Ba iad a bhí sa sampla sealadach na cuideachtaí Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd. (“Chengxi Shipyard”), CS WIND China Co., Ltd. (“CS Wind”), agus Suzhou Titan New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. (“Suzhou Titan”).
The provisional sample consisted of the companies Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd. (‘Chengxi Shipyard’), CS WIND China Co., Ltd. (‘CS Wind’), and Suzhou Titan New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. (‘Suzhou Titan’).
Suzhou Titan New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., cathair Taicang agus a tháirgeoirí gaolmhara intíre Baotou Titan Wind Power Energy Equipment Co., Ltd., Baotou Rare Earth High-tech Zone agus Heze Titan New Energy Equipment Co., Ltd., Cathair Heze
Suzhou Titan New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Taicang City and its related domestic producers Baotou Titan Wind Power Energy Equipment Co., Ltd., Baotou Rare Earth High-tech Zone and Heze Titan New Energy Equipment Co.,Ltd., Heze City
Bhí CCCME agus Suzhou Titan os comhair éisteachtaí an 27 Meán Fómhair 2021.
On 27 September 2021, hearings took place with CCCME and Suzhou Titan.
Rinne Suzhou Titan na maímh thuas an athuair ina bharúlacha maidir leis an Dara Nóta.
Suzhou Titan reiterated the above claims in its comments to the Second Note.
Dá bhrí sin, diúltaíodh do mhaímh CCCME agus Titan.
CCCME’s and Titan’s claims were therefore rejected.
Chuir an bheirt táirgeoirí onnmhairiúcháin shampláilte Chengxi Shipyard agus Suzhou Titan, CCCME agus an t-úsáideoir Vestas barúlacha faoi bhráid an Choimisiúin.
The Commission received comments on the First Note from the two sampled exporting producers Chengxi Shipyard and Suzhou Titan, CCCME, and the user Vestas.
Ina theannta sin, luadh sa ghearán go ndearna Roinn Tráchtála Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá imscrúdú ar dhá chuideachta Shíneacha (CS Wind agus Titan Wind), lenar sainaithníodh na beartais phoiblí seo a leanas ar a laghad a théann chun tairbhe don earnáil táirgeachta go díreach: Beartas um Iasachtú don Tionscal Fuinnimh In-athnuaite, Creidmheasanna Ceannaitheora Onnmhairiúcháin, An Clár “Dhá Bhliain Saor ó Cháin Ioncaim, Trí Bliana ar Leathcháin Ioncaim” le haghaidh Fiontair ina bhfuil Infheistíocht Eachtrach, Sochair Cánach Ioncaim d’Fhiontair ina bhfuil Infheistíocht Eachtrach Bunaithe ar Shuíomh Geografach, Clár Taighde agus Forbartha um an Dlí maidir le Cáin Ioncaim Fiontair, Lacáistí Taraife ar Allmhairí agus Díolúintí ó CBL le haghaidh Úsáid Trealaimh a Allmhairithe, Soláthar Cruach Teo-Rollta, Soláthar Leictreachais ar Íocaíocht Neamh-Leordhóthanach, Cistí Tacaíochta arna Soláthar ag Coimisiún Riaracháin Chrios Forbartha Eacnamaíche agus Teicneolaíochta Lianyungang (“LETDZ”) chun Bonneagar Tionscadail a Thógáil, an Dámhachtain as Dea-Fheidhmíocht san Íoc Cánach, Dámhachtain ar Chathair Taicang chun Tacú le Liostú Poiblí Fiontar, Dámhachtainí ar Chathair Taicang chun Forbairt Geilleagair Thionsclaíoch a Chur Chun Cinn don Tréimhse Trí Bliana ó 2010 go 2012, Cistí Speisialta le haghaidh Forbairt Eolaíochta agus Teicneolaíochta, agus an Dámhachtain ar Titan Baotou as Tionscadail Tógála den Scoth sa Chrios Forbartha Tionsclaíche um Ardteicneolaíocht agus Nuatheicneolaíocht maidir le Miotail Tearc-Chré.
