title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1140 of 30 July 2020 on re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not following the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-251/18 Trace Sport SAS

text:
                  31.7.2020

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 248/5

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1140
         of 30 July 2020
         on re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not following the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-251/18 Trace Sport SAS
         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 (‘the basic Regulation’) (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
         Whereas:
         A.   MEASURES IN FORCE AND JUDGMENTS OF THE GENERAL COURT AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

         1.   Measures in force

                     (1)

                     In 2011, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the original measures’) (2) following an expiry review under Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

                     (2)

                     In 2013, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013, the Council extended the original measures to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (the ‘contested Regulation’) (3) following an anti-circumvention investigation under Article 13 of the basic Regulation (the ‘anti-circumvention investigation’).

               2.   Judgment of the General Court in T-413/13 and judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in in Joined Cases C-248/15P, C-254/15P and C-260/15P

                     (3)

                     City Cycles Industries (‘City Cycle’) challenged the contested Regulation in the General Court.

                     (4)

                     By its judgment of 19 March 2015, in Case T-413/13 City Cycle Industries v Council, the General Court of the European Union annulled Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013, in so far as it concerned City Cycle Industries (‘City Cycle’).

                     (5)

                     On 26 January 2017, the appeals brought forward against the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015, were dismissed by judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-248/15P, C-254/15P and C-260/15P (4), City Cycle Industries v Council.

                     (6)

                     Following the judgment of the Court of Justice, on 11 April 2017 by Notice (5), the Commission partially reopened the anti-circumvention investigation concerning imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not that led to the adoption of the contested Regulation and resumed it at the point at which the irregularity occurred. The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice with regard to City Cycle. As a result of this reopening, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/28 of 9 January 2018 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, from City Cycle Industries (6) (the ‘City Cycle Regulation’).

               3.   Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-251/18

                     (7)

                     On 19 September 2019, in the context of a preliminary reference request made by the Rechtbank Noord-Holland, the Court of Justice ruled in Case C-251/18 Trace Sport SAS that the contested Regulation (7) is invalid in so far as it concerns imports of bicycles shipped from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not. The Court of Justice concluded that the contested Regulation did not contain any individual analysis of circumvention practices in which Kelani Cycles and Creative Cycles may have been engaged. The Court of Justice found that the conclusion as to the existence of transhipment operations in Sri Lanka could not legally be based only on the two findings expressly made by the Council, that is, first, that there had been a change in the pattern of trade between the Union and Sri Lanka and, second, that some of the exporting producers had failed to cooperate. On this basis, the Court of Justice declared the contested Regulation invalid in so far as it concerns imports of bicycles shipped from Sri Lanka, whether or not declared as originating in that country.

               4.   Consequences of the judgment in case C-251/18

                     (8)

                     In line with Article 266 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions need to take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment of 19 September 2019.

                     (9)

                     It follows from the case-law that where a judgment of the Court of Justice annuls a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties or declares such a regulation to be invalid, the institution called upon to take such measures for the purpose of implementing that judgment does have the option of resuming the proceeding at the origin of that regulation, even if that option is not expressly set out in the applicable legislation (8).

                     (10)

                     Furthermore, except where the irregularity found has vitiated the entire proceeding with illegality, the institution concerned has the option, in order to adopt an act intended to replace the act that has been annulled or declared invalid, to resume that proceeding only at the stage when the irregularity was committed (9). That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as, in this case, the initiation of the anti-circumvention procedure by Commission Regulation (EU) No 875/2012 (10).

                     (11)

                     Thus, the Commission has the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its declaration of invalidity, leaving those parts which were not affected by the judgment of the Court valid (11).

               B.   PROCEDURE

         1.   Procedure until the judgment

                     (12)

                     The Commission confirms recitals 1 to 23 included of the contested Regulation. They are not affected by the judgment.

               2.   Reopening

                     (13)

                     Following the judgment in Case C-251/18 Trace Sport SAS, on 2 December 2019, the Commission published an Implementing Regulation (12) reopening the anti-circumvention investigation concerning imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, that led to the adoption of the contested Regulation and resumed it at the point at which the irregularity occurred (‘reopening Regulation’).

                     (14)

                     The reopening is limited in scope to the implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-251/18 Trace Sport SAS. In that judgment, the illegality identified by the Court of Justice pertains to the obligation for the institutions of the Union to bear the burden of proof arising from Article 13(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 as it stood at that time.

                     (15)

                     Given that the City Cycle Regulation is not affected by the irregularity identified by the Court of Justice in Case C-251/18, the definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, from City Cycle Industries are not covered by this proceeding.

                     (16)

                     The Commission informed the Sri Lankan exporting producers, the representatives of the Government of Sri Lanka, the Union industry and other interested parties known to be concerned from the anti-circumvention investigation of the reopening of the investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing officer in trade proceedings within the time-limit set out in the reopening Regulation. None of the interested parties requested a hearing either with the Commission or the Hearing officer in trade proceedings.

               3.   Registration of imports

                     (17)

                     Pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the product under investigation shall be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied from the date on which registration of such imports was imposed.

