title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1101 of 3 August 2018 laying down the criteria for the application of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom

text:
                  7.8.2018

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  LI 199/7

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1101
         of 3 August 2018
         laying down the criteria for the application of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom
         THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom (1), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 5 thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 provides protection against and counteracts the unlawful effects of the extra-territorial application of some listed laws, including regulations and other legislative instruments adopted by third countries, and of actions based thereon or resulting therefrom, where such application affects the interests of natural and legal persons referred to in Article 11 of that Regulation engaging in international trade and/or the movement of capital and related commercial activities between the Union and third countries.

                     (2)

                     Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 acknowledges that by their extra-territorial application, such laws, including regulations and other legislative instruments, violate international law.

                     (3)

                     Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96, persons referred to in Article 11 of that Regulation shall not comply whether directly or through a subsidiary or other intermediary person, actively or by deliberate omission, with any requirement or prohibition, including requests of foreign courts, based on or resulting from such laws or from actions based thereon or resulting therefrom.

                     (4)

                     However, the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 allows persons referred to in Article 11 of that Regulation to request from the Commission an authorisation to fully or partially comply with such requirement or prohibition to the extent that non-compliance would seriously damage their interests or those of the Union.

                     (5)

                     In order to provide legal certainty as well as to ensure the effective implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 while taking into account, in specific and duly justified circumstances, the risk of serious damages to the interests of the natural and legal persons referred to in Article 11 of that Regulation, it is necessary to lay down the criteria for the application of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96.

                     (6)

                     In view of the role of the Commission overseeing the uniform implementation of EU law including Regulation (EC) No 2271/96, the Commission will follow closely the application of the present Regulation and adopt any necessary adaptation based on its assessment of the implementation thereof.

                     (7)

                     The main steps of the procedure following the submission to the Commission of an application for an authorisation to fully or partially comply with such requirement or prohibition should also be laid down.

                     (8)

                     Any processing of personal data of natural persons under this Regulation should respect Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).

                     (9)

                     Applications pursuant to this Regulation should concern actions or omissions based on or resulting directly or indirectly from the application of the laws specified in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 or actions based thereon or resulting therefrom.

                     (10)

                     The handling of an application shall be carried out as soon as possible.

                     (11)

                     The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Extra-territorial Legislation and have been adopted pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4),

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Subject-matter
            This Regulation lays down the criteria for the application of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96.

            Article 2
            Definitions
            For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:

                        (a)

                        ‘listed extra-territorial legislation’ means the laws, regulations and other legislative instruments specified in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2271/96, including regulations and other legislative instruments based thereon or resulting therefrom;

                        (b)

                        ‘subsequent actions’ means actions based on the listed extra-territorial legislation or resulting therefrom;

                        (c)

                        ‘non-compliance’ means non-compliance by direct actions or deliberate omissions with requirements or prohibitions, including requests of foreign courts, based on or resulting, directly or indirectly, from the listed extra-territorial legislation or subsequent actions;

                        (d)

                        ‘protected interests’ means the interest of any person referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96, the interest of the Union or both;

                        (e)

                        ‘applicant’ means any person referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 who applied for an authorisation referred to in the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96.

            Article 3
            Submission of applications

               1.   Applications for an authorisation referred to in the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 shall be submitted in writing to:

                           European Commission

                           Service for Foreign Policy Instruments

                           EEAS 07/99

                           B-1049 Brussels, Belgium

                           EC-AUTHORISATIONS-BLOCKING-REG@ec.europa.eu

               2.   Applications shall include the name and contact details of the applicants, shall indicate the precise provisions of the listed extra-territorial legislation or the subsequent action at stake, and shall describe the scope of the authorisation that is being requested and the damage that would be caused by non-compliance.

               3.   The applicants shall provide in their application sufficient evidence that non-compliance would cause serious damage to at least one protected interest.

               4.   Where necessary, the Commission may request additional evidence from the applicants, which shall provide it within a reasonable period set by the Commission.

               5.   The Commission shall inform the Committee on Extra-territorial Legislation as soon as it receives applications.

            Article 4
            Assessment of applications
            When assessing whether a serious damage to the protected interests as referred to in the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 would arise, the Commission shall consider, inter alia, the following non-cumulative criteria, where appropriate:

                        (a)

                        whether the protected interest is likely to be specifically at risk, based on the context, the nature and the origin of a damage to the protected interest;

                        (b)

                        the existence of an ongoing administrative or judicial investigation against the applicant from, or a prior settlement agreement with, the third country which is at the origin of the listed extra-territorial legislation;

                        (c)

                        the existence of a substantial connecting link with the third country which is at the origin of the listed extraterritorial legislation or the subsequent actions; for example the applicant has parent companies or subsidiaries, or participation of natural or legal persons subject to the primary jurisdiction of the third country which is at the origin of the listed extra-territorial legislation or the subsequent actions;

                        (d)

                        whether measures could be reasonably taken by the applicant to avoid or mitigate the damage;

                        (e)

                        the adverse effect on the conduct of economic activity, in particular whether the applicant would face significant economic losses, which could for example threaten its viability or pose a serious risk of bankruptcy;

                        (f)

