resulting from the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
(19) In particular, Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009(11)establishes a Union system for control, inspection and enforcement with a global and integrated approach so as to ensure compliance with all the rules of the CFP, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011(12)lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008(13)establishes a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Those acts now cover some matters governed by Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 and, in particular, Article 33 thereof on enforcement measures and Annex VIII on vessel monitoring system (VMS) transmission. It is therefore not necessary to include those provisions in this Regulation.
(20) In accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011, the conversion factors adopted by the SCRS apply to calculate the equivalent round weight of processed bluefin tuna, including for the purpose of this Regulation.
(21) Moreover, in accordance with Article 95 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Commission Implementing Decision 2014/156/EU(14)has been adopted. That Implementing Decision establishes, inter alia, target benchmarks and objectives for the control of the bluefin tuna fishery in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
(22) ICCAT Recommendation 06-07 set up a sampling programme for the estimation of the number-at-size in the context of bluefin tuna farming activities. That provision was implemented by Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 302/2009. It is not necessary that this Regulation specifically provides for the sampling programme, as the needs of that sampling programme are now fully covered by the programmes set up by paragraph 83 of Recommendation 14-04, which is to be implemented by this Regulation.
(23) For reasons of clarity, simplification and legal certainty, Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 should therefore be repealed.
(24) For the purpose of the Union’s compliance with its international obligations under the Convention, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98 provides for derogations from the landing obligation for bluefin tuna set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98 implements certain provisions of ICCAT Recommendation 13-07 that establish a discard and release obligation for vessels and traps catching bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean in certain cases. This Regulation therefore does not need to cover such discard and release obligations and will consequently be without prejudice to the corresponding provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Subject matter and scope

1. This Regulation lays down the general rules for the application by the Union of the recovery plan as defined in point (1) of Article 3.
2. This Regulation applies to bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

Objective

The objective of this Regulation, in accordance with the recovery plan as defined in point (1) of Article 3, is to achieve a biomass of bluefin tuna corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield by 2022 with at least a 60 % probability of achieving that objective.

Definitions

For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:
(1)
‘recovery plan’ means the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna, which applies from 2007 to 2022 and was recommended by ICCAT;
(2)
‘fishing vessel’ means any powered vessel used or intended for use for the purposes of the commercial exploitation of bluefin tuna resources, including catching vessels, processing vessels, support vessels, towing vessels, vessels engaged in transhipment and transport vessels equipped for the transportation of tuna products and auxiliary vessels, except container vessels;
(3)
‘catching vessel’ means a vessel used for the purposes of the commercial capture of bluefin tuna resources;
(4)
‘processing vessel’ means a vessel on board of which fisheries products are subject to one or more of the following operations, prior to their packaging: filleting or slicing, freezing and/or processing;
(5)
‘auxiliary vessel’ means any vessel used to transport dead bluefin tuna (not processed) from a transport/farming cage, a purse seine net or a trap to a designated port and/or to a processing vessel;
(6)
‘towing vessel’ means any vessel used for towing cages;
(7)
‘support vessel’ means any other fishing vessel referred to under point (2);
(8)
‘fishing actively’ means, for any catching vessel and trap, the fact that it targets bluefin tuna during a given fishing season;
(9)
‘joint fishing operation’ means any operation between two or more purse seiners where the catch of one purse seiner is attributed to one or more other purse seiners in accordance with an allocation key;
(10)
‘transfer operations’ means:
(i)
any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the catching vessel’s net to the transport cage;
(ii)
any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the transport cage to another transport cage;
(iii)
any transfer of the cage with bluefin tuna from a towing vessel to another towing vessel;
(iv)
any transfer of live bluefin tuna from one farm to another;
(v)
any transfer of live bluefin tuna from the trap to the transport cage;
(11)
‘control transfer’ means any additional transfer being implemented at the request of the fishing/farming operators or the control authorities for the purpose of verifying the number of fish being transferred;
(12)
‘trap’ means fixed gear anchored to the bottom, usually containing a guide net that leads bluefin tuna into an enclosure or series of enclosures where it is kept prior to harvesting;
(13)
‘caging’ means the transfer of live bluefin tuna from the transport cage or trap to the farming cages;
(14)
‘farming’ means caging of bluefin tuna in farms and subsequent feeding aiming to fatten and increase their total biomass;
(15)
‘farm’ means an installation used for the farming of bluefin tuna caught by traps and/or purse seiners;
(16)
‘harvesting’ means the killing of bluefin tuna in farms or traps;
(17)
‘transhipment’ means the unloading of all or any of the fish on board a fishing vessel to another fishing vessel. Unloading of dead bluefin tuna from the purse seiner net or the towing vessel to an auxiliary vessel shall not be considered as a transhipment;
(18)
‘sport fishery’ means non-commercial fisheries whose members adhere to a national sport organisation or are issued with a national sport licence;
(19)
‘recreational fishery’ means non-commercial fisheries whose members do not adhere to a national sport organisation and are not issued with a national sport licence;
(20)
‘stereoscopic camera’ means a camera with two or more lenses, with a separate image sensor or film frame for each lens, enabling the taking of three-dimensional images;
(21)
‘control camera’ means a stereoscopic camera and/or conventional video camera for the purpose of the controls provided for in this Regulation;
(22)
‘BCD’ or ‘electronic BCD’ means a bluefin catch document for bluefin tuna. As appropriate, the reference to BCD shall be replaced by eBCD;
(23)
‘responsible Member State’ or ‘Member State responsible’ means the flag Member State or the Member State in whose jurisdiction the trap or farm is located or, if the farm or trap is located on the high seas, the Member State where the trap or farm operator is established;
(24)
‘Task II’ means Task II as defined by ICCAT in the ‘Field manual for statistics and sampling Atlantic tunas and tuna-like fish’ (third edition, ICCAT, 1990);
(25)
‘CPC’ means Contracting Parties to the Convention and cooperating non-contracting parties, entities or fishing entities;
(26)
‘Convention area’ means the geographical area covered by ICCAT measures as set out in Article 1 of the Convention.

Length of vessels

Lengths of vessels referred to in this Regulation shall be understood as overall lengths.

Conditions associated with management measures

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the fishing effort of its catching vessels and its traps are commensurate with the bluefin tuna fishing opportunities available to that Member State in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
2. The carrying-over of any unused quota shall be prohibited.
3. The chartering of Union fishing vessels for bluefin tuna fishing in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean shall be prohibited.

Submission of annual fishing plans, fishing capacity management plans and farming management plans

1. By 31 January each year, each Member State with a bluefin tuna quota shall transmit to the Commission:
(a)
an annual fishing plan for the catching vessels and traps fishing bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean;
(b)
an annual fishing capacity management plan ensuring that the Member State’s fishing capacity is commensurate with its allocated quota.
2. The Commission shall compile the plans referred to in paragraph 1 and integrate them into the Union fishing and capacity management plan. The Commission shall transmit that plan to the ICCAT Secretariat by 15 February of each year for discussion and approval by ICCAT.
3. By 15 April of each year, each Member State that intends to modify the ICCAT plan for farming capacity in force shall transmit an annual farming management plan to the Commission, which shall transmit it to the ICCAT Secretariat.

Annual fishing plans

1. The annual fishing plan submitted by each Member State with a bluefin tuna quota shall identify the quotas allocated to each gear group referred to in Articles 11 and 12, including information on:
(a)
for catching vessels over 24 metres included in the vessel list referred to in point (a) of Article 20(1) — the individual quota allocated to them and the measures in place to ensure compliance with the individual quotas and by-catch allowances;
(b)
for catching vessels less than 24 metres and for traps — at least the quota allocated to producer organisations or groups of vessels fishing with a similar gear type.
2. By way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 1, the individual quota allocated to each catching vessel over 24 metres may be submitted not later than 30 days before the start of the fishing season applicable to each such vessel.
3. Any subsequent modification to the annual fishing plan or the individual quotas allocated for catching vessels over 24 metres and included in the list referred to in point (a) of Article 20(1) shall be transmitted by the Member State concerned to the Commission at least three days before the exercise of the activity corresponding to that modification. The Commission shall transmit such modification to the ICCAT Secretariat at least 48 hours before the exercise of the activity corresponding to that modification.

Allocation of fishing opportunities

In accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, when allocating the fishing opportunities available to them, Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria, including those of an environmental, social and economic nature, and shall also endeavour to distribute national quotas fairly among the various fleet segments giving consideration to traditional and artisanal fisheries, and to provide incentives to Union fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact.

Fishing capacity management plans

1. The annual fishing capacity management plan submitted by each Member State with a bluefin tuna quota shall comply with the conditions set out in this Article.
2. The maximum number of traps registered in a Member State and of fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State that may fish for, retain on board, tranship, transport, or land bluefin tuna, shall be determined in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
3. The maximum number and the corresponding gross tonnage of fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State engaged in bluefin tuna fishery shall be limited to the number, and the total corresponding gross tonnage, of fishing vessels flying the flag of that Member State that fished for, retained on board, transhipped, transported or landed bluefin tuna from 1 January 2007 to 1 July 2008. That limit shall apply by gear type for catching vessels.
4. For vessels authorised to fish for bluefin tuna under the derogation referred to in Article 14(2), additional conditions to determine the maximum number of fishing vessels are set out in Annex I.
5. The maximum number of traps of a Member State engaged in bluefin tuna fishery shall be limited to the number of traps authorised by that Member State by 1 July 2008.
6. By way of derogation from paragraphs 3 and 5 of this Article, for the years 2016 and 2017, when a Member State can demonstrate that its fishing capacity might not allow the use of its full quota, that Member State may decide to include a higher number of vessels and traps in its annual fishing plans referred to in Article 7.
7. For the years 2016 and 2017, each Member State shall limit the numbers of its purse seiners to the numbers of purse seiners it authorised in 2013 or 2014. That shall not apply to purse seiners operating under the derogation provided for in point (b) of Article 14(2).
8. When setting up its fishing capacity management plans, calculation of the fishing capacity of each Member State shall be based on the best catch rates per vessel and gear estimated by the SCRS in its Report of 2009 and agreed by ICCAT in the 2010 Inter-sessional meeting of the ICCAT Compliance Committee(15). Following any revisions of those catch rates by the SCRS, Member States shall always apply the most recent catch rates agreed by the ICCAT.

Farming management plans

1. The annual farming management plan submitted by each Member State shall comply with the conditions set out in this Article.
2. The maximum bluefin tuna farming and fattening capacity for each Member State and the maximum input of wild-caught bluefin tuna that each Member State may allocate shall be determined in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
3. The maximum bluefin tuna farming and fattening capacity of a Member State shall be limited to the bluefin tuna farming and fattening capacity of the farms of that Member State that were registered in the ICCAT record of farming facilities or authorised and declared to ICCAT on 1 July 2008.
4. The maximum input of wild-caught bluefin tuna into the farms of a Member State shall be limited to the level of the input quantities registered with ICCAT by the farms of that Member State in the years 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008.
5. Within the maximum input quantity of wild-caught bluefin tuna referred to in paragraph 4, each Member State shall allocate maximum annual inputs to its farms.

Longliners, purse seiners, pelagic trawlers, traps and sport and recreational fisheries

1. Bluefin tuna fishing by large-scale pelagic longline catching vessels over 24 metres shall be permitted in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean from 1 January to 31 May, with the exception of the area delimited by west of 10° W and north of 42° N as well as of the Norwegian exclusive economic zone, where such fishing shall be permitted from 1 August to 31 January.
2. Purse seine fishing for bluefin tuna shall be permitted in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean from 26 May to 24 June, with the exception of the Norwegian exclusive economic zone, where such fishing shall be permitted from 25 June to 31 October.
3. Bluefin tuna fishing by pelagic trawlers shall be permitted in the eastern Atlantic from 16 June to 14 October.
4. Bluefin tuna sport and recreational fishing shall be permitted in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean from 16 June to 14 October.
5. Fishing for bluefin tuna by gears other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article and Article 12, including traps, shall be permitted throughout the year in accordance with ICCAT conservation and management measures.

Baitboats and trolling boats

1. Bluefin tuna fishing by baitboats and trolling boats shall be permitted in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean from 1 July to 31 October.
2. Provided that the protection of the spawning grounds is not affected and that the total duration of the fishing season for those fisheries does not exceed four months, each Member State may decide on a different starting date for baitboats and trolling boats flying their flag and operating in the eastern Atlantic.
3. Each Member State shall specify, in its annual fishing plan referred to in Article 7, whether the starting dates for those fisheries have been modified, as well as the coordinates of the areas concerned.

The landing obligation

The provisions of this Section shall be without prejudice to Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, including any applicable derogations thereto.

Minimum conservation reference size

1. The minimum conservation reference size for bluefin tuna caught in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean shall be 30 kg or 115 cm fork length.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, a minimum conservation reference size for bluefin tuna of 8 kg or 75 cm fork length shall apply to the following fisheries:
(a)
bluefin tuna caught in the eastern Atlantic by baitboats and trolling boats;
(b)
bluefin tuna caught in the Adriatic Sea for farming purposes;
(c)
bluefin tuna caught in the Mediterranean Sea by the coastal and artisanal fishery for fresh fish by baitboats, longliners and handliners.
3. The specific conditions applying to the derogation referred to in paragraph 2 are set out in Annex I.
4. Member States concerned shall issue specific authorisations to vessels fishing under the derogation referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. The vessels concerned shall be indicated in the list of catching vessels referred to in point (a) of Article 20(1). For that purpose, the provisions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 shall apply.

Incidental catches

1. Without prejudice to Article 14(1), incidental catches of a maximum 5 % of bluefin tuna weighing between 8 and 30 kg or with a fork length between 75 and 115 cm shall be allowed for all catching vessels and traps fishing actively for bluefin tuna.
2. The percentage of 5 % referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated on the basis of the total catches of bluefin tuna in number of fish retained on board the vessel or inside the trap at any time after each fishing operation.
3. Incidental catches shall be deducted from the quota of the Member State responsible for the catching vessel or trap.
4. Incidental catches of bluefin tuna shall be subject to Articles 25, 30, 31 and 32.

By-catch

1. Each Member State shall make provision for by-catch of bluefin tuna within its quota and shall inform the Commission thereof when transmitting its fishing plan. Such provision shall ensure that all dead fish are deducted from the quota.
2. Union fishing vessels not fishing actively for bluefin tuna shall avoid by-catches of bluefin tuna exceeding, at any time following a fishing operation, 5 % of the total catch on board by weight or number of fish. The calculation of that percentage by number of fish shall only apply to tuna and tuna-like species managed by ICCAT. Each Member State shall deduct all dead fish within the by-catch from its quota.
3. For Member States without a bluefin tuna quota, the by-catches concerned shall be deducted from the specific Union bluefin tuna by-catch quota established in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
4. If the quota allocated to the Member State of the fishing vessel or trap concerned has already been exhausted, the catching of any bluefin tuna shall be avoided. Dead bluefin tuna shall be landed whole and unprocessed and shall be subject to confiscation and the appropriate follow-up action. In accordance with Article 29, each Member State shall provide information on the quantity of such dead bluefin tuna on an annual basis to the Commission who shall forward it to the ICCAT Secretariat.
5. The procedures referred to in Articles 27, 30, 31, 32 and 56 shall apply to by-catch.

Use of aerial means

The use of any aerial means, including aircraft, helicopters or any types of unmanned aerial vehicles for searching for bluefin tuna shall be prohibited.

Specific quota for sport and recreational fisheries

Each Member State with a bluefin tuna quota shall regulate sport and recreational fisheries by allocating a specific quota for the purpose of those fisheries and shall inform the Commission thereof when transmitting its fishing plan.