                     (18)

                     On 2 December 2019, by the reopening Regulation, the Commission made imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, subject to registration.

               4.   Product under investigation

                     (19)

                     The product under investigation is the same as in the contested Regulation, i.e. bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’), currently falling under CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC codes 8712003010 and 8712007091), consigned from, Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in, Sri Lanka or not.

               C.   ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT

         1.   Preliminary remarks

                     (20)

                     First, the Court of Justice held that the contested Regulation did not contain an individual analysis of circumvention practices in which Kelani Cycles and Creative Cycles may have been engaged. The Court of Justice found that the conclusion as to the existence of transhipment operations in Sri Lanka could not legally be based only on the two findings expressly made by the Council, that is, first, that there had been a change in the pattern of trade between the Union and Sri Lanka and, second, that some of the exporting producers had failed to cooperate.

                     (21)

                     Second, the judgment does not question that the Council was entitled to consider Kelani Cycles as a non-cooperating party in the investigation and there was significant non-cooperation at national level in Sri Lanka (companies that did not cooperate or withdrew cooperation constituted 75 % of the total exports from Sri Lanka during the reporting period). Creative Cycles did not cooperate in the investigation. Recitals 35 to 42 of the contested Regulation are therefore confirmed.

               2.   Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty

                     (22)

                     The Council had found, in recitals 93 to 96 of the contested Regulation, that there was evidence undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. Those findings are confirmed.

               3.   Evidence of dumping

                     (23)

                     The Council had found, in recitals 97 and 98 as well as 107 to 110 of the contested Regulation, evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. Those findings are confirmed.

               4.   Existence of circumvention practices

                     (24)

                     The contested Regulation was declared invalid because the Council failed to provide sufficient substantiation as to the existence of circumvention practices for individual companies. It is recalled that the existence of circumvention practices can be established, inter alia, on the basis of transhipment or on the basis of assembly operations.

                     (25)

                     During the anti-circumvention investigation, six Sri Lankan companies submitted a request for exemption in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation. These six companies represented 69 % of the total imports from Sri Lanka to the Union during the reporting period defined in that investigation (1 September 2011 to 31 August 2012). Out of these six, three companies were exempted from the extended duties and one stopped cooperating. The exemption requests of the two remaining companies (Kelani Cycles and City Cycle Industries) were rejected as those companies could not show that they were not involved in circumvention practices. As mentioned in recitals 37 to 42 and 144, 146 to 149 of the contested Regulation, these findings were based on the facts available in accordance to Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

                     (26)

                     The reopened investigation revealed that there was no available evidence at companies’ level that could support the finding of transhipment. Therefore, it was concluded that no transhipment could be established.

                     (27)

                     However, the available evidence showed that circumvention practices via assembly operations took place. The evidence was based on the existing data submitted by City Cycle and Kelani Cycles during the anti-circumvention investigation. The Council had not previously assessed that data in detail, because it considered that that was not necessary in order to demonstrate, to the required legal standard, existence of circumvention practices. However, as the Court has clarified the applicable legal standard, the Commission considered it appropriate to reassess all the evidence available in the administrative file in the light of the conclusions of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-251/18 Trace Sport SAS.

                     (28)

                     As stated in recitals 3 to 5, in 2017 the Commission re-opened the investigation regarding City Cycle. Recitals 22 to 25 of the City Cycle Regulation detailed the evidence regarding City Cycle, showing that circumvention practices via assembly operations were taking place in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, due to the company’s insufficient cooperation and inability to demonstrate that it did not circumvent the measures on the basis of its own data, the exemption request of City Cycle under Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation could not be considered warranted. As mentioned in recital 15 the City Cycle Regulation remains unaffected by the judgment of the Court in case C-251/18.

                     (29)

                     During the anti-circumvention investigation, Kelani Cycles was unable to prove that it merited an exemption, as explained in recitals 39, 40 and 146 to 149 of the contested Regulation. The company’s cooperation was considered insufficient and Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was applied.

                     (30)

                     Furthermore, during the anti-circumvention investigation, it was established that Great Cycles, a related company of Creative Cycles, was the supplier of bicycle parts to Kelani Cycles. Both Great Cycles and Creative Cycles were established in Sri Lanka and the links between Kelani Cycles and those companies were going beyond a normal buyer and seller relationship. The relationship between the three companies could not be ultimately clarified during the anti-circumvention investigation due to the lack of cooperation of Kelani Cycles. In addition, Kelani Cycles was established in December 2011, after Creative Cycles and its related company Great Cycles were investigated by the Commission services on fraud on origin and, as a result, Creative Cycles stopped its bicycles assembly operations. Creative Cycles did not cooperate in the anti-circumvention investigation. Moreover, during the anti-circumvention investigation, Kelani Cycles was found to be export-oriented, targeting the Union market. Kelani Cycles started to export bicycles to the Union market in August 2012. Also, the parts used in production were found to be sourced primarily from China. Therefore, it was concluded that the conditions set out in Article 13(2)(a) of the basic Regulation were met.