                        whether the applicant's activity would be rendered excessively difficult due to a loss of essential inputs or resources, which cannot be reasonably replaced;

                        (g)

                        whether the enjoyment of the individual rights of the applicant would be significantly hindered;

                        (h)

                        whether there is a threat to safety, security, the protection of human life and health and the protection of the environment;

                        (i)

                        whether there is a threat to the Union's ability to carry out its humanitarian, development and trade policies or the external aspects of its internal policies;

                        (j)

                        the security of supply of strategic goods or services within or to the Union or a Member State and the impact of any shortage or disruption therein;

                        (k)

                        the consequences for the internal market in terms of free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, as well as financial and economic stability or key Union infrastructures;

                        (l)

                        the systemic implications of the damage, in particular as regards its spill over effects into other sectors;

                        (m)

                        the impact on the employment market of one or several Member States and its cross-border consequences within the Union;

                        (n)

                        any other relevant factor.

            Article 5
            Outcome of the application

               1.   When, after completing the assessment referred to in Article 4, the Commission finds sufficient evidence that non-compliance would cause serious damage to the protected interests, the Commission shall expeditiously submit to the Committee on Extra-territorial Legislation a draft decision containing the appropriate measures to be taken.

               2.   If, after completing the assessment referred to in Article 4, the Commission does not find sufficient evidence that non-compliance would cause serious damage to the protected interests, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Extra-territorial Legislation a draft decision rejecting the application.

               3.   The final decision shall be notified by the Commission to the applicant without delay.

            Article 6
            Data processing

               1.   The Commission shall process personal data in order to carry out its tasks under this Regulation.

               2.   Any processing of personal data shall comply with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

               3.   For the purposes of this Regulation, the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments is designated as ‘controller’ for the Commission within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, in order to ensure that the natural persons concerned can exercise their rights under that Regulation.

            Article 7
            Entry into force
            This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 3 August 2018.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Jean-Claude JUNCKER

            (1)  OJ L 309, 29.11.1996, p. 1.

            (2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

            (3)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).

            (4)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2093 of 15 November 2017 terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People's Republic of China by imports consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India or not, and terminating the registration of such imports imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/272

text:
               16.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 299/1

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/2093
   of 15 November 2017
   terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People's Republic of China by imports consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India or not, and terminating the registration of such imports imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/272
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
   Whereas:
   1.   PROCEDURE

   1.1.   Existing measures

               (1)

               By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 (2) (‘the original Regulation’), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 71,9 % on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel (‘SSSPT’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’) for all other companies than the ones mentioned in Article 1(2) and Annex I to that Regulation.

               (2)

               These measures will be referred to as ‘the measures in force’ and the investigation that led to the measures imposed by the original Regulation will be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

         1.2.   Initiation following a request

               (3)

               On 3 January 2017 the Defence Committee of the seamless stainless steel tubes industry of the European Union (‘the applicant’) submitted a request for an anti-circumvention investigation to the European Commission, indicating that the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the PRC were being circumvented via India.

               (4)

               The request provided prima facie evidence that, following the imposition of the measures in force, a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the PRC and India to the Union occurred, which seemed to be caused by the imposition of the measures in force. There was allegedly insufficient due cause or justification other than the imposition of the measures in force for such a change.

               (5)

               Furthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of the measures in force were being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. The evidence showed that the increased imports from India were made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the original investigation.

               (6)

               Finally, there was evidence that SSSPT consigned from India were dumped in relation to the normal value established for the like product during the original investigation.

               (7)

               Having determined, after having informed the Member States, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation under Article 13 of the basic Regulation, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an investigation by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/272 (3) (‘the initiating Regulation’).

               (8)

               Following Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the initiating Regulation also directed customs authorities in the Union to register imports of SSSPT consigned from India.

         1.3.   Investigation

               (9)

               The Commission advised the authorities of the PRC and India, the exporting producers and traders in those countries, the importers in the Union known to be concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation. Questionnaires were sent to the producers/exporters in the PRC and India known to the Commission or which made themselves known within the deadlines specified in recital 15 of the initiating Regulation. Questionnaires were also sent to importers in the Union.

               (10)

               Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. Several hearings with the applicant took place, including one hearing with the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

               (11)

               Twenty nine companies from India, one company from the PRC, nine unrelated importers, two related importers, one agent and five Union industry producers made themselves known.

               (12)

               Twenty one Indian companies submitted a questionnaire reply and requested an exemption from the possible extended measures, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.

               (13)

               The Commission individually examined all exemption requests. Verification visits were carried out at fourteen companies which were either significant exporters to the Union or which based on an initial analysis of their reply fulfilled the conditions under Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation to be eligible for a potential exemption.

               (14)

               Four unrelated importers in the Union and one Chinese exporting producer unrelated to any of the Indian producers provided questionnaire replies.