Sport and recreational fisheries

1. Each Member State with a bluefin tuna quota shall regulate sport and recreational fisheries by issuing fishing authorisations to vessels for the purpose of sport and recreational fishing.
2. For sport and recreational fisheries no more than one bluefin tuna shall be caught per vessel per day.
3. Any bluefin tuna landed shall be whole, gilled and/or gutted. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, the release of bluefin tuna, especially juveniles, caught alive in the framework of sport and recreational fishing.
4. The marketing of bluefin tuna caught during sport and recreational fishing shall be prohibited.
5. Each Member State shall record catch data including weight and length of each bluefin tuna caught during sport and recreational fishing and communicate the data for the preceding year to the Commission by 30 June each year. The Commission shall forward that information to the SCRS.
6. Each Member State shall count dead catches from sport and recreational fisheries against the quota it allocated in accordance with Article 7(1) and Article 18.

Records of vessels

1. Each Member State shall submit electronically each year to the Commission one month before the start of the fishing seasons referred to in Articles 11 and 12, where applicable, and otherwise one month before the start of the period of authorisation:
(a)
a list of all catching vessels flying its flag authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean by the issuing of a fishing authorisation;
(b)
a list of all other fishing vessels, other than catching vessels, flying its flag authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
2. Both lists shall be set up in accordance with the format set in the Guidelines by ICCAT for submitting the data and information required.
3. During a calendar year, a fishing vessel may be included in both of the lists referred to in paragraph 1 provided that it is not included in both lists at the same time.
4. The lists referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall contain the vessel’s name and Union fleet register number (CFR) as defined in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 26/2004(16).
5. No retroactive submission shall be accepted. Subsequent changes to the lists referred to in paragraph 1 during a calendar year shall only be accepted if the notified fishing vessel is prevented from participating due to legitimate operational reasons orforce majeure. In such circumstances, the Member State concerned shall immediately inform the Commission of that fact, and shall provide:
(a)
full details of the fishing vessel(s) intended to replace a vessel included in the lists referred to in paragraph 1; and
(b)
a comprehensive account of the reasons justifying the replacement and any relevant supporting evidence or references.
6. The Commission shall send the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 to the ICCAT Secretariat so that the vessels can be entered into the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna or in the ICCAT record of all other fishing vessels (catching vessels excluded) authorised to operate for bluefin tuna.
7. Article 8a(2), (6), (7) and (8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1936/2001(17)shall apply with the necessary modifications.

Relationship with Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009

The control measures provided for in this Chapter shall apply in addition to those provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, except where otherwise provided for in this Chapter.

Fishing authorisations for vessels

1. Without prejudice to Article 16, Union fishing vessels not entered into the ICCAT records referred to in Article 20(1) shall not be authorised to fish for, retain on board, tranship, transport, transfer, process or land bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
2. The flag Member State shall withdraw the fishing authorisation for bluefin tuna and may require the vessel to proceed immediately to a port designated by it when the individual quota is deemed to be exhausted.

Records of traps authorised to fish for bluefin tuna

1. By 15 February each year, each Member State shall send to the Commission electronically a list of its traps authorised, by the issuing of a fishing authorisation, to fish for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. The list shall include the name of the traps and the register number and shall be set up in accordance with the format set in the Guidelines by ICCAT for submitting data and information required.
2. The Commission shall send the list to the ICCAT Secretariat so that those traps can be entered into the ICCAT record of traps authorised to fish for bluefin tuna.
3. Union traps that are not entered into the ICCAT record shall not be authorised to fish for, retain, transfer, cage or land bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
4. Article 8a(2), (4), (6), (7) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 1936/2001 shall apply with the necessary modifications.

Joint fishing operation

1. Any joint fishing operation (‘JFO’) for bluefin tuna shall only be authorised with the consent of the flag Member State(s) concerned. To be authorised, each purse seiner shall be equipped to fish for bluefin tuna and have an individual quota. JFOs with other CPCs shall not be permitted.
2. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to obtain the following information from its fishing vessels applying for an authorisation to take part in the JFO:
(a)
the duration;
(b)
the identity of the operators involved;
(c)
the individual vessels’ quotas;
(d)
the allocation key between the fishing vessels for the catches involved; and
(e)
information on the farms of destination.
3. At least 15 days before the start of the operation, each Member State shall send the information referred to in paragraph 2 to the Commission in the format set out in Annex VI. The Commission shall forward that information to the ICCAT Secretariat and to the flag State of other fishing vessels participating in the JFO at least 10 days before the start of the operation.
4. In the case offorce majeure, the deadline set out in paragraph 3 shall not apply for the information requested under point (e) of paragraph 2. In that case, Member States may submit to the Commission an update of that information as soon as possible, together with a description of the events constitutingforce majeure. The Commission shall forward that information to the ICCAT Secretariat.

Recording requirements

1. In addition to complying with Articles 14, 15, 23 and 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, the master of a Union catching vessel shall, if applicable, enter into the logbook the information listed in Part A of Annex II to this Regulation.
2. Masters of Union towing vessels, auxiliary vessels and processing vessels shall record their activities in accordance with the requirements set out in Parts B, C and D of Annex II.

Catch reports sent by masters and trap operators

1. Masters of catching vessels fishing actively for bluefin tuna shall send to the authorities of the flag Member State daily information from logbooks, including the ICCAT register number, the vessel name, the beginning and end of the period of authorisation, date, time, location (latitude and longitude) and the weight and number of bluefin tuna caught in the Convention area. They shall send that information electronically in the format set out in Annex V during the whole period in which the vessel is authorised to fish bluefin tuna.
2. Masters of purse seiners shall produce daily reports as referred to in paragraph 1 on a fishing operation by fishing operation basis, including operations where the catch was zero.
3. The reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be transmitted by the operator to its flag Member State authorities on a daily basis for purse seiners and vessels over 24 metres by 9.00 GMT for the preceding day and for other catching vessels by Monday 24.00 (midnight) for the preceding week ending Sunday 24.00 (midnight) GMT.
4. Trap operators fishing actively for bluefin tuna shall send a daily catch report including the ICCAT register number, date, time, catches (weight and number of fish), including zero catches. They shall send that information within 48 hours electronically in the format set out in Annex V to their Member State authorities during the whole period they are authorised to fish bluefin tuna.
5. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules for the recording and reporting of vessel and trap activities referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article and Annex V. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 59(2).

Weekly and monthly catch reports sent by the Member States

1. Each Member State shall, upon receipt of the catch reports referred to in Article 26, promptly forward them electronically to the Commission and shall provide promptly to the Commission weekly catch reports for all catching vessels and traps in accordance with the format set out in Annex V. The Commission shall forward that information on a weekly basis to the ICCAT Secretariat in accordance with the format set out in the Guidelines for submitting data and information required by ICCAT.
2. Each Member State shall inform the Commission, before the 15th day of each month, of the quantities of bluefin tuna caught in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean which have been landed, transhipped, trapped or caged during the preceding month by the fishing vessels or traps flying the flag of or registered in that Member State. The information provided shall be structured by gear type including by-catch, catches in sport and recreational fisheries and zero catches. The Commission shall promptly forward that information to the ICCAT Secretariat.

Information on quota exhaustion

1. In addition to the provisions of Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, each Member State shall inform the Commission when the quota allocated to a gear group referred to in Article 11 or Article 12 of this Regulation is deemed to have reached 80 %.
2. In addition to the provisions of Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, each Member State shall inform the Commission when the quota allocated to a gear group referred to in Article 11 or Article 12 of this Regulation or to a JFO or to a purse seiner is deemed to be exhausted.
3. The information referred to in paragraph 2 shall be accompanied by official documentation proving the fishing stop or the call back to port issued by the Member State for the fleet, the gear group, the JFO, or the vessels with an individual quota including a clear indication of the date and the time of the closure.

Yearly reporting of catches by the Member States

1. By 15 March each year, each Member State shall submit to the Commission detailed information on any bluefin tuna catches in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean in the preceding fishing year. That information shall include:
(a)
the name and ICCAT number of each catching vessel;
(b)
the period of authorisation(s) for each catching vessel;
(c)
the total catches of each catching vessel including when the catch was zero throughout the period of authorisation(s);
(d)
the total number of days each catching vessel fished in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean throughout the period of authorisation(s); and
(e)
the total catch of each catching vessel outside the period of authorisation (by-catch), including when the catch was zero.
2. For vessels not authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean but which caught bluefin tuna as by-catch, the information to be submitted to the Commission at the same date as referred to in paragraph 1 shall include:
(a)
the name and ICCAT number or national registry number of the vessel, if not registered with ICCAT; and
(b)
the total catches of bluefin tuna.
3. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission any information on vessels not subject to paragraphs 1 and 2 but known or presumed to have fished for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
4. The Commission shall transmit to the ICCAT Secretariat the information received under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.

Designated ports

1. Each Member State shall designate ports or places close to the shore (designated ports) where landing or transhipping operations of bluefin tuna are permitted.
2. For a port to be determined as a designated port, the port Member State shall specify permitted landing and transhipping times and places.
3. By 15 February of each year, each Member State shall transmit a list of designated ports to the Commission which shall transmit that information to the ICCAT Secretariat.
4. It shall be prohibited to land or tranship from fishing vessels any quantity of bluefin tuna fished in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean at any place other than ports or places close to the shore designated by CPCs and Member States in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.

Landings

1. Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 shall apply to masters of Union fishing vessels of 12 metres’ length overall or more included in the list of vessels referred to in Article 20 of this Regulation. The prior arrival notification under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 shall be sent to the competent authority of the Member State (including the flag Member State) or CPC whose ports or landing facility they wish to use.
2. In addition, masters of Union fishing vessels under 12 metres’ length overall included in the list of vessels referred to in Article 20 shall, at least four hours before the estimated time of arrival at the port, notify the competent authority of the Member State (including the flag Member State) or the CPC whose ports or landing facility they wish to use, at least of the following:
(a)
estimated time of arrival;
(b)
estimated quantity of bluefin tuna retained on board; and
(c)
information on the geographical area where the catches were taken.
3. Where Member States are authorised under applicable Union legislation to apply a shorter notification period than that referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the estimated quantities of bluefin tuna retained on board may be notified at the thus applicable time of notification prior to arrival. If the fishing grounds are less than four hours from the port, the estimated quantities of bluefin tuna retained on board may be modified at any time prior to arrival.
4. Authorities of the port Member State shall keep a record of all prior notifications for the current year.
5. All landings shall be controlled, in accordance with Article 55(2), by the relevant control authorities of the port Member State and a percentage shall be inspected based on a risk assessment system involving quota, fleet size and fishing effort. Full details of such control system adopted by each Member State shall be detailed in the annual inspection plan referred to in Article 53. That control system shall also apply to harvest operations.
6. In addition to Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, after each trip, masters of a Union catching vessel, whatever the length of the vessel, shall submit a landing declaration to the competent authorities of the flag Member State and, if the landing has taken place in a port of another Member State or CPC, to the competent authorities of the port Member State or CPC concerned.
7. All landed catches shall be weighed.

Transhipment

1. Transhipment at sea of bluefin tuna in the Convention area shall be prohibited in all circumstances.
2. Fishing vessels shall only tranship bluefin tuna catches in designated ports under the conditions set out in Article 30.
3. The port Member State shall ensure full inspection coverage during all transhipping times and at all transhipping places.
4. Prior to entry into any port, the masters or representatives of the receiving fishing vessels shall, at least 48 hours before the estimated time of arrival, provide the competent authorities of the Member State or CPC whose port they want to use with the following:
(a)
estimated date and time of arrival, and port of arrival;
(b)
estimated quantity of bluefin tuna retained on board, and information on the geographical area where it was taken;
(c)
the name of the transhipping fishing vessel and its number in the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna or in the ICCAT record of other fishing vessels authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean;
(d)
the name of the receiving fishing vessel, its number in the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna or in the ICCAT record of other fishing vessels authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean; and
(e)
the tonnage and the geographical area of the catch of bluefin tuna to be transhipped.
5. Fishing vessels shall not be allowed to tranship unless they have obtained prior authorisation from their flag State.
6. Masters of transhipping fishing vessels shall, before the transhipment starts, inform their flag State of the following:
(a)
the quantities of bluefin tuna to be transhipped;
(b)
the date and port of the transhipment;
(c)
the name, registration number and flag of the receiving fishing vessel and its number in the ICCAT record of catching vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna or in the ICCAT record of other fishing vessels authorised to operate for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean; and
(d)
the geographical area of the catch of bluefin tuna.
7. All transhipments shall be inspected by the competent Member State authorities at the designated port. Those authorities shall:
(a)
inspect the receiving fishing vessel on arrival and check the cargo and documentation related to the transhipment operation;
(b)
send a record of the transhipment to the flag State authority of the transhipping fishing vessel, within five days after the transhipment has ended.
8. By way of derogation from Articles 21 and 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, masters of a Union fishing vessel shall, whatever the length of the vessel, complete and send the ICCAT transhipment declaration to the competent authorities of the Member State whose flag the fishing vessel is flying. The declaration shall be transmitted no later than 48 hours after the date of transhipment in port in accordance with the format set out in Annex III to this Regulation.

Transfer authorisation

1. Before any transfer operation, the master of a catching vessel or towing vessel or the operator of the farm or trap where the transfer in question originates shall send to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State a prior notification of transfer indicating:
(a)
the name of the catching vessel, towing vessel, farm or trap and the ICCAT register number;
(b)
the estimated time of transfer;
(c)
the estimate of the quantity of bluefin tuna to be transferred;
(d)
information on the position (latitude/longitude) where the transfer will take place as well as the identifiable cage numbers;
(e)
the name of the receiving towing vessel, the number of cages towed and, where appropriate, the ICCAT register number;
(f)
the port, farm or cage of destination of the bluefin tuna.
2. For the purpose referred to in paragraph 1, a unique cage number shall be assigned to each cage. Numbers shall be issued with a unique numbering system that includes at least three alfa-code letters corresponding to the flag of the towing vessel followed by three numbers.
3. Catching vessels, towing vessels, farms or traps shall not be allowed to transfer unless they have obtained prior authorisation from the relevant Member State. The authorities of that Member State shall decide for each transfer operation whether to grant authorisation. For that purpose, a unique identification number shall, for each transfer operation, be assigned and communicated to the master of the fishing vessel, the trap operator or the farm operator, as appropriate. Where authorisation is granted, that number shall comprise the three-letter code of the Member State, the four numbers indicating the year, and the three letters ‘AUT’ (authorisation), followed by sequential numbers. Where authorisation is refused, the number shall comprise the three-letter code of the Member State, the four numbers indicating the year, and the three letters ‘NEG’ (non-authorisation), followed by sequential numbers.
4. In the event that fish die during the transfer operation, the relevant Member States and operators involved in the transfer shall proceed in accordance with Annex XII.
5. The transfer authorisation shall be granted or refused by the Member State responsible for the catching vessel, towing vessel, farm or trap, as appropriate, within 48 hours following the submission of the prior notification of transfer.
6. The authorisation for transfer by the relevant Member State shall not prejudge the authorisation of the caging operation.

Refusal of transfer authorisation

1. The Member State responsible for the vessel, trap or farm shall not authorise the transfer if, on receipt of the prior notification of transfer, it considers that:
(a)
the catching vessel or the trap that is declared to have caught the fish does not have sufficient quota;
(b)
the quantity of fish has not been duly reported by the catching vessel or the trap operator or has not been authorised to be caged, or has not been taken into account for the consumption of the quota that may be applicable;
(c)
the catching vessel or trap that is declared to have caught the fish is not authorised to fish for bluefin tuna; or
(d)
the towing vessel declared to be the one to receive the transfer of fish is not registered in the ICCAT record of all other fishing vessels (catching vessels excluded) authorised to operate for bluefin tuna, as referred to in point (b) of Article 20(1), or is not equipped with a VMS.
2. If the transfer is not authorised:
(a)
the Member State responsible for the catching vessel or trap shall issue a release order to the master of the catching vessel or to the operator of the trap or farm as appropriate and inform them that the transfer is not authorised and that the fish have to be released into the sea;
(b)
the master of the catching vessel, the farm operator or the trap operator, as appropriate, shall release the fish;
(c)
the release of bluefin tuna shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in Annex XI.

