Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423 of 9 March 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by Fujian Viscap Shoes Co. Ltd, Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co. Ltd, Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co. Ltd, Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co. Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co. Ltd, Lien Phat Company Ltd, Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co. Ltd, Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co. Ltd, PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation, Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co. Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin Vietnam Co. Ltd, Samyang Vietnam Co. Ltd, Qingdao Samho Shoes Co. Ltd, Min Yuan, Chau Giang Company Limited, Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co. Ltd and Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co. implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14

(111) Thus, while it is true that nothing in the Union's customs legislation allows for an obstacle to the reimbursement of erroneously paid customs duties to be erected, no such sweeping statement can be made in relation to the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties. Accordingly, and with the overarching necessity to protect the Union's own resources from unjustified requests for repayment and the related difficulty this would have caused pursuing unjustified repayments thereafter, the Commission had to deviate temporarily from the Union's customs legislation by making use of its powers under Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation.

Lack of statement of legal basis

(112) FESI and the Footwear Coalition also argued that in violation of Article 296 TFEU, the Commission failed to provide adequate statement of reasons and indication of the legal basis on which duties were re-imposed retroactively and therefore the reimbursement of duties denied to the importers concerned by the current implementation. Accordingly, FESI and the Footwear coalition claimed that the Commission had breached the right to effective judicial protection of interested parties.

(113) The Commission considers that the extensive legal reasoning provided in the general disclosure document and in this Regulation duly motivates the latter.

Legitimate expectations

(114) FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed further that the retroactive correction of expired measures violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. FESI argued that first, parties including importers, would have received assurance that the measures expired on 31 March 2011 and that given the time elapsed since the original investigation, parties were entitled to have justified expectations that the original investigation will not be resumed or reopened. Likewise, the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were entitled to have justified legitimate expatiations that their MET/IT claims provided in the original investigation would not be reviewed anymore by the Commission, based on the mere fact that these claims were no assessed within the three-month period applicable during the original investigation.

(115) Regarding legitimate expectations of interested parties that anti-dumping measures expired and that the investigation will not be re-opened anymore, reference is made to recitals (104) and (105) where these claims had been addressed in detail.

(116) Regarding the legitimate expectations of Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers not to have their MET/IT claims reviewed, reference is made to recital (100) above, where this has equally been addressed in light of the case-law of the Court on this matter.

Principle of non-discrimination

(117) FESI and the Footwear Coalition submitted that the imposition of anti-dumping measures with retroactive effects constitutes discrimination of (i) the importers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis importers concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments referred to in recital (6) that were reimbursed duties paid on imports of footwear from the five exporting producers concerned by these judgments; as well as (ii) a discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis the five exporting producers concerned by the Brosmann and Aokang judgments which were not made subject of any duty following Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU.

(118) Regarding the claim on discrimination, the Commission recalls first of all the requirements for discrimination, as set out in recital (93) above.

(119) Then, it is noted that the difference between importers concerned by the current implementation and those concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments is that the latter decided to challenge Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 in the General Court, whereas the former did not.

(120) A decision adopted by a Union institution, which has not been challenged by its addressee within the time-limit laid down by the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, becomes definitive as against him. That rule is based in particular on the consideration that the periods within which legal proceedings must be brought are intended to ensure legal certainty by preventing Union measures which produce legal effects from being called into question indefinitely

Case C-239/99 Nachi Europe, [2001] ECR I-01197, at paragraph 29.

.

(121) This procedural principle of Union law necessarily creates two groups: those which challenged a Union measure and who may have gained a favourable position as a result (like Brosmann and the other four exporting producers), and those who did not. Yet, that does not mean that the Commission has treated the two parties unequally in violation of the principle of equal treatment. An acknowledgement that a party falls into the latter category because of a conscious decision not to challenge a Union measure does not discriminate against that group.

(122) So, all interested parties did enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts at all times.

(123) Insofar as it concerns the alleged discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation which were not made subject of any duty following Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, it should be noted that the decision of the Council not to re-impose duties was clearly taken with regard to the particular circumstances of the specific situation as it stood at the time the Commission made its proposal for the re-imposition of those duties and in particular on the grounds that the anti-dumping duties concerned had already been reimbursed, and to the extent that the original communication of the debt to the debtor in question had been withdrawn following the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang. According to the Council, this reimbursement had created legitimate expectations on the part of the importers concerned. Since no comparable reimbursement took place for other importers, these are not in a comparable situation to those importers concerned by the Council decision.

(124) In any event, the fact that the Council chose to act in a certain way, given the particular circumstances of the case before it, cannot bind the Commission to implement another judgment in the exact same way.