               (15)

               Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies in India:

                           —

                           Arvind Pipes & Fittings Industries Private Limited,

                           —

                           ASR Mettech Private Limited,

                           —

                           Chandan Steel Limited,

                           —

                           Heavy Metal and Tubes Limited,

                           —

                           Krystal Steel Manufacturing Private Limited,

                           —

                           Maxim Tubes Company Private Limited,

                           —

                           MBM Tubes Private Limited,

                           —

                           Patels Airflow Limited,

                           —

                           Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Limited,

                           —

                           Remi Edelstahl Tubulars Limited,

                           —

                           Sandvik Asia Private Limited,

                           —

                           Suraj Limited,

                           —

                           Tubacex Prakash India Private Limited,

                           —

                           Universal Stainless.

         1.4.   Investigation period

               (16)

               The investigation period covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 30 September 2016 (‘the investigation period’). For the period of 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2016 (‘the reporting period’) more detailed data were collected in order to examine the possible undermining of the remedial effect of the measures in force and existence of dumping.

         2.   RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

   2.1.   General considerations

               (17)

               In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of circumvention was made by analysing successively whether:

                           —

                           there was a change in the pattern of trade between third countries (India and the PRC) and the Union,

                           —

                           this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty,

                           —

                           there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product, and

                           —

                           there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.

         2.2.   Product concerned and the like product

               (18)

               The product concerned by the possible circumvention is ‘SSSPT’: certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel (excluding such pipes and tubes with attached fittings suitable for conducting gases or liquids for use in civil aircraft) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the product concerned’). It is currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 22 00, ex 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, ex 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00. This is the product to which the measures that are currently in force apply.

               (19)

               The product under investigation is the same as the ‘product concerned’ defined in the previous recital, but consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India or not, currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned.

               (20)

               The investigation showed that SSSPT exported to the Union from the PRC and SSSPT consigned from India to the Union have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and have the same uses, and are therefore to be considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

         2.3.   Level of cooperation

               (21)

               There was a very high level of cooperation from Indian exporting producers. The 21 cooperating producers accounted for 92 % of total SSSPT imports from India to the Union in the reporting period.

               (22)

               The fourteen verified companies represented 91 % of the total exports of the cooperating companies and 84 % of the total imports of SSSPT from India into the Union.

               (23)

               Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was applied to one cooperating Indian exporting producer to the extent that it did not provide the information necessary to meaningfully assess the activities of its related companies. Thus, best facts available were used to supplement the data provided by this company so that the Commission had the reliable data needed for assessing its imports and exports to the Union.

               (24)

               In the PRC there was a low level of cooperation by producers/exporters, with only one exporting producer submitting a questionnaire reply. Therefore findings in respect of SSSPT exports from the PRC to the Union, and from the PRC to India, had to be made on the basis of Eurostat data and Chinese trade statistics.

         2.4.   Nature of the alleged circumvention practice, process or work

               (25)

               The alleged circumvention practice as described in the request goes back to the production process. There are two major production stages of the SSSPT: hot forming and cold forming.

               (26)

               There are two common ways of achieving the first, hot formed stage: either using a hot extrusion process or a hot piercing process.

               (27)

               The resulting hot formed tube is an intermediary product, which requires further processing before its final use, with the exception of some hot formed tubes manufactured using the hot extrusion process.

               (28)

               The applicant claimed that the SSSPT exported by the PRC to India were already cold formed tubes. This assertion was supported by the Chinese export statistics and by the assumption that producers in the PRC use a hot piercing process after which the tubes must be immediately and mandatorily cold processed.

               (29)

               Whilst indeed the Chinese export statistics showed that almost all exported SSSPT were declared as cold formed, upon the import into India only 2 % were declared as cold formed.

               (30)

               The discrepancy can be explained by the VAT refund scheme applied by the PRC, where the cold formed SSSPT benefit from a 13 % VAT refund compared to a 9 % refund for the hot formed tubes.

               (31)

               The verifications confirmed that the Indian producers had almost exclusively purchased hot formed tubes and carried out the cold forming in India.

               (32)

               The investigation also confirmed that hot formed tubes can be easily transported before undergoing cold forming.

               (33)

               The investigation further showed that the cold forming performed in India substantially transforms the product and irreversibly alters its essential characteristics. During the process the product changes its dimensions and its physical, mechanical and metallurgical properties.

         2.5.   Change in the pattern of trade

               (34)

               Table 1 shows the development of SSSPT imports from the PRC and India into the Union and the development of Indian imports from the PRC in the investigation period:

                  Table 1

                  Imports of SSSPT in the investigation period (metric tonnes)

                           Calendar year

                           2009

                           2010

                           2011

                           2012

                           2013

                           2014

                           2015

                           Reporting Period

                           Union imports from the PRC

                           17 094

                           20 841

                           15 279

                           4 181

                           2 437

                           1 804

                           1 951

                           2 317

                           Union imports from India

                           5 173

                           6 401

                           7 601

                           11 572

                           13 531

                           17 230

                           18 911

                           19 845

                           Chinese exports to India

                           23 555

                           35 454

                           37 824

                           41 505

                           40 146

                           49 039

                           43 364

                           44 129

                              Source: Eurostat (Comext), Chinese trade statistics

               (35)

               The imports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union substantially decreased over the investigation period, showing a steep decrease after the imposition of measures in force in 2011.

               (36)

               This decrease in the imports from the PRC following the imposition of the measures was steadily absorbed by the increase of imports from India in the subsequent years.

