Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) originating in Russia and the People's Republic of China
Date: 2005-11-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Russia, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical product, import, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.11.2005 
COM(2005) 550 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) originating in Russia 
and the People's Republic of China 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

110 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22 
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of 
the European Community, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 
of 8 March 2004 ("the basic Regulation") leading to the imposition of a definitive anti-
dumping  duty  and  collecting  definitively  the  provisional  duty  imposed  on  imports  of 
granular  polytetrafluoroethylene  (PTFE)  originating  in  Russia  and  the  People's 
Republic of China. 

120 

•  General context 

This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and 
is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and 
procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 

139 

141 

219 

229 

230 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

There are no existing provisions in the area of the proposal. 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2)  CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  already  had  the  possibility  to 
defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic 
Regulation. 

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

•  Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic regulation. 

The  basic  regulation  does  not  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

305 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On  9  September  2004,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  investigation  with 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
regard  to  imports  into  the  Community  of  granular  polytetrafluoroethylene  (‘PTFE’) 
originating in Russia and the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’). 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  862/20051  imposed  a  provisional  anti-
dumping duty on PTFE originating in Russia and the PRC. 

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings of 
dumping,  injury,  causation  and  Community  interest  which  confirmed  that  the 
provisional anti-dumping measures were warranted.  

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union no later than 
8 December 2005. 

310 

•  Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 of 8 March 2004. 

329 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Community. The subsidiarity 
principle therefore does not apply. 

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason(s). 

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic regulation and leaves no 
scope for national decision. 

Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Community, 
national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is 
minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable. 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s). 

The above-mentioned basic regulation does not foresee alternative options. 

331 

332 

341 

342 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

409 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

1 

OJ L 144, 8.6.2005, p.11. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) originating in Russia 
and the People's Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

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 Community2 (the ‘basic 
Regulation’) and in particular Articles 9 and 10(2) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

1. Provisional Measures 

(1) 

(2) 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  862/20053,  (‘provisional  Regulation’), 
imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports into the Community of granular 
polytetrafluoroethylene  (‘PTFE’)  originating  in  Russia  and  the  People's  Republic  of 
China (‘PRC’). 

2. Subsequent Procedure 

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations  on the basis of 
which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of PTFE 
from  Russia  and  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  several  interested  parties  submitted 
comments  in  writing.  In  accordance  with  the  provision  of  Article  20(1)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  all  interested  parties  which  requested  a  hearing  were  granted  an 
opportunity to be heard by the Commission.  

(3) 

The  Commission  continued  to  seek  and  verify  all  information  deemed  necessary  for 
the definitive findings. 

2 

3 

OJ  No  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.1,  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  461/2004  (OJ  L  77,  13.03.2004, 
p.12).  
OJ L 144, 8.6.2005, p.11. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(4) 

An  additional  verification  visit  was  carried  out  at  the  premises  of  the  following 
companies: 

– 

– 

Heroflon (Italy), granular PTFE transformer  

Fluorseals (Italy), granular PTFE processor 

(5) 

All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty 
and  the  definitive  collection  of  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  duty.  They 
were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent 
to this disclosure.  

(6) 

The oral and written arguments submitted by the parties were considered, and, where 
deemed appropriate, taken into account for the definitive findings. 

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. Product concerned 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

The  provisional  Regulation  described  the  product  concerned  as  so  called  granular 
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), containing not more than 3% of other monomer unit 
than  tetrafluoroethylene,  without  fillers,  in  the  form  of  powder  or  pellets, with  the 
exclusion of micronized material. The product concerned can also be presented as raw 
polymer (reactor bead) in wet or dry form. Further to comments received by interested 
parties, it is clarified that ‘micronized material’ means a fluoropolymer micropowder 
as  defined  by  norm  “ASTM  D5675-04”.  The  product  concerned  is  currently 
classifiable within CN code ex 39 04 61 00. 

One  users’/importers’  organisation  (the  European  Fluoropolymer  Fair  Trade 
Association  or  ‘EFFTA’)  and  one  exporters’  association  objected  to  the  provisional 
conclusions  that  all  granular  PTFE  constitute  a  single  product.  It  was  argued  that 
granular  PTFE  can  be  divided  in  three  product  groups  based  on  quality  differences 
(high/medium/low). It was claimed that each product group would be used in different 
applications not competing with each other in the same market. 

Despite quality differences, all granular PTFE types were found to have the same basic 
physical,  technical  and  chemical  characteristics  which  was  neither  contested  by 
EFFTA  nor  by  the  exporters’  association.  As  far  as  granular  PTFE  applications  are 
concerned,  it  was  found  that  granular  PTFE  of  a  lower  quality  could  be  used  after 
post-treatment  in  almost  all  applications,  including  some  high-end  applications  (e.g. 
billets for skiving). In general, as also admitted by EFFTA, there was an overlapping 
in applications for various types and qualities of granular PTFE and no clear dividing 
line could thus be established.  

(10) 

It  was  therefore  concluded  that  notwithstanding  the  different  possible  product  types 
due to different form, average particle size, thermo treatment or co-monomer content, 
and  despite  quality  differences,  all  of  them  constituted  one  single  product  for  the 
purpose  of  this  proceeding  because  all  types  and  qualities  had  the  same  physical 
characteristics  and  essentially  the  same  basic  end-uses.  In  recitals  (13),  (145)  and 
(147) of the provisional Regulation it was erroneously mentioned that granular PTFE 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
would  also  be  contained  in  anoraks  and  in  inner  shield  of  cables  and  that  is  used  in 
textile and biomedical applications as well as isolation agents. The definitive findings 
revealed that granular PTFE is not used in any of the aforementioned applications. 

(11)  Taking  into  account  the  above  considerations,  the  product  definition  and  the 
provisional  findings  set  out  in  recital  (14)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

2. Like product 

(12)  A number of importers and users reiterated that the granular PTFE produced and sold 
in the Community market would not be alike to the products imported from the PRC 
and Russia. It was argued that the products imported from the countries subject to the 
present investigation would be of a much lower quality than the product produced by 
the  Community  industry  and  would  therefore  be  sold  on  different  markets,  thus  not 
competing  with  each  other.  These  parties  did,  however,  not  come  forward  with  new 
information or evidence in this matter. 

(13) 

It should first be noted that as outlined in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation, the 
investigation has shown that the Community industry also produced and sold scrap or 
‘off-spec’  material  during  the  IP  to  the  same  customers  as  the  exporting  producers 
concerned.  On  the  other  hand,  the  investigation  revealed  that  at  least  the  Russian 
exporting  producers  sold  qualities  of  granular  PTFE  to  the  Community,  which  were 
even without post-treatment comparable to the high quality Community grades, albeit 
in  very  limited  quantities.  Furthermore,  even  low  quality  granular  PTFE  imported 
from the countries concerned could after post-treatment be used in a similar range of 
applications  as  the  product  produced  and  sold  in  the  Community  market  by  the 
Community industry.  

(14)  Considering the above, it was concluded that the product concerned and the granular 
PTFE  produced  and  sold  in  the  Community  by  the  Community  industry  share  the 
same  physical  and  technical  characteristics  and  the  same  basic  end-uses.  They  were 
therefore  considered  to  be  alike  within  the  meaning  of  Article  1(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

(15) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  regard,  the  provisional  conclusions  set 
out in recital (15) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

C. DUMPING 

1. People’s Republic of China 

1.1. Market economy treatment (‘MET’) 

(16)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  the  three  Chinese  co-operating 
exporting  producers  claimed  that  they  should have  been  granted  MET  and  reiterated 
the  arguments  they  had  previously  submitted.  These  comments  have  already  been 
replied to in recitals (33) to (39) of the provisional Regulation. Consequently, it was 
considered  that  the  decision  to  reject  MET  to  the  three  companies  should  be 
maintained. 