Commission's competence to impose definitive anti-dumping measures

(125) In addition, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission does not have the competence to adopt the Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty retroactively in the current implementation exercise, and that this competence would in any event lie with the Council. This claim was based on the argument that if the investigation is resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred, the same rules should also be applicable than the ones at the time of the original investigation, where definitive measures were adopted by the Council. These parties argued that in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council

Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2014 amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures (OJ L 18, 21.1.2014, p. 1).

(also called Omnibus I Regulation) the new decision-making procedure in the field of the common commercial policy does not apply to the present context given that before the entry into force of the Omnibus I Regulation the Commission (i) had already adopted an act (the provisional Regulation); (ii) the consultations that were required under Regulation (EC) No 384/96 were initiated and concluded; and (iii) the Commission had already adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation adopting definitive measures. On this basis, these parties concluded that the decision making procedures prior to the entry in force of the Omnibus I Regulation should apply.

(126) That claim, however, focuses on the date of initiation of the investigation (which is indeed relevant in relation to the other substantive amendments that were made to the basic Regulation) but fails to note that Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 uses a different criterion (that is, the initiation of the procedure for adoption of measures). The position of FESI and the Footwear Coalition is therefore based on an incorrect interpretation of the transitional rule in Regulation (EU) No 37/2014.

(127) Indeed, given the reference in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 to procedures initiated for the adoption of measures, which sets out the transitional rules for the changes to the decision-making procedures for the adoption of anti-dumping measures, and given the meaning of procedure in the basic Regulation, for an investigation that was initiated prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014, but where the Commission had not launched the consultation of the relevant committee with a view to adopting measures prior to that entry into force, the new rules apply to the procedure for adopting said anti-dumping measures. The same holds true for proceedings where measures had been imposed on the basis of the old rules and come up for review, or for measures where provisional duties had been imposed on the basis of the old rules, but the procedure for adopting definitive measures had not been launched yet when Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 entered into force. In other words, Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 applies to a specific procedure for adoption and not to the entire period of a given investigation or even proceeding.

(128) Accordingly, the decision-making procedure introduced by the Omnibus I Regulation was the correct one to apply.

(129) With regard to Cortina, it first claimed that the Commission has no legal basis to investigate the MET/IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the original investigation. Cortina argued that the proceeding, which was closed by the expiry of the measures on 31 March 2011, was not invalidated by the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, and that therefore, it cannot be re-opened.

(130) In reply to this comment, the Commission refers to the explanation provided in recitals (104) and (105) above.

(131) Second, Cortina claimed that the current proceeding is in breach of the principles of non-retroactivity and legal certainty enshrined in Article 10 of the basic Regulation.

(132) As to the claim concerning retroactivity based on Article 10 of the basic Regulation and Article 10 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (WTO ADA), Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, which follows the text of Article 10(1) of the WTO ADA, stipulates that provisional measures and definitive anti-dumping duties shall only be applied to products which enter free circulation after the time when the decision taken pursuant to Article 7(1) or 9(4) of the basic Regulation, as the case may be, enters into force. In the present case, the anti-dumping duties in question are only applied to products which entered into free circulation after the provisional and the contested (definitive) Regulation taken pursuant to 7(1) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation respectively had entered into force. Retroactivity in the sense of Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, however, refers only to a situation where the goods were introduced into free circulation before measures were introduced, as can be seen from the very text of that provision as well as from the exception for which Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation provides.

(133) The Commission also observes that there is neither violation of the principle of retroactivity, nor violation of legal certainty and legitimate expectations involved in the present case.

(134) As to retroactivity, the case-law of the Court distinguishes, when assessing whether a measure is retroactive, between the application of a new rule to a situation that has become definitive (also referred to as an existing or definitively established legal situation)

Case 270/84 Licata v ESC [1986] ECR 2305, paragraph 31 Case C-60/98 Butterfly Music v CEDEM [1999] ECR 1-3939, paragraph 24; Case 68/69 Bundesknappschaft v Brock [1970] ECR 171, paragraph 6; Case 1/73 Westzucker GmbH v Einfuhr und Vorratsstelle für Zucker [1973] 723, paragraph 5; Case 143/73 SOPAD v FORMA a.o. [1973] ECR 1433, paragraph 8; Case 96/77 Bauche [1978] ECR 383, paragraph 48; Case 125/77 KoninklijkeScholten-Honig NV v Floofdproduktschaap voor Akkerbouwprodukten [1978] ECR 1991, paragraph 37; Case 40/79 Ρ v Commission [1981] ECR 361, paragraph 12; Case T-404/05 Greece v Commission [2008] ECR II-272, paragraph 77; C-334/07 Ρ Commission v Freistaat Sachsen [2008] ECR 1-9465, paragraph 53.

