Council Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005 of 3 October 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America
Date: 2005-10-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, United States, acid, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical product, originating product

7.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 261/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1631/2005

of 3 October 2005

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on
imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China and the United
States of America

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1)
(the
basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission
after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

(1)

(2)

(3)

On 7 April 2005, the Commission imposed, by Regu-
lation (EC) No 538/2005 (2) (the provisional Regulation),
a provisional anti-dumping duty on the imports into the
Community of
trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA) origi-
nating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the
United
countries
concerned).

of America

(USA)

States

(the

is

the

recalled that

investigation of dumping
It
concerning the PRC covered the period from 1 April
2003 to 31 March 2004 (IP-PRC) and that the investi-
gation of dumping concerning the USA covered the
period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 (IP-USA).

For both investigations,
trends
the
relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period
from 1 January 2000 to the end of the respective inves-
tigation period (period considered).

examination of

2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

(4)

Following the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping
duty on imports of TCCA from the countries concerned,

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2) OJ L 89, 8.4.2005, p. 4.

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

all parties received a disclosure of the facts and consid-
erations on which the provisional Regulation was based.
All parties were granted a period within which they
could make
in relation to these
disclosures.

representations

Some interested parties submitted comments in writing.
Those parties who so requested were also granted an
opportunity
to be heard orally. The Commission
continued to seek and verify all information it deemed
necessary for its definitive findings.

further disclosed all

The Commission services
the
essential facts and considerations on the basis of which
they intended to recommend the imposition of a defin-
itive anti-dumping duty and the definitive collection of
amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. The
interested parties were also granted a period within
which they could make representations subsequent to
this
and written comments
submitted by the parties were considered and, where
appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.

disclosure. The oral

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

thereof

It is recalled that, in recital 19 of the provisional Regu-
lation, the product concerned was defined as TCCA and
preparations
countries
originating
concerned. TCCA is also referred to as ‘symclosene’
international non-proprietary name (INN).
under
its
CN codes
declared within
normally
TCCA is
ex 2933 69 80 and ex 3808 40 20.

the

in

by

concerned

and TCCA produced

Moreover, it is recalled that, as set out in recitals 22 and
23 of the provisional Regulation, it was found that the
product
the
Community industry and sold on the Community
market as well as TCCA produced and sold on the
domestic markets of the countries concerned and the
analogue
like products within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation, since
no differences in the basic physical and chemical cha-
racteristics and uses of the existing different types of
TCCA had been found.

country were

L 261/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.10.2005

(9)

it

is

recalled that

the scope of

One processor reiterated its claim already made at the
provisional stage that
the investigation
should have excluded blended TCCA. The processor
the complaint had defined the product
alleged that
this
concerned as only unblended TCCA and that
enlarged by
product
scope had been improperly
blended TCCA. However,
the
complaint does not make any reference to blended or
unblended products.
It is also recalled that a product
concerned is defined according to its basic physical,
chemical,
technical characteristics and end uses and
may encompass several or many types which all share
the same basic characteristics. In this case, both blended
and unblended tablets were found to meet these criteria.
The product concerned in these proceedings, as indicated
in the notices of initiation for both cases, is trichloroiso-
cyanuric acid and preparations thereof,
i.e. all types of
the product concerned that share the same basic charac-
teristics are covered by these proceedings. It can therefore
not be said that blended tablets should be excluded from
the product scope nor
the product scope was
that
enlarged. On this basis, the claim was rejected and the
conclusion drawn under recital 24 of the provisional
Regulation is confirmed.

C. DUMPING

1. GENERAL METHODOLOGY

1.1. NORMAL VALUE

(10)

In the absence of any comments about the methodology
used when calculating the normal value,
the metho-
dology used as set out in recitals 26 to 33 of the provi-
sional Regulation is confirmed.

(14)

(15)

These two companies received erroneously a separate
dumping margin and an individual duty, contrary to
Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and the consistent
the institutions. Therefore,
practice of
this should be
the definitive stage and both companies
corrected at
should be subject to the country-wide duty.

for the definitive measures and given that
Therefore,
those two companies were clearly still under significant
State influence, their data had to be considered in the
calculation of the country-wide dumping margin. Thus,
given that the level of cooperation was low, the country-
wide dumping margin was set as a weighted average of:

(i)

the weighted average of the dumping margins found
in accordance
for these two exporting producers,
with the methodology explained in recital 38 of the
provisional Regulation; and

(ii) the dumping margins found for the representative
type of
the product concerned with the highest
dumping margin, as derived from the two exporters
concerned.

2. PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC)

2.1. MET

(16)

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings
concerning determination of MET as set out in recitals
40 to 63 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

1.2. EXPORT PRICE

(11)

In the absence of any comments about the general meth-
odology used when calculating the export price,
the
methodology used as set out in recital 34 of the provi-
sional Regulation is confirmed.

2.2. IT

(17)

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings
concerning determination of IT as set out in recitals 64
to 67 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

1.3. COMPARISON

2.3. NORMAL VALUE

(12)

In the absence of any comments about the methodology
used when comparing the normal value and the export
price, the methodology used as set out in recital 35 of
the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

1.4. DUMPING MARGIN FOR THE PRC

(13)

(MET) nor

In the provisional Regulation two cooperating producers
in the PRC were neither granted market economy
treatment
(see
individual
recitals 44 and 66). The dumping margins for these
two
been
calculated as a weighted average of their respective indi-
vidual dumping margins.

provisionally

producers

treatment

exporting

had

(IT)

2.3.1. Determination of normal value for all exporting

producers not granted MET

(a) Analogue country

(18)

In the absence of any comments on the choice of
analogue country, the selection as set out in recitals 68
to 74 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

(b) Determination of normal value

(19)

In the absence of any comments on the normal value for
exporting producers not granted MET, the findings as set
out
the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.

in recital 75 of

7.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 261/3

2.3.2. Determination of normal value for exporting

producers granted MET

import price at
follows:

the Community border, are now as

(20)

exporters

Several
certain allowances
submitted that
claimed when calculating the normal value had not suffi-
ciently been taken into account. The exporters argued
that certain costs (i.e. transports costs and packaging)
had been included in the constructed normal value
which should rather have been deducted as
an
in the same way as it was done in cases
allowance,
where normal value was based on the domestic price.

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Limited

Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Limited

Heze Huayi Chemical Co. Limited

Zhucheng Taisheng Chemical Co. Limited

8,1 %

7,3 %

14,1 %

40,5 %

(21)

These exporters also claimed that, for those types of the
product concerned where a constructed normal value had
to be used, selling, general and administrative expenses
(SG & A) should be those expenses incurred on the
domestic market.

2.6.2. For all other exporting producers

(27)

The new country-wide dumping margin, expressed as a
percentage on the CIF import price at the Community
border, and amended as explained in recitals 13 to 15, is
now as follows:

(22)

Finally, they claimed that the applicable profit margin
should be the margin obtained on domestic sales in
the ordinary course of trade.

All other companies

42,6 %

(23)

that

extent

claims

Following analysis of the claims, it was considered appro-
the normal value for the allowances
priate to adjust
claimed
indeed
these
to the
concerned transport and packaging costs that had been
included in the constructed normal value as provisionally
established. Furthermore, the normal value has now been
calculated taking into account the SG & A incurred on
the domestic market, and the profit margin applied has
been adjusted to reflect the profit margin obtained in the
ordinary course of trade on the domestic market. The
normal value has therefore been adjusted downwards
to reflect these changes.

2.4. EXPORT PRICES

(24)

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings
concerning export prices as set out in recitals 79 and 80
of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

2.5. COMPARISON

(25)

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings
concerning comparison between the normal value and
the export price as set out in recital 81 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

2.6. DUMPING MARGIN

2.6.1. For the cooperating exporting producers granted

MET/IT

(26)

In the absence of any other comments, except for the
normal value adjustments, as set out in detail in recitals
20 to 23, the methodology set out in recitals 82 and 83
of
the provisional Regulation is confirmed. The new
dumping margins expressed as a percentage on the CIF

3. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

3.1. NORMAL VALUE

(28)

In the absence of any comments on the determination of
exception of an issue of
normal value, with the
the
comparison having an influence on the level of
normal
and
one
commented below, the provisional findings concerning
the method of establishing normal value as set out in
recital 92 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

exporting

producer

value

for

3.2. EXPORT PRICE

(29) One exporting producer contested the fact that the SG &
A expenses and the profit realised by its related importers
in the Community were deducted in their entirety from
the resale prices in order to arrive at a reliable export
price. Rather it claimed that such deductions should be
allocated over the activities of the company both in the
USA and in the Community.

(30)

In this respect, it is recalled that, pursuant to Article 2(9)
of the basic Regulation, all costs, including the SG & A
incurred between importation and resale of the related
importer, plus a reasonable profit have to be deducted.
The deductions have been calculated on the basis of
actual verified data of
the importer. Since the costs
which the exporter wanted to allocate to the USA
activities were indeed incurred in the Community, the
claim had to be rejected.

3.3. COMPARISON

(31) One exporting producer claimed that the Commission
wrongly compared bulk ex-factory product for export
with finished domestic retail product.