                     (31)

                     Subsequently, the Commission examined the conditions set out in Article 13(2)(b) of the basic Regulation in order to establish whether the operations carried out by Kelani Cycles could be considered as assembly operations circumventing the definitive anti-dumping duties in force, thus whether:

                                 (a)

                                 the raw materials (bicycle parts) from China constituted more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product (60/40 test), while

                                 (b)

                                 the value added to the parts brought in during the assembly operation, was lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost (25 % value added test).

                     (32)

                     Kelani Cycles reported purchases of bicycle parts from China, but also from Great Cycles, which is a Sri Lankan company. While Kelani Cycles claimed that the parts bought from the latter were of Sri Lankan origin, the investigation revealed that Great Cycles manufactured these bicycle parts with parts (raw frames and forks) purchased from China (more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product), while the value added by Great Cycles in the manufacturing process was less than 25 % consisting mainly in welding and painting. Therefore, in application by analogy (13) of Article 13(2)(b) of the basic Regulation, it was considered that the parts purchased from Great Cycles were from China.

                     (33)

                     Regarding all parts used in the assembly of bicycles by Kelani Cycles, the Commission considered that the most reliable source were the cost statements of different bicycle types provided on spot. On this basis, the Commission concluded that the parts purchased from China (including those supplied by Great Cycle) and used by Kelani Cycles in assembling the bicycles exported to the Union constituted between 80 and 100 % of all parts of the assembled bicycle, depending on the bicycle type.

                     (34)

                     The 25 % value added test was based on the cost of assembling provided by Kelani Cycles during the anti-circumvention investigation. The value added was calculated on the parts brought in from China, as established in recitals 32 and 33. The value of parts purchased from Sri Lanka (tyres) was estimated based on the cost statements per product type provided during the on-spot verification carried out during the anti-circumvention investigation. As a result, the value added to the parts brought in from China during the assembly operations was below 25 % of the manufacturing cost.

                     (35)

                     Regarding the criteria set out in Article 13(2)(c) of the basic Regulation, as stated in recitals 24 and 25, the relevant findings during the anti-circumvention investigation were not affected and therefore were confirmed.

                     (36)

                     Consequently, the existence of circumvention practices via assembly operations was established at country level in Sri Lanka, on the basis of the above evidence, available at the companies’ level, showing the existence of circumvention practices. Given the high level of non-cooperation in Sri Lanka as stated in recital 21, no arguments against this conclusion could be found.

                     (37)

                     Consequently, the existence of assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation was established in Sri Lanka.

               5.   Exemption requests

                     (38)

                     With regard to Kelani Cycles’ exemption request, due to the company’s insufficient cooperation and inability to demonstrate that it did not circumvent the measures on the basis of its own data, it could not considered to be warranted under Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.

                     (39)

                     With regard to the situation of the company, which withdrew its exemption request during the anti-circumvention investigation, as stated in recital 21 above, recital 36 of the contested Regulation is not affected by the Court judgement and as such is confirmed. Therefore, this company could not benefit from an exemption.

               D.   DISCLOSURE

                     (40)

                     The parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to re-impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. No comment were received.

               E.   IMPOSITION OF MEASURES

                     (41)

                     On the basis of the above, it is considered appropriate to extend the original measures to imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, currently falling under CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC codes 8712003010 and 8712007091).

                     (42)

                     As mentioned in recitals 9 to 11, the anti-circumvention investigation was resumed at the point where the illegality occurred. The Commission remedied, with the current re-opening, the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its declaration of invalidity. The parts of the contested Regulation which were not affected by the judgment of the Court remained valid. According the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, the resumption of the administrative procedure with the re-imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports that were made during the period of application of the invalid regulation cannot be considered as contrary to the rule of non-retroactivity (14).

                     (43)

                     Thus, in light of the specific nature of the anti-circumvention instrument, which is designed to protect the effectiveness of the anti-dumping instrument, and in view of the fact that the investigation has revealed evidence that points to the existence of the circumventing practices based on the companies’ own reported data, the Commission considers it appropriate to re-impose measures as from the date of the initiation of the anti-circumvention investigation (namely as of 25 September 2012 onwards).

                     (44)

                     This regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1

               1.   The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, originating in the People’s Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC codes 8712003010 and 8712007091) as of 6 June 2013 with the exception of those produced by the companies listed below:

                           Country

                           Company

                           TARIC additional code

                           Sri Lanka

                           Asiabike Industrial Limited, No 114, Galle Road, Henamulla, Panadura, Sri Lanka

                           B768

                           Sri Lanka

                           BSH Ventures (Private) Limited,
                           No 84, Campbell Place, Colombo-10, Sri Lanka

                           B769

                           Sri Lanka

                           Samson Bikes (Pvt) Ltd,
                           No 110, Kumaran Rathnam Road, Colombo 02, Sri Lanka

                           B770

                     The imports from City Cycle Industries (TARIC additional code B131) are covered by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/28 of 9 January 2018 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not.

               2.   The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned from Sri Lanka whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 875/2012 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 or registered in accordance with Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1997 of 29 November 2019 with the exception of those produced by the companies listed in paragraph 1.

            Article 2
            Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1997 of 29 November 2019.

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

            This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
            Done at Brussels, 30 July 2020.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Ursula VON DER LEYEN

            (1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

            (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 of 3 October 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 261, 6.10.2011, p. 2).