, and a situation that started before the entry into force of the new rule, but which is not yet definitive (also referred to as a temporary situation)

Case T-176/01 Ferrière Nord ν Commission [2004] ECR II-3931, paragraph 139; C-334/07 Ρ

.

(135) In the present case, the situation of the imports of the products concerned that occurred during the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 has not yet become definitive, because, as a result of the annulment of the contested Regulation, the anti-dumping duty applicable to them has not yet been definitively established. At the same time, importers of footwear were warned that such a duty may be imposed by the publication of the Notice of Initiation

OJ C 166, 7.7.2005, p. 14.

and the provisional Regulation. It is standing case-law of the Union Courts that operators cannot acquire legitimate expectations until the institutions have adopted an act closing the administrative procedure, which has become definitive

Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135, paragraph 51 to 54; Joined Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01 P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA v Commission [2003] ECR II-2957, paragraph 205.

.

(136) This Regulation constitutes immediate application to the future effects of a situation that is ongoing: The duties on footwear have been levied by national customs authorities. As a result of the requests for reimbursement, which have not been decided in a definitive way, they constitute an ongoing situation. This Regulation sets out the duty rate applicable to those imports, and hence regulates the future effects of an ongoing situation.

(137) In any event, even if there was retroactivity in the sense of Union law, quod non, such retroactivity would be justified, for the following reason:

(138) The substantive rules of Union law may apply to situations existing before their entry into force in so far as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such effect must be given to them

Case C-34/92 GruSa Fleisch v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1993] ECR I-4147, paragraph 22. The same or similar wording can be found for example in Joined cases 212 to 217/80 Meridionale Industria Salumi α.δ. [1981] ECR 2735, paragraph 9 and 10; Case 21/81 Bout [1982] ECR 381, paragraph 13; Case T-42/96 Eyckeler & Malt v Commission [1998] ECR II-401, paragraphs 53 and 55 to 56; Case T-180/01 Euroagri v Commission [2004] ECR II-369, paragraphs 36 to 37.

. In particular, in case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimantare (SAFA) it was held that: [A]lthough in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, it may exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected

Case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimentare (SAFA) [1990] ECR I-1, paragraph 13.

.

(139) In the present case, the purpose is to comply with the obligation of the Commission pursuant to Article 266 TFEU. Since, in the judgments referred to in recital (12) above, the Court only found an illegality with regard to the determination of the applicable duty rate, and not with regard to the imposition of the measures themselves (that is, with regard to the finding of dumping, injury, causation and Union interest), the exporting producers concerned could not have legitimately expected that no definitive anti-dumping measures would be imposed. Consequently, that imposition, even if it was retroactive, quod non, cannot be construed as breaching legitimate expectations.

(140) Third, Cortina claimed that the Commission's statement in recital (46) that the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to exports of certain

footwear from certain Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers is incorrect, insofar as judgment in cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 did not annul Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to the 19 exporting producers concerned, but it had annulled these regulations with erga omnes effect. According to Cortina, if the Commission were to re-impose an anti-dumping duty only on imports from the 19 exporting producers concerned, and not on imports from other exporting producers equally affected by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, it would constitute unjustifiable discrimination vis-à-vis imports of these other exporting producers, and it would also be in breach of Article 266 TFEU.

(141) Regarding the claim of discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis imports of other exporting producers affected by the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, the Commission observes that exporting producers and certain importers concerned by this Regulation enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts against it. Other importers enjoy such protection via the national courts and tribunals, which act as judges of ordinary Union law.

(142) As mentioned in recital (21), in view of the implementation of the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223. In Article 1 of that regulation the Commission instructed national customs authorities to forward all requests for reimbursement of the definitive anti-dumping duties paid on imports of footwear originating in China and Vietnam made by importers based on Article 236 of the Community Customs Code and based on the fact that a non-sampled exporting producer had requested MET or IT in the original investigation. The Commission will assess the relevant MET or IT claim and re-impose the appropriate duty rate. On this basis the national customs authorities will subsequently decide on the request for repayment and remission of the anti-dumping duties.

(143) Therefore, for all imports of footwear where the above criteria are fulfilled the Commission will examine the MET and IT claims and anti-dumping duties will be re-imposed based on the objective criteria laid down in Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment. Therefore, all other non-sampled exporting producers from the PRC and Vietnam and their importers will be treated in the same fashion at a later stage pursuant to the procedure set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223. It is only where there are no outstanding national procedures that no assessment of the MET and IT claims will be carried out, as it would serve no practical purpose.

(144) Fourth, Cortina claimed that it would be discriminatory to re-impose an anti-dumping duty on the 19 exporting producers concerned, given that no anti-dumping duty was re-imposed following the Brosmann and Aokang judgments.