Additionally, the complaint mentioned the investigation of the US Department of Commerce into two Chinese Companies (CS Wind and Titan Wind), which identified at least the following public policies in direct benefit of the production sector: Policy Lending to the Renewable Energy Industry, Export Buyer’s Credits, Two Free, Three Half Program for Foreign Invested Enterprises, Income Tax Benefits for Foreign Invested Enterprises Based on Geographic Location, Enterprise Income Tax Law, Research and Development Program, Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for Use of Imported Equipment, Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel, Provision of Electricity for LTAR, Support Funds for Construction of Project Infrastructure Provided by Administration Commission of Lianyungang Economic and Technological Development Zone (‘LETDZ’), the Award for Good Performance in Paying Taxes, Award for Taicang City to Support Public Listing of Enterprises, Awards for Taicang City to Promote Development of Industrial Economy for the Three-year Period of 2010 to 2012, Special Funds for Development of Science and Technology, and the Award to Titan Baotou for Rare Earth High and New Technology Industrial Development Zone for Excellent Construction Projects.
Ina dhiaidh sin, chuir CCCME, Suzhou Titan, agus Chengxi Shipyard barúlacha isteach mar fhreagra ar an gCéad Nóta agus mar fhreagra ar an Dara Nóta.
Subsequently, comments were received from CCCME, Suzhou Titan, and Chengxi Shipyard in response to the First Note and from CCCME, Suzhou Titan, and Chengxi Shipyard in response to the Second Note.
Rinne Suzhou Titan na barúlacha uile thuas a thug CCCME a fhormhuiniú freisin ina bharúlacha maidir leis an gCéad Nóta.
Suzhou Titan also endorsed all of the above comments by CCCME in its comments to the First Note.
Thug sé chun suntais go bhfuil na táirgeoirí túr gaoithe is mó, lena n-áirítear Titan Wind, Shanghai Taisheng, Dajin Heavy Industry, Tianneng Heavy Industries agus CS Wind, uile faoi úinéireacht phríobháideach.
It observed that the largest wind tower producers, including Titan Wind, Shanghai Taisheng, Dajin Heavy Industry, Tianneng Heavy Industries and CS Wind are all privately owned.
Ina chuid barúlacha maidir leis an gCéad Nóta, mhaígh CCCME agus Suzhou Titan nár cheart don Choimisiún sonraí le cuideachta neamhbhrabúsach a eisiamh má tá an cás sin réasúnach agus neamhshaofa.
In its comments on the First Note, CCCME and Suzhou Titan claimed that the Commission should not exclude data of a lossmaking company if such situation is reasonable and undistorted.
Ní mór a thabhairt faoi deara freisin, sa chás seo, gur neamhábhartha leibhéal na brabúsachta arna ríomh ag Suzhou Titan.
It must also be noted that, in this case, the level of profitability calculated by Suzhou Titan is irrelevant.
Ar bhonn na gcúiseanna a tuairiscíodh in aithris (166) agus aithris (168), dhiúltaigh an Coimisiún do mhaímh Chengxi Shipyard agus Suzhou Titan a shonraítear in aithris (165) agus aithris (167).
Based on the reasons described in recitals (166) and (168), the Commission rejected the claims of Chengxi Shipyard and Suzhou Titan presented in recitals (165) and (167).
Sna barúlacha maidir leis an Dara Nóta, d’áitigh CCCME agus Suzhou Titan go mba cheart go mbeadh an Tuirc fós ina tír ionadaíoch ionchasach.
In the comments on the Second Note, CCCME and Suzhou Titan argued that Turkey should remain a potential representative country.
Sna barúlacha maidir leis an Dara Nóta, d’áitigh CCCME agus Suzhou Titan go raibh sonraí allmhairiúcháin Mheicsiceo rí-easnamhach de bharr gur tuairiscíodh in GTA iad ar luach sar ar bord (“FOB”).