L 261/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.10.2005

(32)

In this respect it is noted that from the initiation of the
proceeding, a comparison has been made between the
bulk product sold on the domestic market in the USA
and the bulk product imported into the Community,
even if the latter was presented as a finished product,
such as tablets, when sold to the first
independent
customer in the Community. This approach was based
on the observation that TCCA is mainly imported in bulk
form into the Community and re-worked in the
Community.

(37)

(38)

(33) However,

it

is

that corresponds

recognised that while making this
comparison some necessary adjustments with regard to
the finishing of the product were not made at the provi-
sional stage. Therefore, normal value was adjusted by
eliminating from the cost of production in the USA
the part
the
product sold on the USA domestic market. The manu-
facturing costs of the department of the USA exporting
producer where this activity took place were eliminated
from the normal value, in accordance with the deduction
from the resale price in the Community of the costs
linked to the same activity, typically performed by third
party subcontractors or tollers.

to the finishing of

also

It was further claimed that the above described ‘bulk
approach’ would
of
overheads (SG & A expenses)
in the determination of
normal value on the domestic market, because allegedly
those overheads are mainly made to market the finished
product.

exclusion

require

the

In this respect it is noted that the activity of the group,
which in the USA consists of the exporting producer and
its mother company, and the costs made at that level
with regard to TCCA, contribute to the marketing of
both the bulk product and its different presentations to
the first independent customer. The finished product is
nothing more than the bulk product in a specific presen-
tation. Claiming that the overheads do not play a role in
the marketing of the bulk production would imply that it
would be possible to continue the profitable production
of bulk product without interference of the company and
group structure, and more specifically its sales organi-
sation. However,
in reality the marketing does not
distinguish between bulk or finished product but serves
the marketing of TCCA in all its presentations. The claim
was therefore rejected.

(34)

(35)

(36)

3.4. DUMPING MARGIN

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
the comparison of the weighted average normal value of
each product type concerned exported to the Community
to the weighted average export price of each corres-
ponding type of
taking into
trade, showed the existence of
account
dumping in respect of
cooperating exporting
producers.

the product concerned,

the level of

the

definitive

The
a
dumping margins
percentage of the CIF import price at the Community
border, duty unpaid, are the following:

expressed

as

BioLab Inc.: 50,4 %

Clearon Inc.: 105,3 %

(39)

The residual definitive margin was established at
highest dumping margin found on the basis of
highest dumped and representative product
one of the cooperating exporting producers.

the
the
type for

Residual dumping margin: 120 %

D. INJURY

1. COMMUNITY PRODUCTION

(40)

In the absence of any new information submitted, the
findings set out in recitals 97 and 98 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

2. DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(41) One processor located in the Community argued that it
should be considered as a Community producer because
it produces blended tablets of TCCA which are covered
by the definition of the product concerned. The investi-
gation however showed that this processor did neither
produce itself TCCA in granular or powder form, nor
even tablets of TCCA or preparations, but rather subcon-
tracted the production of these tablets. Moreover, the
the
production of
production of TCCA but rather a transformation of
in
TCCA from one form (granular or powder TCCA)
another (tablets of TCCA). On this basis,
the claim
could not be taken into account.

tablets does not

entail

these

respects and in the absence of

further
In all other
comments,
concerning the
comparison of normal value to export price as set out
in recital 94 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

the provisional

findings

(42)

Contradictory claims were received as to the treatment of
the data provided by one of the European producers not
included in the definition of the Community industry.
The above processor claimed that
this
producer should have been part of
the Community
industry while an exporting producer affirmed the
contrary.

the data of

7.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 261/5

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

In this respect, it should be noted that the data available
for this producer were not used in the assessment of the
situation of
the Community industry, given that, as
mentioned in recital 97 of the provisional Regulation,
the said producer did not fully cooperate in the investi-
gation and consequently could not be included in the
definition of
the Community industry. There was
therefore no reason to consider its data in the analysis
of the situation of the Community industry.

(47)

In the absence of any other comments, the definition of
the Community industry as set out in recital 99 of the
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

3. COMMUNITY CONSUMPTION

(48)

In the absence of any new information, the calculation of
Community consumption as set out in recitals 100 to
105 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

that

the degree of support

Four Chinese cooperating exporting producers alleged
that if there are more than two Community producers,
the complaint cannot be
like in the present case,
It must be noted,
supported by only one of
them.
for a complaint
however,
companies
does not depend on the number of
supporting the complaint, but is expressed in terms of
production volume, pursuant to Article 4(1) and 5(4) of
the basic Regulation. Moreover,
is recalled that as
mentioned in recital 97 of the provisional Regulation,
two out of the three Community producers supported
the complaint. These two producers represented more
total Community production so that
than 50 % of
conditions for initiation were met. Furthermore,
is
the complainant Community
noted that
producer, who fully cooperated in the investigations,
represented more than 50 % of the total Community
production of TCCA during the IPs. The claim was
therefore rejected.