Monitoring by video camera

1. For transfer operations, the master of the catching vessel, towing vessel, farm operator or trap operator that transfers bluefin tuna shall ensure that the transfer operations are monitored by video camera in the water in order to verify the number of fish being transferred. The minimum standards and procedures for video recording shall be in accordance with Annex IX.
2. Each Member State responsible for the vessel, trap or farm shall ensure that the video records referred to in paragraph 1 are made available to the ICCAT inspectors and regional observers.
3. Each Member State responsible for the vessel, trap or farm shall ensure that the video records referred to in paragraph 1 are made available to Union inspectors and national observers.
4. Each Member State responsible for the vessel, trap or farm shall take the necessary measures to avoid any replacement, editing or manipulation of the original video record.

Verification by ICCAT regional observers and launching and conduct of investigation

1. ICCAT regional observers on board the catching vessel or present at a trap, as set out in Article 51 and Annex VII, shall record and report on the transfer operations carried out, observe and estimate catches transferred and verify entries made in the prior transfer authorisation referred to in Article 33 and in the ICCAT transfer declaration referred to in Article 38.
2. In cases where there is more than 10 % difference by number between the estimates of catch made by the ICCAT regional observer, relevant control authorities and/or the master of the catching vessel, or representative of the trap, or where the video record is of insufficient quality or clarity to make such estimations, the Member State responsible for the catching vessel, farm or trap shall launch an investigation which shall be concluded prior to the time of caging at the farm or in any case within 96 hours after being launched. Pending the results of that investigation, caging shall not be authorised and the catch section of the bluefin tuna catch document (‘BCD’) shall not be validated.
3. However, when the video record is of insufficient quality or clarity to estimate the number, the operator may request authorisation from the flag State authorities of the vessel, trap or farm to conduct a new transfer operation and to provide the corresponding video record to the ICCAT regional observer.
4. Without prejudice to the verifications conducted by an inspector, ICCAT regional observers shall sign the ICCAT transfer declaration only when their observations are in accordance with the ICCAT conservation and management measures and when the information contained in the transfer declaration is consistent with their observations including a compliant video record as required under Article 35(1). They shall sign that declaration with clearly written name and ICCAT number.
5. ICCAT regional observers shall also verify that the ICCAT transfer declaration is transmitted to the master of the towing vessel or to the farm or trap representative.

Measures to estimate the number and weight of bluefin tuna to be caged

Member States shall take the necessary measures and actions to further explore methodologies to improve the estimate of both the number and weight of bluefin tuna at the point of capture and caging. Each Member State shall report on the measures taken by 22 August of each year to the Commission who shall submit those reports to the SCRS.

Transfer declaration

1. Masters of catching or towing vessels, trap operators or farm operators shall, at the end of the transfer operation, complete and transmit to the competent authorities of their Member State the ICCAT transfer declaration, in accordance with the format set out in Annex IV.
2. Transfer declaration forms shall be numbered by the competent authorities of the Member State responsible for the vessels, farms or traps from which the transfers originate. The numbering system shall include the three-letter code of the Member State, followed by the four numbers indicating the year and three sequential numbers followed by the three letters ‘ITD’ (MS-20**/xxx/ITD).
3. The original transfer declaration shall accompany the transfer of the fish. A copy of the declaration shall be kept by the master of the catching vessel, the trap operator, the master of the towing vessel or the farm operator.
4. Masters of vessels carrying out transfer operations (including towing vessels) shall report their activities in accordance with the requirements set out in Annex II.

Implementing acts

The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules for transfer operations referred to in Articles 33 to 38 and the Annexes referred to in those Articles. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 59(2).

Caging authorisation

1. Prior to the start of each caging operation the anchoring of transport cages within 0,5 nautical miles of farming facilities shall be prohibited.
2. Before any caging operation, the competent authority of the Member State responsible for the farm shall inform the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap of the quantities caught by that vessel or trap and request a caging authorisation.
3. The caging operation shall not begin without the prior authorisation by:
(a)
the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap; or
(b)
the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm if it has been agreed among the Member States involved or with the flag CPC involved.
4. The caging authorisation shall be granted or refused by the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel, trap or, if applicable, farm, within one working day following the request and the submission of the information referred to in paragraph 2. If no response is received within one working day from the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap, the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm may authorise the caging.
5. Bluefin tuna shall be caged before 15 August, unless the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm receiving the fish provides duly justified reasons. Such reasons shall be submitted with the caging report.

Refusal of caging authorisation

1. The Member State responsible for the catching vessel, trap or, if applicable, farm, shall refuse the caging authorisation if it considers, on receipt of the information referred to in Article 40(2), that:
(a)
the catching vessel or trap that is declared to have caught the fish did not have sufficient quota for the bluefin tuna that were put into the cage;
(b)
the quantity of fish has not been duly reported by the catching vessel or trap or has not been taken into account for the calculation of the quota applicable; or
(c)
the catching vessel or trap that is declared to have caught the fish is not authorised to fish for bluefin tuna.
2. If the caging is not authorised, the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel shall request the Member State or CPC responsible for the farm to seize the catches and to release the fish by issuing a release order.
3. Upon receipt of the release order, the farm operator shall proceed with the releases in accordance with Annex XI.

Bluefin tuna catch documentation

Member States responsible for farms shall prohibit any placing of bluefin tuna in cages for the purpose of farming that is not accompanied by the documentation required by ICCAT and in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 640/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council(18). The documentation shall be accurate, complete and confirmed and validated by the Member State or CPC authorities of the catching vessels or traps.

Inspections

Member States responsible for farms shall take the necessary measures to inspect each caging operation in the farms.

Monitoring by video camera

1. Each Member State responsible for the farm shall ensure that caging operations are monitored by video camera in the water. A video record shall be produced for each caging operation in accordance with Annex IX.
2. Each Member State responsible for the farm shall ensure that the video records referred to in paragraph 1 are made available to the ICCAT inspectors and regional observers.
3. Each Member State responsible for the farm shall ensure that the video records referred to in paragraph 1 are made available to Union inspectors and national observers.
4. Each Member State responsible for the farm shall take the necessary measures to avoid any replacement, editing or manipulation of the original video record.

Launching and conduct of investigations

1. Where there is a difference of more than 10 % in the number of bluefin tuna between the estimates made by the ICCAT regional observer, the relevant Member State control authorities or the farm operator, the Member State responsible for the farm shall, in cooperation with the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap, launch an investigation.
2. Pending the results of that investigation, harvesting shall not take place and the farming section of the BCD shall not be validated.
3. The Member States responsible for the farm and for the catching vessel or trap which undertake the investigations may use other information at their disposal including the results of the programmes referred to in Article 46 to conclude the investigation.

Measures and programmes to estimate the number and weight of bluefin tuna to be caged

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures and actions as referred to in Article 37.
2. A programme using stereoscopic camera systems or alternative techniques that provide the equivalent precision shall cover 100 % of the caging operations in order to refine the number and weight of the fish in each caging operation.
3. That programme shall be implemented in accordance with the procedures set out in Section B of Annex X.
4. The results of that programme shall be communicated by the Member State responsible for the farm to the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap and to the Commission in accordance with Section B of Annex X. The Commission shall transmit them to the ICCAT Secretariat for transmission to the ICCAT regional observer.
5. When the results of the programme indicate that the quantities of bluefin tuna being caged differ from the quantities reported caught and transferred, the Member State responsible for the farm shall, in cooperation with the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap, launch an investigation. If the investigation is not concluded within 10 working days from the communication of the results referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article or if the outcome of the investigation indicates that the number or average weight of bluefin tuna is in excess of that reported caught and transferred, the flag Member State or CPC authorities of the catching vessel or trap shall issue a release order for the excess which must be released in accordance with the procedures laid down in Annex XI.
6. In accordance with the procedures set out in point 3 of Section B of Annex X and following the release, if applicable, the quantities derived from the programme shall be used to:
(a)
determine the final catch figures to be deducted from the national quota;
(b)
fill in those figures in the caging declarations and relevant sections of the BCD.
7. Each Member State responsible for the farm shall report on the results of those programmes by 30 August of each year to the Commission who shall submit those reports to the SCRS.
8. The transfer of live bluefin tuna from one farming cage to another farming cage shall not take place without the authorisation and the presence of the farm state control authorities.
9. A difference superior or equal to 10 % between the quantities of bluefin tuna reported caught by the vessel/trap and the quantities established by the control cameras, as referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article and Article 45, shall constitute a potential non-compliance by the vessel/trap concerned and Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the appropriate follow-up.

Caging report

1. Within one week of the completion of the caging operation, the Member State responsible for the farm shall submit a caging report containing the elements set up in Section B of Annex X to the Member State or CPC whose vessels or traps have caught the bluefin tuna, and to the Commission. The report shall also contain the information included in the caging declaration as set out in Article 4b of and Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1936/2001. The Commission shall forward the report to the ICCAT Secretariat.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, a caging operation shall not be deemed to be completed until any investigation launched and, if applicable, any release operation ordered, is concluded.

Implementing acts

The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules for caging operations referred to in Articles 40 to 47 and the Annexes referred to in those Articles. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 59(2).

Vessel monitoring system

1. By way of derogation from Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, the obligation concerning the VMS shall apply to all tug and towing vessels included in the ICCAT record of vessels referred to in Article 20(6) of this Regulation, irrespective of their length.
2. Fishing vessels over 15 metres length that are included in the list of vessels referred to in point (a) of Article 20(1) or in the list of vessels referred to in point (b) of Article 20(1) shall begin to transmit VMS data to ICCAT at least 15 days before the opening of the fishing season and shall continue to transmit those data for at least 15 days after the closure of the fishing season, unless a request is sent in advance to the Commission for the vessel to be removed from the ICCAT record of vessels.
3. For control purposes, the transmission of VMS data from catching vessels that are authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna shall not be interrupted when vessels are in port.
4. Member States shall ensure that their fisheries monitoring centres forward to the Commission and a body designated by it, in real time and using the format ‘https data feed’, the VMS messages received from the fishing vessels flying their flag. The Commission shall send those messages electronically to the ICCAT Secretariat.
5. Member States shall ensure that:
(a)
VMS messages from the fishing vessels flying their flag are forwarded to the Commission at least every two hours;
(b)
in the event of technical malfunction of the VMS, alternative messages from the fishing vessels flying their flag received under Article 25(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 are forwarded to the Commission within 24 hours of receipt by their fisheries monitoring centres;
(c)
messages forwarded to the Commission are sequentially numbered (with a unique identifier) in order to avoid duplication;
(d)
messages forwarded to the Commission are in accordance with Article 24(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011.
6. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all messages made available to its inspection vessels are treated in a confidential manner and are limited to inspection at sea operations.

National observer programme

1. In respect of vessels active in the bluefin tuna fishery, Member States shall ensure at least the following percentage levels of national observer coverage:
(a)
20 % of its pelagic trawlers (over 15 metres);
(b)
20 % of its long line vessels (over 15 metres);
(c)
20 % of its bait boats (over 15 metres);
(d)
100 % of towing vessels;
(e)
100 % of harvesting operations from traps.
2. Member States shall issue national observers with an official identification document.
3. The national observer tasks shall be, in particular, to:
(a)
monitor compliance by fishing vessels and traps with this Regulation;
(b)
record, and report upon, the fishing activity which shall include the following:
(i)
amount of catch (including by-catch) that also includes species disposition, such as retained on board or discarded dead or alive;
(ii)
area of catch by latitude and longitude;
(iii)
measure of effort (such as the number of sets, number of hooks), as defined in the ICCAT Field Manual for different gears;
(iv)
date of catch;
(c)
observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;
(d)
sight and record vessels which may be fishing contrary to ICCAT conservation and management measures.
4. National observers shall also carry out scientific work, such as collecting Task II data as defined by ICCAT, when required by ICCAT, based on the instructions from the SCRS.
5. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 4, each Member State shall also ensure:
(a)
representative temporal and spatial presence of national observers on its vessels and traps to ensure that the Commission receives adequate and appropriate data and information on catch, effort and other scientific and management aspects, taking into account characteristics of the fleets and fisheries;
(b)
robust data collection protocols;
(c)
that national observers are properly trained and approved before deployment;
(d)
to the extent possible, minimal disruption to the operations of fishing vessels and traps fishing in the Convention Area.
6. Data and information collected under each Member State’s observer programme shall be provided to the Commission by 15 July each year. The Commission shall forward that data and information to the SCRS and the ICCAT Secretariat, as appropriate.

ICCAT regional observer programme

1. The ICCAT regional observer programme as set out in paragraphs 2 to 6 and as further specified in Annex VII shall apply in the Union.
2. Member States shall ensure that an ICCAT regional observer is present:
(a)
on all purse seiners authorised to fish bluefin tuna;
(b)
during all transfers of bluefin tuna from purse seiners;
(c)
during all transfers of bluefin tuna from traps to transport cages;
(d)
during all transfers from one farm to another;
(e)
during all caging operations of bluefin tuna in farms;
(f)
during all harvesting of bluefin tuna from farms.
3. Purse seiners without an ICCAT regional observer shall not be authorised to fish or to operate in the bluefin tuna fishery.
4. Member States responsible for farms shall ensure an ICCAT regional observer’s presence during all caging operations and all harvesting of fish from those farms.
5. The tasks of ICCAT regional observers shall be, in particular, to:
(a)
observe and monitor that fishing and farming operations are in compliance with the relevant ICCAT conservation and management measures;
(b)
sign the ICCAT transfer declarations referred to in Article 38, caging reports referred to in Article 47 and BCDs when they agree that the information contained therein is consistent with their observations;
(c)
carry out scientific work, such as collecting samples, as required by ICCAT, based on the instructions from the SCRS.
6. The flag Member State shall ensure that masters, crew, farm, trap and vessel owners do not obstruct, intimidate, interfere with, influence, bribe or attempt to bribe ICCAT regional observers in the performance of their duties.

ICCAT Scheme of Joint International Inspection

1. The ICCAT Scheme of Joint International Inspection (‘the ICCAT scheme’) set out in Annex VIII shall apply in the Union.
2. Member States whose fishing vessels are authorised to fish bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean shall assign inspectors and carry out inspections at sea under the ICCAT scheme.
3. If, at any time, more than 15 fishing vessels flagged to a Member State are engaged in bluefin tuna fishing activities in the Convention area, that Member State shall deploy an inspection vessel for the purpose of inspection and control at sea in the Convention area throughout the period that those vessels are there. That obligation shall be deemed to have been complied with where Member States cooperate to deploy an inspection vessel or where a Union inspection vessel is deployed in the Convention area.
4. The Commission or a body designated by it may assign Union inspectors to the ICCAT scheme.
5. The Commission or a body designated by it shall coordinate the surveillance and inspection activities for the Union. The Commission may draw up, in coordination with the Member States concerned, joint inspection programmes to enable the Union to fulfil its obligation under the ICCAT scheme. Member States whose fishing vessels are engaged in the fishery of bluefin tuna shall adopt the necessary measures to facilitate the implementation of those programmes particularly as regards the human and material resources required and the periods and geographical areas when those resources are to be deployed.
6. Member States shall inform the Commission by 1 April of each year of the names of the inspectors and the inspection vessels they intend to assign to the ICCAT scheme during the year. Using that information, the Commission shall draw up, in collaboration with the Member States, a plan for the Union participation in the ICCAT scheme each year, which it shall send to the ICCAT Secretariat and the Member States.