(145) This claim is unfounded. Importers that have imported from Brosmann and the other four exporting producers concerned by the judgments in cases C-247/10 P and C-249/10 P, are in a different factual and legal situation, because their exporting producers decided to challenge the contested Regulation and because they were reimbursed their duties, so that they are protected by Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code. No such challenge and no such reimbursement have taken place for others. See, in this regard, also recitals (118) to (122) above.

(146) Fifth, Cortina alleged that there were several procedural irregularities resulting from this investigation. In the first place, they argued that the exporting producers concerned may no longer be in a position to provide meaningful comments or adduce additional evidence to support their MET/IT claims that they made several years ago. For example, the companies may no longer exist or relevant documents may no longer be available.

(147) In addition, Cortina argued that unlike during the original investigation, the Commission's measures would de facto and de jure affect only importers, whereas they have no means of providing any meaningful input and cannot require their suppliers to cooperate with the Commission.

(148) The Commission observes that nothing in the basic Regulation requires the Commission to give exporting companies claiming MET/IT the possibility to complete lacking factual information. It recalls that according to the case-law, the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the

basic Regulation. To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) provides that the claim submitted by such a producer must contain sufficient evidence, as laid down in that provision, that the producer operates under market economy conditions. Accordingly, as held by the Court in the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang, there is no obligation on the institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status. On the contrary, it is for the Commission to assess whether the evidence supplied by the producer concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled in order to grant it MET/IT (see above recital (44). The right to be heard concerns the assessment of those facts, but does not comprise the right to remedy deficient information. Otherwise, the exporting producer could prolong indefinitely the assessment, by providing information piece by piece.

(149) In that regard, it is recalled that there is no obligation, for the Commission, to request the exporting producer to complement the MET/IT claim. As mentioned in the preceding recital, the Commission may base their assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer. In any event, the exporting producers concerned have not contested the assessment of their MET/IT claims by the Commission, and they have not identified which documents or which people they have no longer been able to rely upon. The allegation is therefore so abstract that the institutions cannot take into account those difficulties when carrying out the assessment of the MET/IT claims. As that argument is based on speculation and not supported by precise indications as to which documents and which people are no longer available and as to what the relevance of those documents and people for the assessment of the MET/IT claim is, that argument is rejected.

(150) Regarding the claim that an importer would have no means to provide any meaningful input, the Commission observes the following: first, importers do not enjoy rights of defence, as the anti-dumping measure is not directed against them, but against the exporting producers. Second, importers had the opportunity to comment on that point already during the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of the contested Regulation. Third, if importers thought that there was an irregularity in that regard, they had to take the necessary contractual arrangements with their suppliers to ensure to dispose of the necessary documentation. Therefore, the claim has to be rejected.

(151) Sixth, Cortina argued that the Commission failed to examine whether the imposition of the anti-dumping duties would be in the Union interest and argued that the measures would be against the Union interest because (i) the measures already had their intended effect when first imposed; (ii) the measures would not cause additional benefit for the Union industry; (iii) the measures would not affect the exporting producers; and (iv) the measures would impose an important cost on the importers in the Union.

(152) The present case only concerns the MET/IT requests, because this is the only point on which a legal error has been identified by the Union Courts. For Union interest, the assessment in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 remains fully valid. Furthermore, the present measure is justified in order to protect the financial interest of the Union.

(153) Seventh, Cortina claimed that the anti-dumping duty, if re-imposed, could no longer be collected because of the statute of limitations of Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code (now Article 103(1) of the Union Customs Code) had expired. According to Cortina, this situation would constitute an abuse of power by the Commission.

(154) The Commission recalls that according to Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code/103(1) of the Union Customs Code, the statute of limitations does not apply where an appeal pursuant to Article 243 of the Community Customs Code/Article 44(2) of the Union Customs Code is lodged, as in all the present cases, which concern appeals on the basis of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code/Article 119 of the Union Customs Code. An appeal within the meaning of Article 103(3) of the Union Customs Code, pursuant to the clarification in Article 44(2) of the same regulation, extends from the initial challenge to the decision by the national customs authorities imposing the duties up to the final judgment rendered by the national court, including, where necessary, a reference for a preliminary ruling. The three year period is consequently stayed from the date the challenge is filed.

(155) Lastly, Cortina claimed that, following the expiry of paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China's WTO Protocol of Accession on 11 December 2016, the Commission can no longer rely on the methodology used to determine normal value for Chinese exporters in the original investigation (i.e. the analogue country methodology under Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation).

(156) The contested regulation was adopted in 2006. The relevant legislation applicable to this proceeding is Regulation (EU) 2016/1036. Therefore, this claim is rejected.