in this case,

it

it

deemed

It should be mentioned that since the imposition of the
provisional measures, Aragonesas Delsa, the Community
producer which was
the
Community industry, has been acquired by the group
Ercros. One American cooperating exporter alleged that
the conditions for qualification as Community industry
might not be met anymore, given that according to this
exporter,
an
important importer of Chinese TCCA.

also owns

constitute

allegedly

Inquide,

Ercros

to

is

In this respect,
it should be first noted that Inquide is
part of the Neokem group, which is one of the other
European producers which did not fully cooperate in the
investigation. Contrary to what
alleged by the
American exporter, Ercros does not own Inquide fully
but only owns a minor share in Inquide. Therefore,
Inquide
contrary to what is claimed by this exporter,
and Aragonesas Delsa have not merged and there are
no direct financial links between them. The investigation
also confirmed that the Community producer was neither
participating in dumping practices, nor shielded from the
injurious effects of dumping. Therefore, there were no
into question its qualification as
reasons
Community
conclusion
the
drawn in recital 99 of
the provisional Regulation is
confirmed.

industry. Consequently,

to put

4. IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY FROM THE
COUNTRIES CONCERNED

4.1. CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF THE
DUMPED IMPORTS CONCERNED — MARKET SHARES
OF DUMPED IMPORTS

(49) One exporting producer argued that

the imports

the cumulative
assessment of
from the PRC and the
imports from the USA was not warranted since the
conditions of competition between the Chinese and the
American imports in terms of import volume, market
share and price behaviour were fundamentally different.

(50)

It is first recalled that the three conditions set by Article
3(4) of the basic Regulation have been assessed under
recital 107 of the provisional Regulation.

(51) Moreover, before deciding on the cumulation of

from the USA and the PRC,

the
actual
imports
situation of
import volumes, market share and prices
of the imports concerned has been analysed separately
for both countries in recitals 109 to 112 of the provi-
sional Regulation.

the

(52) As regards the conditions of competition,

it should be
recalled that as set out in recital 24 of the provisional
Regulation, TCCA produced in the PRC and the USA,
and TCCA produced and sold by the Community
producers on the Community market have the same
basic physical and chemical characteristics and are inter-
changeable for Community customers. In addition, it was
found that
countries
concerned and producers in the Community all use
similar sales channels. Moreover, the imports from the
PRC and the USA both showed the same price trends.
The fact that imports from two different countries do not
entirely follow the same trend, in terms of volume and
market share, can stem from various reasons and does
not necessarily imply that they are not sold under similar
conditions of competition.

exporting producers

in the

comments with respect

(53) On the basis of the above, and in the absence of any
cumulative
further
the dumped imports
assessment of
concerned,
the findings as set out in recitals 106 to
108 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

effects of

to the

the

L 261/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.10.2005

4.2. PRICES OF IMPORTS AND UNDERCUTTING

E. CAUSATION

(54)

Following corrections made in the dumping calculations,
the price undercutting has also been revised.

(55) During the IP, the weighted average price undercutting
margins for the PRC, expressed as a percentage of the
Community industry’s sales prices, ranged from 33,8 %
the Chinese exporters. The weighted
to 44,2 % for
average price-undercutting margin was 39,7 %.

(56) During the IP, undercutting for the USA was also found
to exist. Whilst one exporting producer undercut only
certain types of TCCA, the other cooperating exporting
producer was
the
Community industry’s prices. The weighted average
price-undercutting margin was 0,69 %. It is also note-
the Community industry prices were
worthy that
depressed.

found to significantly undercut

(57)

(58)

5. SITUATION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

It is recalled that in recital 135 of the provisional Regu-
lation, that the Commission provisionally concluded that
the Community industry had suffered material
injury
within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.

in most anti-
Four Chinese exporters claimed that
dumping investigations, material
injury was established
when the Community industry is making losses while
in this particular case, the Community industry is still
profitable.

(59) However, it is recalled that a loss-making situation is not
a prerequisite for the determination of material injury. In
accordance with Article 3(5) of
the basic Regulation
which states that the examination of the impact of the
dumped imports on the Community industry shall
the ‘actual and
inter alia,
include an evaluation of,
in […] profits’,
potential decline
the profitability
analysis has to be seen by comparison to the profit
realised in the absence of dumping.
In this particular
the Community industry has
it
case,
lost 50 % of
it reached in 2000, namely
before the dumped imports entered the Community
market. Moreover,
the Community
industry suffered also from negative developments in
respect of prices and market shares.

is recalled that
the profit

is recalled that

it

(60) On the basis of the above, and in the absence of any
other comments in addition to the above, the findings in
respect of the situation for the Community industry, as
set out in recitals 117 to 135 of the provisional Regu-
lation, are hereby confirmed.