1.2. Individual treatment (‘IT’) 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(17)  Two  exporting  producers  argued  that  they  should  be  granted  IT.  One  exporter 
submitted  that  the  Commission  was  not  entitled  to  reject  IT  on  the  basis  of  possible 
State interference since Article 9(5) requires only that export prices and quantities are 
freely determined. In this respect, it should be noted that a company can by definition 
not be considered to freely determine its export prices and quantities, and conditions 
and terms of sale, if the latter can be influenced by the State. Therefore, the conditions 
of  Article  9(5)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation  cannot  be  considered  to  be  met  by 
companies that are not able to demonstrate that they are not subject to possible State 
interference.  The  exporting  producer  concerned  has  not  provided  any  evidence 
showing that the State could neither influence its decisions with regard to export prices 
and  quantities,  and  conditions  and  terms  of  sale,  nor  that  the  possible  State 
interference was not such as to permit circumvention of the measures. This is mainly 
due  to  the  fact  that,  as  outlined  in  recital  (33)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the 
relationship  of  this  company  to  the  State-owned  shareholder  was  unclear  and  the 
Articles of Association were considered unreliable. Therefore, the fact that such State 
interference  would  allegedly  not  have  occurred  in  the  past,  would,  even  if  it  were 
demonstrated, not offer any guarantee that it will not take place in future, in particular 
should an individual duty rate be attributed to this company. 

(18)  Another exporter argued that its shareholding structure, in particular the fact that it is 
partly State-owned, did not allow as such the conclusion that the State interfered in the 
setting of prices and other sales terms. First of all, the company did not substantiate its 
claim  with  any  evidence.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  found  that  the  State  owned  the 
majority  of  the  company’s  capital  and  furthermore,  nominated  the  General  Manager 
and  the  majority  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  this  company.  Therefore,  it  was 
concluded that Article 9(5)(c) is not fulfilled and IT should therefore be rejected. 

(19) 

In the absence of any other comments, the findings of the provisional Regulation as set 
out in (45) recital of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

1.3. Analogue country 

(20)  All  three  Chinese  co-operating  exporting  producers  disagreed  with  the  choice  of  the 
USA  and  claimed  that  Russia  should  have  been  chosen  as  the  analogue  country 
instead.  Two  of  them  reiterated  the  comments  made  prior  to  the  imposition  of 
provisional measures, which have already been addressed in recitals (47) to (54) of the 
provisional  Regulation.  In  the  absence  of  any  new  information  and  evidence,  the 
claims of these exporting producers had to be rejected. 

(21)  Another  Chinese  exporting  producer  argued  that  due  to  the  lower  economic 
development  of  the  PRC,  production  factors,  such  as  labour  costs  and  overhead 
expenses, would be lower and therefore not comparable to the USA. Nevertheless, as 
mentioned  in  recital  (54)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  different  level  of  overall 
economic  development  is,  in  itself,  not  a  relevant  factor  when  selecting  an  analogue 
country.  This  company  also  alleged  that  as  a  consequence  of  the  lower  economic 
development in China, public services such as water, power and gas supply would be 
less expensive than in the USA. In this regard, it must be noted that it is precisely the 
aim of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation that an analogue country is selected to 
determine the normal value  on  the basis  of prices and costs  unbiased by non-market 
economy conditions. Thus, a simple comparison of prices in the non-market economy 
country  or  in  the  country  with  an  economy  in  transition  with  those  in  the  analogue 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
country is as such not meaningful. In any event, no information was submitted which 
would  have  substantiated  the  alleged  differences  and  allowed  a  quantification,  or 
which  would  have  demonstrated  that  this  exporting  producer  benefited  from  any 
natural  comparative  advantage.  The  argument  was  therefore  rejected.  Finally,  this 
exporting  producer  also  claimed  that,  due  to  a  simpler  production  process,  the 
equipment,  as  well  as  the  related  investments  and  depreciation  rates  would  be 
significantly different. However, the exporter did not submit any information showing 
that its production process was indeed simpler than that used by the USA producers or 
which  would  allow  the  Commission  services  to  quantify  the  effect  of  such  alleged 
differences. 

(22)  This  exporter  also  argued  that  the  USA  and  the  Chinese  granular  PTFE  have  a 
different quality which would result in different applications and that the choice of the 
USA as analogue country was therefore not appropriate. In this regard it is noted that, 
as explained in recital (53) of the provisional Regulation, an adjustment was made for 
differences  of  quality,  in  particular  contamination,  the  level  of  which  the  Chinese 
exporting producer did not contest. This argument was therefore also rejected. 

(23) 

In the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in recitals (47) to (54) of 
the provisional Regulation regarding the choice of the USA as an appropriate analogue 
country are hereby confirmed. 

1.4.  Determination  of  Normal  Value  for  Chinese  exporting  producers  not  granted 

MET 

(24)  One  Chinese  exporting  producer  argued  that  the  adjustment  for  quality  differences 
described in recital (53) of the provisional Regulation was insufficient and that normal 
value should have been adjusted to the same extent as the Community industry price 
when calculating undercutting and underselling margins, as explained in recital (98) of 
the same Regulation. 

(25) 

It  should  be  noted  that  while  the  adjustment  to  the  normal  value  aims  at  capturing 
differences between the like product sold on the market of the analogue country and 
the  product  concerned,  the  adjustment  made  in  the  injury  analysis  takes  into 
consideration  differences  between  the  latter  and  the  like  product  sold  in  the 
Community. Although the like product sold in the analogue country and the one sold 
in  the  Community  market  may  be  of  a  similar  quality  and  may  have  similar 
characteristics,  differences  to  the  product  concerned  are  not  necessarily  identical. 
Consequently, the adjustments were made on their own merits and on the basis of the 
information  and  evidence  collected  during  the  investigation.  The  exporting  producer 
did not submit any evidence showing that the methodology used by the Commission in 
its provisional determinations was unreasonable and that indeed, differences between 
the  product  concerned  and  the  like  product  produced  and  sold  in  the  Community  on 
the  one  hand  and  in  the  analogue  country  on  the  other  hand  would  be  identical,  nor 
was there any other information or evidence available suggesting that the adjustments 
should  be  identical.  Consequently,  the  claim  had  to  be  rejected  and  the  findings  in 
recital (53) of the provisional Regulation as regards the determination of normal value 
for exporting producers not granted MET are hereby confirmed.  

1.5. Export price 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(26) 

In the absence of any comments by the interested parties, the methodology set out in 
recital (59) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

1.6. Comparison 

(27)  One  Chinese  exporting  producer  argued  that  the  adjustment  for  physical  differences 
outlined  in  recital  (62)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  would  not  properly  reflect  the 
actual  difference  in  production  costs  and  the  adjustment  made  should  therefore  be 
revised  appropriately.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  adjustment  made  for  the 
determination of the provisional dumping margin was based on a reasonable estimate 
of the difference of market value in the USA, in accordance with Article 2(10)(a) of 
the basic Regulation. It was considered that this methodology was the most accurate to 
determine  the  effect  of  the  difference  on price and price comparability. The Chinese 
exporting  producer  did  not  quantify  its  claim,  nor  did  it  submit  any  information  or 
evidence  that  the  methodology  set  out  by  Article  2(10)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
would not be adequate to take the physical difference into account. On this basis, the 
claim  had  to  be  rejected.  In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  the  findings  on 
comparison as set out in recitals (60) to (64) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
confirmed. 

2. Russia 

2.1. Application of the provisions of Article 18 of the basic Regulation 

(28)  As mentioned in recitals (69) to (82) of the provisional Regulation, the determination 
of  dumping  at  provisional  stage  was  based  on  the  facts  available  for  both  exporting 
producers investigated in Russia. 