In the comments on the Second Note, CCCME and Suzhou Titan submitted that the import data of Mexico were highly deficient as they were reported in GTA at free-on-board (‘FOB’) value.
Mheabhraigh Suzhou Titan gur asbhain an Coimisiún luach neamhshaofa an seachtháirge as costas na monaraíochta in imscrúduithe roimhe seo.
Suzhou Titan recalled that in previous investigations, the Commission deducted the undistorted value of by-product from the cost of manufacturing.
Dá dheasca sin, dhiúltaigh an Coimisiún do mhaímh Chengxi Shipyard agus Suzhou Titan a shonraítear in aithris (262).
Consequently, the Commission rejected the claims of Chengxi Shipyard and Suzhou Titan described in recital (262).
Tar éis an nochta deiridh, d’áitigh Suzhou Titan go ndearna an Coimisiún neamhaird ar na difríochtaí idir SWT ar an gcladach agus SWT eischósta.
Following final disclosure, Suzhou Titan argued that the Commission overlooked the differences between on-shore and off-shore SWT.
A mhéid a bhaineann le Suzhou Titan, thug an Coimisiún dá aire nár onnmhairigh ná nár tháirg an chuideachta SWT eischósta.
As far as it concerns Suzhou Titan, the Commission noted that the company neither exported nor produced off-shore SWT.
Tar éis nochta deiridh, mhaígh CCCME agus Suzhou Titan gurbh iomchuí meánphraghsanna allmhairiúcháin na Síne a shuí ar bhonn phraghsanna na dtáirgeoirí onnmhairiúcháin sampláilte arna gcros-seiceáil go cianda.
After final disclosure, CCCME and Suzhou Titan contested that it was appropriate to establish average Chinese import prices on the basis of the remotely cross-checked prices of the sampled exporting producers.
Ar na cúiseanna thuas, dhiúltaigh an Coimisiún do na maímh thuas a chuir EWTA, GE agus Suzhou Titan faoina bhráid.
For the above reasons, the Commission rejected the above claims submitted by EWTA, GE and Suzhou Titan.
I ndáil leis an ní deiridh sin, shuigh CCCME agus Suzhou Titan go háirithe nach raibh mionsonraí leordhóthanacha ar thaobh ríomh an spriocphraghais i nochtadh na ríomhanna gearrdhíola a soláthraíodh do na táirgeoirí onnmhairiúcháin.
With regard to the latter, CCCME and Suzhou Titan found in particular that the disclosure of the underselling calculations provided to the exporting producers lacked sufficient detail on the side of the target price computation.
Thug táirgeoirí onnmhairiúcháin Chengxi Shipyards agus Suzhou Titan, mar aon leis an eagraíocht tionscail CCCME, barúil maidir le cur i bhfeidhm Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán ina n-aighneachtaí ar an gcéad nóta maidir leis na foinsí chun an gnáthluach a chinneadh an 1 Nollaig 2020.
The exporting producers Chengxi Shipyard and Suzhou Titan, as well as the industry organisation CCCME, commented on the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation in their submissions on the first note on the sources for the determination of the normal value of 1 December 2020.
Chuir sé páirtithe leasmhara ar an eolas freisin go ndéanfadh sé costais díola, ghinearálta agus riaracháin (“SGA”) agus brabúis a shuí ar bhonn na faisnéise a bhí ar fáil le haghaidh cuideachtaí Arcosa Industries de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. agus Speco Wind Power, S.A. de C.V., ar táirgeoirí sa tír ionadaíoch iad: Chuir Chengxi Shipyard, Suzhou Titan agus CCCME barúlacha faoi bhráid an Choimisiúin.
It also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG&A’) and profits based on available information for the companies Arcosa Industries de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. and Speco Wind Power, S.A. de C.V., producers in the representative country. The Commission received comments on the Second Note from Chengxi Shipyard, Suzhou Titan, and CCCME.