6. CONCLUSION

(61)

In view of the above, it is concluded that the Community
industry has suffered material injury within the meaning
of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.

1. EFFECT OF THE DUMPED IMPORTS

(62)

In the absence of any new information submitted, the
conclusions set out in recitals 136 to 141 of the provi-
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

2. EFFECT OF OTHER FACTORS

Production capacity

(63) One exporting producer alleged that

the Community
industry did not have the technical ability to participate
in market growth because of technical problems linked
to the start-up of a new factory, and was not prevented
from doing so by the dumped imports as alleged in
recital 118 of the provisional Regulation.

in

the

capacity. Therefore,

provisional Regulation.

(64) As mentioned in recital 118 of the provisional Regu-
lation, the Community industry decided in 2001/2002
to set up a new factory which started production in mid-
2003 when the old plant was shut down. Although it is
true that
the Community industry encountered some
technical difficulties to use fully the capacity of its new
it should be noted that the designed capacity,
factory,
is referring to in its
which the exporting producer
submission, does not match with the data taken into
consideration
The
capacity figures mentioned in the provisional Regulation
referred to an actual capacity, i.e. a capacity adjusted to
take into consideration these difficulties instead of the
nameplate
the
technical difficulties on the decreasing trend of capacity
utilisation had already been partially taken into account.
However, on the basis of the findings of the investi-
gation, a further correction of the capacity figures used
in the provisional Regulation would appear to be appro-
priate because the consequences of the abovementioned
technical difficulties were not
fully reflected in the
capacity figures. Consequently, the actual capacity utili-
sation during the IPs would be near to 100 %. Indeed, it
was found that the Community industry was operating at
full capacity and had to temporary purchase the product
concerned in order to meet the demand. Therefore,
it
cannot be excluded that the temporary technical diffi-
the Community industry to produce have
culties of
contributed to some extent
to the injury suffered by
the Community industry.

effect

the

of

Effect of investments

(65) One exporting producer argued that

the Commission
failed to consider the negative impact on profitability
of
investments made by the Community
industry and the additional costs due to the technical
problems it had to face in the start-up phase.

the major

7.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 261/7

(66)

It is recalled that the issue of the new investment of the
Community industry has already been dealt with in
recital 150 to 152 of the provisional Regulation.

(67) Moreover, as stated in recital 129 of

the provisional
Regulation, the new factory permitted the Community
industry to reduce both fixed and variable costs,
to
produce more efficiently and to reach better productivity
levels. Therefore, as mentioned in recital 125 of
the
provisional Regulation, any additional cost of the new
investment has been compensated by parallel
cost
the cost of
reductions and better efficiency.
production which first
increased between 2000 and
2001, subsequently decreased until the IPs when a gain
in productivity could be reached. It is also noteworthy
that any effect of the new factory on the depreciation
costs started only in July 2003, i.e. when the new factory
started to produce and when the old factory definitely
stopped. It can therefore not explain the decreasing trend
in profitability which already started in 2001; profit-
ability decreased by more than 20 % between 2000
and 2002 and even by more than 40 % between 2001
and 2002. The argument was therefore rejected.

Indeed,

(71)

(72)

Maturation of the TCCA market

(68) One processor challenged the conclusion of recital 149
of the provisional Regulation and reiterated its claim that
price decreases were normal and were to be expected due
to the maturation of the TCCA market.

(73)

a

(69) Although a price decrease can be expected when a
product reaches a certain maturation, it should however
be stressed that while maturation is rather commonly
understood as
and regular
process which takes place over several years, the price
decrease of the imports concerned was on the contrary,
sudden and significant,
since prices dropped by an
average of 15 % per year between 2000 and 2003,
even though the demand during the summer time in
this period was particularly high.

continuous

smooth,

(70) Moreover, according to the claim mentioned above, the
injury suffered by the Community industry in terms of
prices would have been caused by the normal evolution
of the Community market which became mature over
the period considered. This would mean that
the
the Community industry prices
decrease of 8 % of
between 2000 and the IP-PRC, or 12 % between 2000
and the IP-USA would correspond to the ‘normal’
evolution of the prices on the Community market in
it is
view of the life cycle of the product. However,
recalled that prices of the imports concerned decreased
by 40 % between 2000 and the IPs, which is obviously
much more than an expected ‘normal’ price decrease
which would be merely due to the maturation of the
market. Therefore, even if the maturation of the market

(74)

(75)

(76)

might have contributed to a limited extent to the price
evolution, it can certainly not explain the significant price
decrease of the imports concerned between 2000 and the
IPs nor the injury suffered thereof by the Community
industry.