Transmission of inspection plans

1. By 31 January each year, Member States shall transmit their inspection plans to the Commission. The inspection plans shall be set up in accordance with:
(a)
the objectives, priorities, and procedures as well as benchmarks for inspection activities set up in the Specific control and inspection programme for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean established under Article 95 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;
(b)
the National control action programme for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean established under Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.
2. The Commission shall compile the national inspection plans and integrate them into the Union inspection plan. That plan shall be transmitted by the Commission to the ICCAT Secretariat, for endorsement by ICCAT, together with the plans referred to in Article 6(1).

Inspections in case of infringements

1. The flag Member State shall take the action under paragraph 2 of this Article if a vessel flying its flag has:
(a)
failed in its reporting requirement referred to in Articles 25 and 26; or
(b)
committed an infringement of the provisions of this Regulation, Articles 89 to 93 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 or Chapter IX of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008.
2. The flag Member State shall ensure that a physical inspection takes place under its authority in its ports or by another person designated by the flag Member State when the vessel is not in one of its ports.

Cross-check

1. Each Member State shall verify, including by using inspection reports, observer reports and VMS data, the submission of logbooks and relevant information recorded in the logbooks of its fishing vessels, transfer or transhipment documents and BCDs, in accordance with Article 109 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.
2. Each Member State shall carry out cross-checks on all landings, transhipments or cagings between the quantities by species recorded in the fishing vessels logbook or quantities by species recorded in the transfer or transhipment declaration and the quantities recorded in the landing declaration or caging declaration, and any other relevant document, such as an invoice and/or sales notes, in accordance with Article 109 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.

Marketing measures

1. Without prejudice to Regulations (EC) No 1224/2009, (EC) No 1005/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council(19), Union trade, landing, import, export, placing in cages for fattening or farming, re-export and transhipment of bluefin tuna that are not accompanied by accurate, complete and validated documentation set out in this Regulation, Regulation (EU) No 640/2010 and Article 4b of Regulation (EC) No 1936/2001, shall be prohibited.
2. Union trade, import, landing, placing in cages for fattening or farming, processing, export, re-export and transhipment of bluefin tuna shall be prohibited if:
(a)
the bluefin tuna was caught by fishing vessels or traps whose flag State does not have a quota, catch limit or allocation of fishing effort for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, under the terms of ICCAT conservation and management measures; or
(b)
the bluefin tuna was caught by a fishing vessel or a trap whose individual quota or whose state’s fishing opportunities were exhausted at the time of the catch.
3. Without prejudice to Regulations (EC) No 1224/2009, (EC) No 1005/2008 and (EU) No 1379/2013, Union trade, imports, landings, processing and exports of bluefin tuna from fattening or farming farms that do not comply with the Regulations referred to in paragraph 1 shall be prohibited.

Evaluation

Member States shall submit to the Commission by 15 September each year a detailed report on their implementation of this Regulation. Based on the information received from Member States, the Commission shall submit by 15 October each year to the ICCAT Secretariat a detailed report on the implementation of ICCAT Recommendation 14-04.

Financing

For the purposes of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(20), the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean shall be deemed to be a multiannual plan within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Implementation

1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture established by Article 47 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.

Repeal

1. Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 is hereby repealed.
2. References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex XIII.

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

Specific conditions applicable to the fisheries referred to in Article 14(2)

ANNEX I
| 1. | In addition to the provisions set out in Article 9(3), the maximum number of baitboats and trolling boats authorised to fish for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic under the specific conditions applying to the derogation referred to in point (a) of Article 14(2) is set at the number of Union catching vessels participating in the directed fishery for bluefin tuna in 2006.
| 2 | In addition to the provisions set out in Article 9(3), the maximum number of catching vessels authorised to fish for bluefin tuna in the Adriatic sea for farming purposes under the specific conditions applying to the derogation referred to in point (b) of Article 14(2) is set at the number of Union catching vessels participating in the directed fishery for bluefin tuna in 2008. For that purpose, the number of Croatian catching vessels participating in the directed fishery for bluefin tuna in 2008 shall be taken into account.
| 3. | In addition to the provisions set out in Article 9(3), the maximum number of baitboats, longliners and handliners authorised to fish for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean under the specific conditions applying to the derogation referred to in point (c) of Article 14(2) is set at the number of Union catching vessels participating in the directed fishery for bluefin tuna in 2008.
| 4. | The maximum number of catching vessels determined in accordance with points 1, 2 and 3 of this Annex shall be allocated among the Member States in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
| 5. | No more than 7 % of the Union quota for bluefin tuna between 8 kg or 75 cm and 30 kg or 115 cm shall be allocated among the authorised catching vessels referred to in point (a) of Article 14(2) and in point 1 of this Annex. That quota shall be allocated among Member States in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
| 6. | By way of derogation from point (a) of Article 14(2), within the quota of 7 % referred to in point 5 of this Annex, up to 100 tonnes may be allocated for the capture of bluefin tuna of no less than 6,4 kg or 70 cm by baitboats of less than 17 metres.
| 7. | The maximum allocation of the Union quota among Member States to fish under the specific conditions applying to the derogation referred to in point (b) of Article 14(2) and point 2 of this Annex shall be determined in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
| 8. | No more than 2 % of the Union quota for bluefin tuna between 8 kg or 75 cm and 30 kg or 115 cm shall be allocated among the authorised catching vessels referred to in point (c) of Article 14(2) and point 3 of this Annex. That quota shall be allocated among Member States in accordance with the TFEU and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
| 9. | Each Member State whose baitboats, longliners, handliners and trolling boats are authorised to fish for bluefin tuna in accordance with Article 14(2) and this Annex shall establish the following tail tag requirements:(a)tail tags are affixed on each bluefin tuna immediately upon offloading;(b)each tail tag has a unique identification number which is included in bluefin tuna statistical documents and written on the outside of any package containing tuna. | (a) | tail tags are affixed on each bluefin tuna immediately upon offloading; | (b) | each tail tag has a unique identification number which is included in bluefin tuna statistical documents and written on the outside of any package containing tuna.
(a) | tail tags are affixed on each bluefin tuna immediately upon offloading;
(b) | each tail tag has a unique identification number which is included in bluefin tuna statistical documents and written on the outside of any package containing tuna.

Logbook requirements

ANNEX IIA. CATCHING VESSELSMinimum specifications for fishing logbooks:

1. | The logbook shall be numbered by sheet.
2. | The logbook shall be completed every day (midnight) or before port arrival.
3. | The logbook shall be completed in case of at-sea inspections.
4. | One copy of the sheets shall remain attached to the logbook.
5. | Logbooks shall be kept on board to cover a period of one year of operation.Minimum standard information for fishing logbooks:

1. | Master’s name and address.
2. | Dates and ports of departure, dates and ports of arrival.
3. | Vessel’s name, register number, ICCAT number, international radio call sign and IMO number (if available).
4. | Fishing gear:(a)type FAO code;(b)dimension (e.g. length, mesh size, number of hooks). | (a) | type FAO code; | (b) | dimension (e.g. length, mesh size, number of hooks).
(a) | type FAO code;
(b) | dimension (e.g. length, mesh size, number of hooks).
5. | Operations at sea with one line (minimum) per day of trip, providing:(a)activity (e.g. fishing, steaming);(b)position: exact daily positions (in degree and minutes), recorded for each fishing operation or at midday when no fishing has been conducted during that day;(c)record of catches, including:(1)FAO code;(2)round (RWT) weight in kg per day;(3)number of pieces per day.For purse seiners that should be recorded by fishing operation, including nil return. | (a) | activity (e.g. fishing, steaming); | (b) | position: exact daily positions (in degree and minutes), recorded for each fishing operation or at midday when no fishing has been conducted during that day; | (c) | record of catches, including:(1)FAO code;(2)round (RWT) weight in kg per day;(3)number of pieces per day. | (1) | FAO code; | (2) | round (RWT) weight in kg per day; | (3) | number of pieces per day.
(a) | activity (e.g. fishing, steaming);
(b) | position: exact daily positions (in degree and minutes), recorded for each fishing operation or at midday when no fishing has been conducted during that day;
(c) | record of catches, including:(1)FAO code;(2)round (RWT) weight in kg per day;(3)number of pieces per day. | (1) | FAO code; | (2) | round (RWT) weight in kg per day; | (3) | number of pieces per day.
(1) | FAO code;
(2) | round (RWT) weight in kg per day;
(3) | number of pieces per day.
6. | Master’s signature.
7. | Means of weight measure: estimation, weighing on board.
8. | The logbook shall be kept in equivalent live weight of fish and shall mention the conversion factors used in the evaluation.Minimum information for fishing logbooks in case of landing or transhipment:

1. | Dates and port of landing/transhipment.
2. | Products:(a)species and presentation by FAO code;(b)number of fish or boxes and quantity in kg. | (a) | species and presentation by FAO code; | (b) | number of fish or boxes and quantity in kg.
(a) | species and presentation by FAO code;
(b) | number of fish or boxes and quantity in kg.
3. | Signature of the master or vessel agent.
4. | In case of transhipment: receiving vessel name, its flag and ICCAT number.Minimum information for fishing logbooks in case of transfer into cages:

1. | Date, time and position (latitude/longitude) of transfer.
2. | Products:(a)species identification by FAO code;(b)number of fish and quantity in kg transferred into cages. | (a) | species identification by FAO code; | (b) | number of fish and quantity in kg transferred into cages.
(a) | species identification by FAO code;
(b) | number of fish and quantity in kg transferred into cages.
3. | Name of towing vessel, its flag and ICCAT number.
4. | Name of the farm of destination and its ICCAT number.
5. | In the case of a JFO, in addition to the information laid down in points 1 to 4, the masters shall record in their logbook:(a)as regards the catching vessel transferring the fish into cages:—amount of catches taken on board,—amount of catches counted against its individual quota,—the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO;(b)as regards the other catching vessels of the same JFO not involved in the transfer of the fish:—the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers,—that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages,—amount of catches counted against their individual quotas,—the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a). | (a) | as regards the catching vessel transferring the fish into cages:—amount of catches taken on board,—amount of catches counted against its individual quota,—the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO; | — | amount of catches taken on board, | — | amount of catches counted against its individual quota, | — | the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO; | (b) | as regards the other catching vessels of the same JFO not involved in the transfer of the fish:—the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers,—that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages,—amount of catches counted against their individual quotas,—the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a). | — | the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers, | — | that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages, | — | amount of catches counted against their individual quotas, | — | the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a).
(a) | as regards the catching vessel transferring the fish into cages:—amount of catches taken on board,—amount of catches counted against its individual quota,—the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO; | — | amount of catches taken on board, | — | amount of catches counted against its individual quota, | — | the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO;
— | amount of catches taken on board,
— | amount of catches counted against its individual quota,
— | the names of the other vessels involved in the JFO;
(b) | as regards the other catching vessels of the same JFO not involved in the transfer of the fish:—the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers,—that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages,—amount of catches counted against their individual quotas,—the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a). | — | the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers, | — | that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages, | — | amount of catches counted against their individual quotas, | — | the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a).
— | the name of those vessels, their international radio call signs and ICCAT numbers,
— | that no catches have been taken on board or transferred into cages,
— | amount of catches counted against their individual quotas,
— | the name and the ICCAT number of the catching vessel referred to in point (a).B. TOWING VESSELS
| 1. | The master of a towing vessel shall record in the daily logbook the date, time and position of transfer, the quantities transferred (number of fish and quantity in kg), the cage number, as well as the catching vessel’s name, flag and ICCAT number, the name of the other vessel(s) involved and their ICCAT number, the farm of destination and its ICCAT number, and the ICCAT transfer declaration number.
| 2. | Further transfers to auxiliary vessels or to other towing vessel shall be reported, including the same information as in point 1, as well as the auxiliary or towing vessel’s name, flag and ICCAT number and the ICCAT transfer declaration number.
| 3. | The daily logbook shall contain the details of all transfers carried out during the fishing season. The daily logbook shall be kept on board and be accessible at any time for control purposes.C. AUXILIARY VESSELS
| 1. | The master of an auxiliary vessel shall record the activities daily in the logbook, including the date, time and positions, the quantities of bluefin tuna taken on board, and the fishing vessel, farm or trap name he/she is operating in association with.
| 2. | The daily logbook shall contain the details of all activities carried out during the fishing season. The daily logbook shall be kept on board and be accessible at any time for control purposes.D. PROCESSING VESSELS
| 1. | The master of a processing vessel shall report in the daily logbook the date, time and position of the activities and the quantities transhipped and the number and weight of bluefin tuna received from farms, traps or catching vessels, where applicable. The master should also report the names and ICCAT numbers of those farms, traps or catching vessels.
| 2. | The master of a processing vessel shall maintain a daily processing logbook specifying the round weight and number of fish transferred or transhipped, the conversion factor used, and the weights and quantities by product presentation.
| 3. | The master of a processing vessel shall maintain a stowage plan that shows the location and the quantities of each species and presentation.
| 4. | The daily logbook shall contain the details of all transhipments carried out during the fishing season. The daily logbook, processing logbook, stowage plan and the originals of ICCAT transhipment declarations shall be kept on board and be accessible at any time for control purposes.

ICCAT Transhipment Declaration

ANNEX III

Document No
Carrier vessel
Name of vessel and radio call sign:
Flag:
Flag State authorisation No
National Register No
ICCAT Register No
IMO No
Fishing Vessel
Name of the vessel and radio call sign:
Flag:
Flag State authorisation No.
National Register No.
ICCAT Register No.
External identification:
Fishing logbook sheet No
Final destination:
Port:
Country:
State:
Day Month Hour Year |2_|0_||| F.V Master’s name: Carrier vessel Master’s name:
Departure ||| ||| ||| From: ||
Return ||| ||| ||| To: || Signature: Signature:
Tranship. ||| ||| ||| ||
For transhipment, indicate the weight in kilograms or the unit used (e.g. box, basket) and the landed weight in kilograms of this unit: || kilograms.

LOCATION OF TRANSHIPMENT
Port
Sea
Species
Number of unit of fish
Type of product live
Type of product whole
Type of product gutted
Type of product head off
Type of product filleted
Type of product
Further transhipments
Date: || Place/Position: ||
Authorisation CP No
Transfer vessel Master’s signature:
Name of receiver vessel:
Flag
ICCAT Register No
IMO No
Master’s signature
Date: || Place/Position: ||
Authorisation CP No
Transfer vessel Master’s signature:
Name of receiver vessel:
Flag
ICCAT Register No
IMO No
Master’s signature
Lat.
Long.
Obligations in case of transhipment: 1. The original of the transhipment declaration shall be provided to the recipient vessel (processing/transport). 2. The copy of the transhipment declaration shall be kept by the correspondent catching vessel or trap. 3. Further transhipping operations shall be authorised by the relevant CPC which authorised the vessel to operate. 4. The original of the transhipment declaration has to be kept by the recipient vessel which holds the fish, up to the landing place. 5. The transhipping operation shall be recorded in the logbook of any vessel involved in the operation.