               (37)

               These changes in trade flows constitute a change in the pattern of trade between the above mentioned countries and the Union. The development of Indian imports from the PRC increased at a stable pace over the investigation period, showing the bulk of the increase already before the imposition of the measures.

               (38)

               The data above shows that after the initiation of the original investigation in 2010, and the imposition of the measures in force in December 2011, imports of SSSPT from India have to a large extent replaced the imports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union.

         2.6.   Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping duty

               (39)

               The Commission examined whether, as alleged, the above change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty.

         2.6.1.   Analysis of imports from the PRC to India

               (40)

               The following table shows the imports of the Indian cooperating companies from the PRC, compared with their total sales and exports to the Union. The Commission notes that those data concern companies accounting for the vast majority of the Indian SSSPT exports to the Union as explained in recital 21 above.

               (41)

               The Commission therefore considered this data to be sufficiently representative of the relevant Indian industry as far as the exports to the Union are concerned.

                  Table 2

                  Indian imports from the PRC (cooperating companies) vs total Indian sales (metric tonnes)

                           Indian financial year

                           2009

                           2010

                           2011

                           2012

                           2013

                           2014

                           2015

                           Reporting Period

                           Total Indian sales (A)

                           19 367

                           27 431

                           32 684

                           32 547

                           36 881

                           42 217

                           36 245

                           39 061

                           Indian imports from the PRC (B)

                           7 852

                           15 146

                           14 284

                           17 465

                           18 246

                           21 914

                           17 313

                           19 640

                           Ratio Indian imports from the PRC/Total Indian sales (C = B/A)

                           41 %

                           55 %

                           44 %

                           54 %

                           49 %

                           52 %

                           48 %

                           50 %

                           Indian exports to the Union (D)

                           4 252

                           6 631

                           9 697

                           12 759

                           14 715

                           19 090

                           16 825

                           18 581

                              Source: Questionnaire replies of the cooperating companies

               (42)

               The increase of Indian imports from the PRC was significantly lower than the increase of Union imports from India. Between the year of initiation of the original investigation in 2010 and the reporting period, the cooperating Indian exporting producers increased their imports from the PRC from 15,1 to 19,6 thousand tons (+ 29 %) and their exports to the Union from 6,6 to 18,6 thousand tons (+ 180 %).

               (43)

               The investigation showed that the evolution of imports from the PRC was more closely correlated with the evolution of total sales than with the evolution of Indian exports to the Union.

               (44)

               When Indian exports to the Union start to be a key sales driver, they logically correlate with the increase of Chinese imports. Yet the same would have occurred if sales had developed on the domestic or other export market.

               (45)

               Despite the fact that the share of exports to the Union on total sales increased from 25 % in 2009-10 to 51 % in the reporting period, the ratio of Chinese imports on the total Indian sales remained stable around 50 %.

               (46)

               This clearly shows the Indian producers were consistently using a combination of input material from the PRC and from other sources and the imposition of the original duties did not have any significant impact on this.

         2.6.2.   Business model analysis

               (47)

               The business model of the companies accounting for the vast majority of exports to the Union has not changed since the imposition of the duties. They started the practice in question before the initiation of the original investigation against the PRC in September 2010.

               (48)

               A due economic justification for this practice existed during the investigation period, shown by the fact that these companies were profitable before the initiation of the original investigation and remained profitable until and including the reporting period.

               (49)

               It is important to note that the capability to produce the cold formed tubes requires significant investment in fixed assets, being depreciated over several years. The majority of the companies were equipped by the necessary fixed assets already before the initiation of the original investigation.

         2.6.3.   Effect of the measures in force on Chinese exports on Indian exports to the Union

               (50)

               The average price of Indian SSSPT imported to the Union before the initiation of the original investigation was 10 % below the price of the SSSPT imported from the PRC. After the imposition of a duty following the original investigation, the Indian imports remained the cheapest source of imports on the Union market. The Commission notes that due to the possibly different structure of the product mix the average prices are not directly comparable. They however give a good indication of the price levels.

               (51)

               After the imposition of the measures and the significant price increase of the Chinese imports, the Union demand naturally opened the opportunity for other exporting countries, which the Indian products at competitive prices were well placed to exploit.

               (52)

               Even when the share of exports to the Union increased over the investigation period, the Union market was already an important export destination for Indian producers before the initiation of the original investigation.

               (53)

               Therefore, it was concluded that there were reasonable economic grounds, other than the imposition of duties on imports of SSSPT originating in the PRC, for the change in the pattern of trade referred to in chapter 2.3.3 above.

         3.   DISCLOSURE

               (54)

               All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment. The applicant submitted additional information in its comments to final disclosure.

               (55)

               The applicant questioned the Commission's decision not to verify the sole cooperating Chinese producer. The Commission did not verify the data provided by the cooperating Chinese producer as its exports to India represented a negligible share of the Chinese exports to India and would not have brought any added value to the investigation. Consequently, this claim was rejected.

               (56)

               The applicant alleged that the Commission dismissed the fact that the majority of Chinese exports to the USA are declared as cold formed. The Commission confirmed that the Chinese exports to the USA were not in the scope of its investigation and did not see any relevance of the Chinese exports to the USA to the current case. The Commission thus dismissed this claim.