Sna barúlacha maidir leis an Dara Nóta, d’áitigh CCCME agus Suzhou Titan gur cheart an India a mheas mar thír ionadaíoch ionchasach cé nach raibh sí aitheanta mar thír mheánioncaim uachtaraigh ag an mBanc Domhanda.
In the comments on the Second Note, CCCME and Suzhou Titan argued that India should be considered as a potential representative country although it was not classified as an upper-middle income country by the World Bank.
Tar éis an nochta deiridh, d’áitigh Suzhou Titan nach raibh faisnéis airgeadais Arosa ina foinse oiriúnach de chostais díola, ghinearálta agus riaracháin agus brabús neamhshaofa de bharr táirgeadh SWT a bheith lasmuigh de Mheicsiceo.
Following final disclosure, Suzhou Titan argued that the financial information of Arcosa was not a suitable source of undistorted SG&A and profit due to Arcosa’s SWT production outside Mexico.
Ina gcuid barúlacha maidir leis an gCéad Nóta, mhaígh CCME, Chengxi Shipyard, agus Suzhou Titan nach raibh an Afraic Theas ina tír ionadaíoch oiriúnach de bharr na mbeart coimirce maidir leis an gcruach a chuir an tír i bhfeidhm lena saobhfaí praghsanna allmhairiúcháin na dtáirgí cruach a úsáidtear sa táirgeadh SWT.
In their comments on the First Note, CCME, Chengxi Shipyard, and Suzhou Titan claimed that South Africa was not a suitable representative country due to the safeguard measures on steel put in place by the country that might have distorted the import prices of steel products used in the SWT production.
Ina gcuid barúlacha maidir leis an gCéad Nóta, mheas CCME agus Suzhou Titan nach raibh Meicsiceo ina tír ionadaíoch oiriúnach toisc gur ghearr sí bearta frithdhumpála ar na hallmhairí SWT de thionscnamh na Síne.
In their comments on the First Note, CCME and Suzhou Titan considered that Mexico was not a suitable representative country since it imposed anti-dumping measures on the imports of SWT originating in China.
Ina gcuid barúlacha maidir leis an gCéad Nóta, d’áitigh CCCME agus Suzhou Titan go mba cheart don Choimisiún a bheidh sásta glacadh le húsáid foinsí sonraí eile atá ar fáil go poiblí, amhail an praghas díola intíre i dtríú tír nó praghsanna idirnáisiúnta eile.
In their comments on the First Note, CCCME and Suzhou Titan submitted that the Commission should be open to use other publicly available sources of data, such as the domestic sales price in a third country or other international prices.
Ina gcuid barúlacha maidir leis an gCéad Nóta, thug CCCME, Chengxi Shipyard, agus Suzhou Titan dá n-aire gur liostaigh an Coimisiún sa Chéad Nóta na cóid tráchtearraí de na tosca táirgeachta ar leibhéal sé dhigit.
In their comments on the First Note, CCCME, Chengxi Shipyard, and Suzhou Titan noted that in the First Note the Commission listed the commodity codes of the factors of production at 6-digit level.
D’áitigh CCCME agus Suzhou Titan sa bhreis air sin nár cheart don Choimisiún úsáid a bhaint ach amháin as na staitisticí a léiríonn go cruinn allmhairí na gcineálacha feirí a úsáidtear i monaraíocht an táirge faoi imscrúdú.
CCCME and Suzhou Titan further argued that the Commission should use only those statistics that represent imports of precisely those types of flanges used in the manufacturing of the product under investigation.
Ina gcuid Barúlacha maidir leis an gCéad Nóta, d’áitigh CCCME agus Suzhou Titan nár léiríodh na praghsanna intíre leis na praghsanna allmhairiúcháin toisc gurbh fhéidir an chainníocht arna seachadadh agus an fad go dtí an tír thionscnaimh a chur i bhfeidhm orthu.
In their comments on the First Note, CCCME and Suzhou Titan submitted that the import prices did not reflect the domestic prices since they could have been influenced by the quantity delivered and the distance to the country of origin.