(29)  Prior to the imposition of the provisional duties, the two Russian exporting producers 
were informed forthwith of the basis on which it was intended to apply facts available 
at the stage of the provisional determination and were given the opportunity to provide 
further explanations, in accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(30)  The two Russian exporting producers claimed that they co-operated to the best of their 
abilities and that the full application of facts available was therefore disproportionate. 
They  argued  that  in  accordance  with  Article  18(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
companies’ own data, although not ideal in all respects, should have been used.  

(31) 

In this respect, and as outlined in recitals (70) to (74) of the provisional Regulation, it 
is  recalled  first  of  all  that  both  companies  submitted  incomplete,  incorrect  and 
misleading information. Moreover, one company refused to submit information for the 
calculation  of  the  dumping  margin  or  did  not  provide  such  information  in  a  timely 
manner so that it could not be verified anymore. Finally, a trader in Russia related to 
one of the exporting producers did not co-operate.  

(32)  Both companies admitted the existence of deficiencies already in their responses to the 
questionnaires, as well as during the on-spot verification, but alleged that these were 
not  such  as  to  cause  undue  difficulty  in  arriving  at  a  reasonably  accurate  finding.  It 
was claimed that the deficiencies would have only a minor impact on the findings and 
that the figures supplied by the companies would be overall sufficiently reliable to be 
used for the determination of dumping. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(33)  A  re-examination  was  made  of  all  information  submitted  by  the  two  companies  in 
their responses to the questionnaire and during the on-spot verification, as well as of 
all  the  information  submitted  by  the  companies  following  the  disclosure  of  the 
provisional findings. However, none of the companies’ explanations submitted could 
alter  the  provisional  conclusions.  It  is  re-iterated  that  the  data  provided  by  the 
companies  in  their  questionnaire  reply  could  not  be  reconciled  with  their  audited 
accounts.  This  was  considered  a  serious  deficiency.  Under  these  circumstances,  a 
reliable individual dumping margin cannot be established and recourse has to be made 
to facts available.  

(34) 

In this regard, and as already mentioned in recital (72) of the provisional Regulation, it 
is recalled that one company provided significantly misleading information concerning 
its company structure which ultimately did not allow the reconciliation of the figures 
reported.  The  reply  of  this  company  was  also  significantly  incomplete  and  of  a  low 
quality. For the other company, while each deficiency taken separately may not have a 
major impact on the dumping calculations, the accumulation of such deficiencies casts 
serious doubts on the overall reliability of the data. Therefore, and for the reasons set 
out  in  recital  (71)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  facts  available  had  to  be  used  in 
accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation.  No  new  evidence  was  provided 
which could alter these findings. 

(35)  Due  to  the  serious  deficiencies  outlined  above  and  the  impossibility  to  verify  the 
information  submitted,  it  had  to  be  concluded  that  data  submitted  were  overall 
unreliable and inaccurate. Therefore, the questionnaire replies of both companies had 
to be rejected as a whole.  Consequently, the findings of recitals (70) to (74) and the 
conclusion in recital (75) of the provisional Regulation, i.e. that the dumping margins 
for both exporting producers could not be established on the basis of their own data, 
but  had  to  be  based  on  facts  available  in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic 
Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

2.2. Normal value 

(36) 

In the absence of any comments by the interested parties, the methodology set out in 
recital (76) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

2.3. Export price 

(37)  Both companies claimed that the calculation of the export price was wrongly based on 
prices as recorded in Eurostat for imports falling under the CN code ex 3904 61 00, 
since  apart  from  the  product  concerned  this  code  also  includes  other  products  not 
subject to the present proceeding.  

(38) 

In  this  regard,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  large  majority  of  imports  under  the  above 
mentioned CN code falls under the product concerned. Nevertheless, in the provisional 
determinations, adjustments were made to the data recorded in Eurostat on the basis of 
information  available  (estimates  of  the  Community  industry).  In  the  absence  of  any 
more  reliable  information  available,  this  methodology  was  maintained  for  the 
determination of the definitive dumping margin.  

(39)  One company claimed that in order to establish its export price, the information of two 
unrelated  importers  accounting  for  more  than  80%  of  its  sales  to  the  Community 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
during  the  investigation  period  should  be  used.  However,  one  of  these  importers  did 
not co-operate fully during the investigation. In addition, the data provided by the fully 
co-operating  unrelated  importer  could  not  be  linked  with  those  provided  by  the 
exporting  producer  concerned.  Therefore,  the  data  provided  did  not  allow  a 
determination of the export price on that basis and the claim had to be rejected. 

(40) 

In the absence of any other information, the methodology as outlined in recital (77) of 
the provisional Regulation was maintained and the export price was calculated on the 
basis of Eurostat data. 

2.4. Comparison 

(41) 

In the absence of any comments by the interested parties, the findings of recitals (78) 
and (79) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. Dumping margin  

(42) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  by  the  interested  parties,  the  methodology  for  the 
calculation of the dumping margins as set out in recitals (24), (65) to (68) and (80) to 
(82) of the provisional Regulation are herewith confirmed. Considering the above, the 
definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the 
Community border, are: 

Exporting country 

People’s Republic of China 

Russia 

D. INJURY 

Dumping margin 

99,7% 

36,6% 

1. Community production, Community industry and Community consumption 

(43) 

In the absence of any comments in this particular respect, the findings in recitals (83) 
to (87) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned 

(44)  The  two  Russian  exporting  producers  reiterated  that  for  the  purpose  of  assessing 
injury, imports of granular PTFE originating in Russia should be decumulated for the 
reasons set out in recital (91) of the provisional Regulation. To support their claim, the 
exporting producers argued that the decrease in the Community industry’s profitability 
from 2002 onwards coincided with a decrease of imports originating in Russia, while 
in  2001,  when  imports  from  Russia  were  at  the  highest,  the  Community  industry 
enjoyed high profit margins. In contrast, imports originating in the PRC increased in 
parallel to the Community industry’s decline in profit margin. The exporter concluded 
that on this basis material injury could not have been caused by imports originating in 
Russia and that cumulation was therefore not warranted. 

(45) 

It  is  noted  that,  as  set  out  in  recital  (90)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  price  trends 
from both Russia and the PRC, are similar. They have a decreasing trend throughout 
the  entire  IP  and  dropped  each  year  by  a  significant  percentage.  Furthermore,  both 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
imports  originating  in  Russia  and  those  originating  in  the  PRC  undercut  the 
Community industry’s prices substantially throughout the period from 1 January 2001 
to  the  end  of  the  IP  (‘period  considered’).  In  addition,  it  is  noted  that  import  trends 
from  Russia,  although  decreasing  in  2002,  remained  stable  afterwards  and  even 
increased slightly during the IP. Finally, the definitive findings confirmed that imports 
of  granular  PTFE  from  the  PRC  and  Russia  were  competing  with  each  other  on  the 
Community market. Therefore, and in view of the arguments set out in recitals (89) to 
(92)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  there  are  no  reasons  to  conclude  that  Russian 
imports should be decumulated. The above argument was consequently rejected.  

(46) 

In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments  in  this  particular  respect,  the  findings  in 
recitals (88) to (93) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. Imports from the countries concerned 

3.1. Volume, market share and prices of the imports concerned 

(47) 

In the absence of any comments in this particular respect, the findings in recitals (94) 
to (96) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.2. Price undercutting  

(48)  One Chinese exporting producer expressed its concern with regard to the provisional 
determination  of  the  post-importation  costs  when  calculating  the  price  of  the 
Community industry. In particular, this exporter alleged that such cost would be higher 
than  the  one  used  in  the  provisional  calculations,  without  however  providing  any 
supporting  evidence  in  this  regard.  The  determination  of  post-importation  costs  at 
provisional  stage  was  based  on  actual  data  provided  by  the  two  co-operating 
importers.  The  reply  of  one  of  these  importers  was  subject  to  verification.  The 
information of the other importer, although not verified, was in line with the verified 
data  of  the  first  importer  and  was  therefore  considered  sufficiently  reliable.  It  is 
therefore considered that the data provided by the importers were more reliable than 
the estimates made by the Chinese exporting producers,  which  were furthermore not 
substantiated by any evidence. This claim had consequently to be rejected.  