(157) This Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather, excluding sports footwear, footwear involving special technology, slippers and other indoor footwear and footwear with a protective toecap, originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by the exporting producers listed in Annex II to this Regulation and falling within CN codes: 64032000, ex64033000

By virtue of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 301, 31.10.2006, p. 1) this CN code is replaced on 1 January 2007 by CN codes ex64035105, ex64035905, ex64039105 and ex64039905.

, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000

As defined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 286, 28.10.2005, p. 1). The product coverage is determined in combining the product description in Article 1(1) and the product description of the corresponding CN codes taken together.

which took place during the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009. The TARIC codes are listed in the Annex I to this Regulation.

1. For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

sports footwear shall mean footwear within the meaning of subheading note 1 to Chapter 64 of Annex I of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005

See previous footnote.

,

footwear involving special technology shall mean footwear having a CIF price per pair of not less than EUR 7,50, for use in sporting activities, with a single- or multi-layer moulded sole, not injected, manufactured from synthetic materials specially designed to absorb the impact of vertical or lateral movements and with technical features such as hermetic pads containing gas or fluid, mechanical components which absorb or neutralise impact, or materials such as low-density polymers and falling within CN codes ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998,

footwear with a protective toecap shall mean footwear incorporating a protective toecap with an impact resistance of at least 100 joules

The impact resistance shall be measured according to European Norms EN345 or EN346.

and falling within CN codes: ex64033000

By virtue of Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 this CN code is replaced on 1 January 2007 by CN codes ex64035105, ex64035905, ex64039105 and ex64039905.

, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000,

slippers and other indoor footwear shall mean such footwear falling within CN code ex64051000.

1. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable, before duty, to the net free-at-Union-frontier price of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the exporting producers listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall be 16,5 % for the Chinese exporting producers concerned and 10 % for the Vietnamese exporting producers concerned.

Article 2

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.

Article 3

The assessment of the situation of companies listed in Annex III of this Regulation is temporarily suspended until the importer claiming reimbursement from national customs authorities has informed the Commission of the names and addresses of the exporting producers from which the relevant traders have purchased the footwear, or, where no reply is received within that period of time, the expiry of the deadline set by the Commission for providing that information. That deadline shall be set out in a letter by the Commission to the relevant importer, and shall, in any case, not be shorter than one month.

The Commission shall examine the information received within eight months from the date of receipt. National customs authorities are hereby directed not to reimburse customs duties collected until the Commission has finalised its assessment of those claims.

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, 9 March 2017.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude Juncker

Annex

ANNEX I

TARIC codes for footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather as defined in Article 1

(a) From 7 October 2006:

6403300039, 6403300089, 6403511190, 6403511590, 6403511990, 6403519190, 6403519590, 6403519990, 6403591190, 6403593190, 6403593590, 6403593990, 6403599190, 6403599590, 6403599990, 6403911199, 6403911399, 6403911699, 6403911899, 6403919199, 6403919399, 6403919699, 6403919899, 6403991190, 6403993190, 6403993390, 6403993690, 6403993890, 6403999199, 6403999329, 6403999399, 6403999629, 6403999699, 6403999829, 6403999899 and 6405100080

(b) From 1 January 2007:

6403510519, 6403510599, 6403511190, 6403511590, 6403511990, 6403519190, 6403519590, 6403519990, 6403590519, 6403590599, 6403591190, 6403593190, 6403593590, 6403593990, 6403599190, 6403599590, 6403599990, 6403910519, 6403910599, 6403911199, 6403911399, 6403911699, 6403911899, 6403919199, 6403919399, 6403919699, 6403919899, 6403990519, 6403990599, 6403991190, 6403993190, 6403993390, 6403993690, 6403993890, 6403999199, 6403999329, 6403999399, 6403999629, 6403999699, 6403999829, 6403999899 and 6405100080

(c) From 7 September 2007:

6403510515, 6403510518, 6403510595, 6403510598, 6403511191, 6403511199, 6403511591, 6403511599, 6403511991, 6403511999, 6403519191, 6403519199, 6403519591, 6403519599, 6403519991, 6403519999, 6403590515, 6403590518, 6403590595, 6403590598, 6403591191, 6403591199, 6403593191, 6403593199, 6403593591, 6403593599, 6403593991, 6403593999, 6403599191, 6403599199, 6403599591, 6403599599, 6403599991, 6403599999, 6403910515, 6403910518, 6403910595, 6403910598, 6403911195, 6403911198, 6403911395, 6403911398, 6403911695, 6403911698, 6403911895, 6403911898, 6403919195, 6403919198, 6403919395, 6403919398, 6403919695, 6403919698, 6403919895, 6403919898, 6403990515, 6403990518, 6403990595, 6403990598, 6403991191, 6403991199, 6403993191, 6403993199, 6403993391, 6403993399, 6403993691, 6403993699, 6403993891, 6403993899, 6403999195, 6403999198, 6403999325, 6403999328, 6403999395, 6403999398, 6403999625, 6403999628, 6403999695, 6403999698, 6403999825, 6403999828, 6403999895, 6403999898, 6405100081 and 6405100089