Sa Chéad Nóta, mhaígh CCCME agus Suzhou Titan sa bhreis air sin i gcás inar áiríodh sna staitisticí allmhairiúcháin costais lastais aigéin agus árachais, gur cheart na costais sin a asbhaint toisc go bhfuair na táirgeoirí onnmhairiúcháin comhoibríocha sa sampla a gcuid ionchur ar an margadh intíre agus nár thabhaigh siad na costais sin.
In their comments on the First Note, CCCME and Suzhou Titan further claimed that where the import statistics included ocean freight and insurance, those costs should be deducted since the sampled cooperating exporting producers sourced their inputs on the domestic market and did not incur such costs.
Chuige sin, rinne CCCME, Chengxi Shipyard agus Suzhou Titan cáineadh gur úsáid an Coimisiún comhéifeacht mheánach CIF go FOB aonair le haghaidh na dtosca táirgeachta go léir agus na dtíortha tionscnaimh go léir.
In this respect, CCCME, Chengxi Shipyard and Suzhou Titan criticised that the Commission used a single, average CIF to FOB coefficient for all factors of production and all relevant countries of origin.
Ina gcuid barúlacha maidir leis an Dara Nóta, d’áitigh CCCME, Chengxi Shipyard agus Suzhou Titan gur chuir an Coimisiún dleacht allmhairiúcháin 25 % i bhfeidhm go mícheart ar allmhairí plátaí cruach de thionscnamh SAM toisc gur scoireadh den dleacht frithbheartach sin roimh thús thréimhse an imscrúdaithe.
In their comments on the Second Note, CCCME, Chengxi Shipyard and Suzhou Titan submitted that the Commission incorrectly applied an import duty of 25 % to imports of steel plates originating in the US as this retaliatory duty was discontinued before the start of the investigation period.
San aighneacht maidir leis an Dara Nóta, thug Suzhou Titan, agus Chengxi Shipyard barúlacha maidir leis an gcód tráchtearra a raibh sé beartaithe ag an gCoimisiún a úsáid chun na costais neamhshaofa a bhain le tosca táirgeachta áirithe a chinneadh, go háirithe na plátaí cruach, péint, sreang tháthúcháin, agus boltaí.
In the submission on the Second Note, Suzhou Titan, and Chengxi Shipyard made comments concerning the commodity code the Commission intended to use to determine the undistorted costs of certain factors of production, in particular the steel plates, paint, welding wire, and bolts.
D’iarr Suzhou Titan go gcuirfeadh an Coimisiún na cóid tráchtearra maidir le plátaí cruach de thiús os cionn 10 mm (HS 720851) i bhfeidhm ina n-aonar ar bhonn ghrád cruach na bplátaí a úsáideann an chuideachta iarbhír.
Suzhou Titan requested that the Commission apply the commodity codes concerning steel plates of thickness exceeding 10 mm (HS 720851) individually based on the steel grade of the plates actually used by the company.
Tar éis an nochta deiridh, mheabhraigh Suzhou Titan gur dhiúltaigh an Coimisiún na costais a tuairiscíodh i dtaobh roinnt tosca táirgeachta, ar mhaígh an chuideachta nach raibh siad faoi réir saobhadh suntasach toisc gur allmhairíodh iad, sa nochtadh a bhain go sonrach leis an gcuideachta.
Following final disclosure, Suzhou Titan recalled that the Commission rejected the reported cost of a number of factors of production in the company-specific disclosure, which the company claimed were not subject to significant distortions since they were imported.
Tar éis an nochta deiridh, mhaígh Chengxi Shipyard agus Suzhou Titan nárbh fhoinse iomchuí é suirbhé Doing Business le haghaidh chostas neamhshaofa an leictreachais agus gur cheart don Choimisiún na taraifí arna ngearradh ag CCE le haghaidh an Éilimh Thionsclaíoch i Seachadadh agus Éileamh Tionsclaíoch i bhFosheachadadh a úsáid ina áit sin.