(49)  One  Chinese  exporting  producer  pointed  to  a  clerical  error  when  calculating  the 
adjustment  for  import  duties.  Accordingly,  the  adjustment  for  import  duties  for  all 
Chinese exporting producers was corrected in accordance with the applicable duty rate 
during the IP.  

(50)  As announced in recital (98) of the provisional Regulation, it was examined whether 
the adjustment provisionally granted for quality differences between the like product 
sold by the Community industry and the product concerned imported from Russia and 
the PRC was appropriate.  

(51) 

In  this  regard,  the  Community  industry  submitted  that  post-treatment  would  only  be 
necessary  for  a  limited  number  of  the  imported  product  types,  i.e.  the  reactor  bead. 
The Community industry further argued that in order to produce pre-sintered material, 
their products would also need further processing, and therefore no adjustment to the 
import price would be necessary. Finally, information  was  submitted  regarding  sales 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(52) 

(53) 

of high quality product types produced by the Russian exporting producers, which did 
not need any post-treatment.  

It  was  found  that  certain  granular  PTFE  types  produced  by  Russian  exporting 
producers reached indeed higher quality standards and could thus be used without any 
further treatment. However, these product types were only sold in negligible quantities 
during  the  IP  and  mainly  for  testing  purposes.  Thus,  on  the  basis  of  the  information 
available  from  the  co-operating  users,  imports  of  such  higher  quality  granular  PTFE 
from Russia constituted only 1.4% of their total imports from that country.  

It  was  further  found  that  all  other  imported  granular  PTFE  grades  needed  post-
treatment, which consisted mainly in heating and further milling. This process has to 
be distinguished from the processing needed for the production of pre-sintered PTFE, 
which  is  a  specific  process  after  post-  treatment.  Thus,  the  adjustment  granted  at 
provisional  stage  correctly  reflects  the  demonstrated  quality  differences  between  the 
like product manufactured by the Community industry and the product concerned and 
does  not  concern  the  additional  processing  costs  of  granular  PTFE  required  for  the 
production of pre-sintered grades. The Community industry’s arguments had therefore 
to be rejected.  

(54)  On the other hand, one Russian exporting producer and one importer of granular PTFE 
from Russia claimed that even after post-treatment the granular PTFE exported by this 
exporting producer would still be of a lower quality than the granular PTFE produced 
and  sold  by  the  Community  industry  on  the  Community  market.  The  exporting 
producer  added  that  the  post-treatment  would  only  balance  quality  differences  with 
regard to the particle size and the impurity of the product, excluding, however, other 
key  quality  parameters,  such  as  tensile  strength  and  elongation,  which  would  have  a 
considerable  impact  on  the  intrinsic  quality  of  the  Russian  granular  PTFE  and 
consequently on the quality of the semi-finished product. In order to substantiate this 
claim,  the  above  mentioned  importer  submitted  information  on  testing  results  which 
allegedly showed quality differences between granular PTFE produced by Community 
producers and post-treated granular PTFE imported from Russia. On this basis, it was 
claimed that the adjustment should exceed the mere cost of post-treatment. 

(55)  However, the investigation could not confirm these allegations. It was found that the 
information  submitted  by  the  importer  concerning  the  testing  results  was  not 
representative, but rather anecdotal, since it singled out only one production lot. Even 
within this lot, all tested granular PTFE fulfilled the required specifications in order to 
comply  with  the  norm,  despite  variations  in  their  technical  specifications.  Therefore, 
the  evidence  submitted  was  not  considered  conclusive.  In  any  case,  based  on  the 
information  submitted  by  the  above  mentioned  Russian  exporting  producer  and  the 
importer,  the  claimed  quality  difference  could  not  be  quantified.  Therefore,  it  is 
confirmed  that  granular  PTFE  imported  from  this  exporting  producer  after  post-
treatment  was  of  a  similar  quality  as  the  granular  PTFE  produced  and  sold  by  the 
Community industry on the Community market and could be used in a wide-range of 
similar applications.  

(56)  Given the above, the adjustment provisionally made when calculating the undercutting 
margin  was  found  to  be  appropriate.  However,  the  adjustment  was  corrected  on  the 
basis of the verified information of two users, which allowed a precise calculation of 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
these  costs.  Thus,  the  adjustment  amounted  to  36.7%  of  the  purchase  price  of  the 
users/importers concerned. 

(57)  Taken  into  consideration  the  above  corrections  and  in  the  absence  of  any  other 

comments, recitals (97) to (98) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(58)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  comparison  on  a  per  model  basis  showed  that  the 
product concerned originating in the PRC and Russia was  sold in the Community at 
prices  which  undercut  those  of  the  Community  industry  by  20.5%  and  13.5% 
respectively  during  the  IP,  when  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  Community 
industry’s prices. 

3.3. Situation of the Community industry and conclusion on injury 

3.3.1. General remarks  

(59)  Certain  interested  parties  pointed  to  the  positive  trends  of  certain  injury  factors  and 
claimed that it would not be sufficient that other injury indicators such as sales prices 
and  profitability  showed  negative  trends  to  conclude  that  material  injury  had  been 
suffered by the Community industry.  

(60) 

It should first be noted that Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation provides that while the 
impact of dumped imports on the Community industry shall be examined on the basis 
of an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices, none of these factors on 
its own or together with others can necessarily give decisive guidance. It is therefore 
not required that all injury factors show a negative trend in order to conclude that the 
Community industry suffered material injury. 

(61)  On this basis, in order to determine whether the Community industry suffered material 
injury, it is important that its overall financial situation is considered. Thus, in case of 
the positive development of certain injury indicators, these should not be considered in 
isolation  but  in  a  broader  context,  i.e.  together  with  the  development  of  other  injury 
indicators in order to make meaningful conclusions. In the present case and as outlined 
in  recital  (117)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  positive  trend  of  certain  injury 
indicators has to be seen in the context of the overall significant negative effects of the 
imports  under  consideration  on  the  performance  of  the  Community  industry  and  the 
latter’s  reaction  to  this.  The  overall  negative  picture  of  the  Community  industry’s 
situation is in particular translated in a decline of its sales prices and profitability.  

(62) 

It  is  therefore  considered  that  the  approach  taken  for  the  provisional  determinations 
was reasonable and in line with the basic Regulation and is therefore maintained for 
the definitive findings.  

3.3.2. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation  

(63)  Some  interested  parties  argued  that  the  Community  industry  was  able  to  increase  its 
production  capacity,  volume  and  capacity  utilisation,  while  consumption  in  the 
Community  was  decreasing,  which  would  not  point  to  an  injurious  situation  of  the 
Community industry.  

(64) 

In  fact,  the  decrease  in  consumption  (by  12%)  was  only  felt  in  2002,  when  the 
Community  industry’s  production  volume  decreased  in  line  by  13%,  which  is  also 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
translated  into  a  decrease  in  the  capacity  utilisation  during  the  same  year.  As  a 
consequence  and  as  outlined  in  recital  (102)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the 
Community industry had to lower its sales prices, thereby increasing its sales volume 
in order to be able to compete with the dumped imports. Nevertheless, even the sales 
volume of the Community industry decreased slightly during 2002.  