ANNEX IV

Document No
ICCAT Transfer Declaration 1. TRANSFER OF LIVE BFT DESTINATED FOR FARMING
Fishing vessel name:
Call sign:
Flag:
Flag State transfer authorisation No
ICCAT Register No
External identification:
Fishing logbook No
JFO No
Trap name:
ICCAT Register No
Tug vessel name:
Call sign:
Flag:
ICCAT Register No:
External identification:
Name of destination farm:
ICCAT Register No:
Cage number: 2. TRANSFER INFORMATION
Date: _ _ / _ _ / _ _ _ _
Place or position: Port: Lat: Long:
Number of individuals:
Species:
Weight:
Type of product: Live Whole Gutted Other (Specify):
Master of fishing vessel trap operator/farm operator name and signature:
Master of receiver vessel (tug, processing, carrier) name and signature:
Observer names, ICCAT No and signature: 3. FURTHER TRANSFERS
Date: _ _ / _ _ / _ _ _ _
Place or position: Port: Lat: Long:
Tug vessel name:
Call sign:
Flag:
ICCAT Register No
Farm state transfer authorisation No:
External identification:
Master of receiver vessel name and signature:

Date: _ _ / _ _ / _ _ _ _
Place or position: Port: Lat: Long:
Tug vessel name:
Call sign:
Flag:
ICCAT Register No
Farm state transfer authorisation no:
External identification:
Master of receiver vessel name and signature:
Date: _ _ / _ _ / _ _ _ _
Place or position: Port: Lat: Long:
Tug vessel name:
Call sign:
Flag:
ICCAT Register No
Farm state transfer authorisation No:
External identification:
Master of receiver vessel name and signature: 4. SPLIT CAGES
Donor cage No
Kg:
No of fish:
Donor tug vessel name:
Call sign:
Flag:
ICCAT Register No
Receiving cage No
Kg:
No of fish:
Receiving tug vessel name:
Call sign:
Flag:
ICCAT Register No
Receiving cage No
Kg:
No of fish:
Receiving tug vessel name:
Call sign:
Flag:
ICCAT Register No
Receiving cage No
Kg:
No of fish:
Receiving tug vessel name:
Call sign:
Flag:
ICCAT Register No

ANNEX V
Catch report form
Flag | ICCAT Number | Vessel name | Report start date | Report end date | Report duration (d) | Catch date | Location of the catch | Catch | Attributed weight in case of a joint fishing operation (kg)
Latitude | Longitude | Weight (kg) | Number of pieces | Average weight (kg)
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
ANNEX VI
Joint fishing operation
Flag State | Vessel name | ICCAT No | Duration of the operation | Identity of the operators | Vessel’s individual quota | Allocation key per vessel | Fattening and farming farm destination
CPC | ICCAT No
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Date …
Validation of the flag State …

ICCAT regional observer programme

ANNEX VIIASSIGNMENT OF ICCAT REGIONAL OBSERVERS
| 1. | Each ICCAT regional observer shall have the following qualifications to accomplish their tasks:(a)sufficient experience to identify species and fishing gear;(b)satisfactory knowledge of the ICCAT conservation and management measures assessed by a certificate provided by the Member States and based on ICCAT training guidelines;(c)the ability to observe and record accurately;(d)a satisfactory knowledge of the language of the flag of the vessel or farm observed. | (a) | sufficient experience to identify species and fishing gear; | (b) | satisfactory knowledge of the ICCAT conservation and management measures assessed by a certificate provided by the Member States and based on ICCAT training guidelines; | (c) | the ability to observe and record accurately; | (d) | a satisfactory knowledge of the language of the flag of the vessel or farm observed.
(a) | sufficient experience to identify species and fishing gear;
(b) | satisfactory knowledge of the ICCAT conservation and management measures assessed by a certificate provided by the Member States and based on ICCAT training guidelines;
(c) | the ability to observe and record accurately;
(d) | a satisfactory knowledge of the language of the flag of the vessel or farm observed.OBLIGATIONS OF THE ICCAT REGIONAL OBSERVER
| 2. | The ICCAT regional observers shall:(a)have completed the technical training required by the guidelines established by ICCAT;(b)be nationals of one of the Member States and, to the extent possible, not of the farm or trap state or the flag State of the purse seiner. If, however, bluefin tuna is harvested from the cage and traded as fresh products, the ICCAT regional observer that observes the harvest may be a national of the Member State responsible for the farm;(c)be capable of performing the tasks set out in point 3;(d)be included in the list of ICCAT regional observers maintained by ICCAT;(e)not have current financial or beneficial interests in the bluefin tuna fishery. | (a) | have completed the technical training required by the guidelines established by ICCAT; | (b) | be nationals of one of the Member States and, to the extent possible, not of the farm or trap state or the flag State of the purse seiner. If, however, bluefin tuna is harvested from the cage and traded as fresh products, the ICCAT regional observer that observes the harvest may be a national of the Member State responsible for the farm; | (c) | be capable of performing the tasks set out in point 3; | (d) | be included in the list of ICCAT regional observers maintained by ICCAT; | (e) | not have current financial or beneficial interests in the bluefin tuna fishery.
(a) | have completed the technical training required by the guidelines established by ICCAT;
(b) | be nationals of one of the Member States and, to the extent possible, not of the farm or trap state or the flag State of the purse seiner. If, however, bluefin tuna is harvested from the cage and traded as fresh products, the ICCAT regional observer that observes the harvest may be a national of the Member State responsible for the farm;
(c) | be capable of performing the tasks set out in point 3;
(d) | be included in the list of ICCAT regional observers maintained by ICCAT;
(e) | not have current financial or beneficial interests in the bluefin tuna fishery.ICCAT REGIONAL OBSERVER TASKS
| 3. | The tasks of ICCAT regional observers shall be, in particular:(a)as regards observers on purse seine vessels, to monitor the purse seine vessels’ compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the regional observer shall:(1)in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel;(2)record and report upon the fishing activities carried out;(3)observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;(4)issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels’ transfer activities;(5)sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures;(6)record and report upon the transfer activities carried out;(7)verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer;(8)observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings;(9)verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number;(10)carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;(b)as regards ICCAT regional observers in farms and traps, to monitor their compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the ICCAT regional observer shall:(1)verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records;(2)certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs;(3)issue a daily report of the farms’ and traps’ transfer activities;(4)countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1);(5)carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;(6)register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals;(c)establish general reports compiling the information collected in accordance with this point and provide the master and farm operator with the opportunity to include therein any relevant information;(d)submit to the Secretariat the general report referred to in point (c) within 20 days from the end of the period of observation;(e)exercise any other functions as defined by the ICCAT Commission. | (a) | as regards observers on purse seine vessels, to monitor the purse seine vessels’ compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the regional observer shall:(1)in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel;(2)record and report upon the fishing activities carried out;(3)observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;(4)issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels’ transfer activities;(5)sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures;(6)record and report upon the transfer activities carried out;(7)verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer;(8)observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings;(9)verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number;(10)carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; | (1) | in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel; | (2) | record and report upon the fishing activities carried out; | (3) | observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook; | (4) | issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels’ transfer activities; | (5) | sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures; | (6) | record and report upon the transfer activities carried out; | (7) | verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer; | (8) | observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings; | (9) | verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number; | (10) | carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; | (b) | as regards ICCAT regional observers in farms and traps, to monitor their compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the ICCAT regional observer shall:(1)verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records;(2)certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs;(3)issue a daily report of the farms’ and traps’ transfer activities;(4)countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1);(5)carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;(6)register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals; | (1) | verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records; | (2) | certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs; | (3) | issue a daily report of the farms’ and traps’ transfer activities; | (4) | countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1); | (5) | carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; | (6) | register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals; | (c) | establish general reports compiling the information collected in accordance with this point and provide the master and farm operator with the opportunity to include therein any relevant information; | (d) | submit to the Secretariat the general report referred to in point (c) within 20 days from the end of the period of observation; | (e) | exercise any other functions as defined by the ICCAT Commission.
(a) | as regards observers on purse seine vessels, to monitor the purse seine vessels’ compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the regional observer shall:(1)in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel;(2)record and report upon the fishing activities carried out;(3)observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;(4)issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels’ transfer activities;(5)sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures;(6)record and report upon the transfer activities carried out;(7)verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer;(8)observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings;(9)verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number;(10)carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; | (1) | in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel; | (2) | record and report upon the fishing activities carried out; | (3) | observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook; | (4) | issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels’ transfer activities; | (5) | sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures; | (6) | record and report upon the transfer activities carried out; | (7) | verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer; | (8) | observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings; | (9) | verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number; | (10) | carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;
(1) | in cases where the ICCAT regional observer observes what may constitute non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations, he/she shall submit that information without delay to the ICCAT regional observer implementing company who shall forward it without delay to the flag State authorities of the catching vessel;
(2) | record and report upon the fishing activities carried out;
(3) | observe and estimate catches and verify entries made in the logbook;
(4) | issue a daily report of the purse seine vessels’ transfer activities;
(5) | sight and record vessels which may be fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation and management measures;
(6) | record and report upon the transfer activities carried out;
(7) | verify the position of the vessel when engaged in transfer;
(8) | observe and estimate products transferred, including through the review of video recordings;
(9) | verify and record the name of the fishing vessel concerned and its ICCAT number;
(10) | carry out scientific work such as collecting Task II data when required by the ICCAT Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;
(b) | as regards ICCAT regional observers in farms and traps, to monitor their compliance with the relevant conservation and management measures adopted by ICCAT. In particular, the ICCAT regional observer shall:(1)verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records;(2)certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs;(3)issue a daily report of the farms’ and traps’ transfer activities;(4)countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1);(5)carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;(6)register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals; | (1) | verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records; | (2) | certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs; | (3) | issue a daily report of the farms’ and traps’ transfer activities; | (4) | countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1); | (5) | carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS; | (6) | register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals;
(1) | verify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCD, including through the review of video records;
(2) | certify the data contained in the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs;
(3) | issue a daily report of the farms’ and traps’ transfer activities;
(4) | countersign the transfer declaration and caging declaration and BCDs only when he/she agrees that the information contained within them is consistent with his/her observations including a compliant video record as per the requirements referred to in Article 35(1) and Article 44(1);
(5) | carry out such scientific work, for example collecting samples, as required by the Commission, based on the directives from the SCRS;
(6) | register and verify the presence of any type of tag, including natural marks, and notify any sign of recent tag removals;
(c) | establish general reports compiling the information collected in accordance with this point and provide the master and farm operator with the opportunity to include therein any relevant information;
(d) | submit to the Secretariat the general report referred to in point (c) within 20 days from the end of the period of observation;
(e) | exercise any other functions as defined by the ICCAT Commission.
| 4. | The ICCAT regional observer shall treat as confidential all information with respect to the fishing and transfer operations of the purse seiners and of the farms and shall accept that requirement in writing as a condition of appointment as an ICCAT regional observer.
| 5. | The ICCAT regional observer shall comply with requirements established in the laws and regulations of the flag or farm state which exercises jurisdiction over the vessel or farm to which the ICCAT regional observer is assigned.
| 6. | The ICCAT regional observer shall respect the hierarchy and general rules of behaviour which apply to all vessel and farm personnel, provided such rules do not interfere with the duties of the ICCAT regional observer under this programme, and with the obligations of vessel and farm personnel set out in point 7 of this Annex and Article 51(6).OBLIGATIONS OF THE FLAG MEMBER STATES TOWARDS ICCAT REGIONAL OBSERVERS
| 7. | Member States responsible for the purse seiner, farm or trap, shall ensure that ICCAT regional observers are:(a)allowed access to the vessel, farm and trap personnel and to the gear, cages and equipment;(b)allowed access, upon request, to the following equipment, if present on the vessels to which they are assigned, in order to facilitate the carrying out of their duties set out in point 3 of this Annex:(1)satellite navigation equipment,(2)radar display viewing screens when in use,(3)electronic means of communication;(c)provided with accommodation, including lodging, food and adequate sanitary facilities, equal to those of officers;(d)provided with adequate space on the bridge or pilot house for clerical work, as well as space on deck adequate for carrying out observer duties. | (a) | allowed access to the vessel, farm and trap personnel and to the gear, cages and equipment; | (b) | allowed access, upon request, to the following equipment, if present on the vessels to which they are assigned, in order to facilitate the carrying out of their duties set out in point 3 of this Annex:(1)satellite navigation equipment,(2)radar display viewing screens when in use,(3)electronic means of communication; | (1) | satellite navigation equipment, | (2) | radar display viewing screens when in use, | (3) | electronic means of communication; | (c) | provided with accommodation, including lodging, food and adequate sanitary facilities, equal to those of officers; | (d) | provided with adequate space on the bridge or pilot house for clerical work, as well as space on deck adequate for carrying out observer duties.
(a) | allowed access to the vessel, farm and trap personnel and to the gear, cages and equipment;
(b) | allowed access, upon request, to the following equipment, if present on the vessels to which they are assigned, in order to facilitate the carrying out of their duties set out in point 3 of this Annex:(1)satellite navigation equipment,(2)radar display viewing screens when in use,(3)electronic means of communication; | (1) | satellite navigation equipment, | (2) | radar display viewing screens when in use, | (3) | electronic means of communication;
(1) | satellite navigation equipment,
(2) | radar display viewing screens when in use,
(3) | electronic means of communication;
(c) | provided with accommodation, including lodging, food and adequate sanitary facilities, equal to those of officers;
(d) | provided with adequate space on the bridge or pilot house for clerical work, as well as space on deck adequate for carrying out observer duties.COSTS ARISING FROM THE ICCAT REGIONAL OBSERVER PROGRAMME
| 8. | All costs arising from the operation of ICCAT regional observers shall be borne by each farm operator or owner of purse seiners.