               (57)

               The applicant further claimed that the production equipment used by some Indian producers only allows them to produce the product under investigation starting from cold formed tubes. The verification of the production facilities of the Indian exporting producers showed that they are capable of producing the SSSPT they exported to the Union from hot formed tubes. Consequently, this claim was rejected.

               (58)

               The applicant also questioned the Commission's conclusion concerning the unchanged business model of the exporting producers accounting for the vast majority of exports to the Union. The Commission rejected this claim as all verified companies exporting to the Union in the reporting period (except one producer which sold an insignificant quantity to the Union) started the practice in question, that is importing hot formed tubes from the PRC and producing and selling SSSPT domestically and for export, before the initiation of the original investigation.

               (59)

               The applicant also stated that the Commission based its findings on the classification of imports from the PRC to India as reported by Indian import data, rather than considering the classification reported in the Chinese export statistics. As set out above, the Chinese statistics shows export of cold formed tubes, whereas the Indian statistics shows import of hot formed tubes. The applicant further argued that if the Commission was to base its conclusions on the Indian import statistics, then the Commission should have found circumvention of the measures in force, as 45 % of the like products imported from the PRC into India in 2015 were declared as line pipes. According to the applicant, no processing that could take place in India would change the origin of these pipes from Chinese origin. Finally, the applicant noted that no further research was undertaken nor conclusion reached with regard to the accuracy of the data in the Indian import statistics.

               (60)

               Due to the contradicting data provided by both the Chinese export and Indian import statistics, the Commission did not base its findings on this statistical data. In fact, given the very high degree of cooperation, the Commission's conclusions were based on the verified information provided by the cooperating Indian producers. The investigation focused on the actual company-specific data, confirming the nature of the semi-finished products that enter the Indian mills, the degree of their processing in those mills and the economic justification for such activity.

               (61)

               As regards the customs legislation regarding rules of origin, the Commission noted that an anti-circumvention investigation takes into account but does not rely exclusively on customs legislation to determine whether circumvention of the measures in force is taking place or not. Furthermore, the applicant refers only to imports of line pipe from the PRC into India. Indeed, the export volume of line pipes from India to the Union is almost 90 % lower than the imports of line pipe from the PRC to India alleged by the applicant. However, the investigation found no evidence that these limited exports of line pipe from India to the Union were circumvented within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. Consequently, these claims were rejected.

               (62)

               The applicant suggested that the Commission's conclusion that the Indian producers have almost exclusively bought hot formed tubes was reached exclusively on the basis of their purchase orders. The Commission rejected this claim, as it reached its conclusions on the basis of all information at its disposal, not merely on the basis of the purchase orders. During the verification in India the Commission examined the semi-finished input material as well as the production process and the finished product of each verified Indian producer. Consequently, this claim was rejected.

               (63)

               The applicant further suggested that the Commission found no proof that the Chinese producers did not deliver hot pierced pipes that were subject to a first cold forming step in the PRC, and the applicant maintains that the subsequent process in India would then be insufficient to confer origin. As there was almost complete non-cooperation of the Chinese exporting producers, the Commission made its findings regarding the stage of completion of the semi-finished products purchased from the PRC by the Indian producers on the basis of the verified information of the Indian producers. The Commission found no evidence that those have been already cold processed in the PRC. Furthermore, the nature of the verified Indian production process (including cold forming capability) and the willingness of the Chinese producers to supply the hot formed semi-finished tubes to India, contradicts the applicant's allegation.

               (64)

               In addition, even if the applicant's claim that some semi-finished tubes delivered to India had undergone a limited level of cold processing in the PRC was substantiated, such processing would have had a limited effect on the work carried out in India. Indeed, as pointed out above, the Commission established that all verified exporting producers in India carried out a substantial transformation in India, and established an economic justification for this activity. Therefore, the Commission rejected those claims.

               (65)

               In addition, the applicant provided a report regarding one Indian producer stating that certain pipes imported by this producer from the PRC as hot formed must have been further cold formed, as they cannot be produced in a hot rolled process via a cross roll piercing mill. The report is based on a detailed report of imports from the PRC by this single Indian producer.

               (66)

               The Commission observed that the claim is limited to tubes obtained from the hot piercing process. However, both the hot piercing and hot extrusion process are used by Chinese producers. In addition, the investigation established that the Indian exporting producers import both extruded and pierced tubes. Therefore, this claim does not address the possibility that the tubes imported by this particular Indian mill were hot extruded. In addition, the import statistics for this particular producer were submitted to the Commission only after the final disclosure and could therefore not be verified. This claim was therefore rejected.

               (67)

               The applicant provided an email confirmation from two selected exporting producers in the PRC, who declined to deliver hot pierced tubes and were only ready to offer cold formed pipes.

               (68)

               Firstly, taking into account the significant number of exporting producers in the PRC (in the original investigation 31 groups of exporting producers cooperated), no conclusions can be drawn from the information provided by two of them. Secondly, the Commission noted that this does not address the issue of the Indian exporting producers being able to produce the product they export to the Union, but merely discloses the sales policy of those two Chinese exporting producers. The Commission therefore rejected this claim.