(65)  Furthermore,  the  development  of  the  production  volume  should  also  be  seen  in  the 
more  global  context  than  solely  in  relation  to  the  development  of  the  Community 
consumption. Thus, as mentioned in recital (134) of the provisional Regulation, export 
sales of the Community industry were slightly increasing, which had also an impact on 
production  figures.  Furthermore,  the  increase  in  the  production  volume  of  granular 
PTFE  is  partly  explained  by  the  fact  that  some  Community  producers  increased  the 
internal  use  of  granular  PTFE  for  the  production  of  e.g.  compounds  and  micronized 
grades.  Finally,  the  overall  increase  of  production  volume  and  production  capacity 
during the period considered is also part of the Community industry’s attempt to react 
to  the  dumped  imports  by  trying  to  increase  sales  volumes,  albeit  at  the  expense  of 
sales prices and profitability. 

(66)  Therefore, the findings set out in recitals (101) and (102) of the provisional Regulation 

are hereby confirmed. 

3.3.3. Sales volume and market share 

(67)  Likewise, some interested parties argued that the increase in sales volume and market 
share, in particular with a parallel decrease in demand, would clearly indicate that the 
Community  industry  did  not  suffer  material  injury.  The  Russian  exporting  producer 
also argued that such an increase in sales could not be explained by the Community 
industry’s strategy to lower its sales prices when faced to low priced imports. In this 
context, the development of the Community industry’s sales volume was compared to 
that  of  the  Russian  imports  which  allegedly  showed  a  downward  trend  despite 
decreasing import prices.  

(68)  However,  it  was  found  that  the  analysis  of  Russian  import  data  showed  a  slightly 
different picture. Thus, although imports and market share from Russia declined from 
2001 to 2002 significantly, they dropped only marginally between 2002 and 2003 and 
even increased slightly during the IP. In contrast, selling prices of the Russian imports 
showed  a  constant  downward  trend  during  the  entire  period  considered.  In  parallel, 
Chinese import prices declined to a higher extent and sales volume and market shares 
of  these  imports  increased  significantly  during  the  same  period.  This  indicates  that 
Russian  exporters  faced  with  the  low  priced  Chinese  imports  on  the  Community 
market  and  were,  as  the  Community  industry,  obliged  to  lower  their  import  prices 
even  further  to  regain  their  market  share  in  the  Community.  Moreover,  as  imports 
from Russia and the PRC have been cumulated, it is more appropriate to carry out this 
analysis  not  separately  for  each  exporting  country  concerned,  but  together.  In  this 
respect, it is recalled that the market share of the imports remained continuously very 
high  and  their  prices  dropped  dramatically  and  significantly  undercut  those  of  the 
Community industry. Therefore, the argument of the Russian exporting producer had 
to be rejected. 

(69) 

It  is  therefore  reiterated  that  the  development  of  the  Community  industry’s  sales 
volume  and  market  share  has  to  be  seen  in  correlation  with  the  parallel  decrease  in 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
sales value and unit prices due to the dumped imports and the consequent significant 
negative  impact  on  the  Community  industry’s  profitability.  As  mentioned  above  in 
recital (61), in order to reach a meaningful conclusion on the overall financial situation 
of the Community industry, the positive development of these indicators should not be 
considered  in  isolation  but  together  with  the  development  of  the  remaining  injury 
indicators.  

(70) 

In the absence of any other comments in this particular regard, the findings set out in 
recitals (103) and (104) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

3.3.4. Stocks 

(71)  One Chinese and the two Russian exporting producers also argued that the stocks of 
the  Community  industry  decreased  significantly  between  2003  and  the  IP,  which 
would indicate that no material injury was suffered.  

(72) 

(73) 

It is noted that stock movements during the period considered were not significant and 
did not show a clear trend. Indeed, while stocks decreased by 13 % between 2001 and 
2002,  they  increased  by  23  percentage  points  between  2002  and  2003  and  then 
decreased again by 17 percentage points in the IP. Moreover, it should also be noted 
that the decrease in stocks between 2003 and the IP only amounted to 216 tons which 
corresponds to 4.3% of the sales volume of the Community industry in 2003 and 3.9% 
during the IP. 

In  any  event,  the  Community  industry  produced  granular  PTFE  mainly  to  order  and 
products kept in stocks are usually goods awaiting  dispatch  to  customers.  Therefore, 
the increase in stocks in 2003 is rather due to a delay in delivery and cannot be seen as 
a  meaningful  injury  indicator  because  it  has  no  impact  as  such  on  the  Community 
industry’s financial situation. Therefore, in this case the developments of stocks were 
not considered as a meaningful injury indicator. 

(74)  Some  interested  parties  also  argued  that  the  increase  in  stocks  in  2003,  i.e.  the  year 
prior  to  the  IP,  caused  injury  to  the  Community  industry  because  the  Community 
industry would have been forced to sell this increased stock at lower prices during the 
IP.  As  already  mentioned  above  in  recital  (73),  production  was  made  to  order  and 
therefore, the increase in stocks in 2003 is likely due to a delay in delivery, whereas 
customers and prices were already determined. In any case, the increase in stocks of 
283 tons in 2003 cannot be considered as significant as it only represents 5.6% of the 
sales volume of that year. It was therefore concluded that this increase in stock prior to 
the IP could not cause the material injury suffered by the Community industry. 

(75)  This  claim  had  therefore  to  be  rejected  and  the  findings  of  recital  (105)  of  the 

provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.3.5. Sales prices 

(76)  The same exporting producers argued that the negative trend in the Community’s sales 
prices would not be a meaningful injury indicator since sales prices of granular PTFE 
have  decreased  globally  as  a  consequence  of  market  forces.  One  exporting  producer 
also  questioned  the  correctness  of  the  calculations  without,  however,  providing  any 
further detail in how far the calculations would not be correct.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(77)  As  far  as  the  calculation  of  the  Community  industry’s  sales  prices  is  concerned,  no 
error was detected in the provisional calculations which are therefore confirmed.  

(78) 

It  is  reiterated  that  sales  prices  in  the  Community  dropped  significantly  during  the 
period  considered  which  had  a  considerable  impact  on  the  Community  industry’s 
profitability. It is also confirmed that these were considered as key factors in the injury 
determination,  due  to  their  direct  impact  on  the  Community  industry’s  financial 
situation. It is therefore confirmed that prices are a very meaningful injury indicator in 
this investigation and the exporting producer’s claim in this respect had to be rejected.  

(79)  More  specifically  as  far  as  the  argument  of  the  alleged  global  price  decrease  is 
concerned, no factors were found which would point e.g. to cost reductions underlying 
such price decrease. It is therefore confirmed that prices are a very meaningful injury 
indicator in this investigation and the exporting producer’s claim in this respect had to 
be  rejected  in  the  context  of  the  injury  analysis.  The  remainder  of  this  argument  is 
more linked to the question of a causal link and will therefore be addressed below in 
recitals (106) and (107). 

(80) 

In the absence of any other comment in this particular regard, the findings of recital 
(106) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

3.3.6. Growth 

(81) 

It  was  argued  that  the  provisional  determinations  failed  to  explain  the  growth  of  the 
Community  industry,  in  particular  in  comparison  to  the  shrinking  Community 
consumption for the period considered. Since the growth of the Community industry 
was  determined  by  the  development  of  its  market  share,  reference  is  made  to  recital 
(103) of the provisional Regulation and to recitals (67) and (69) above.  

3.3.7. Investments and ability to raise capital 

(82)  One  Chinese  exporting  producer  objected  to  the  provisional  conclusions  that  the 

ability to raise capital was not a meaningful injury indicator.  

(83)  As outlined in recital (109) of the provisional Regulation, it was found that, since the 
Community producers are part of larger groups and therefore financed via intra-group 
cash pooling systems, the ability to raise capital was not a meaningful injury indicator, 
as it would normally not be affected, even if some producers of such larger groups are 
in a particularly injurious situation. The Chinese exporting producer did not explain in 
how far it did not agree to these conclusions, nor did it support its statement with any 
other explanations. The claim therefore had to be rejected and the findings of recitals 
(108) and (109) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

3.3.8. Profitability, return on investments and cash flow 

(84)  Some  exporting  producers  also  observed  that  there  has  been  an  increase  in  the 
Community  industry’s  profitability  between  2003  and  the  IP,  which  would  not  have 
been considered in the provisional findings.  