ICCAT scheme of joint international inspection

ANNEX VIIIICCAT agreed at its Fourth Regular Meeting (Madrid, November 1975) and at its Annual Meeting in 2008 in Marrakesh that:
Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article IX of the Convention, the ICCAT Commission recommends the establishment of the following arrangements for international control outside the waters under national jurisdiction for the purpose of ensuring the application of the Convention and the measures in force thereunder:
I. SERIOUS VIOLATIONS
| 1. | For the purposes of these procedures, a serious violation means the following violations of the provisions of the ICCAT conservation and management measures adopted by the ICCAT Commission:(a)fishing without a licence, permit or authorisation issued by the flag CPC;(b)failure to maintain sufficient records of catch and catch-related data in accordance with the ICCAT Commission’s reporting requirements or significant misreporting of such catch and/or catch-related data;(c)fishing in a closed area;(d)fishing during a closed season;(e)intentional taking or retention of species in contravention of any applicable conservation and management measure adopted by ICCAT;(f)significant violation of catch limits or quotas in force pursuant to ICCAT rules;(g)using prohibited fishing gear;(h)falsifying or intentionally concealing the markings, identity or registration of a fishing vessel;(i)concealing, tampering with or disposing of evidence relating to the investigation of a violation;(j)multiple violations which, taken together, constitute a serious disregard of measures in force pursuant to ICCAT;(k)assault, resist, intimidate, sexually harass, interfere with, or unduly obstruct or delay an authorised inspector or observer;(l)intentionally tampering with or disabling the VMS;(m)such other violations as may be determined by the ICCAT, once those are included and circulated in a revised version of those procedures;(n)fishing with the assistance of spotter planes;(o)interference with the satellite monitoring system and/or operation of a vessel without the VMS;(p)transfer activity without transfer declaration;(q)transhipment at sea. | (a) | fishing without a licence, permit or authorisation issued by the flag CPC; | (b) | failure to maintain sufficient records of catch and catch-related data in accordance with the ICCAT Commission’s reporting requirements or significant misreporting of such catch and/or catch-related data; | (c) | fishing in a closed area; | (d) | fishing during a closed season; | (e) | intentional taking or retention of species in contravention of any applicable conservation and management measure adopted by ICCAT; | (f) | significant violation of catch limits or quotas in force pursuant to ICCAT rules; | (g) | using prohibited fishing gear; | (h) | falsifying or intentionally concealing the markings, identity or registration of a fishing vessel; | (i) | concealing, tampering with or disposing of evidence relating to the investigation of a violation; | (j) | multiple violations which, taken together, constitute a serious disregard of measures in force pursuant to ICCAT; | (k) | assault, resist, intimidate, sexually harass, interfere with, or unduly obstruct or delay an authorised inspector or observer; | (l) | intentionally tampering with or disabling the VMS; | (m) | such other violations as may be determined by the ICCAT, once those are included and circulated in a revised version of those procedures; | (n) | fishing with the assistance of spotter planes; | (o) | interference with the satellite monitoring system and/or operation of a vessel without the VMS; | (p) | transfer activity without transfer declaration; | (q) | transhipment at sea.
(a) | fishing without a licence, permit or authorisation issued by the flag CPC;
(b) | failure to maintain sufficient records of catch and catch-related data in accordance with the ICCAT Commission’s reporting requirements or significant misreporting of such catch and/or catch-related data;
(c) | fishing in a closed area;
(d) | fishing during a closed season;
(e) | intentional taking or retention of species in contravention of any applicable conservation and management measure adopted by ICCAT;
(f) | significant violation of catch limits or quotas in force pursuant to ICCAT rules;
(g) | using prohibited fishing gear;
(h) | falsifying or intentionally concealing the markings, identity or registration of a fishing vessel;
(i) | concealing, tampering with or disposing of evidence relating to the investigation of a violation;
(j) | multiple violations which, taken together, constitute a serious disregard of measures in force pursuant to ICCAT;
(k) | assault, resist, intimidate, sexually harass, interfere with, or unduly obstruct or delay an authorised inspector or observer;
(l) | intentionally tampering with or disabling the VMS;
(m) | such other violations as may be determined by the ICCAT, once those are included and circulated in a revised version of those procedures;
(n) | fishing with the assistance of spotter planes;
(o) | interference with the satellite monitoring system and/or operation of a vessel without the VMS;
(p) | transfer activity without transfer declaration;
(q) | transhipment at sea.
| 2. | In the case of any boarding and inspection of a fishing vessel during which the authorised inspector observes an activity or condition that would constitute a serious violation, as defined in point 1, the authorities of the flag State of the inspection vessels shall immediately notify the flag State of the fishing vessel, directly as well as through the ICCAT Secretariat. In such situations, the inspector shall also inform any inspection ship of the flag State of the fishing vessel known to be in the vicinity.
| 3. | The ICCAT inspector shall register, in the fishing vessel’s logbook, the inspections undertaken and any infringements detected.
| 4. | The flag Member State shall ensure that, following the inspection referred to in point 2, the fishing vessel concerned ceases all fishing activities. The flag Member State shall require the fishing vessel to proceed within 72 hours to a port designated by it, where an investigation shall be initiated.
| 5. | If the vessel is not called to port, the flag Member State shall provide due justification in a timely manner to the European Commission which shall forward the information to the ICCAT Secretariat, who shall make it available on request to other Contracting Parties.II. CONDUCT OF INSPECTIONS
| 6. | Inspections shall be carried out by inspectors designated by the Contracting Parties. The names of the authorised government agencies and each inspector designated for that purpose by their respective governments shall be notified to the ICCAT Commission.
| 7. | Ships carrying out international boarding and inspection duties in accordance with this Annex shall fly a special flag or pennant approved by the ICCAT Commission and issued by the ICCAT Secretariat. The names of the ships so used shall be notified to the ICCAT Secretariat as soon as practical in advance of the commencement of inspection activities. The ICCAT Secretariat shall make information regarding designated inspection vessels available to all CPCs, including by posting on its password-protected website.
| 8. | Each inspector shall carry an appropriate identity document issued by the authorities of the flag State, which shall be in the form shown in point 21 of this Annex.
| 9. | Subject to the arrangements agreed under point 16, a vessel flagged to a Contracting Party and fishing for tuna or tuna-like fish in the Convention area outside the waters within its national jurisdiction shall stop when given the appropriate signal in the International Code of Signals by a ship flying the ICCAT pennant described in point 7 and carrying an inspector, unless the vessel is actually carrying out fishing operations, in which case it shall stop immediately once it has finished such operations. The master of the vessel shall permit the inspection party, as specified in point 10, to board it and shall provide a boarding ladder. The master shall enable the inspection party to make such examination of equipment, catch or gear and any relevant documents as an inspector deems necessary to verify the compliance with the ICCAT Commission’s recommendations in force in relation to the flag State of the vessel being inspected. Further, an inspector may ask for any explanations that are deemed necessary.
| 10. | The size of the inspection party shall be determined by the commanding officer of the inspection vessel, taking into account relevant circumstances. The inspection party shall be as small as possible to safely and securely accomplish the duties set out in this Annex.
| 11. | Upon boarding the vessel, the inspector shall produce the identity documentation described in point 8. The inspector shall observe generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices relating to the safety of the vessel being inspected and its crew, and shall minimise interference with fishing activities or stowage of product and, to the extent practicable, avoid action which would adversely affect the quality of the catch on board.Each inspector shall limit his/her enquiries to the ascertainment of the observance of the ICCAT Commission’s recommendations in force in relation to the flag State of the vessel concerned. In making the inspection, an inspector may ask the master of the fishing vessel for any assistance that may be required. The inspector shall draw up a report of the inspection in a form approved by the ICCAT Commission. The inspector shall sign the report in the presence of the master of the vessel who shall be entitled to add or have added to the report any observations which he/she may think suitable and shall sign such observations.
| 12. | Copies of the report shall be given to the master of the vessel and to the government of the inspection party, which shall transmit copies to the appropriate authorities of the flag State of the inspected vessel and to the ICCAT Commission. Where any infringement of ICCAT recommendations is discovered, the inspector shall, where possible, also inform any inspection ship of the flag State of the fishing vessel known to be in the vicinity.
| 13. | Resistance to an inspector or failure to comply with his/her directions shall be treated by the flag State of the inspected vessel in a manner similar to such conduct committed with respect to a national inspector.
| 14. | The inspector shall carry out his/her duties under these arrangements in accordance with the rules set out in this Regulation, but they shall remain under the operational control of their national authorities and shall be responsible to them.
| 15. | Contracting Parties shall consider and act on inspection reports, sighting information sheets as per Recommendation 94-09 and statements resulting from documentary inspections of foreign inspectors under these arrangements on a similar basis in accordance with their national legislation to the reports of national inspectors. The provisions of this point shall not impose any obligation on a Contracting Party to give the report of a foreign inspector a higher evidential value than it would possess in the inspector’s own country. Contracting Parties shall collaborate in order to facilitate judicial or other proceedings arising from a report of an inspector under these arrangements.
| 16. | (a)Contracting Parties shall inform the ICCAT Commission by 15 February each year of their provisional plans for conducting inspection activities under this Regulation in that calendar year and the ICCAT Commission may make suggestions to Contracting Parties for the coordination of national operations in this field, including the number of inspectors and ships carrying inspectors.(b)The arrangements set out in this Regulation and the plans for participation shall apply between Contracting Parties unless otherwise agreed between them, and such agreement shall be notified to the ICCAT Commission. However, the implementation of the scheme shall be suspended between any two Contracting Parties if either of them has notified the ICCAT Commission to that effect, pending completion of such an agreement. | (a) | Contracting Parties shall inform the ICCAT Commission by 15 February each year of their provisional plans for conducting inspection activities under this Regulation in that calendar year and the ICCAT Commission may make suggestions to Contracting Parties for the coordination of national operations in this field, including the number of inspectors and ships carrying inspectors. | (b) | The arrangements set out in this Regulation and the plans for participation shall apply between Contracting Parties unless otherwise agreed between them, and such agreement shall be notified to the ICCAT Commission. However, the implementation of the scheme shall be suspended between any two Contracting Parties if either of them has notified the ICCAT Commission to that effect, pending completion of such an agreement.
(a) | Contracting Parties shall inform the ICCAT Commission by 15 February each year of their provisional plans for conducting inspection activities under this Regulation in that calendar year and the ICCAT Commission may make suggestions to Contracting Parties for the coordination of national operations in this field, including the number of inspectors and ships carrying inspectors.
(b) | The arrangements set out in this Regulation and the plans for participation shall apply between Contracting Parties unless otherwise agreed between them, and such agreement shall be notified to the ICCAT Commission. However, the implementation of the scheme shall be suspended between any two Contracting Parties if either of them has notified the ICCAT Commission to that effect, pending completion of such an agreement.
| 17. | (a)The fishing gear shall be inspected in accordance with the regulations in force for the subarea in which the inspection takes place. The inspector shall state the subarea for which the inspection took place, and a description of any violations found in the inspection report.(b)The inspector shall be entitled to inspect all fishing gear in use or on board. | (a) | The fishing gear shall be inspected in accordance with the regulations in force for the subarea in which the inspection takes place. The inspector shall state the subarea for which the inspection took place, and a description of any violations found in the inspection report. | (b) | The inspector shall be entitled to inspect all fishing gear in use or on board.
(a) | The fishing gear shall be inspected in accordance with the regulations in force for the subarea in which the inspection takes place. The inspector shall state the subarea for which the inspection took place, and a description of any violations found in the inspection report.
(b) | The inspector shall be entitled to inspect all fishing gear in use or on board.
| 18. | The inspector shall affix an identification mark approved by the ICCAT Commission to any fishing gear inspected which appears to be in contravention of the ICCAT Commission recommendations in force in relation to the flag State of the vessel concerned and shall record this fact in the inspection report.
| 19. | The inspector may photograph the gear, equipment, documentation and any other element he/she consider necessary in such a way as to reveal those features which in his/her opinion are not in conformity with the regulation in force, in which case the subjects photographed shall be listed in the report and copies of the photographs shall be attached to the copy of the report to the flag State.
| 20. | The inspector shall, as necessary, inspect all catch on board to determine compliance with ICCAT recommendations.
| 21. | The model identity card for inspectors is as follows:

Minimum standards for video recording procedures

ANNEX IX
Transfer operations

| 1. | The electronic storage device containing the original video record shall be provided to the ICCAT regional observer as soon as possible after the end of the transfer operation, who shall immediately initialise it to avoid any further manipulation.
| 2. | The original recording shall be kept on board the catching vessel or by the farm or trap operator, where appropriate, during its entire period of authorisation.
| 3. | Two identical copies of the video record shall be produced. One copy shall be transmitted to the ICCAT regional observer on board the purse seiner and one to the national observer on board the towing vessel, the latter of which shall accompany the transfer declaration and the associated catches to which it relates. That procedure shall only apply to national observers in the case of transfers between towing vessels.
| 4. | At the beginning and/or the end of each video, the ICCAT transfer authorisation number shall be displayed.
| 5. | The time and the date of the video shall be continuously displayed throughout each video record.
| 6. | Before the start of the transfer, the video shall include the opening and closing of the net/door and footage showing whether the receiving and donor cages already contain bluefin tuna.
| 7. | The video recording shall be continuous without any interruptions and cuts and cover the entire transfer operation.
| 8. | The video record shall be of sufficient quality to estimate the number of bluefin tuna being transferred.
| 9. | If the video record is of insufficient quality to estimate the number of bluefin tuna being transferred, then a new transfer shall be requested by the control authorities. The new transfer shall include all the bluefin tuna in the receiving cage into another cage which must be empty.
Caging operations

| 1. | The electronic storage device containing the original video record shall be provided to the ICCAT regional observer as soon as possible after the end of the caging operation, who shall immediately initialise it to avoid any further manipulation.
| 2. | The original recording shall be kept by the farm, where applicable, during their entire period of authorisation.
| 3. | Two identical copies of the video record shall be produced. One copy shall be transmitted to the ICCAT regional observer deployed on the farm.
| 4. | At the beginning and/or the end of each video, the ICCAT caging authorisation number shall be displayed.
| 5. | The time and the date of the video shall be continuously displayed throughout each video record.
| 6. | Before the start of the caging, the video shall include the opening and closing of the net/door and whether the receiving and donor cages already contain bluefin tuna.
| 7. | The video recording shall be continuous without any interruptions and cuts and cover the entire caging operation.
| 8. | The video record shall be of sufficient quality to estimate the number of bluefin tuna being transferred.
| 9. | If the video record is of insufficient quality to estimate the number of bluefin tuna being transferred, then a new caging operation shall be requested by the control authorities. The new caging operation shall include all the bluefin tuna in the receiving farm cage into another farm cage which shall be empty.

Standards and procedures for the programmes and reporting obligations referred to in Article 46(2) to (7) and Article 47(1)

ANNEX XA. Use of stereoscopical cameras systems
The use of stereoscopic cameras systems in the context of caging operations, as required by Article 46 of this Regulation, shall be conducted in accordance with the following:

1. | The sampling intensity of live fish shall not be below 20 % of the amount of fish being caged. When technically possible, the sampling of live fish shall be sequential, one in every five specimens being measured; such a sample shall be made up of fish measured at a distance between 2 and 8 metres from the camera.
2. | The dimensions of the transfer gate connecting the donor cage and the receiving cage shall be set at a maximum width of 10 metres and a maximum height of 10 metres.
3. | When the length measurements of the fish present a multi-modal distribution (two or more cohorts of distinct sizes), it shall be possible to use more than one conversion algorithm for the same caging operation; the most up-to-date algorithm(s) established by SCRS shall be used to convert fork lengths into total weights, according to the size category of the fish measured during the caging operation.
4. | Validation of the stereoscopical length measurements shall be undertaken prior to each caging operation using a scale bar at a distance of between 2 and 8 metres.
5. | When the results of the stereoscopical programme are communicated, the information shall indicate the margin of error inherent to the technical specifications of the stereoscopic camera system, which shall not exceed a range of +/– 5 %.
6. | The report on the results of the stereoscopical programme shall include details on all the technical specifications above, including the sampling intensity, the way of sampling methodology, the distance from the camera, the dimensions of the transfer gate, and the algorithms (length-weight relationship). SCRS shall review those specifications and, if necessary, provide recommendations to modify them.
7. | In cases where the stereoscopic camera footage is of insufficient quality to estimate the weight of bluefin tuna being caged, a new caging operation shall be ordered by the Member State authorities responsible for the catching vessel, trap or farm.B. Presentation and use of the results of the programmes