               (69)

               The applicant claimed that there is no piercing mill in India capable of producing hot pierced tubes with a diameter over 4 inches and noted that this was not analysed by the Commission.

               (70)

               The Commission noted that the SSSPT exported by the Indian exporting producers to the Union can be produced from hot formed pipes originating in both India and the PRC. The equipment available to the Indian exporting producers allows them to cold process Chinese hot formed pipes with a diameter above 4 inches. Therefore this claim was rejected.

               (71)

               The applicant put into question the Commission's conclusion concerning the substantial transformation in recital 33 above, where the Commission described that the cold forming causes irreversible alterations of the product's essential characteristics and claimed that the cost of transformation is not substantial.

               (72)

               The Commission first noted that the applicant did not contest that during the cold forming process the product changes its dimensions and its physical, mechanical and metallurgical properties. In its assessment, the Commission noted that the finding of non-circumvention under Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation was based in this case on the existence of a sufficient due cause and economic justification for the processing activities carried out in India. Therefore, it was not necessary to make a quantitative assessment of the costs of transformation. Consequently, this claim was rejected.

               (73)

               The applicant pointed out that the Commission did not consider that the bulk of the Union imports from India prior to the imposition of the measures against the PRC were made by a subsidiary of one Union producer and proposed that the Commission adapt Table 1 by deducting those imports, which would result in a steeper increase of the imports from India after the imposition of the measures. The applicant also claimed that if the Commission would exclude those exports, then the Union could not be considered an important export market for Indian exporting producers before the initiation of the original investigation.

               (74)

               Even if the exports to the Union of the aforementioned subsidiary of the Union producer in India, which were relatively stable over the investigation period were excluded, this would not change the assessment of the increase of Indian exports to the Union. Indeed, the Indian exports to the Union remained significant, resulting in the change in the pattern of trade explained in recitals 36 and 37 above. As regards the attractiveness of the Union market, the Commission refers to the analysis that took place during the original investigation.

               (75)

               The applicant further claimed that contrary to the Commission's finding that the bulk of the increase of Indian imports from the PRC happened before the imposition of the measures, the increase of Indian imports from the PRC coincided with the opening of the investigation.

               (76)

               The original investigation was initiated on 30 September 2010. Since SSSPT are typically made to order and not sold from stock, and taking into account the time to ship goods from the PRC to India by ocean freight, it is unlikely that the increase in the Chinese exports to India in 2009 and 2010 occurred after the date of initiation. In any case, this does not change the Commission's conclusion that the increase of Indian imports from China occurred well before the imposition of the measures nor its conclusion drawn in recitals 37 and 38 that there is a change in the pattern of trade, where the Commission is in agreement with the applicant.

               (77)

               The applicant also argued that the ratio of Indian exports to the Union versus Indian imports from the PRC increased during the investigation period. Referring to the information in Table 2 above, indeed this ratio (D/B) increased from 54 % to 95 %. However, contrary to the allegation of the applicant, this does not show a change in the business model of the Indian producers, but only shows the increasing importance of the Union market for the Indian producers.

               (78)

               To establish whether the business model of the Indian producers has changed, it was necessary to analyse their operations as a whole, rather than limiting the analysis to their sales to the Union. To analyse this, the Commission used the comparison of Indian imports from the PRC on the total Indian sales of the cooperating Indian companies. Therefore, the Commission rejected this claim.

               (79)

               The applicant also claimed that cold drawing is not a process requiring significant investments in fixed assets and asked the Commission whether it has checked the capacity utilization before the start of the investigation period up to the reporting period.

               (80)

               The Commission indeed verified the capacity utilisation of the cooperating Indian exporting producers, finding that the production capacity generally exceeded the actual production output throughout the investigation period. This supports the finding that the majority of the companies were equipped by the necessary fixed assets already before the initiation of the original investigation, as stated in recital 49 above. Furthermore, the Commission found that all verified exporting producers that exported to the Union in the reporting period were equipped by and were using pilger mills. Therefore, the Commission rejected the claim and maintained its finding concerning the requirement of significant investments stated in recital 49 above.

               (81)

               In its comments concerning the findings set out in recital 50, the applicant compared the Eurostat data and discovered that the average Indian price of imports from India was higher than the price of exports from the PRC up to the year 2014.

               (82)

               In recital 50 the Commission made a comparison of average prices in 2009 based on the statistics published in Tables 4 and 17 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 (4), which showed a lower price for India. In any case, the applicant does not dispute that the Indian imports became the cheapest source of imports on the Union market after the imposition of the anti-dumping duty against the PRC. Consequently, this claim was also rejected.

         4.   TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION

               (83)

               In view of the above findings, the current anti-circumvention investigation should be terminated.

               (84)

               The investigation showed that the cold processing represents a substantial transformation of the product and that there is due cause and economic justification other than the avoidance of the duty for any change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, India and the Union.

               (85)

               The conditions laid down in Article 13(1) to consider that circumvention is taking place are therefore not fulfilled and the measures in force on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC should not be extended to imports of the same product consigned via India, whether declared as originating in India or not.