Exports of the Community industry

regarding

Four cooperating Chinese exporters claimed that some
figures
the Community
industry were missing in the injury analysis so that it
is not possible to establish the full picture of
the
Community industry situation.

exports of

the

impact of

Regarding profitability, one exporting producer argued
that the Commission has not taken into consideration
the Community industry’s
the negative
the
exports of TCCA to the USA.
is recalled that
injury investigation focuses on the situation of
the
Community industry on the Community market. Conse-
quently, the profitability figures mentioned in recital 125
of
the provisional Regulation only concern the sales
made on the Community market and are therefore not
influenced by any alleged loss made on the USA or on
any other export market.

It

Some parties alleged that any negative trends in the
Community industry’s market
share and profitability
were largely due to the Community industry’s exports
outside the Community market. According to them,
if
the Community industry’s exports had been sold in the
EC market instead of being exported to the USA market,
the Community industry would have been able to meet
the demand on the EC market, to keep its market share
and to sell at a better price.

investigation showed that

The
the
Community industry continuously increased since 2000
and represented more than 50 % of its total sales of the
product concerned during the IPs, compared to less than
45 % in the year 2000.

exports of

the

In this respect,
it should first of all be noted that the
Community industry’s market strategy is not to meet the
demand on the Community market whatever the price is,
but to sell a maximum on this market at an acceptable
price.

Secondly, the prices of exports to the USA do not as
such point to injury because they are not comparable to
those on the Community market. Indeed, it was found
that any link made between the exports sales and the
situation of
the Community industry is not relevant
because the exports sales and the sales made on the
Community market are not comparable in terms of
product mix and thus in terms of price.

L 261/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.10.2005

Sales made on the export market are mainly sales of
granules in big bags whose price is much lower than
the product sold on the Community market, i.e. mainly
tablets. A simple price comparison of
the unadjusted
figures is therefore inconclusive.

2. INTEREST OF UNRELATED IMPORTERS

(84)

It should be recalled that the cooperation of unrelated
importers was very low as already mentioned in recital
162 of
the provisional Regulation. Furthermore, no
importers made any comments after disclosure of the
provisional findings.

Thirdly, it should be noted that more than 80 % of the
take place between
sales on the Community market
February and August, while the sales period on the
American market is longer, particularly in the sunbelt
area. Therefore, the sales to the USA in excess of what
the Community market could absorb at an acceptable
price
allowed the Community industry to achieve
improved economies of scale and to maintain the price
level on the Community market.

(85) Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any
further information submitted or available in respect of
the interest of the unrelated importers, the findings as set
out in recitals 161 and 162 of the provisional Regulation
are hereby confirmed.

(77)

(78)

(79)

Fourthly, it should be noted that the USA market is the
first market in the world for swimming pool equipment
and chemicals. It was therefore vital for the Community
industry to have access to this important market and
maintain its position there,
in order to diversify its
customers and also to take part in the development of
the most active market.

(86)

3. INTEREST OF PROCESSORS

The further investigation showed that the situation of the
processors can vary a lot in terms of profitability and in
terms of impact of TCCA on their cost of production.
Therefore, the assumption made in recital 168 of the
provisional Regulation that TCCA represents more than
40 % of the processor’s cost of production and that it is a
low margin product needs to be refined. Indeed, an addi-
tional on-the-spot verification carried out at the premises
of one of
important processor on the EC
market, showed that the product concerned represented
less than 25 % of its total cost of production and that its
profitability was above 8 %.

the most

(87) One processor challenged the assessment of the provi-
sional Regulation that the processors could revise their
price upward, and thus pass part of the cost increase to
their customers so that the effect of the measures would
be diluted through the distribution chain.

(88)

This scenario was however confirmed by at least another
processor, which clearly stated that since the provisional
duties have been imposed, processors have increased
their prices between 15 and 25 % (or on average EUR
0,32/kg) for the 2005 season. This was also confirmed
by another processor. The investigation also showed that
the processors are not contractually prevented from
increasing their prices and that special clauses have also
been inserted in their contracts for the 2006 season in
view of the possible imposition of anti-dumping duties.
These elements clearly show that the processors have
taken some precautions to
already, at
pass on the cost increase to the distribution chain.

least partially,

(80)

Finally, no evidence was provided showing that these
sales on the American market could have been replaced
by sales on the Community market at the same period of
time and at better price, thus causing self inflicted injury.