Following final disclosure, Chengxi Shipyard and Suzhou Titan submitted that the Doing Business survey was not an appropriate source for the undistorted cost of electricity and that the Commission should have used the tariffs charged by CFE for Industrial Demand in Transmission and Industrial Demand in Sub-transmission instead.
Anuas air sin, sholáthair Suzhou Titan ríomh de chostas neamhshaofa an leictreachais bunaithe ar dhá tharaif (Éileamh Tionsclaíoch i Seachadadh agus Éileamh Tionsclaíoch i bhFosheachadadh) arna ngearradh ag CCE sna bardasachtaí a raibh na táirgeoirí Meicsiceacha SWT suite.
In addition, Suzhou Titan provided a calculation of the undistorted cost of electricity based on two tariffs (Industrial Demand in Transmission and Industrial Demand in Sub-transmission) charged by CFE in the municipalities where the Mexican SWT producers were located.
Tar éis an nochta deiridh, mhaígh Suzhou Titan nár thuig an Coimisiún maidir leis na hítimí SGA i bhfaisnéis airgeadais Speco, ar bhain siad le hioncam nó caiteachas, rud a d’fhág costais SGA boilscithe.
Following final disclosure, Suzhou Titan claimed that the Commission misinterpreted whether the individual SG&A items in Speco’s financial information concerned income or expense, which resulted in an inflated SG&A.
Tar éis an nochta deiridh, mhaígh Chengxi Shipyard agus Suzhou Titan gur cheart don Choimisiún luach neamhshaofa an seachtháirge (dramhchruach) a díoladh a asbhaint as costas na monaraíochta agus ní as an ngnáthluach.
Following final disclosure, Chengxi Shipyard and Suzhou Titan submitted that the Commission should have deducted the undistorted value of the sold by-product (steel scrap) from the cost of manufacturing and not from the normal value.
I ndáil le hargóint Suzhou Titan, thug an Coimisiún dá aire gur athúsáideadh an seachtháirge i dtáirgeacht na dtáirgeoirí féin san imscrúdú roimhe seo a luadh agus gur díoladh an dramhchruach sa chás reatha.
With regard to Suzhou Titan’s argument, the Commission noted that in the quoted previous investigation, the by-product was reused in the producers’ own production while in the present case, the steel scrap was sold.
Tar éis an nochta deiridh, mhaígh Suzhou Titan i ndáil leis na ríomhanna sladghearrtha (agus gearrdhíola) gur cheart na costais iar-allmhairiúcháin arna gcur le praghas CAL allmhairí na Síne a mhéadú faoin gcostas iompair agus árachais maidir leis an suíomh suiteála, agus gur cheart praghas tionscail an Aontais a thógáil ar an leibhéal díreach ón monarcha.
Following final disclosure, Suzhou Titan submitted with regard to the undercutting (and underselling) calculations that the post importation costs added to the CIF price of Chinese imports should be increased by the transport and insurance cost to the installation site, whereas the Union industry price should be taken at ex-works level.
Tar éis an nochta deiridh, mheas Suzhou Titan go raibh an coigeartú 0,5 % ar luach CAL a rinne an Coimisiún chun an costas iar-allmhairiúcháin a chumhdach ró-íseal i bhfianaise an chostais iompair atá le hiompar ag úsáideoirí agus an coigeartú (níos airde) a rinne an Coimisiún in imscrúduithe eile.
Following final disclosure, Suzhou Titan deemed that the adjustment of 0,5 % of the CIF value made by the Commission to cover the post-importation cost as too low in light of the transportation cost born by users and the (higher) adjustment made by the Commission in other investigations.
Rinne Suzhou Titan GE agus EWTA na barúlacha céanna, maidir leis an leibhéal comparáide praghsanna a úsáidfear le haghaidh na ríomhanna maidir le gearrdhíol, leis na barúlacha a rinneadh maidir leis na ríomhanna maidir le sladghearradh (tugtar aghaidh orthu in aithrisí (326)-(328)).