Annex

ANNEX II

List of exporting producers for which imports a definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed

Name of the exporting producerTARIC additional codeAn Loc Joint Stock Company (Vietnam)A999Chang Shin Vietnam Co. Ltd (Dong Nai — Vietnam) and its related company Changshin Inc. (Busan — South Korea)A999Chau Giang Company Limited (Haiphong City, Vietnam)A999Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co.A999Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co. Ltd (Foshan City — China)A999Fujian Viscap Shoes Co. Ltd (Quanzhou — China)A999Lien Phat Company Ltd (Vietnam)A999Maystar Footwear Co. Ltd (Zhuhai — China) (related to Kingmaker)A999Min Yuan (Guangzhou — China) and related companies E-Light and Golden ChangA999Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co. Ltd (China)A999PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation (Guangzhou — China)A999Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co. Ltd (Guangzhou — China)A999Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited (Qingdao — China) and its related company Changshin Inc. (Busan — South Korea)A999Qingdao Samho Shoes Co. Ltd (China) and related company Samho shoes Co. Ltd (South Korea)A999Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co. Ltd (Qingdao — China)A999Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co. Ltd (China) and related company Tae Kwang Industrial Co. (Korea) (related to sampled Taekwang Vina)A999Samyang Vietnam Co. Ltd (Ho Chi Minh City — Vietnam)A999Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co. Ltd (Vietnam)A999Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co. Ltd (Ho Chi Minh — Vietnam)A999

ANNEX III

List of companies for whom the examination is suspended pursuant to Article 3

ALAMODE

ALL PASS

ALLIED JET LIMITED

ALLIED JET LIMITED C/O SHENG RONG F

AMERICAN ZABIN INTL

AN THINH FOOTWEAR CO. LTD

AQUARIUS CORPORATION

ASIA FOOTWEAR

BCNY INTERNATIONAL INC.

BESCO ENTERPRISE

BEST CAPITAL

BRANCH OF EMPEREOR CO. LTD

BRENTWOOD FUJIAN INDUSTRY CO. LTD

BRENTWOOD TRADING COMPANY

BROWN PACIFIC TRADING LTD

BUFENG

BULLBOXER

C AND C ACCORD LTD

CALSON INVESTMENT LIMITED

CALZ.SAB SHOES S.R.L.

CARLSON GROUP

CD STAR

CHAOZHOU ZHONG TIAN CHENG

CHINA EVER

CORAL REEF ASIA PACIFIC LTD

CULT DESIGN

DHAI HOAN FOOTWEAR PRODUCTION JOINT STOCK COMPANY

DIAMOND GROUP INTERNATIONAL LTD/YONG ZHOU XIANG WAY SPORTS GOODS LTD

DONG GUAN CHANG AN XIAO BIAN SEVILLA

DONG GUAN HUA XIN SHOES LTD

DONGGUAN QIAOSHENG FOOTWEAR CO.

DONGGUAN TA YUE SHOES CO. LTD

DONGGUAN YONGXIN SHOES CO. LTD

EASTERN SHOES COLLECTION CO. LTD

EASY DENSE LIMITED

ENIGMA/MORE SHOES INC.

EVAIS CO. LTD

EVER CREDIT PACIFIC LTD

EVERGIANT

EVERGO ENTERPRISES LTD C/O THUNDER

FH SPORTS AGENCIES LTD

FIJIAN GUANZHOU FOREIGN TRADE CORP

FOSTER INVESTMENTS INC.

FREEMANSHOES CO. LTD

FU XIANG FOOTWEAR

FUJIAN JINMAIWANG SHOES & GARMENTS PRODUCTS CO. LTD

GERLI

GET SUCCESS LIMITED GLOBE DISTRIBUTING CO. LTD

GOLDEN STEPS FOOTWEAR LTD

GOODMILES

HA CHEN TRADE CORPORATION

HAI VINH TRADING COMP

HAIPHONG SHOLEGA

HANLIN (BVI) INT'L COMPNAY LTD C/O

HAPPY THOSE INTERNATIONAL LTD

HAWSHIN

HESHAN SHI HENGYU FOOTWEAR LTD

HIEP TRI CO. LTD

HISON VINA CO. LTD

HOLLY PACIFIC LTD

HUEY CHUEN SHOES GROUP/FUH CHUEN CO. LTD

HUI DONG FUL SHING SHOES CO. LTD

HUNEX

HUNG TIN CO. LTD

IFR

INTER — PACIFIC CORP.