(81) On the basis of the above, the claims were rejected and
in the absence of any further comments, the conclusions
drawn in respect of the effect of other factors in recitals
142 to 154 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

3. CONCLUSION ON CAUSATION

(82)

Based on the above considerations and other elements
contained in recitals 136 to 154 of the provisional Regu-
lation, it is concluded that imports from the PRC and the
injury to the Community
USA have caused material
industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of
the
basic Regulation.

F. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(83)

In the absence of any comments made with respect to
the interest of the Community industry, the findings as
set out in recital 160 of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

(89)

Finally, the investigation showed that the mark-up added
by the mass merchants on their purchase price from the
processors can be significant,
i.e. above 40 %, which
confirms that
there is room for passing on the cost
increase caused by the duties to the distribution chain.

7.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 261/9

(90) One processor claimed that the imposition of one single
duty on imports of TCCA in the form of both granules
and tablets would drive exporting producers and inter-
mediaries to import tablets directly and would negatively
affect the processing activity. It was therefore suggested
that a higher duty be imposed on imports of tablets than
on imports of TCCA in granules. According to this
processor, such distinction would allow to protect both
the Community industry and the processors.

the form,

(91) However, it is recalled that the product concerned was
defined as TCCA and preparations thereof. It can be in
the form of granules, powder or tablets, with no limit of
chlorine content. Therefore, although the comparisons
were made between products having identical character-
istics, such as the form or the packaging, the resulting
duty applied on the product concerned should apply on
imports of TCCA, whatever
i.e. granules,
powder or tablets. Any other approach would consist
in using the anti-dumping duties to make up for the
difference in processing costs between the European
processors
is
obviously not the purpose of anti-dumping measures.
Finally,
it is noted that, although the same ad valorem
duty applies to both TCCA in granules and tablets of
it will necessarily result in a higher amount of
TCCA,
duties to be paid when applied on more expensive
products, such as tablets. This could partially satisfy the
request made by this processor. The claim was therefore
rejected.

exporters, which

the Chinese

and

(92) On the basis of the above, and in the absence of any
other comments made with respect to the interest of the
Community processors, the findings as set out in recitals
163 to 172 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

4. INTEREST OF CONSUMERS

(93) One processor reiterated its claim that any price increase
will not be in the consumers’
interest. However, as
explained in the provisional Regulation,
any price
increase is likely to be minor and thus not to affect
the consumer’s choice. This has been confirmed by one
processor who even stated that the impact on the final
consumer would be around EUR 10 per year, which is
even less then the conservative estimate of EUR 2,5 per
month mentioned in the provisional Regulation. Such a
cost increase cannot be considered as significant or of a
nature as to lead the final consumer to switch to alter-
native products.

(94)

In addition, the estimated amount of EUR 10 per year
only reflects the hypothetical maximum impact of the
measures if the entire duty were to be passed on to
the final consumer. It also does not take into account

the fact that the definitive measures are at least for the
imports originating in the USA lower than those provi-
sionally imposed.

(95) On the basis of the above, and in the absence of any
other comments made with respect to the interest of the
Community consumers, the findings as set out in recitals
173 to 177 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

5. CONCLUSION ON COMMUNITY INTEREST

(96)

the conclusions drawn in the provisional
In view of
the submissions
Regulation, and taking into account
made by the various parties,
it is concluded that there
are no compelling reasons not to impose definitive anti-
dumping measures against dumped imports of TCCA
originating in the countries concerned.

G. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

(97)

Based on the methodology explained in recitals 179 to
183 of the provisional Regulation, an injury elimination
level was calculated for the purposes of establishing the
level of measures to be imposed.

(98) When calculating the injury margin in the provisional
Regulation,
the Community
target profit
industry was set at 10 %, a level deemed conservative
and which could be reasonably expected in the absence
of injurious dumping.

the

for

(99)

Several
interested parties argued that a 10 % profit is
inappropriate for the TCCA business and that the profit
should rather be below 5 %. However, as mentioned in
recital 181 of the provisional Regulation, the profit level
of the Community industry before the imports concerned
into the Community started to significantly increase.
the level reached in 2000 and 2001, shows
Indeed,
that a 10 % profit can reasonably be expected in the
absence of dumping. The claims were therefore rejected.

(100)

In the absence of any new comments on this subject, the
methodology set out in recitals 179 to 183 of the provi-
sional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

1. DEFINITIVE MEASURES

(101)

In the light of the foregoing and in accordance with
Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-
dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the
dumping margin calculated as regards imports origi-
nating in the PRC and at the level of the injury margin
calculated as regards imports originating in the USA.