            (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ L 153, 5.6.2013, p. 1).

            (4)  Joined Cases C-248/15P (appeal submitted by the Union industry), C-254/15P (appeal submitted by the European Commission) and C-260/15 P (appeal submitted by the Council of the European Union).

            (5)  Notice concerning the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13 City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union and the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 January 2017 in Cases C-248/15 P, C-254/15 P and C-260/15 P in relation to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (2017/C 113/05) (OJ C 113, 11.4.2017, p. 4).

            (6)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/28 of 9 January 2018 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not from City Cycle Industries (OJ L 5, 10.1.2018, p. 27).

            (7)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013.

            (8)  Judgment of the Court of 15 March 2018, Case C-256/16 Deichmann, ECLI:EU:C:2018:187, paragraph 73; see also judgment of the Court of 19 June 2019, Case C-612/16 P&J Clark International, ECLI:EU:C:2019:508, paragraph 43

            (9)  Ibid, paragraph 74; see also judgment of the Court of 19 June 2019, Case C-612/16 P&J Clark International, ECLI:EU:C:2019:508, paragraph 43.

            (10)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 875/2012 of 25 September 2012 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ L 258, 26.9.2012, p. 21).

            (11)  Judgment of 3 October 2000, Case C-458/98 P Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v Council, ECLI:EU:C:2000:531, paragraph 80 to 85.

            (12)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1997 of 29 November 2019 reopening the investigation following the judgment of 19 September 2019, in Case C‐251/18 Trace Sport SAS, with regard to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ L 310, 2.12.2019, p. 29).

            (13)  Court judgment in case C-709/17 P Kolachi of 12 September 2019.

            (14)  Case C-256/16 Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg [2018], ECLI:EU:C:2018:187, paragraph 79; and C-612/16 C & J Clark International Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, judgment of 19 June 2019, paragraph 58.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1165 of 6 August 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of steel road wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China

text:
                  7.8.2020

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 258/9

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1165
         of 6 August 2020
         amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of steel road wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China
         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), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 (2), definitive anti-dumping duties were imposed and provisional duties were definitively collected on imports of steel road wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China.

                     (2)

                     Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 mentions: ‘Where a declaration for release for free circulation is presented in respect of the products referred to in Article 1, the number of pieces of the products imported shall be entered in the relevant field of that declaration’. The Commission services received comments from Member States and traders concerning the origin of the products imported.

                     (3)

                     It should be clarified that the number of pieces should be declared for imports of steel road wheels, irrespective their origin, and that Member States should inform the Commission of the number of pieces imported.

                     (4)

                     In this respect, the Commission has decided to amend Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353.

                     (5)

                     The term ‘pieces’ is replaced by ‘items’ for consistency with the supplementary unit ‘number of items’, defined in the Combined Nomenclature (3).

                     (6)

                     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,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Recital (88) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 is replaced by the following:

                        ‘(88)

                        Statistics of SRW are frequently expressed in number of items. However, there is no such supplementary unit for SRW specified in the Combined Nomenclature laid down in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (11). It is therefore necessary to provide that not only the weight in kg or tonnes but also the number of items for the imports of the product concerned must be entered in the declaration for release for free circulation. Items should be indicated for TARIC codes 8708701080, 8708701085, 8708709920, 8708709980, 8716909095 and 8716909097.’

            Article 2
            Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 is replaced by the following:

                  ‘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 name and function, drafted as follows: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (number of items) (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.’

            Article 3
            Article 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 is replaced by the following:

                  ‘Article 4
                  Where a declaration for release for free circulation is presented in respect of the products referred to in Article 1(1), irrespective of their origin, the number of items of the products imported shall be entered in the relevant field of that declaration.
                  Member States shall, on a monthly basis, inform the Commission of the number of items imported under TARIC codes 8708701080, 8708701085, 8708709920, 8708709980, 8716909095 and 8716909097, and of their origin’.

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

            This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
            Done at Brussels, 6 August 2020.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Ursula VON DER LEYEN

            (1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

            (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 of 3 March 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of steel road wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 65, 4.3.2020, p. 9).

            (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1166 of 6 August 2020 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entry for the United States in the list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which certain poultry commodities may be imported into or transit through the Union in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
                  7.8.2020

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 258/11

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1166
         of 6 August 2020
         amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entry for the United States in the list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which certain poultry commodities may be imported into or transit through the Union in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza
         (Text with EEA relevance)
         THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular the introductory phrase of Article 8, the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of Article 8, paragraph 4 of Article 8 and Article 9(4)(c) thereof,
         Having regard to Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (2), and in particular Articles 23(1), 24(2) and 25(2) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 (3) lays down veterinary certification requirements for imports into and transit, including storage during transit, through the Union of poultry and poultry products (‘the commodities’). It provides that the commodities are only to be imported into and transit through the Union from the third countries, territories, zones or compartments listed in columns 1 and 3 of the table in Part 1 of Annex I thereto.

                     (2)

                     Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 also lays down the conditions for a third country, territory, zone or compartment to be considered as free from highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).