Suzhou Titan, GE and EWTA made the same comments with regard to the level of price comparison to be used for the underselling calculations as the ones made for the undercutting calculations (addressed in recitals (326)-(328)).
Tar éis an nochta deiridh, léirigh Suzhou Titan amhras faoina inchreidte atá na corrlaigh a chinntear ar an tslí a mhínítear in aithris (410) mar gheall ar an leibhéal meaitseála idir a dhíolacháin agus díolacháin nochta an Aontais.
Following final disclosure, Suzhou Titan cast doubts about the credibility of the margins determined in the way explained in recital (410) given the level of matching between its sales and Union sales disclosed.
Ar an mbonn sin, maidir leis an gcorrlach díobhála iarmhair, mheas an Coimisiún gurb iomchuí é a shuí ar leibhéal an mheánchorrlaigh díobhála ualaithe arna chinneadh le haghaidh na gcineálacha táirgí is mó a onnmhairíonn Suzhou Titan, an táirgeoirí onnmhairiúcháin sampláilte lena mbaineann an corrlach díobhála aonair is airde.
On this basis, with regard to the residual injury margin, the Commission considered it appropriate to establish it at the level of the weighted average injury margin determined for the product types most exported by Suzhou Titan, the sampled exporting producer with the highest individual injury margin.
Sna barúlacha maidir leis an Dara Nóta, d’áitigh CCCME agus Suzhou Titan go raibh praghas allmhairiúcháin na bplátaí cruach i Meicsiceo saofa go mór de bharr dleacht allmhairiúcháin 15 % a gearradh i mí an Mhárta 2019.
In the comments on the Second Note, CCCME and Suzhou Titan argued that the import price of steel plates in Mexico was significantly distorted due to the imposition of a 15 % import duty on March 2019.
D’ainneoin a bhfuil thuas, d’iarr CCCME agus Suzhou Titan idirghabháil ón Oifigeach Éisteachta i bhfianaise (i) gur mheas siad gur cheart don Choimisiún seiceáil níos fearr a dhéanamh ar shonraí áirithe tionscail de chuid an Aontais (tugtar aghaidh air sin in aithris (307)), (ii) gur mhaith leo tuairim an Oifigigh Éisteachta a fháil maidir leis an bhfoinse a d’úsáid an Coimisiún chun praghsanna allmhairiúcháin na Síne ar SWTanna a shuí (ar a dtugtar aghaidh in aithrisí (317)-(318)), (iii) na neamhréireachtaí a aimsíodh agus trí aighneacht ón ngearánach á gcur i gcomparáid le chéile (ar a dtugtar aghaidh in aithris (306) agus aithris (307)), agus i bhfianaise (iv) na ndifríochtaí suntasacha idir corrlaigh dumpála agus díobhála (ar a dtugtar aghaidh in aithrisí (292)-(295)). Tharla éisteacht os comhair an Oifigigh Éisteachta an 14 Deireadh Fómhair 2021 ina ndearna an Coimisiún soiléiriú ar na saincheisteanna sin. Tháinig an tOifigeach Éisteachta ar an gconclúid nach raibh aon sárú ar chearta cosanta ann.
Notwithstanding the above, CCCME and Suzhou Titan requested the intervention of the Hearing Officer in view of (i) the fact that they considered that the Commission should better check certain Union industry data (this is addressed in recital (307)), (ii) that they would like to have the Hearing Officer’s view on the source the Commission had used for establishing Chinese import prices of SWT’s (addressed in recitals (317)-(318)), (iii) the discrepancies found when comparing three submissions from the complainant with each other (addressed in recital (306) and (307)), and (iv) the significant differences between dumping and injury margins (addressed in recital (292)-(295). A hearing with the Hearing Officer took place on 14 October 2021, during which the Commission clarified these issues. The Hearing Officer concluded that there was no breach of the rights of defence.