               (86)

               The registration of the imports of the product under investigation consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India or not, as introduced by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/272 should be discontinued.

               (87)

               The Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 did not deliver an opinion,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The investigation initiated by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/272 concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel, currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 22 00, ex 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, ex 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00 (TARIC codes: 7304110011, 7304110019, 7304220021, 7304220029, 7304240021, 7304240029, 7304410091, 7304491091, 7304499391, 7304499591, 7304499991 and 7304900091) originating in the People's Republic of China by imports consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India or not, and making such imports subject to registration is terminated.
   Article 2
   Customs authorities are directed to discontinue the registration of imports established in accordance with Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/272.
   Article 3
   Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/272 is repealed.
   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, 15 November 2017.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

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

      (2)  OJ L 336, 20.12.2011, p. 6.

      (3)  OJ L 40, 17.2.2017, p. 64.

      (4)  OJ L 169, 29.6.2011, p. 1.


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2153 of 20 November 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

text:
               21.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 304/3

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/2153
   of 20 November 2017
   implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 17 March 2014, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.

               (2)

               Following the organisation by the Russian Federation of gubernatorial elections in the illegally annexed city of Sevastopol on 10 September 2017, the Council considers that one person should be added to the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures as set out in the Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.

               (3)

               Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The person listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the date 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, 20 November 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. REPS

      (1)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.

      ANNEX

         List of persons referred to in Article 1

                     Name

                     Identifying information

                     Reasons

                     Date of listing

                     ‘161.

                     Dmitry Vladimirovich OVSYANNIKOV
                     (Дмитрий Владимирович Овсянников)

                     DOB: 21.2.1977
                     POB: Omsk, USSR

                     “Governor of Sevastopol”.
                     Ovsyannikov was elected the “Governor of Sevastopol” in the elections of 10 September 2017 organised by the Russian Federation in the illegally annexed city of Sevastopol.
                     On 28 July 2016, President Putin appointed him as the acting “Governor of Sevastopol”. In this capacity, he has worked for further integration of the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula into the Russian Federation, and is as such responsible for actively supporting or implementing actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.
                     In 2017 he made public statements supporting the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol and on the anniversary of the illegal “Crimean referendum”. He commemorated the veterans of the so-called “self-defence units” that facilitated the deployment of Russian forces on the Crimean peninsula in the run-up to its illegal annexation by the Russian Federation, and called for Sevastopol to become the Southern capital of the Russian Federation.

                     21.11.2017’


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2159 of 20 November 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 as regards certain references to ICAO provisions (Text with EEA relevance. )

text:
               21.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 304/45

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/2159
   of 20 November 2017
   amending Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 as regards certain references to ICAO provisions
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the single European sky (the airspace Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 6(7) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 (2) refers to provisions laid down in Annex 11 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention), and more specifically to the 13th edition of July 2001, which incorporates Amendment No 49. On 10 November 2016, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) amended Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention, incorporating Amendment No 50A.

               (2)

               The Annex to Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 also refers to provisions laid down in the ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Air Traffic Management (PANS-ATM, Doc. 4444), and more specifically to the 15th edition of 2007, incorporating Amendment No 6. On 10 November 2016, the ICAO amended Doc. 4444, incorporating Amendment No 7A.

               (3)

               The references in Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 to Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention and to ICAO Doc 4444 should now be updated in order to take account of those amendments, so as to enable the Member States to meet their international legal obligations and ensure consistency with the ICAO's international regulatory framework.

               (4)

               Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.

               (5)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Single Sky Committee,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   In the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 255/2010, points 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:

               ‘1.

               Chapter 3 paragraph 3.7.5 (Air Traffic Flow Management) of Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention — Air Traffic Services (14th edition — July 2016, incorporating Amendment No 50A).

               2.

               Chapter 3 (ATS system capacity and air traffic flow management) of ICAO Doc 4444, Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Air Traffic Management (PANS-ATM) (16th edition — 2016 incorporating Amendment No 7A).’.

         Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 20 November 2017.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 20.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management (OJ L 80, 26.3.2010, p. 10).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2160 of 20 November 2017 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1079/2012 as regards certain references to ICAO provisions (Text with EEA relevance. )

text:
               21.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 304/47

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/2160
   of 20 November 2017
   amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1079/2012 as regards certain references to ICAO provisions
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (the interoperability Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 3(5) thereof,
   After consulting the Single Sky Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Point 3 of Annex II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1079/2012 (2) refers to provisions laid down in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Procedures for Navigation Services — Air Traffic Management (PANS-ATM, Doc. 4444), and more specifically to the 15th edition of 2007, incorporating Amendment No 6. On 10 November 2016, the ICAO amended Doc. 4444, incorporating Amendment No 7A.

               (2)

               The references in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1079/2012 to Doc. 4444 should now be updated in order to take account of that amendment, so as to enable the Member States to meet their international legal obligations and ensure consistency with the ICAO's international regulatory framework.

               (3)

               Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1079/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   In Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1079/2012, point 3 is replaced by the following:

                  ‘3.

                  Section 12.3.1.5 “8,33 kHz channel spacing” of ICAO PANS-ATM Doc. 4444 (16th Edition — 2016, incorporating Amendment No 7A).’.