                     (3)

                     The United States is listed in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as a third country from which imports into and transit through the Union of the commodities are not restricted due to the presence of HPAI.

                     (4)

                     The Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in trade in live animals and animal products (‘the Agreement’) (4), approved by Council Decision 98/258/EC (5), provides for the mutual recognition of regionalisation measures in the event of outbreaks of a disease in the Union or in the United States.

                     (5)

                     On 8 April 2020, the United States confirmed the presence of HPAI of subtype H7N3 in a poultry holding in Chesterfield County in the State of South Carolina. Following the outbreak of HPAI, the veterinary authorities of the United States placed a 10 km control zone around the affected holding, which included parts of Chesterfield, Lancaster and Kershaw counties in the State of South Carolina and implemented a stamping-out policy in order to control HPAI and limit the spread of that disease.

                     (6)

                     By adopting Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/544 (6), the Commission placed restrictions on the introduction into the Union of poultry commodities from the area in the State of South Carolina affected by HPAI, which the veterinary authorities of the United States had placed under restrictions due to the outbreak of HPAI.

                     (7)

                     The United States has submitted updated information on the epidemiological situation on its territory and the measures it has taken to prevent the further spread of HPAI, which have now been evaluated by the Commission. In addition, the United States has reported on the completion of cleaning and disinfection measures on 7 May 2020 following the stamping out policy on the poultry holding where the HPAI outbreak was confirmed in April 2020.

                     (8)

                     On the basis of the evaluation of the information provided by the United States, it is appropriate to indicate in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 the date of 5 August 2020, i.e. 90 days after the completion of the stamping out policy and cleaning and disinfection measures, as of when that third country may again, in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, be considered free from HPAI and imports into and transit through the Union of certain poultry commodities originating in that third country should be authorised again.

                     (9)

                     The entry for the United States in the table set out in Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended to take account of the eradication of HPAI in that third country. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.

                     (10)

                     The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

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

            This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
            Done at Brussels, 6 August 2020.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Ursula VON DER LEYEN

            (1)  OJ L 18, 23.1.2003, p. 11.

            (2)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 74.

            (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (OJ L 226, 23.8.2008, p. 1).

            (4)  OJ L 118, 21.4.1998, p. 3.

            (5)  Council Decision 98/258/EC of 16 March 1998 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in trade in live animals and animal products (OJ L 118, 21.4.1998, p. 1).

            (6)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/544 of 20 April 2020 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entry for the United States in the list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which certain poultry commodities may be imported into or transit through the Union in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza (OJ L 121 I, 20.4.2020, p. 1).

            ANNEX
            In Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, the entry for the United States is replaced by the following:

                           ISO code and name of third country or territory

                           Code of third country, territory, zone or compartment

                           Description of third country, territory, zone or compartment

                           Veterinary certificate

                           Specific conditions

                           Specific conditions

                           Avian influenza surveillance status

                           Avian influenza vaccination status

                           Salmonella Control Status(6)

                           Model(s)

                           Additional guarantees

                           Closing date(1)

                           Opening date(2)

                           1

                           2

                           3

                           4

                           5

                           6

                           6A

                           6B

                           7

                           8

                           9

                           ‘US – United States

                           US-0

                           Whole country

                           SPF

                           EP, E

                           S4

                           US-1

                           The whole country of the United States excluding area US-2

                           WGM

                           VIII

                           POU, RAT

                           N

                           BPP, BPR, DOC, DOR, HEP, HER, SRP, SRA, LT20

                           A

                           S3, ST1

                           US-2

                           Territory of the United States corresponding to:

                           US-2.1

                           State of Tennessee:
                           Lincoln County
                           Franklin County
                           Moore County

                           WGM

                           VIII

                           P2

                           4.3.2017

                           11.8.2017

                           POU, RAT

                           N
                           P2

                           BPR, BPP, DOC, DOR, HEP, HER, SRP, SRA, LT20

                           A

                           S3, ST1

                           US-2.2

                           State of Alabama:
                           Madison County
                           Jackson County

                           WGM

                           VIII

                           P2

                           4.3.2017

                           11.8.2017

                           POU, RAT

                           N
                           P2

                           BPR, BPP, DOC, DOR, HEP, HER, SRP, SRA, LT20

                           A

                           S3, ST1

                           US-2.3

                           State of South Carolina:
                           Chesterfield county/Lancaster county/Kershaw county:
                           A zone of a 10 km radius starting with N point on the circular Chesterfield 02 premise Control Zone border and extending in a clockwise fashion:

                                       (a)

                                       North: 2 km south from Highway 9, 0,03 km east from intersection of Airport Rd and Raymond Deason Rd.

                                       (b)

                                       Northeast: 1 km southwest from intersection of Highway 268 and Cross Roads Church Rd.

                                       (c)

                                       East: 5,1 km west from State Highway 109, 1,6 km west from Angelus Rd and Refuge Dr

                                       (d)

                                       Southeast: 3,2 km northwest from intersection of Highway 145 and Lake Bee Rd.

                                       (e)

                                       South: 2,7 km east from intersection of Highway 151 and Catarah Rd.

                                       (f)

                                       Southwest: 1,5 km east from intersection of McBee Hwy and Mt Pisgah Rd.