| 1. | Decisions regarding differences between the catch report and the results from the stereoscopical system programme shall be taken at the level of the JFO or total trap catches, for JFOs and trap catches destined to a farm facility involving a single CPC and/or Member State. The decision regarding differences between the catch report and the results from the stereoscopical system programme shall be taken at the level of the caging operations for JFOs involving more than one CPC and/or Member State, unless otherwise agreed by all the flag CPC and/or Member State authorities of the catching vessels involved in the JFO.
| 2. | The Member State responsible for the farm shall provide a report to the Member State or CPC responsible for the catching vessel or trap and to the Commission, including the following documents:(a)technical stereoscopical system report including:—general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm,—sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution;(b)detailed results of the programme, with the size and weight of every fish that was sampled;(c)caging report including:—general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name,—algorithm used to convert length into weight,—comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100),—margin of error of the system,—for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports. | (a) | technical stereoscopical system report including:—general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm,—sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution; | — | general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm, | — | sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution; | (b) | detailed results of the programme, with the size and weight of every fish that was sampled; | (c) | caging report including:—general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name,—algorithm used to convert length into weight,—comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100),—margin of error of the system,—for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports. | — | general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name, | — | algorithm used to convert length into weight, | — | comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100), | — | margin of error of the system, | — | for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports.
(a) | technical stereoscopical system report including:—general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm,—sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution; | — | general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm, | — | sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution;
— | general information: species, site, cage, date, algorithm,
— | sizing statistical information: average weight and length, minimum weight and length, maximum weight and length, number of fish sampled, weight distribution, size distribution;
(b) | detailed results of the programme, with the size and weight of every fish that was sampled;
(c) | caging report including:—general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name,—algorithm used to convert length into weight,—comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100),—margin of error of the system,—for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports. | — | general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name, | — | algorithm used to convert length into weight, | — | comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100), | — | margin of error of the system, | — | for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports.
— | general information on the operation: number of the caging operation, name of the farm, cage number, BCD number, ITD number, name and flag of the catching vessel or trap, name and flag of the towing vessel, date of the stereoscopical system operation and footage file name,
— | algorithm used to convert length into weight,
— | comparison between the amounts declared in the BCD and the amounts found with the stereoscopical system, in number of fish, average weight and total weight (the formula used to calculate the difference shall be: (stereoscopical system-BCD)/stereoscopical system * 100),
— | margin of error of the system,
— | for those caging reports relating to JFOs/traps, the last caging report shall also include a summary of all information in previous caging reports.
| 3. | When receiving the caging report, the Member State authorities of the catching vessel or trap shall take all the necessary measures according to the following situations:(a)the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is within the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;(b)the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is below the lowest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results,—the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI,—after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;(c)the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD exceeds the highest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly. | (a) | the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is within the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; | — | no release shall be ordered, | — | the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; | (b) | the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is below the lowest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results,—the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI,—after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; | — | a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results, | — | the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI, | — | after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; | (c) | the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD exceeds the highest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly. | — | no release shall be ordered, | — | the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly.
(a) | the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is within the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; | — | no release shall be ordered, | — | the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
— | no release shall be ordered,
— | the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras or alternative techniques) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
(b) | the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD is below the lowest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results,—the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI,—after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified; | — | a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results, | — | the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI, | — | after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
— | a release shall be ordered using the lowest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results,
— | the release operations shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 34(2) and Annex XI,
— | after the release operations took place, the BCD shall be modified both in number (using the number of fish resulting from the use of the control cameras, minus the number of fish released) and average weight, while the total weight shall not be modified;
(c) | the total weight declared by the catching vessel or trap in the BCD exceeds the highest figure of the range of the stereoscopical system results:—no release shall be ordered,—the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly. | — | no release shall be ordered, | — | the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly.
— | no release shall be ordered,
— | the BCD shall be modified for the total weight (using the highest figure in the range of the stereoscopical system results), for the number of fish (using the results from the control cameras) and average weight accordingly.
| 4. | For any relevant modification of the BCD, the values (number and weight) entered in Section 2 shall be consistent with those in Section 6 and the values in Sections 3, 4 and 6, shall be not higher those in Section 2.
| 5. | In case of compensation of differences found in individual caging reports across all cagings from a JFO/trap, whether or not a release operation is required, all relevant BCDs shall be modified on the basis of the lowest range of the stereoscopical system results. The BCDs related to the quantities of bluefin tuna released shall also be modified to reflect the weight/number released. The BCDs related to bluefin tuna not released but for which the results from the stereoscopical systems or alternative techniques differ from those reported caught and transferred shall also be amended to reflect those differences.The BCDs relating to the catches from where the release operation took place shall also be modified to reflect the weight/number released.

Release protocol

ANNEX XI
| 1. | The release of bluefin tuna from farming cages into the sea shall be recorded by video camera and observed by an ICCAT regional observer, who shall draft and submit a report together with the video records to the ICCAT Secretariat.
| 2. | When a release order has been issued, the farm operator shall request the deployment of an ICCAT regional observer.
| 3. | The release of bluefin tuna from transport cages or traps into the sea shall be observed by a national observer of the Member State responsible for the towing vessel or trap, who shall draft and submit a report to the responsible Member State control authorities.
| 4. | Before a release operation takes place, Member State control authorities might order a control transfer using standard and/or stereoscopic cameras to estimate the number and weight of the fish that need to be released.
| 5. | Member State authorities may implement any additional measures they consider necessary to guarantee that the release operations take place at the most appropriate time and place in order to increase the probability of the fish going back to the stock. The operator shall be responsible for the fish survival until the release operation has taken place. Those release operations shall take place within three weeks of the completion of the caging operations.
| 6. | Following completion of harvesting operations, fish remaining in a farm and not covered by the BCD shall be released in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 34(2) and this Annex.

Treatment of dead fish

ANNEX XIIDuring fishing operations by purse seiners, the quantities of fish found dead in the seine shall be recorded in the fishing vessel logbook and shall be deducted from the Member State quota accordingly.
Recording/treating of dead fish during the first transfer

(1) | The BCD shall be provided to the operator of the towing vessel with Section 2 (Total catch), Section 3 (Live fish trade) and Section 4 (Transfer — including ‘dead’ fish) completed.The total quantities reported in Sections 3 and 4 shall be equal to the quantities reported in Section 2. The BCD shall be accompanied by the original ICCAT Transfer Declaration (ITD) in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation. The quantities reported in the ITD (transferred live), shall be equal to the quantities reported in Section 3 in the associated BCD.
(2) | A split of the BCD with Section 8 (Trade information) shall be completed and given to the operator of the auxiliary vessel which transports the dead bluefin tuna to shore (or retained on the catching vessel if landed directly to shore). The dead fish and split BCD shall be accompanied by a copy of the ITD.
(3) | The quantities of dead fish shall be recorded in the BCD of the catching vessel which made the catch or, in the case of JFOs, in the BCD of the catching vessels or of a vessel flying another flag participating in the JFO.

Correlation table

ANNEX XIII
Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 | This Regulation
Article 1 | Articles 1 and 2
Article 2 | Article 3
Article 3 | Article 4
Article 4(1) | Article 5(1)
Article 4(2) | Article 6(1)(a)
Article 4(3) and (5) | Article 7
Article 4(4), second subparagraph | Article 6(1)(a) and (2)
Article 4(6)(a),(b) and second subparagraph | Article 54
Article 4(6), third subparagraph | Article 20(2)
Article 4(7) to (12) | —
Article 4(13) | Article 5(3)
Article 4(15) | Article 17
Article 5(1) | Article 6(1)(b)
Article 5(2) to (6) | Article 9(1) to (6)
Article 5(7),(8) and the first subparagraph of paragraph 9 | —
Article 5(9), second subparagraph | Article 6(2)
Article 6 | Article 10
Article 7 | Articles 11 and 12
Article 8 | Article 17
Article 9(1) and (2) | Article 14(1) and (2)
Article 9(3),(4),(5) and (7) to (10) | Annex I
Article 9(6) | —
Article 9(11) | Article 14(3)
Article 9(12) to (15) | Article 15
Article 10 | —
Article 11 | Article 16(2),(3) and (5)
Article 12(1) to (4) | Article 19
Article 12(5) | —
Article 13(1),(2) and (3) | Article 19
Article 13(4) | —
Article 14(1),(2),(3) and (5) | Article 20
Article 14(4) | Article 22(1)
Article 15 | Article 23
Article 16 | Article 29(1),(3) and (4)
Article 17 | Article 30
Article 18(1) | Article 25
Article 18(2) | Annex II
Article 19 | Article 24(1),(2) and (3)
Article 20(1) and (2) | Article 26(1),(2) and (3)
Article 20(3) and (4) | Article 27
Article 21 | Article 31(1) to (4) and (6)
Article 22(1) and the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 | Article 33(1),(3) and (5)
Article 22(2), second subparagraph | Article 34(1)
Article 22(3) | Article 34(2)
Article 22(4) | Article 38(1),(2) and (3)
Article 22(5) | Annex II
Article 22(6) | Article 33(6)
Article 22(7) | Article 35(1) and Annex IX
Article 22(8) and the first subparagraph of paragraph 9 | Article 36
Article 22(9), second subparagraph | —
Article 22(10) | Article 39
Article 23 | Article 32
Article 24(1) | Article 47(1)
Article 24(2),(4) and (6) | Article 40(2) to (5)
Article 24(3) | Article 41(1) and (2)
Article 24(5) | Article 42
Article 24(7) | Article 44(1) and Annex IX
Article 24(8), first subparagraph | Article 45(1) and (2)
Article 24(9) | —
Article 24(10) | Article 48
Article 24a | Annex X
Article 25 | Article 49
Article 26(1) | Article 26(4)
Article 26(2) | Article 27(1)
Article 26(3) | Article 26(5)
Article 27(1) | Article 31(5)
Article 27(2) | Article 41
Article 27(3) | Article 3 point (24)
Article 28 | Article 55
Article 29 | Article 52
Article 30 | Article 50
Article 31(1) and (2)(a),(b),(c) and (h) | Article 51 (2) to (6)
Article 31(2)(d) to (g) | Annex VII
Article 31(3) and (4) | Annex VII
Article 32 | Article 35(2),(3) and (4)Article 44(2),(3) and (4)
Article 33 | —
Article 33a | Article 53
Article 34 | Article 56
Article 35 | —
Article 36 | —
Article 37 | Article 57
Article 38 | Article 58
Article 38a | Article 59(1) and (2)
Article 39 | Article 60
Article 40 | —
Article 41 | Article 61