IPC HONG KONG BRANCH LTD

J.C. TRADING LIMITED

JASON FOOTWEAR

JIA HSIN CO. LTD

JIA HUAN

JINJIANG YIREN SHOES CO. LTD

JOU DA

JUBILANT TEAM INTERNATIONAL LTD

JWS INTERNATIONAL CORP

KAI YANG VIETNAM CO. LTD

KAIYANG VIETNAM CO. LTD

KIM DUCK TRADING PRODUCTION

LEGEND FOOTWEAR LTD ALSO SPELLED AS LEGENT FOOTWEAR LTD

LEIF J. OSTBERG, INC.

LU XIN JIA

MAI HUONG CO. LTD

MARIO MICHELI

MASTERBRANDS

MAYFLOWER

MING WELL INT'L CORP.

MIRI FOOTWEAR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

MIX MODE

MORGAN INT'L CO. LTD C/O HWASHUN

NEW ALLIED

NEW FU XIANG

NORTHSTAR SOURCING GROUP HK LTD

O.T. ENTERPRISE CO.

O'LEAR IND VIETNAM CO. LTD ALSO SPELLED AS O'LEER IND. VIETNAM CO. LTD

O'LEER IND. VIETNAM CO. LTD

ONTARIO DC

OSCO INDUSTRIES LTD

OSCO VIETNAM COMPANY LTD

PACIFIC BEST CO. LTD

PERFECT GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LTD

PETER TRUONG STYLE, INC.

PETRONA TRADING CORP

PHUOC BINH COMPANY LTD

PHY LAM INDUSTRY TRADING INVESTMENT CORP

POP EUROPE

POU CHEN P/A POU SUNG VIETNAM CO. LTD

POU CHEN CORP P/A IDEA

POU CHEN CORP P/A YUE YUEN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

PRO DRAGON INC.

PUIBRIGHT INVESTMENTS LIMITED T/A

PUTIAN LIFENG FOOTWEAR CO. LTD

PUTIAN NEWPOWER INTERNATIONAL T

PUTIAN XIESHENG FOOTWEAR CO

QUAN TAK

RED INDIAN

RICK ASIA (HONG KONG) LTD

RIGHT SOURCE INVESTMENT LIMITED/VINH LONG FOOTWEAR CO. LTD

RIGHT SOURCE INVESTMENTS LTD

ROBINSON TRADING LTD

RUBBER INDUSTRY CORP. RUBIMEX

SENG HONG SHOES (DONG GUAN) CO. LTD

SEVILLE FOOTWEAR

SHANGHAI XINPINGSHUN TRADE CO. LTD

SHENG RONG

SHENZHEN GUANGYUFA INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD

SHENZHEN HENGGTENGFA ELECTRONI

SHINING YWANG CORP

SHISHI

SHISHI LONGZHENG IMPORT AND EXPORT TRADE CO. LTD

SHOE PREMIER

SIMONATO

SINCERE TRADING CO. LTD

SINOWEST

SLIPPER HUT & CO

SUN POWER INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD

SUNKUAN TAICHUNG OFFICE/JIA HSIN CO. LTD

SUNNY

SUNNY FAITH CO. LTD

SUNNY STATE ENTERPRISES LTD

TBS

TENDENZA ENTERPRISE LTD

TEXAS SHOE FOOTWEAR CORP

THAI BINH HOLDING & SHOES MANUFAC

THANH LE GENERAL IMPORT-EXPORT TRADING COMPANY

THUONG TANG SHOES CO. LTD

TIAN LIH

TONG SHING SHOES COMPANY

TOP ADVANCED ENTERPRISE LIMITED

TRANS ASIA SHOES CO. LTD

TRIPLE WIN

TRULLION INC.

TRUONG SON TRADE AND SERVICE CO. LTD

TUNLIT INTERNATIONAL LTD- SIMPLE FOOTWEAR

UYANG

VIETNAM XIN CHANG SHOES CO.

VINH LONG FOOTWEAR CO. LTD

WINCAP INDUSTRIAL LTD

WUZHOU PARTNER LEATHER CO. LTD

XIAMEN DUNCAN — AMOS SPORTSWEAR CO. LTD

XIAMEN LUXINJIA IMPORT & EXPORT CO.