                                       (g)

                                       West: 1,3 km east from intersection of Texahaw Rd and Buzzards Roost Rd.

                                       (h)

                                       Northwest: Intersection of White Plains Church Rd and Graves Rd.

                           WGM

                           VIII

                           P2

                           8.4.2020

                           5.8.2020

                           POU, RAT

                           N
                           P2

                           BPR, BPP, DOC, DOR, HEP, HER, SRP, SRA, LT20

                           A

                           S3, ST1’


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1361 of 30 September 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as regards certain plants for planting of Malus domestica, originating in Serbia and certain plants for planting of Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi, originating in New Zealand

text:
                  1.10.2020

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 317/1

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1361
         of 30 September 2020
         amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as regards certain plants for planting of Malus domestica, originating in Serbia and certain plants for planting of Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi, originating in New Zealand
         THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on protective measures against pests of plants, amending Regulations (EU) No 228/2013, (EU) No 652/2014 and (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 69/464/EEC, 74/647/EEC, 93/85/EEC, 98/57/EC, 2000/29/EC, 2006/91/EC and 2007/33/EC (1), and in particular the first and third subparagraphs of Article 42(4) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 (2) establishes, on the basis of a preliminary risk assessment, a list of high risk plants, plant products and other objects.

                     (2)

                     Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2018 (3) lays down specific rules concerning the procedure to be followed in order to carry out the risk assessment referred to in Article 42(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 for those high risk plants, plant products and other objects.

                     (3)

                     Following a preliminary risk assessment, 35 plants for planting originating from all third countries were included in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as high risk plants, amongst which are the genera Malus Mill. and Acer L.

                     (4)

                     On 31 July 2019, Serbia submitted to the Commission a request for export to the Union of one- to two-year old bare rooted, dormant, grafted plants for planting belonging to the species Malus domestica. That request was supported by the respective technical dossier.

                     (5)

                     On 13 May 2020, the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) published a scientific opinion regarding the commodity risk assessment of Malus domestica plants for planting from Serbia (4). The Authority identified Erwinia amylovora as a pest relevant for those plants for planting, evaluated the risk mitigation measures described in the dossier for that pest and estimated its likelihood of pest freedom.

                     (6)

                     On the basis of this opinion, the phytosanitary risk from introduction into the Union of one- to two-year old bare rooted, dormant, grafted plants for planting belonging to the species Malus domestica, originating in Serbia is considered to be reduced to an acceptable level, provided that appropriate mitigation measures are applied to address the risk of the pest related to those plants for planting. As such appropriate measures are provided for in point 9 of Annex X to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 (5) those plants for planting should no longer be considered high risk plants, and should be removed from the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019.

                     (7)

                     On 29 August 2019, New Zealand submitted to the Commission a request for export to the Union of one- to three-year-old bare rooted, dormant, free of leaves, grafted or budded plants for planting belonging to the species Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi. That request was supported by the respective technical dossier.

                     (8)

                     On 20 May 2020, the Authority published a scientific opinion regarding the commodity risk assessment of Acer spp. plants for planting from New Zealand (6). The Authority identified Eotetranychus sexmaculatus, Meloidogyne
                        fallax, Oemona hirta and Platypus apicalis as pests relevant for those plants for planting, evaluated the risk mitigation measures described in the dossier for those pests and estimated the likelihood of pest freedom for each pest related to those commodities.

                     (9)

                     On the basis of this opinion, the phytosanitary risk from introduction into the Union of one-to three-year-old bare rooted, dormant, free of leaves, grafted or budded plants for planting belonging to the species Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi, originating in New Zealand is considered to be reduced to an acceptable level, provided that appropriate mitigation measures are applied to address the risk of pests related to those plants for planting. As such appropriate measures are provided for by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1362 (7), those plants for planting should no longer be considered high risk plants, and should be removed from the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019.

                     (10)

                     In order to comply with the Union obligations deriving from the World Trade Organization agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (8), the import of those commodities should resume within the shortest possible delay. Therefore, this Regulation should enter into force on the third day following that of its publication.

                     (11)

                     The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Amendment of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019
            The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

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

            This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
            Done at Brussels, 30 September 2020.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Ursula VON DER LEYEN

            (1)  OJ L 317, 23.11.2016, p. 4.

            (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 of 18 December 2018 establishing a provisional list of high risk plants, plant products or other objects, within the meaning of Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 and a list of plants for which phytosanitary certificates are not required for introduction into the Union, within the meaning of Article 73 of that Regulation (OJ L 323, 19.12.2018, p. 10).

            (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2018 of 18 December 2018 laying down specific rules concerning the procedure to be followed in order to carry out the risk assessment of high risk plants, plant products and other objects within the meaning of Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 323, 19.12.2018, p. 7).

            (4)  EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2020. Scientific Opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Malus domestica plants from Serbia. EFSA Journal 2020;18(5):6109, 53 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6109.

            (5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 of 28 November 2019 establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards protective measures against pests of plants, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 (OJ L 319, 10.12.2019, p. 1).

            (6)  EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2020. Scientific Opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Acer spp. plants from New Zealand. EFSA Journal 2020; 18(5): 6105. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6105.