(85)  This claim has to be rejected, given that the development of the Community industry’s 
profitability  over  the  entire  period  considered  was  analysed  in  the  provisional 
Regulation. Thus, the increase in the profitability between 2003 and the IP could not 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
reverse the conclusion of the overall significant decrease of profitability between 2001 
and  the  IP,  i.e.  by  9.2  percentage  points.  The  profitability  during  the  IP  was  only 
slightly  above  break-even,  i.e.  at  0.1%,  and  would  have  been  even  lower  should  the 
Community industry have maintained its prices, in which case it would have suffered 
loss  of  market  share  and  sales  volume.  It  was  therefore  concluded  that  this  injury 
factor showed a clear negative trend during the period considered.  

(86) 

In the absence of any other comments in this particular regard, the findings of recitals 
(110) and (111) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

3.3.9. Employment and productivity 

(87)  The Chinese as well as the two Russian exporting producers reiterated their arguments 
on  the  development  of  employment  and  productivity,  suggesting  that  these  factors 
would  not  point  to  material  injury.  In  the  absence  of  any  new  information  in  this 
regard,  the  provisional  conclusions  as  set  out  in  recital  (112)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are maintained. 

3.3.10. Increase in the Community industry’s exports 

(88)  Finally,  the  above  mentioned  exporting  producers  argued  that  the  Community 
industry’s  increasing  export  performance  during  the  period  considered  would  show 
that it did not suffer material injury.  

(89) 

In  this  context,  it  should  be  clarified  that  recital  (134)  of  the  provisional  Regulation 
erroneously  indicated  that  the  increase  in  exports  was  3%  during  the  period 
considered.  Correctly,  exports  of  the  Community  industry  increased  by  54%. 
However, as correctly indicated in the same recital of the provisional Regulation, these 
increased  exports  constituted  only  12.7%  of  the  Community  industry’s  total  sales 
volume during the IP. Thus, it is confirmed that in absolute terms, the increase was not 
significant (i.e. roughly 250 tons). Therefore, - although increasing - export sales still 
represented only a small part of the Community industry’s total sales. On this basis, it 
was not considered as an indication that the Community industry was in good health.  

3.3.11. Wages 

(90) 

In the absence of any comment in this particular regard, the findings in recital (113) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

3.3.12. Magnitude of the dumping margin 

(91) 

In the absence of any comment in this particular regard, the findings in recital (114) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.3.13. Recovery from past dumping 

(92) 

In the absence of any comment in this particular regard, the findings in recital (116) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.3.14. Conclusions on injury 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(93)  As  far  as  the  arguments  of  certain  interested  parties  were  based  on  information 
submitted in the complaint, it should be noted that provisional findings were based on 
verified data of the Community producers during the IP.  

(94)  On this basis, despite the positive trend of some injury factors, it was concluded that 
the  overall  financial  situation  of  the  Community  industry  has  significantly  declined 
during the period considered and that it had suffered material injury during the IP.  

(95)  Therefore, the findings set out in recitals (101) to (120) of the provisional Regulation 
concerning the situation of the Community industry and the conclusion on injury are 
hereby confirmed. 

F. CAUSATION 

1. Effects on dumped imports 

(96) 

In the absence of any comments in this particular respect, the findings in recitals (122) 
to (126) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

2. Effects of other factors 

2.1. Development of consumption and demand 

(97)  Some interested parties reiterated that the decline in consumption and demand on the 
Community market were price driving factors and have to be seen as the main cause 
for the decline of prices and profitability of the Community industry, rather than the 
dumped  imports.  These  parties  did,  however,  not  provide  any  new  information  or 
evidence but simply repeated their claims made prior to the imposition of provisional 
duties. It was also argued that a comparison between the decrease in consumption and 
the  decrease  of  the  Community  market  value  as  in  recital  (127)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is irrelevant since sales prices do not only depend on the development of 
consumption and demand but also on supply. 

(98)  While it is not disputed that under normal competitive conditions prices are the result 
of  supply  and  demand,  it  is  recalled  that  in  this  case  normal  market  conditions  were 
distorted  by  uncompetitive  behavior,  i.e.  dumping  practices.  Thus,  the  investigation 
revealed  significant  dumping  from  all  exporting  producers  during  the  IP  and 
significant  undercutting  throughout  the  entire  period  considered,  which  caused  high 
price pressure on the Community industry.  

(99)  As already highlighted in recital (129) of the provisional Regulation, import prices of 
Russia  and  the  PRC  decreased  to  a  significantly  higher  degree  than  the  Community 
consumption  during  the  same  period.  Furthermore,  import  prices  from  the  countries 
under consideration continued to decrease significantly, while consumption remained 
relatively  stable  from  2002  onwards  and  increased  even  slightly.  At  the  same  time, 
sales  prices  of  imports  from  other  third  countries  decreased  to  a  much  lesser  degree 
than  the  import  prices  from  Russia  and  the  PRC.  The  direct  correlation  between  the 
decrease in consumption and the Community industry’s prices could therefore not be 
established  and  it  was  concluded  that  the  development  of  consumption  could  not  . 
have such an impact that the injury resulting from the dumped imports could no longer 
be  classified  as  material.  Indeed,  the  dumped  imports  represent  a  significant  market 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
share (ca. 35%) and have been made at very low prices. Compared with this, the effect 
of  the  decrease  in  consumption,  which  moreover  only  occurred  until  2002,  is  only 
fairly small. Moreover, the Community industry did not lose any economies of scale 
as a result of reduced consumption 

(100)  This  imbalance  between  the  drop  in  prices  and  the  decrease  in  consumption  is  also 
evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  decrease  in  consumption  was  neither  in  line  with  the 
decrease of the Community market value of granular PTFE. Therefore, the comparison 
between  market  value  and  consumption  was  a  valid,  albeit  not  the  only  indicator  to 
assess  whether  the  price  decline  of  the  Community  industry  was  due  to  the  dumped 
imports.  

(101)  In the absence of any other comment in this particular regard, the findings in recitals 

(127) to (129) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2.2. Imports originating in third countries other than Russia and the PRC  

(102)  In the absence of any comments in this particular regard, the findings in recital (130) 

of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2.3. Performance of non-complainant Community producers 

(103)  It  was  argued  that  while  the  non-complaining  Community  producers  suffered  injury, 
such injury was mainly translated into a loss of market share, rather than into a loss in 
profitability  as  in  the  case  of  the  Community  industry.  On  this  basis,  it  was  alleged 
that one and the same factor, i.e. the dumped imports could not have had such adverse 
effects  on  the  Community  producers’  situation,  be  it  complainants  or  non 
complainants.  Consequently,  it  was  claimed  that  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the 
Community producers must have been caused by other factors. 

(104)  This  argument  had  to  be  rejected.  As  mentioned  in  recital  (103)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, producers - when faced to low priced imports - have the choice to either 
maintain  their  sales  prices  at  the  expense  of  a  negative  development  of  their  sales 
volume and market share, or to lower their sales prices in order to preserve as far as 
possible economies of scale and to defend their position in the market. It is therefore 
not  unusual  that  different  producers  opt  for  different  strategies  and  that  the  injury 
suffered by these producers is translated into the negative development of either their 
market  share  or  their  sales  prices  or  a  combination  of  both  and  a  consequent  loss  of 
their  profitability.  Given  the  important  dumping,  the  substantial  import  volumes  and 
market shares as well as the significant undercutting and the dramatic drop in prices of 
the dumped imports, it can be concluded, in the absence of any further causes that the 
dumping  is  at  the  origin  of  a  negative  situation  such  as  the  one  experienced  by  the 
Community industry. 