L 261/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.10.2005

(102) On the basis of the above, since the injury margins were
in all cases higher than the dumping margins with regard
to the PRC and lower than the dumping margins with
regard to the USA, the definitive duties should be as
follows:

(105)

In order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to
the high difference in the amounts of duties,
is
considered that special measures are needed in this case
to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping
duties. These special measures include:

it

Country

Company

Anti-
dumping
duty rate

PRC

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Limited

8,1 %

Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Limited

7,3 %

Heze Huayi Chemical Co. Limited

14,1 %

Zhucheng Taisheng Chemical Co.
Limited

All other companies

USA

Biolab Inc.

Clearon Inc.

All other companies

40,5 %

42,6 %

7,4 %

8,1 %

25,0 %

duty

countrywide

(103) The individual anti-dumping duty rates specified in this
Regulation were established on the basis of the findings
of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the
situation found during that
investigation with respect
to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to
the
other
companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports
of products originating in the country concerned and
produced by the
specifically mentioned.
Imported products produced by any other company
not specifically mentioned by its name and address in
the operative part of this Regulation,
including entities
related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit
from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate
applicable to ‘all other companies’.

companies

applicable

‘all

to

(104) Any claim requesting the application of these individual
anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the
name of the entity or following the setting-up of new
production or sales entities) should be addressed to the
Commission (1) forthwith with all relevant information,
in particular any modification in the company’s activities
linked to production, domestic and export sales asso-
that name change or that
ciated with,
change in the production and sales entities.
If appro-
priate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by
updating the list of companies benefiting from individual
duty rates.

for example,

(1) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Direction B,

Office J-79 5/16, B-1049 Brussels.

(106) The presentation to the customs authorities of

the
invoice, which
Member States of a valid commercial
shall conform to the requirements
in the
Annex to this Regulation. Only imports accompanied
by such an invoice shall be declared under the applicable
the producer in question.
TARIC additional codes of
Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be
made
duty
applicable to all other exporters.

anti-dumping

set out

to the

residual

subject

(107) The companies concerned have also been invited to
submit regular reports to the Commission in order to
ensure a proper follow-up of their sales of the product
concerned to the Community. Should the reports not be
submitted, or should the analysis of the reports show
the measures are not adequate to eliminate the
that
effects of
the Commission may
initiate an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of
the basic Regulation. This
alia,
inter
examine the need for the removal of
individual duty
rates and the consequent imposition of a country-wide
duty.

injurious dumping,

review may,

(108)

2. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES

the amounts secured by way of

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found
and in the light of the level of the material injury caused
it is considered necessary
to the Community Industry,
that
the provisional
imposed by Regulation (EC) No
anti-dumping duty,
538/2005, should be collected at the rate of the duty
definitively imposed. Where the definitive duties are
higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts
secured at the level of the provisional duties should be
definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of
the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties should be
released,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid and preparations thereof,
also referred to as ‘symclosene’ under the international non-
and falling within CN codes
proprietary name
codes
ex 2933 69 80
and
2933 69 80 70 and 3808 40 20 20),
in the
People’s Republic of China and the United States of America.

(TARIC
originating

ex 3808 40 20

(INN),

7.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 261/11

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable
2.
before duty,
to the net free-at-Community-frontier price for
products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be
as follows:

upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member
States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the
requirements set out
If no such invoice is
in the Annex.
presented,
the duty rate applicable to all other companies
shall apply.

Country

Company

Anti-
dumping
duty rate

TARIC
additional
Code

PRC

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Limited

8,1 % A604

Puyang
Limited

Cleanway

Chemicals

7,3 % A628

Heze Huayi Chemical Co. Limited

14,1 % A629

Zhucheng Taisheng Chemical Co.
Limited

All other companies

USA

Biolab Inc.

Clearon Inc.

40,5 % A627

42,6 % A999

7,4 % A594

8,1 % A596

All other companies

25,0 % A999

Unless otherwise

4.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

Article 2

Amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty
pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 538/2005 on
imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid and preparations thereof,
also referred to as ‘symclosene’ under the international non-
and falling within CN codes
proprietary name
codes
ex 2933 69 80
and
2933 69 80 70 and 3808 40 20 20),
in the
People’s Republic of China and the United States of America
shall be definitely collected at the rate definitively imposed by
the present Regulation. The amounts secured in excess of the
definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.

(TARIC
originating

ex 3808 40 20

(INN),

3.
The application of the individual duty rates specified for
the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional

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

Article 3

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 3 October 2005.

For the Council
The President

D. ALEXANDER

L 261/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.10.2005

ANNEX

The valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3) of this Regulation must include a declaration signed by an official
of the company, in the following format:

1. The name and function of the official of the company which has issued the commercial invoice.

2. The following declaration: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of trichloroisocyanuric acid sold for export to
the European Community covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC addi-
tional code) in (country concerned). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’

Date and signature.