Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/421 of 9 March 2017 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(a) Union producers: Graftech France SNC, Calais, France Graftech Iberica S.L., Navarra, Spain SGL Carbon SA, Wiesbaden, Germany Tokai Erftcarbon GmbH, Grevenbroich, Germany
(b) Exporting producer in India: HEG Limited, Bhopal ("HEG")
the product under review the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry.
Nationwide Schemes (a) Duty Drawback Scheme ("DDS"); (b) Advance Authorisation Scheme ("AAS"); (c) Focus Market Scheme ("FMS"); (d) Merchandise Export from India Scheme ("MEIS"); (e) Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme ("EPCGS"); (f) Export Credit Scheme ("ECS");
Regional scheme (g) Electricity Duty Exemption Scheme ("EDES")
(i) Physical exports: This is the main sub-scheme. It allows for duty-free import of input materials for the production of a specific resulting export product. "Physical" in this context means that the export product has to leave Indian territory. An import allowance and export obligation including the type of export product are specified in the licence; (ii) Annual requirement: Such an authorisation is not linked to a specific export product, but to a wider product group (e.g. chemical and allied products). The licence holder can — up to a certain value threshold set by its past export performance — import duty-free any input to be used in manufacturing any of the items falling under such a product group. It can choose to export any resulting product falling under the product group using such duty-exempt material; (iii) Intermediate supplies: This sub-scheme covers cases where two manufacturers intend to produce a single export product and divide the production process. The manufacturer-exporter who produces the intermediate product can import duty-free input materials and can obtain for this purpose an AAS for intermediate supplies. The ultimate exporter finalises the production and is obliged to export the finished product; (iv) Deemed exports: This sub-scheme allows a main contractor to import inputs free of duty which are required in manufacturing goods to be sold as "deemed exports" to the categories of customers mentioned in paragraph 8.2(b) to (f), (g), (i) and (j) of the FTP 09-14. According to the GOI, deemed exports refer to those transactions in which the goods supplied do not leave the country. A number of categories of supply is regarded as deemed exports provided the goods are manufactured in India, e.g. supply of goods to an export-oriented unit ("EOU") or to a company situated in a special economic zone ("SEZ"); (v) Advance Release Order ("ARO"): The AAS holder intending to source the inputs from indigenous sources, in lieu of direct import, has the option to source them against AROs. In such cases the Advance Authorisations are validated as AROs and are endorsed to the indigenous supplier upon delivery of the items specified therein. The endorsement of the ARO entitles the indigenous supplier to the benefits of deemed exports as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the FTP 09-14 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty). The ARO mechanism refunds taxes and duties to the supplier instead of refunding the same to the ultimate exporter in the form of drawback/refund of duties. The refund of taxes/duties is available both for indigenous inputs as well as imported inputs; (vi) Back to back inland letter of credit: This sub-scheme again covers indigenous supplies to an Advance Authorisation holder. The holder of an Advance Authorisation can approach a bank for opening an inland letter of credit in favour of an indigenous supplier. The authorisation will be validated by the bank for direct import only in respect of the value and volume of items being sourced indigenously instead of importation. The indigenous supplier will be entitled to deemed export benefits as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the FTP 09-14 (i.e. AAS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty).
SCHEMES | DDS | AAS | FMS | MEIS | EPCGS | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HEG Limited (%) | 2,02 | 0,30 | 0,13 | 0,31 | 0,27 | 3,03 |
(a) No DDS duty credit was issued in respect of exports to the Union during the RIP; (b) FMS was terminated during the RIP and will not confer benefits to exporting producers in the future; (c) MEIS was not available to exports to the Union during the RIP as far as GES is concerned; (d) No AAS or EPCGS licence were granted to GIL during the RIP.