XIAMEN OCEAN IMP&EXP

XIAMEN UNIBEST IMPORT AND EXPORT CO. LTD

YANGZHOU BAOYI SHOES

YDRA SHOES

YONGMING FOOTWEAR FACTORY

ZHONG SHAN POU SHEN FOOTWEAR COMPANY LTD

ZIGI NEW YORK GROUP

Annex

ANNEX IV

List of exporting producers notified to the Commission already assessed individually or as part of a company group selected in the sample of exporting producers in the original investigation

APACHE FOOTWEAR AND APACHE II FOOTWEAR

FOSHAN CITY NANHAI GOLDEN STEP INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD

GROWTH-LINK TRADING COMPANY LIMITED

JOINT STOCK COMPANY 32

KAI NAN JOINT VENTURE CO. LTD

NIKE (SUZHOU) SPORTS CO. LTD

POU CHEN/POU CHEN VIETNAM ENTERPRISE LTD

POU CHEN CORP P/A POU CHEN VIETNAM ENTERPRISE, LTD

POU CHEN CORPORATION/DONGGUAN YUE YUEN MFR. CO.

POU CHEN CORPORATION/POU YUEN VIETNAM ENTERPRISES LTD

POU CHEN CORPORATION/POUYUEN VIETNAM COMPANY LIMITED

POU CHEN CORPORATION/PT. POU CHEN INDONESIA

POU YUEN/POU YUEN VIETNAM COMPANY LTD/POU YUEN VIETNAM ENTERPRISE LTD

SHOES MAJESTY TRADING COMPANY LTD (VIETNAM)

SKY HIGH TRADING LTD

SUN KUAN (BVI) ENTERPRISES/SUN KUAN J V CO.

SUN SANG KONG YUEN SHOES FACTORY (HUY YANG) CO. LTD

SUNKUAN TAICHUNG OFFICE/SUN KUAN J.V. CO.

TAE KWANG INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD P/A TAE KWANG VINA INDUSTRIAL CO.

YUE GROUP/YUE YUEN

Annex

ANNEX V

List of exporting producers notified to the Commission already assessed either individually or as part of a company group in the context of Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU or in Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 and (EU) 2016/2257 respectively

Name of the exporting producerRegulation where it was assessedBROOKDALE INVESTMENTS LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395WEI HUA SHOE COMPANY LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395DIAMOND GROUP INTERNATIONAL LTD/TAI-WAY SPORTS LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395DONGGUAN STELLA FOOTWEAR CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395HK WEI HUA KIMOImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395HO HSINGImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395HOPEWAY GROUP LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395FOSHAN CITY NANHAI QUNRUI FOOTWEAR CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395QUN RUI FOOTWEARImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395STELLA INTERNATIONAL LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395FENG TAY ENTERPRISES CO. LTD P/A DONA PACIFIC (VIETNAM) CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647FENG TAY ENTERPRISES CO. LTD P/A LIFENG FOOTWEAR CORPORATIONImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647FENG TAY ENTERPRISES CO. LTD P/A VIETNAM DONA STANDARDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647FENG TAY ENTERPRISES CO. LTD P/A DONA VICTOR FOOTWEAR CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647FENG TAY ENTERPRISES CO. LTD P/A VIETNAM DONA ORIENT CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647FULGENT SUNSHINE FOOTWEAR CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647GRAND SMARTLY GROUP LTD P/A FREETREND INDUSTRIAL CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647KINGFIELD INTERNATIONAL LTDImplementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1647 and (EU) 2016/1731VIETNAM SHOE MAJESTER CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647GENFORT SHOES LTDImplementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1647 and (EU) 2016/1731FOOTGEARMEX FOOTWEAR CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731DIAMOND GROUP INTERNATIONAL LTD/DIAMOND VIETNAM CO. LTD — P.T. HORN MING INDONESIAImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731

DIAMOND VIETNAM CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731FOOTGEARMEX FOOTWEAR CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731CAPITAL CONCORD ENTERPRISES LTD P/A FUJIAN SUNSHINE FOOTWEAR CO. LTD SUNNY FOOTWEAR CO. LTDImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257BROSMANN FOOTWEAR (HK) LTDImplementing Decision 2014/149/EULUNG PAO FOOTWEAR (GUANGZHOU) LTDImplementing Decision 2014/149/EUNOVI FOOTWEARImplementing Decision 2014/149/EURISEN FOOTWEAR (HK) CO. LTDImplementing Decision 2014/149/EUSEASONABLE FOOTWEAR (ZHONGSHAN) LTDImplementing Decision 2014/149/EUWENZHOU TAIMA SHOES CO. LTDImplementing Decision 2014/149/EUZHEJIANG AOKANG SHOES CO. LTDImplementing Decision 2014/149/EU

Annex

ANNEX VI

List of companies notified to the Commission that will be assessed in an upcoming implementation exercise either individually or as part of a company group

DAH LIH PUH

EVERVAN GROUP P/A EVA OVERSEAS INTERNATIONAL, LTD

EVERVAN GROUP P/A JIANGXI GUANGYOU FOOTWEAR CO.

LONG SON JOINT STOCK COMPANY

SHING TAK IND. CO. LTD