Pending: 32016R1346

9.8.2016 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 214/1
(1) In July 2005, by Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005(2)the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’). The measures consisted of anad valoremanti-dumping duty ranging between 7,6 % and 46,7 % (‘the original anti-dumping measures’).
(2) In July 2008, following anex officiopartial interim review under Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Council clarified the scope of the measures and excluded certain products, high lifters, stackers, scissor lifts and weighing trucks, that were found to be distinct from hand pallet trucks due to their characteristics and specific functions and end-uses, from the original anti-dumping measures(3).
(3) In June 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 499/2009(4)the Council, following an anti-circumvention investigation under Article 13 of the basic Regulation, extended the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other companies’ imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 to hand pallet trucks consigned from Thailand whether declared as originating in Thailand or not.
(4) In October 2011, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011(5), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks originating in the PRC following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.
(5) In April 2013, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013(6)amended Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011, following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation and imposed a duty rate of 70,8 % applicable to all imports into the Union of hand pallet trucks originating in the PRC.
(6) In September 2014, the Commission amended Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 946/2014(7). following a new exporter review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, imposing an individual duty rate of 54,1 % on imports of hand pallet trucks from Ningbo Logitrans Handling Equipment Co.
(7) The measures in force are definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the PRC as described in recitals 5 and 6 above.
(8) On 4 November 2015, the Commission received a request under Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the measures in force and to make imports of the product under investigation subject to registration.
(9) The request was lodged by BT Products AS, Lifter SRL and PR Industrial SRL, Union producers of hand pallet trucks.
(10) The product concerned by the possible circumvention is hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes ex 8427 90 00 and ex 8431 20 00 (TARIC codes 8427900019 and 8431200019). Hand pallet trucks are trucks with wheels supporting lifting fork arms for handling pallets, designed to be manually pushed, pulled and steered, on smooth, level, hard surfaces, by a pedestrian operator using an articulated tiller. The hand pallet trucks are only designed to raise a load, by pumping the tiller, to a height sufficient for transporting and do not have any other additional functions or uses such as for example (i) to move and to lift the loads in order to place them higher or assist in storage of loads (high lifters); (ii) to stack one pallet above the other (stackers); (iii) to lift the load to a working level (scissor lifts); or (iv) to lift and to weigh the loads (weighing trucks).
(11) The product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but presented at import with a so-called ‘weight indication system’ consisting of a weighing mechanism not integrated in the chassis, currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned but falling within different TARIC codes (8427900030 and 8431200050) and originating in the PRC.
(12) At initiation stage a margin of error of the weighing indication system was defined as equal to or exceeding 1 % of the load. However, the investigation established that the accuracy of the weighing indication system is not an essential characteristic to distinguish the product under investigation from hand pallet trucks. More specifically, as analysed in recitals 54 to 59 below the weighing mechanism of the product under investigation does not change the essential characteristics of the product under investigation, such as structure and use, in order to make it different from the product concerned.
(13) Having determined, after having informed the Member States, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission decided to investigate the possible circumvention of the measures in force and to make imports of the product under investigation subject to registration.
(14) The investigation was initiated by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2346 of 15 December 2015(8)(‘the initiating Regulation’).
(15) The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, the exporting producers in this country, the importers in the Union known to be concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation.
(16) Questionnaires were sent to the exporting producers in the PRC and to the known importers in the Union.
(17) Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. All parties were informed that non-cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and to findings being based on facts available.
(18) One exporting producer in the PRC came forward and provided comments but did not submit a reply to the questionnaire intended for exporting producers. It was subsequently found non-cooperating (recital 26 below).
(19) Three importers submitted a reply to the questionnaire to the Commission.
(20) One supplier of weighing indication systems established in the Union made a written submission of its view on the investigation.
(21) The Commission carried out the verification visits at the premises of the following companies:—Union producer: P.R. Industrial s.r.l., 53031 Casole d'Elsa, Siena, Italy,—Importer in the Union: Hyster-Yale Nederland BV, 6541 CN Nijmegen, The Netherlands. — Union producer: P.R. Industrial s.r.l., 53031 Casole d'Elsa, Siena, Italy, — Importer in the Union: Hyster-Yale Nederland BV, 6541 CN Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
— Union producer: P.R. Industrial s.r.l., 53031 Casole d'Elsa, Siena, Italy,
— Importer in the Union: Hyster-Yale Nederland BV, 6541 CN Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
— Union producer: P.R. Industrial s.r.l., 53031 Casole d'Elsa, Siena, Italy,
— Importer in the Union: Hyster-Yale Nederland BV, 6541 CN Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
(22) The investigation period covered the period from 1 January 2011 to 30 September 2015. Data were collected for the investigation period to investigate, inter alia, the alleged change in the pattern of trade.
(23) More detailed data were collected for the reporting period from 1 October 2014 to 30 September 2015 in order to examine if imports were undermining the remedial effect of the anti-dumping measures in force and existence of dumping as alleged.
(24) In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of possible circumvention was made by analysing successively:—whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union,—if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in force,—if there was evidence of injury or the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures in force were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the product under investigation, and—whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the product concerned. — whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union, — if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in force, — if there was evidence of injury or the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures in force were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the product under investigation, and — whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the product concerned.
— whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union,
— if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in force,
— if there was evidence of injury or the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures in force were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the product under investigation, and
— whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the product concerned.
— whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union,
— if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in force,
— if there was evidence of injury or the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures in force were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the product under investigation, and
— whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the product concerned.
(25) None of the known exporting producers established in the PRC cooperated in the investigation and requested exemption from any possible extension of the measures in force by replying to the questionnaire sent.
(26) However, as explained in recital 18, Noblelift submitted comments following initiation but did not reply to the questionnaire and was found non-cooperating on the basis of Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
(27) Therefore, the Commission was not in a position to verify directly at the source the nature of the possible circumvention.
(28) Accordingly, findings in respect of the assessment of possible circumvention as detailed in recital 24 had to be made on the basis of the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
(29) In that perspective, findings were made on the basis of information collected from cooperating importers, Eurostat statistics and the request. The comments submitted by the exporting producer that came forward were also considered, where appropriate.
(30) Due to the non-cooperation of the exporting producers, import volumes were established on the basis of Eurostat statistics and information provided by the three cooperating importers and the applicants.
(31) Furthermore, data used for analysing the change in pattern of trade are based on imports of the complete trucks. The anti-dumping measures in force cover both hand pallet trucks and their essential parts (i.e. chassis and hydraulics). According to Eurostat, there are negligible or no imports of the so-called essential parts from the PRC to the Union.
(32) Last, the TARIC code, under which the product under investigation was imported, included also imports of other types of trucks, i.e. weighing trucks, high lifters, stackers and scissor lifts that are different than the product concerned.
(33) The table below shows import volumes of hand pallet trucks and ‘other trucks’, including the product under investigation, based on Eurostat during the investigation period.Table 1Imports to EU (Pcs)2011201220132014Reporting periodHand pallet trucks573 400575 607236 340113 75396 115Index100100412017Other trucks231 949217 045161 542275 632355 844Index1009470119153Source:Eurostat Imports to EU (Pcs) 2011 2012 2013 2014 Reporting period Hand pallet trucks 573 400 575 607 236 340 113 753 96 115 Index 100 100 41 20 17 Other trucks 231 949 217 045 161 542 275 632 355 844 Index 100 94 70 119 153 Source:Eurostat
Imports to EU (Pcs) 2011 2012 2013 2014 Reporting period
Hand pallet trucks 573 400 575 607 236 340 113 753 96 115
Index 100 100 41 20 17
Other trucks 231 949 217 045 161 542 275 632 355 844
Index 100 94 70 119 153
Source:Eurostat
Imports to EU (Pcs) 2011 2012 2013 2014 Reporting period
Hand pallet trucks 573 400 575 607 236 340 113 753 96 115
Index 100 100 41 20 17
Other trucks 231 949 217 045 161 542 275 632 355 844
Index 100 94 70 119 153
Source:Eurostat
(34) On this basis, imports of hand pallet trucks have dropped by more than 80 % during the investigation period. The most significant decrease occurred between 2012 and 2013 (by 60 %). This trend continued in the following years, however at a less pronounced extent.
(35) The drop in 2013 occurred after the conclusion of the interim review in April 2013 referred to recital 5 above and which resulted in an increase of the anti-dumping duty on hand pallet trucks from the PRC to a single countrywide duty of 70,8 %.
(36) In contrast, imports of ‘other trucks’ including the product under investigation increased in 2014 and in the reporting period by more than 50 % as compared to the beginning of the investigation period. This change in the pattern of trade occurred largely in parallel to the significant decrease in imports of hand pallet trucks.
(37) Although it was not possible to identify the imports of the product under investigation on the basis of Eurostat, the information collected during the investigation showed strong indications that this increase of imports of ‘other trucks’ could in fact be attributed to an increase of imports of the product under investigation.
(38) Firstly, the considerable decrease of imports of hand pallet trucks and the substantial increase of imports of ‘other trucks’ including the product under investigation coincided with the significant increase of the anti-dumping duty in 2013.
(39) Secondly, the applicants provided information that shortly after the increase of the anti-dumping duty, a number of importers submitted applications to the customs authorities in Germany and in Czech Republic for binding tariff information requesting that the product under investigation falls within the TARIC code for ‘other trucks’ not subject to the anti-dumping duty. The submission of such requests immediately after the increase of the anti-dumping duties suggests that they were made merely in order to avoid the higher anti-dumping duties.
(40) Thirdly, since Eurostat statistics do not separate imports of the product under investigation, the analysis on the change in the pattern of trade was also based on the information provided by the three cooperating importers.
(41) The three cooperating importers represented between 2 % and 7 % of the imports of the product under investigation and other trucks compared to the total ‘other trucks’ recorded in Eurostat and between 1 % and 6 % of the total imports of hand pallet trucks and ‘other trucks’ during the reporting period.
(42) Imports of these importers developed as follows during the investigation period:Table 2Imports of cooperating importers from the PRC (index)2011201220132014Reporting periodProduct concerned1001113124Product under investigation1003502 80097 133100 500Other trucks100827193103Source:importers' questionnaire reply Imports of cooperating importers from the PRC (index) 2011 2012 2013 2014 Reporting period Product concerned 100 111 31 2 4 Product under investigation 100 350 2 800 97 133 100 500 Other trucks 100 82 71 93 103 Source:importers' questionnaire reply
Imports of cooperating importers from the PRC (index) 2011 2012 2013 2014 Reporting period
Product concerned 100 111 31 2 4
Product under investigation 100 350 2 800 97 133 100 500
Other trucks 100 82 71 93 103
Source:importers' questionnaire reply
Imports of cooperating importers from the PRC (index) 2011 2012 2013 2014 Reporting period
Product concerned 100 111 31 2 4
Product under investigation 100 350 2 800 97 133 100 500
Other trucks 100 82 71 93 103
Source:importers' questionnaire reply
(43) The information provided by the cooperating importers confirmed that importers increased the purchases of the product under investigation from the PRC during the investigation period, while imports of hand pallet trucks decreased in parallel. While imports of the product under investigation were already taking place in 2011 and 2012 following the extension of the measures based on the findings of the expiry review referred to in recital 4 above they increased more significantly in 2013, after the increase of the anti-dumping duty rate. The most considerable increase occurred in 2014 were imports reached levels going far beyond the level in 2011 and increased even further in the reporting period. In parallel, imports of hand pallet trucks nearly disappeared in 2014 and in the investigation period. This same trend could be observed in Eurostat where the most significant increase in imports of ‘other trucks’ occurred also in 2014.
(44) In contrast, import volumes of ‘other trucks’ excluding the product under investigation barely changed (by 3 % during the investigation period) and their overall level in units remained very low in comparison to imports of the product under investigation (recital 33 above).
(45) Fourth, as established under recitals 52 to 59 below, the product under investigation has the same basic characteristics and end-uses as hand pallet trucks and are interchangeable, while all other trucks are used for different purposes and are not interchangeable with hand pallet trucks.
(46) On this basis, it was concluded that the increase of imports of ‘other trucks’ as observed in Eurostat was due to the increase of imports of the product under investigation. In that perspective, the increase in units of product under investigation imported were estimated on the basis of the imports data to have increased by around 110 000 units between 2013 and 2014, namely an increase of around 70 %, further increasing between 2014 and the reporting period by more than 80 000 units, namely by around 30 %. In the previous years of the investigation period the import trend was even decreasing.
(47) Therefore, in the absence of any cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers, it was concluded that a change in pattern of trade within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation took place.
(48) The applicants alleged that the circumvention practice consists of the importation of slightly modified products by simply incorporating a ‘weight indication system’ not integrated in the chassis having a margin of error equal to or exceeding 1 % of the load. These products are wrongly declared as weighing trucks at importation.
(49) The applicants argued that the product under investigation is different from weighing trucks, as the weighing mechanism of the product under investigation is much less sophisticated than the weighing mechanism of weighing trucks and does not give accurate results. They further argued that the structure of both products is significantly different.
(50) In line with the clarification of the scope of the measures which excluded certain products amongst which the weighing trucks referred to in recital 2 above, the investigation revealed that weighing trucks have a weighing scale incorporated in the chassis, that is to say in the forks. Thus, the weighing device of a weighing truck consists of high precision load sensors (or cells) which are placed in the forks. The forks are therefore made of two parts. The sensors are mounted and positioned in the lower part. The upper part is lying on the sensors. This mechanism allows for an accurate and precise measurement of the weight put on the forks.
(51) The equipment is fragile and requires periodical calibration. In contrast to the product concerned and the product under investigation, the system is not designed for intensive lifting and moving loads because the weighing scale device would be damaged. In addition, unlike the product concerned and the product under investigation, the use of weighing trucks requires specific training.
(52) The investigation established that the product under investigation has essentially the same structure and use as hand pallet trucks which are trucks with wheels supporting lifting fork arms for handling pallets, designed to be manually pushed, pulled and steered, on smooth, level, hard surfaces, by a pedestrian operator using an articulated tiller. These trucks are designed to raise a load, by pumping the tiller, to a height sufficient for transporting.
(53) The product under investigation is additionally equipped with a weighing device (either mechanical or electronic). However, this device is not incorporated in the chassis and the forks consist of only one part exactly as the product concerned. Instead, the weighing device is mounted directly on the hand pallet truck structure and can be subsequently removed without changing the structure and the use of the hand pallet trucks. Without the weighing device the product under investigation is not distinguishable from hand pallet trucks and is used for the exact same purposes as a hand pallet trucks.
(54) On the other hand, the weighing device of the product under investigation provides only an approximate indication of the weight with a substantial margin of error in some cases. The investigation revealed that contrary to what was alleged at initiation stage, the accuracy of the weighing device does not constitute an essential characteristic of the product under investigation in comparison with the product concerned. Even with an accurate weighing indication system the product under investigation shares the same characteristics as a hand pallet trucks, that is to say the structure and the use.
(55) This is in contrast to the main characteristics of weighing trucks which, as explained above, have sophisticated and costly weighing devices integrated in the chassis (namely the forks) which also requires a different fork structure. The weighing devices of the weighing trucks are not removable and provide accurate and exact values. Technology and production processes of weighing trucks are fundamentally different from those of the product under investigation.
(56) During the investigation two different weighing devices were identified, mechanical and electronic. The electronic weighing device appears to be more accurate in the indication of the weight than the mechanical weighing device.
(57) The exporting producer that submitted comments following initiation argued that the hand pallet trucks exported by it was fitted with a patented electronic weighing mechanism integrated in the chassis. The weighing mechanism had an allegedly ‘good weigh accuracy’ and met the requirements of the customers. Secondly, this exporting producer argued that the definition of the weight accuracy at initiation stage, namely ‘a margin of error equal or exceeding 1 % of the load’, is not appropriate as it merely refers to ‘load’ while weight accuracy can only be achieved by loads of at least 100 kg.
(58) On this basis the exporting producer argued that the definition of the product under investigation should be amended by only referring to ‘mechanical weighing mechanisms’ and to remove the 1 % threshold from the definition.
(59) However, in contrast to what was claimed, the weighing mechanism was merely mounted on the hand pallet truck structure and thus not integrated in the chassis, namely the forks. The weighing mechanism could be marketed separately. While the device gave indeed a more precise indication of the weight than mechanical weighing devices, it remains that the structure of the trucks exported by this company is the same than the one of the hand pallet trucks. Therefore, it was considered that this device does not change the main characteristics of the hand pallet trucks and falls within the definition of the product under investigation.
(60) The investigation established that the product under investigation is clearly distinguishable from weighing trucks as it does not have the same basic characteristics or end-uses. They are not interchangeable.
(61) In contrast, the product under investigation has the same basic characteristics and end-uses as hand pallet trucks. The weighing device attached to it does not alter its characteristics and is removable in some cases. Both products are essentially used for the same purpose, namely lifting loads for transportation and the function of indicating weight was not found to be an essential characteristic.
(62) It can therefore be concluded that the circumvention practice consists of the imports of the product under investigation.
(63) As mentioned above in recitals 34 to 46, the practice significantly increased after the imposition of the higher duty rate in 2013. Since the product under investigation and hand pallet trucks are considered interchangeable, this practice has no other apparent economic justification than the circumvention of the anti-dumping duty.
(64) The applicants provided indications that the sole intent of the imports of the product under investigation was to avoid the duties. These indications referred to the fact that one exporter offered the product under investigation in a brochure as ‘ADD free’ or another exporting producer recommended removing the weighing device after importation.
(65) The exporting producer that requested to change the definition of the product under investigation as explained in recital 58 also argued that the product type exported by it was developed and exported prior to the increase of the anti-dumping duty and it had no incentive to circumvent the duty. The exporting producer also claimed that exports of the product type exported by it only represents a small part of total exports the product under investigation but did not support these claims by any evidence, as it did not provide any reply to the questionnaire and therefore it was not possible to establish and verify export quantities and dates for these exports.
(66) On the basis of the information available from the cooperating importers, it can indeed be seen that imports of the product under investigation started before 2013. However, a significant increase only occurred after the increase of the anti-dumping duty in 2013. Therefore, it can be considered that the change in the pattern of trade only occurred after 2013. For this change in the pattern of trade there has not been any apparent economic justification other than the imposition of the duty.
(67) One importer of hand pallet trucks and the product under investigation and one supplier of weight indicating systems used in the product under investigation claimed that there is a market for trucks equipped with this type of weight indication system of lower accuracy as for certain specific applications (e.g. checking the load of waste materials, preventing overloading of freight trucks, whole sellers in certain sectors of activities) and mere estimation of the total load would be sufficient.
(68) However, the fact that imports of the product under investigation only started after the increase of the anti-dumping duty and that, at the same time, imports of hand pallet trucks considerably decreased and almost disappeared in the reporting period, shows that the imports of product under investigation do not serve a new market, but in fact largely replaced imports of hand pallet trucks. The coincidence in time with the increase of the anti-dumping duty shows that the purpose of the increased imports of the product under investigation was in fact the avoidance of the anti-dumping duty. This argument had therefore to be rejected.
(69) As explained in recital 46, the imports of the product under investigation were estimated to have increased by around 110 000 units between 2013 and 2014, i.e. an increase of around 70 %; they further increased between 2014 and the reporting period by more than 80 000 units, i.e. by around 30 %. These increases were considered significant. They represented in total around 42 % of the total trucks imported during the reporting period. In addition, ‘other trucks’ represented in 2011, around 30 % of the total trucks imported from the PRC while this ratio increased to around 79 % during the reporting period.
(70) In order to determine whether the remedial effects of the duty were undermined in terms of prices, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was established whether import prices of the product under investigation were underselling the Union industry non-injurious price as established in previous investigations. In the framework of the last expiry review concluded in 2011 referred to in recital 4 above the non-injurious price was recalculated as compared to the original investigation. This target price was used in the comparison with the weighted average export price from the PRC during the reporting period, the latter determined on the basis of the information submitted by the cooperating importers. This comparison showed significant underselling during the reporting period.
(71) Given the above, and considering the significant import volumes of the product under investigation estimated during the reporting period, it was concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being undermined both in terms of quantities and prices.
(72) The normal value of the product concerned has been last established in the interim review concluded in 2013 referred to in recital 5 above.
(73) In order to establish whether dumping existed during the reporting period, the average import prices of the product under investigation from the cooperating importers were compared to the normal value of the product concerned established in the interim review.
(74) Import prices were adjusted to ex-works level based on information received from the cooperating importers. The import prices were also adjusted for differences in the physical characteristics, that is to say the weighing device incorporated in the hand pallet trucks.
(75) The comparison showed significant dumping. It clearly demonstrates the existence of dumping when comparing the current prices of imports from the PRC of the product under investigation with the normal value previously established as required under Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation.
(76) In view of the findings above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on hand pallet trucks originating in the PRC are circumvented by imports of slightly modified hand pallet trucks incorporating a weight indication system not integrated in the chassis (the forks) originating in the PRC.
(77) In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of hand pallet trucks originating in the PRC should therefore be extended to imports of hand pallet trucks equipped with ‘weight indication system’ consisting of a weighing mechanism not integrated in the chassis, originating in the PRC.
(78) Under Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provide that any extended measures should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by initiating Regulation, the anti-dumping duty should be collected on those imports into the Union of hand pallet trucks equipped with ‘weight indication system’ consisting of a weighing mechanism not integrated in the chassis originating in the PRC.
(79) It the absence of requests by Chinese exporting producers, no exemption was granted.
(80) All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. No comments were submitted.
(81) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation,
European Commission
Directorate-General for Trade
Directorate H
Office: CHAR 04/039
1049 Bruxelles/Brussel
BELGIQUE/BELGIË
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union(1)(the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular to Articles 13(3) and 14(5)) thereof,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1
1. The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, currently falling within CN codes ex 8427 90 00 (TARIC codes 8427900011 and 8427900019) and ex 8431 20 00 (TARIC codes 8431200011 and 8431200019), originating in the People’s Republic of China is extended to the same product but presented at import with a so-called ‘weight indication system’ consisting of a weighing mechanism not integrated in the chassis, currently falling within TARIC codes 8427900030 and 8431200050.
2. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports into the Union of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2346 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

Article 2
1. Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the official languages of the European Union and must be signed by a person authorised to represent the entity requesting the exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:
2. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 the Commission, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 from the duty extended by Article 1 of this Regulation.

Article 3
Customs authorities are directed to discontinue the registration of imports established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2346.

Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union(1)(the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular to Articles 13(3) and 14(5)) thereof,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
1. The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, currently falling within CN codes ex 8427 90 00 (TARIC codes 8427900011 and 8427900019) and ex 8431 20 00 (TARIC codes 8431200011 and 8431200019), originating in the People’s Republic of China is extended to the same product but presented at import with a so-called ‘weight indication system’ consisting of a weighing mechanism not integrated in the chassis, currently falling within TARIC codes 8427900030 and 8431200050.
2. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports into the Union of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2346 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
1. Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing in one of the official languages of the European Union and must be signed by a person authorised to represent the entity requesting the exemption. The request must be sent to the following address:
2. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 the Commission, may authorise, by decision, the exemption of imports from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 from the duty extended by Article 1 of this Regulation.
Customs authorities are directed to discontinue the registration of imports established in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2346.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.