            (7)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1362 of 30 September 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 concerning the phytosanitary measures for the introduction into the Union of certain plants for planting of Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi, originating in New Zealand (see page 5 of this Official Journal).

            (8)  The World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm.

            ANNEX
            In point 1 of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019, the second column ‘Description’ is amended as follows:

                        (a)

                        the entry for ‘Malus Mill.’ is replaced by the following:
                        ‘Malus Mill., other than one- to two-year old bare rooted, dormant, grafted plants for planting of Malus domestica originating in Serbia’;

                        (b)

                        the entry for ‘Acer L.’ is replaced by the following:
                        ‘Acer L., other than one- to three-year old bare rooted, dormant, free of leaves, grafted or budded plants for planting of Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg, and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi, originating in New Zealand’.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1362 of 30 September 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 concerning the phytosanitary measures for the introduction into the Union of certain plants for planting of Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi, originating in New Zealand

text:
                  1.10.2020

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 317/5

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1362
         of 30 September 2020
         amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 concerning the phytosanitary measures for the introduction into the Union of certain plants for planting of Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi, originating in New Zealand
         THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on protective measures against pests of plants, amending Regulations (EU) No 228/2013, (EU) No 652/2014 and (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 69/464/EEC, 74/647/EEC, 93/85/EEC, 98/57/EC, 2000/29/EC, 2006/91/EC and 2007/33/EC (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 42(4) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 (2) established, on the basis of a preliminary risk assessment, a list of high risk plants, plant products and other objects.

                     (2)

                     In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, if it is concluded, on the basis of a risk assessment, that a plant, plant product or other object originating in a third country, group of third countries or a specific area of the third country concerned poses an unacceptable pest risk, but that that risk can be reduced to an acceptable level by applying certain measures, the Commission is to remove that plant, plant product or other object from the list established by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 and add it to the list referred to in Article 41(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031.

                     (3)

                     In addition, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 (3) sets out the phytosanitary measures for the introduction into the Union of certain plants, plant products and other objects, which have been removed from the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019.

                     (4)

                     The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 includes plants of the genus Acer L. as high risk plants.

                     (5)

                     On 29 August 2019, New Zealand submitted to the Commission a request for export to the Union of one- to three- year-old bare rooted, dormant, free of leaves grafted or budded plants for planting belonging to the species Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi (‘the specified plants’). That request was supported by the respective technical dossier.

                     (6)

                     On 20 May 2020, the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) published a scientific opinion regarding the commodity risk assessment of Acer spp. plants from New Zealand (4). The Authority identified Eotetranychus sexmaculatus, Meloidogyne fallax, Oemona hirta and Platypus apicalis (‘the specified pests’) as pests relevant for the specified plants, evaluated the risk mitigation measures described in the dossier for those pests and estimated the likelihood of pest freedom for each pest related to that commodity.

                     (7)

                     Following that opinion, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1361 (5) removed the specified plants from the list of high risk plants established by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019.

                     (8)

                     Moreover, and on the basis of that opinion, the necessary measures to address the risk of the specified pests can be adopted as phytosanitary import requirements, to ensure the phytosanitary protection of the Union territory from introduction of the specified plants into the Union.

                     (9)

                     Concerning Oemona hirta and Platypus apicalis, the measures described by New Zealand in the dossier are considered sufficient to reduce the risk from introduction into the Union of the specified plants to an acceptable level. Therefore, the measures for those two pests should be based on those described by New Zealand in the dossier.

                     (10)

                     Concerning Meloidogyne fallax, the measures described by New Zealand in the dossier are in line with the existing requirements laid down in point 10 of Annex VII to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 (6) for nematodes, regarding trees and shrubs, intented for planting.

                     (11)

                     With regard to Eotetranychus sexmaculatus, it is considered that the sole application of the measures proposed by New Zealand in the dossier cannot reduce the risk from introduction into the Union of the specified plants to an acceptable level, as according to the opinion of the Authority, some uncertainties remain. Addressing the identified uncertainties, by applying additional measures as regards official statements and phytosanitary certificates for those plants, can reduce the risk from introduction into the Union of the specified plants to an acceptable level. Therefore, the measures applied by New Zealand in the dossier for Eotetranychus sexmaculatus should be complemented with those measures, which address the uncertainties.

                     (12)

                        Oemona hirta and Meloidogyne fallax are listed as Union quarantine pests in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. Eotetranychus sexmaculatus and Platypus apicalis are not yet included in the list of Union quarantine pests of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 but they may fulfil the conditions to be included following a further complete risk assessment. If it is established that those pests fulfil those conditions, they will be included in the list of Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, and the relevant plants will be listed in Annex VII to that Regulation, together with the respective measures, based on a complete risk assessment on those pests. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 should be then reviewed accordingly.

                     (13)

                     The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 should therefore be amended accordingly.

                     (14)

                     In order to comply with the Union obligations deriving from the World Trade Organization agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (7), the import of the specified plants should resume within the shortest possible delay. Therefore, this Regulation should enter into force on the third day following that of its publication.

                     (15)

                     The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Subject matter
            This Regulation sets out phytosanitary measures for the introduction into the Union of certain plants for planting of Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi, originating in New Zealand.