(105)  In the absence of any other comments in this particular regard, the findings in recital 

(133) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2.4. World-wide price developments, economic recession and market shrinkage 

(106)  It was claimed that on the basis of a decreasing trend of import prices as recorded in 
Eurostat and, in particular, import prices of the USA and Switzerland, granular PTFE 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
prices had dropped in general in the entire Community market. This downward trend 
in prices would also be due to  the fact that  the  granular  PTFE  market  is  a  shrinking 
market, i.e. demand and consumption is decreasing. Therefore, the decline of the sales 
prices of the Community industry is rather due to this general downward trend than to 
the dumped imports from the countries concerned.  

(107)  It should be noted that an analysis of import prices, as recorded in Eurostat, in general, 
and  from  Switzerland  and  the  USA,  in  particular,  revealed  that  these  were  largely 
above  the  import  price  level  of  the  PRC  and  Russia,  as  well  as  those  of  the 
Community  industry.  Likewise,  the  prices  of  the  non-complainant  Community 
producers  were  above  the  price  level  of  the  Community  industry.  Therefore,  it  was 
concluded that third countries and the non-complainant Community producers did not 
exert a competitive pressure on prices which could be regarded as a significant source 
of injury.  

(108)  It  is  further  noted  that  as  mentioned  above,  although  Community  consumption  was 
decreasing  significantly  from  2001  to  2002,  it  remained  rather  stable  afterwards  and 
increased  even  slightly.  Moreover,  this  increasing  trend  was  confirmed  after  the  IP. 
Consequently, the granular PTFE market cannot be considered as a shrinking market.  

(109)  On the basis of the above, it was concluded that the general economic downward trend 
during  the  period  considered  did  not  break  the  causal  link  between  the  dumped 
imports from the PRC and Russia and the material injury suffered by the Community 
industry.  

2.5. Efficiency of the Community industry 

(110)  Some co-operating exporters stated that the provisional conclusion in recital (135) of 
the provisional Regulation, i.e. that the Community industry’s cost of production was 
decreasing was not in line with the data submitted in the complaint, which suggested 
an increase in the Community industry’s unit cost during the period considered. They 
claimed that it should have been investigated whether this increase in costs caused the 
material injury suffered. In this respect, it should be noted that the conclusion of recital 
(135) in the provisional Regulation was based on data which were verified during the 
different on-spot investigations at the premises of the European producers. Therefore, 
these claims were rejected. 

(111)  Another  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  Community  industry  lowered  its  sales 
prices  to  unnecessary  low  levels,  which  would  be  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the 
Community  industry  increased  sales  volume  and  gained  (instead  of  merely 
maintained)  market  share  during  the  period  considered.  Furthermore,  it  was  alleged 
that  the  loss  in  profitability  was  rather  due  to  an  increase  of  unit  costs  -  as  a 
consequence  of  low  capacity  utilization  rates  and  an  increase  in  wages  -  than  to  the 
imports under consideration.  

(112)  It  should  first  be  noted  that  in  contrast  to  this  exporting  producers’  allegation,  the 
production cost of the Community decreased during the period considered, which was 
therefore  not  considered  as  a  cause  for  the  loss  of  the  Community  industry’s 
profitability. While it is true that the Community industry was able to keep its market 
position and even increase its market share, this was at the expense of its profitability. 
It  is  recalled  that  the  imports  under  consideration  significantly  undercut  the 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
Community  industry’s  prices  throughout  the  period  considered,  which  could  not  be 
outweighed by the Community industry’s increase in market share.  

(113)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  it  was  concluded  that,  since  the  Community  industry  had 
efficient  production  processes  and  decreasing  production  costs,  the  material  injury 
suffered  by  the  Community  industry  was  not  self-inflicted.  The  findings  of  recital 
(135) of the provisional Regulation are thereby confirmed. 

2.6. Captive sales 

(114)  Two  Russian  exporting  producers  claimed  that  captive  sales  of  granular  PTFE  of  at 
least  two  Community  producers  had  increased  significantly  during  the  period 
considered.  It  was  argued  that  given  that  these  sales  were  usually  unprofitable,  the 
increase  in  captive  sales  should  be  considered  as  a  possible  cause  for  the  injury 
suffered by the Community industry.  

(115)  In this regard, the investigation revealed that captive sales constituted only around 5% 
of  the  Community  industry’s  total  production  volume  during  the  IP.  Given  this  low 
quantities, it was concluded that, even if unprofitable, captive sales could not break the 
causal  link  between  the  dumped  imports  from  the  PRC  and  Russia  and  the  material 
injury suffered by the Community industry. 

2.7. No competition between granular PTFE imported from Russia and the PRC and 

the PTFE produced and sold by the Community industry 

(116)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  that  since  the  granular  PTFE  imported  from  the 
countries  concerned  would  be  of  an  overall  lower  quality  and  not  compete  with  the 
product  sold  by  the  Community  industry  in  the  Community  market,  any  injury 
suffered  by  the  Community  industry  cannot  have  been  caused  by  the  imports  under 
consideration.  

(117)  It this respect, it is recalled that in recitals (12) to (14) it was concluded that despite 
different  possible  product  types,  including  quality  differences,  the  granular  PTFE 
produced  by  the  Community  industry  and  the  product  concerned  imported  from  the 
countries  concerned  have  the  same  physical  characteristics  and  essentially  the  same 
basic end-uses. As set out in recitals (16), (90) and (92) of the provisional Regulation 
and recital (10) above, the investigation also confirmed that all imported product types 
are  in  competition  with  those  produced  and  sold  by  the  Community  industry  on  the 
Community market. Therefore, the above claim had to be rejected. 

2.8. Exports by the Community industry 

(118)  As mentioned in recital (89) above, the increase of export sales from the Community 
industry  was  in  fact  54%.  However,  the  main  conclusions  in  recital  (134)  of  the 
provisional Regulation, i.e. that these increased exports constituted only a small part of 
the  Community  industry’s  total  sales  (i.e.  12.7%  during  the  IP)  are  confirmed. 
Therefore,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  particular  regard,  the 
findings in recital (134) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2.9. Exchange rate fluctuations 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
(119)  Some  interested  parties  argued  that  the  depreciation  of  the  USD  against  the  Euro 
would have caused the injury suffered by the Community industry. It was claimed that 
(i) the depreciation of the USD would have reduced the Community industry’s export 
sales  to  the  United  States  and  (ii)  increased  the  competitiveness  of  the  Russian  and 
Chinese imports.  

(120)  As  far  as  the  export  sales  of  the  Community  industry  is  concerned,  these  parties  did 
not provide any underlying evidence but based their statement on mere assumptions. 
They  did  in  particular  not  specify  whether  export  sales  of  the  Community  industry 
would have allegedly been reduced in volume or in value or in both. In any case, as 
already  concluded  above  in  recital  (118),  the  Community  industry  export  sales’ 
increased  by  54%  during  the  period  considered.  As  indicated  in  recital  (134)  of  the 
provisional Regulation, the profit margin realized by the Community industry on these 
export  sales  was  higher  than  the  one  realized  on  sales  in  the  Community  market. 
Therefore,  the  export  sales  development  of  the  Community  industry  could  not  be 
considered to have any negative impact on the situation of the Community industry.  

(121)  As far as the imports of Russia and the PRC are concerned, it must be noted that they 
were  significantly  dumped,  i.e.  reaching  dumping  margins  of  36.6%  for  Russia  and 
almost  100%  for  the  PRC.  On  the  other  hand,  imports  from  other  countries  into  the 
Community representing roughly 25% of the Community consumption were made at 
significantly  higher  prices  than  those  from  Russia  and  the  PRC,  despite  the 
depreciation  of  the  USD.  Also,  the  undercutting  of  the  imports  under  consideration 
was substantial throughout the whole period and exceeded by far the depreciation rate 
of the USD against the Euro . This claim is therefore rejected. 