   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 20 November 2017.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 26.

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1079/2012 of 16 November 2012 laying down requirements for voice channels spacing for the single European sky (OJ L 320, 17.11.2012, p. 14).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2156 of 7 November 2017 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Kiełbasa piaszczańska’ (PGI))

text:
               21.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 304/20

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/2156
   of 7 November 2017
   entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Kiełbasa piaszczańska’ (PGI))
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Poland's application to register the name ‘Kiełbasa piaszczańska’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2).

               (2)

               As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Kiełbasa piaszczańska’ should therefore be entered in the register,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The name ‘Kiełbasa piaszczańska’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
   The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 7 November 2017.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Phil HOGAN

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 205, 29.6.2017, p. 70.

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2157 of 16 November 2017 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 211/2012 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

text:
               21.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 304/21

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/2157
   of 16 November 2017
   amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 211/2012 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 57(4) and Article 58(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature (‘CN’) annexed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2), it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of certain goods.

               (2)

               By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 211/2012 (3), a product consisting of a mixture of ethyl alcohol (70 % by weight) and gasoline (automotive petrol) conforming to EN 228 (30 % by weight) has been classified under CN code 2207 20 00.

               (3)

               By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 626/2014 (4), the Commission introduced an Additional note 12 to Chapter 22 of Part Two of the Combined Nomenclature. The reasons for classifying the product concerned by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 211/2012 under CN code 2207 20 00 should be aligned with the rules set out in that Additional note in order to avoid potential divergences in tariff classification of specific mixtures of ethyl alcohol with other substances and to ensure the uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature within the Union. The description of the product set out in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 211/2012 should also make it clear that the product is used as raw material to produce fuels for motor vehicles.

               (4)

               Implementing Regulation (EU) No 211/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.

               (5)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 211/2012 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 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, 16 November 2017.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Stephen QUEST

            Director-General

            Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union

      (1)  OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1.

      (2)  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).

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 211/2012 of 12 March 2012 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ L 73, 13.3.2012, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 626/2014 of 10 June 2014 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 174, 13.6.2014, p. 26).

      ANNEX
      ‘
            ANNEX

                        Description of goods

                        Classification (CN Code)

                        Reasons

                        (1)

                        (2)

                        (3)

                        A product of the following composition (% by weight):

                                    —

                                    ethyl alcohol

                                    70

                                    —

                                    gasoline (automotive petrol) conforming to EN 228

                                    30

                              The product is used as raw material to produce fuels for motor vehicles.
                        It is transported in bulk.

                        2207 20 00

                        Classification is determined by general rules 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, Additional note 12 to Chapter 22 and by the wording of CN codes 2207  and 2207 20 00 .
                        The product is a mixture of ethyl alcohol and gasoline (automotive petrol). The percentage level of gasoline (automotive petrol) in the product renders it unfit for human consumption but does not prevent the use of the product for industrial purposes (see also the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes to heading 2207 , fourth paragraph).
                        The product is therefore to be classified under CN code 2207 20 00  as a denatured ethyl alcohol.

                  ’


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/537 of 5 April 2018 amending for the 283rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations

text:
               5.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               LI 89/1

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/537
   of 5 April 2018
   amending for the 283rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7a(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

               (2)

               On 29 March 2018, the Sanctions Committee of the United nations Security Council decided to add one entry to the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resourced should apply. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.

               (3)

               In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective it should enter into force immediately,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 5 April 2018.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

            Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments

      (1)  OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.

      ANNEX
      In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 the following entry is added under the heading ‘Legal persons, groups and entities’:

         ‘Khatiba Imam Al-Bukhari (KIB) (alias: Khataib al-Imam al-Bukhari). Address: (a) Khan-Shaykhun, Syrian Arab Republic (53 km south of Idlib, location as at March 2018); (b) Idlib, Aleppo and Khama, Syrian Arab Republic (operation zone); (c) Afghanistan/Pakistan border area (previous location). Other information: since 2016, redeployed to Northern Afghanistan. Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 29.3.2018.’


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/583 of 16 April 2018 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Lough Neah Pollan’ (PDO))

text:
               18.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 98/17

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/583
   of 16 April 2018
   entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Lough Neah Pollan’ (PDO))
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the United Kingdom's application to register the name ‘Lough Neah Pollan’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2).

               (2)

               As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Lough Neah Pollan’ should therefore be entered in the register,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The name ‘Lough Neah Pollan’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
   The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7 Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans, and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 16 April 2018.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Phil HOGAN

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 431, 15.12.2017, p. 10.

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/584 of 17 April 2018 approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication (‘Graves’ (PDO))

text:
               18.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 98/18

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/584
   of 17 April 2018
   approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication (‘Graves’ (PDO))
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Commission has examined France's application pursuant to Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 for the approval of amendments to the specification for the Protected Designation of Origin ‘Graves’.

               (2)

               The Commission published the application for the approval of amendments to the specification, as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2).

               (3)

               No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

               (4)

               The amendments to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

               (5)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Graves’ (PDO) are hereby approved.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 17 April 2018.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

      (2)  OJ C 421, 8.12.2017, p. 10.