(a) Even if GIL did not receive DDS duty credits for their exports to the Union, this would still not allow concluding that the scheme did not confer benefits to GIL. Indeed the DDS subsidy rate is calculated on the basis of all exports of the company which also include exports to other third countries. (b) While the investigation confirmed that the FMS scheme was terminated during the RIP, it also established, as described in recitals 79 to 81, that the benefits conferred by the FMS before its termination continued to be conferred by the new MEIS scheme which entered in force immediately after the FMS was terminated. (c) As explained in recital 93 the mere fact that exports to the Union are not directly eligible to MEIS duty credits does not allow concluding that an exporting producer does not benefit from the MEIS in respect of its export or production activities in general. Indeed MEIS duty credits obtained from exports of GES to third countries are freely transferable and can be used to offset import duties on inputs incorporated in the product under review even if it is exported to the Union. It is therefore considered that these duty credits confer benefits to exports of GES as well as GIL's production in general, including exports to the Union. (d) Even if GIL was not granted new AAS or EPCGS licences during the RIP, this would still not allow concluding that these schemes did not confer benefits to GIL. GIL could have availed of the respective schemes by using licences granted before the RIP. In this respect it is worth noting that while the cooperating exporting producer was not granted any new AAS or EPCGS licence during the RIP, it was still found to receive benefits under both schemes by using licences granted before the RIP.
(i) the sales of the sampled Union producers, obtained after verification of the questionnaire replies, (ii) the sales of non-sampled cooperating Union producers, obtained from the review request, (iii) the sales of non-sampled non-cooperating Union producer, obtained from its' annual reports, (iv) the imports from India, based on 14(6) data base and (v) the imports from all other third countries, based on Eurostat (TARIC level).
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Review investigation period | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Union consumption (tonnes) | ||||
Country | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Review investigation period | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
India | Import volume (tonnes) | ||||
Market share (%) | 6-7 | 3-4 | 5-6 | 4-5 | |
Country | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Review investigation period | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
India | Import prices (EUR/tonne) | ||||
Country | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Review investigation period | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total other third countries | Imports (tonnes) | ||||
Market share (%) | 22-23 | 22-23 | 24-25 | 22-23 | |
Price (EUR/tonne) | |||||
China | Imports (tonnes) | ||||
Market share (%) | 9-10 | 8-9 | 11-12 | 10-11 | |
Price (EUR/tonne) | |||||
USA | Imports (tonnes) | ||||
Market share (%) | 2-3 | 3-4 | 3-4 | 3-4 | |
Price (EUR/tonne) | |||||
Mexico | Imports (tonnes) | ||||
Market share (%) | 2-3 | 3-4 | 4-5 | 3-4 | |
Price (EUR/tonne) | |||||
Russia | Imports (tonnes) | ||||
Market share (%) | 2-3 | 1-2 | 2-3 | 2-3 | |
Price (EUR/tonne) | |||||
Japan | Imports (tonnes) | ||||
Market share (%) | 3-4 | 2-3 | 2-3 | 1-2 | |
Price (EUR/tonne) | |||||
Other third countries | Imports (tonnes) | 700- | |||
Market share (%) | 2-3 | 3-4 | 0,5-1,5 | 0,5-1,5 | |
Price (EUR/tonne) | |||||
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Review investigation period | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Production volume (tonnes) | ||||
Production capacity (tonnes) | ||||
Capacity utilisation (%) | 79 | 79 | 81 | 76 |
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Review investigation period | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sales volume in the Union (tonnes) | ||||
Market share (%) | 71,1 | 74,0 | 70,7 | 73,0 |
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Review investigation period | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Number of employees | ||||
Productivity (tonnes/employee) | 155 | 153 | 164 | 146 |
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Review investigation period | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Average unit selling price in the Union (EUR/tonne) | ||||
Unit cost of production (EUR/tonne) | ||||
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Review investigation period | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Average labour costs per employee (EUR/employee) | ||||
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Review investigation period | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Closing stocks | ||||
Closing stocks as a percentage of production (%) | 6 | 5 | 7 | 11 |
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Review investigation period | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover) | 11,3 | 10,2 | 7,4 | 2,8 |
Cash flow (EUR) | ||||
Investments (EUR) | ||||
Return on investments (%) | 16,5 | 13,9 | 10,1 | 3,9 |
Loading ...