            Article 2
            Amendment of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213
            The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

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

            This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
            Done at Brussels, 30 September 2020.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Ursula VON DER LEYEN

            (1)  OJ L 317, 23.11.2016, p. 4.

            (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 of 18 December 2018 establishing a provisional list of high risk plants, plant products or other objects, within the meaning of Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 and a list of plants for which phytosanitary certificates are not required for introduction into the Union, within the meaning of Article 73 of that Regulation (OJ L 323, 19.12.2018, p. 10).

            (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 of 21 August 2020 concerning the phytosanitary measures for the introduction into the Union of certain plants, plant products and other objects which have been removed from the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 (OJ L 275, 24.8.2020, p. 5).

            (4)  EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2020. Scientific Opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Acer spp. plants from New Zealand. EFSA Journal 2020; 18(5): 6105. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6105.

            (5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1361 of 30 September 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as regards certain plants for planting of Malus domestica, originating in Serbia and certain plants for planting of Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi, originating in New Zealand (see page 1 of this Official Journal).

            (6)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 of 28 November 2019 establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards protective measures against pests of plants, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 (OJ L 319, 10.12.2019, p. 1).

            (7)  The World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm.

            ANNEX
            In the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213, the following points are added:

                           ‘Plants, plant products or other objects

                           CN Code

                           Third countries of origin

                           Measures

                                       4.

                                       Bare rooted, dormant, free of leaves, grafted or budded, one- to three- year old plants for planting of Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi

                           ex 0602 90 41
                           ex 0602 90 45
                           ex 0602 90 46
                           ex 0602 90 48
                           ex 0602 90 50

                           New Zealand

                                       (a)

                                       Official statement that:

                                                   (i)

                                                   the plants are free from Eotetranychus sexmaculatus;

                                                   (ii)

                                                   the plants have been grown throughout their life in a place of production, which, together with the sites of production that form part of it, is registered and supervised by the national plant protection organisation of the country of origin

                                                   (iii)

                                                   the site of production has been found free from Eotetranychus sexmaculatus during official inspections carried out at appropriate times, since the beginning of the complete production cycle; in case of suspicion of the presence of Eotetranychus sexmaculatus at the site of production, appropriate treatments have been carried out to ensure the absence of the pest; a surrounding zone of 100 m has been established, which is subject to specific surveys at appropriate times to detect Eotetranychus sexmaculatus and where the pest has been found on any host plants, those plants have been rogued out and destroyed immediately;

                                                   (iv)

                                                   a system has been put in place to ensure that tools and machinery have been cleaned to be free from soil and plant debris and disinfected to be free from the Eotetranychus sexmaculatus, before they have been introduced into each site of production;

                                                   (v)

                                                   at harvest, the plants have been cleaned and trimmed and the plants have undergone an official phytosanitary inspection, consisting at least of a detailed visual examination, in particular of stems and branches of the plants to confirm the absence of the Eotetranychus sexmaculatus;

                                                   (vi)

                                                   immediately prior to export, consignments of the plants have been subjected to an official inspection for the presence of Eotetranychus sexmaculatus, in particular of stems and branches of the plants, and the size of the sample for inspection has been such as to enable at least the detection of 1 % level of infestation with a level of confidence of 99 %;

                                       (b)

                                       The phytosanitary certificates for those plants include under the heading ‘Additional Declaration’:

                                                   (i)

                                                   the following statement: ‘The consignment complies with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1362’;

                                                   (ii)

                                                   the specification of the registered sites of production.

                                       5.

                                       Bare rooted, dormant, free of leaves, grafted or budded one- to three- year old plants for planting of Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi

                           ex 0602 90 41
                           ex 0602 90 45
                           ex 0602 90 46
                           ex 0602 90 48
                           ex 0602 90 50

                           New Zealand

                                       (a)

                                       Official statement that:

                                                   (i)

                                                   the plants are free from Oemona hirta and Platypus apicalis;

                                                   (ii)

                                                   the plants have been grown throughout their life in a place of production, which, together with the sites of production that form part of it is registered and supervised by the national plant protection organisation of the country of origin;

                                                   (iii)

                                                   the site of production has been found free from Oemona hirta and Platypus apicalis during official inspections carried out at appropriate times, since the beginning of the complete production cycle; in case of suspicion of the presence of Oemona hirta or Platypus apicalis at the site of production, appropriate treatments have been carried out to ensure the absence of the pests;

                                                   (iv)

                                                   at harvest, the plants have been cleaned and have undergone an official inspection to confirm the absence of Oemona hirta and Platypus apicalis;

                                                   (v)

                                                   immediately prior to export, consignments of the plants have been subjected to an official inspection for the presence of Oemona hirta and Platypus apicalis and the size of the sample for inspection has been such as to enable at least the detection of 1 % level of infestation with a level of confidence of 99 %;

                                       (b)

                                       the phytosanitary certificates for those plants include under the heading ‘Additional Declaration’:

                                                   (i)

                                                   the following statement: ‘The consignment complies with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1362’;

                                                   (ii)

                                                   the specification of the registered sites of production.’