2.10. Conclusion on causation 

(122)  Based  on  the  above  considerations  and  other  elements  contained  in  recitals  (121)  to 
(138) of the provisional Regulation, it is concluded that dumped imports from Russia 
and  the  PRC  have  caused  material  injury  to  the  Community  industry  within  the 
meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation. 

F. COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. Financial impact on users 

(123)  Several users reiterated their main concern that the imposition of definitive measures 
would have a serious adverse impact on their financial situation since they would not 
be able to pass on the expected increase in costs resulting from the imposition of anti-
dumping measures to their customers.  

(124)  In  this  regard,  subsequent  to  provisional  disclosure,  five  users/processors  not  co-
operating  so  far  were  contacted  and  invited  to  fill  in  a  questionnaire.  These 
users/processors which only requested a questionnaire after imposition of provisional 
measures  were  unknown  to  the  Community  institutions  before.  It  was  found  that  a 
number of these users were importing the majority of the granular PTFE used in their 
production/processing  process  from  the  countries  under  consideration.  These  users 
represented a large part of the total imports from Russia and the PRC, as well as the 
total Community consumption. They alleged that anti-dumping measures would have 
a  significant  impact  on  their  profitability.  Under  these  circumstances  and  given  the 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
low number of users co-operating prior to the imposition of provisional measures, as 
well  as  the  alleged  impact  of  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures,  it  was 
considered warranted to accept these replies, albeit being submitted at a late stage of 
the investigation, in order to have findings as representative as possible.  

(125)  Four users replied to the questionnaire (one only partially). One of these users was a 
transformer of granular PTFE, with part of its production directly competing with the 
Community  producers  on  the  granular  PTFE  market,  while  the  other  users  were 
processors  producing  semi-finished  and  finished  products,  by  using  granular  PTFE 
directly  in  their  production  process.  The  users  already  co-operating  prior  to  the 
imposition  of  provisional  measures  and  the  ones  coming  forward  after  imposition  of 
provisional  duties  were  also  invited  to  submit  additional  information  regarding  their 
cost  of  production,  with  a  view  to  complement  the  data  used  for  the  provisional 
findings  and  to  allow  a  detailed,  in-depth  analysis  of  all  aspects  of  the  situation  of 
different  users,  in  particular  to  calculate  the  precise  impact  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures  on  their  profitability.  However,  only  four  companies  replied  to  this 
additional request. In summary, a total of seven users co-operated, representing 67.8% 
of  total  imports  from  the  countries  concerned  and  41.3%  of  the  total  Community 
consumption. 

(126)  The additional investigation revealed that the impact of definitive anti-dumping duties 
on  users  would  vary  significantly  depending  on  the  quantity  of  imported  granular 
PTFE used in their production processes. In this regard, the calculations were made on 
the  basis  of  the  assumption  that  none  of  the  users  would  be  able  to  pass  the  price 
increase  on  to  their  customers.  In  this  hypothetical  worst  case  scenario,  for  two 
companies,  sourcing  between  70%  and  80%  of  granular  PTFE  from  the  countries 
under consideration, the impact of the measures on their profitability was estimated to 
be up to 7.5%. For the remaining co-operating users, importing less than 30% of their 
raw material from the countries under consideration, the impact, under the assumption 
that  the  price  increase  would  not  even  be  partly  passed  on  to  their  customers,  was 
estimated at a maximum of 2.7%.  

(127)  It should be noted, however, that the investigation confirmed also that price increases 
in the Community as a consequence of the imposition of anti-dumping measures will 
very likely be passed on to the final customer. In that respect, it was considered that 
the high price pressure in the Community was mainly due to the low priced imports 
from  the  PRC  and  Russia.  It  is  therefore  expected  that  with  the  imposition  of  anti-
dumping  measures,  price  levels  of  granular  PTFE  in  the  Community  will  generally 
increase. The investigation also revealed that downstream products were partly re-sold 
via  distributors  benefiting  from  high  margins,  which  indicates  that  those  distributors 
have potential to absorb price increases. Finally, it was found that there was very little 
competition  in  the  market  of  the  semi-finished  and  finished  products  produced  from 
granular  PTFE  from  third  countries  during  the  IP,  which  also  indicates  that  price 
increases would likely be passed on to the final customers. Indeed, the semi-finished 
and  finished  products  market  is  dominated  by  Community  processors,  rather  than 
imported  products,  which  will  all  be  equally  subject  to  the  anti-dumping  duties. 
Therefore,  it  is  expected  that  a  price  increase  will  affect  all  Community  operators 
concerned equally and no price pressure is expected from imported products. For these 
reasons,  it  is  concluded  that  users  will  in  all  likelihood  be  able  to  pass  on  a 
considerable part of the cost increase to their customers, so that the estimated impact 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
of anti-dumping measures on their profitability should in reality be much more limited 
than under the worst case scenario. 

(128)  Secondly, it should be noted that, even if the price increase could not even be partly 
passed  on,  which  is  not  a  realistic  hypothesis,  the  impact  on  the  profitability  of  the 
above  four  co-operating  users  would  not  appear  to  be  disproportionate.  Two  of  the 
users  would  still  be  profitable,  even  in  that  worst  case  scenario.  One  of  the  co-
operating  producers,  for  which  the  estimated  impact  of  any  anti-dumping  measure 
would  be  slightly  more  than  1%,  realised  significant  losses  already  during  the  IP, 
which were not linked to the anti-dumping measures. Any price increase due to anti-
dumping  duties  would  therefore  not  have  a  considerable  impact  on  its  business 
performance. Finally, the last user had a significant gross margin, i.e. over 30% and it 
is therefore expected that it can, at least partly, absorb itself any price increase due to 
the imposition of anti-dumping duties. 

(129)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (125),  the  above  findings  reflect  the  situation  of  users 
representing almost 70% of the total imports from the countries concerned and roughly 
40% of the Community consumption. The investigation covered also different types of 
users, i.e. representing different industrial sectors, using granular PTFE either directly 
or  in  semi-finished  products,  some  importing  high  quantities  from  the  countries 
concerned,  others  only  limited  quantities.  It  was  therefore  considered  that  the  above 
findings  could  be  regarded  as  largely  representative.  It  should  also  be  noted  that,  as 
mentioned  in  recital  (147)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  impact  of  the  anti-
dumping  duties  on  certain  users  is  negligible  due  to  the  fact  that  granular  PTFE 
constitutes a rather low proportion of their overall costs. 

(130)  Furthermore, it should be noted that all co-operating users have a significant business 
outside the Community. Indeed, 24,6% of the users’ sales volume is exported outside 
the  Community.  This  implies  that  the  inward  processing  regime  would  allow  these 
users to claim back or to avoid paying the anti-dumping duties levied on the imported 
granular PTFE. Consequently, this segment of the users’ business will not be affected 
by the measures.  

(131)  Finally, when considering the possible effects of measures on users, it should also be 
noted  that  their  current  financial  situation  is  partly  due  to  the  unfair  competition 
resulting  from  the  existence  of  dumped  imports.  This  should  be  taken  into  account, 
when balancing the possible negative impact of measures on users against the positive 
effects on other interested parties, in particular the Community industry.  

(132)  For  all  the  above  reasons,  it  is  concluded  that  the  likely  effect  of  measures  on  users 
would  not  be  disproportionate.  It  was  therefore  concluded  that  the  imposition  of 
definitive anti-dumping duties would not be against the Community interest. 

2. Imports of semi-finished and finished products 

(133)  Certain  users  also  claimed  that  they  would  be  placed  in  a  situation  of  competition 
distortion vis-à-vis producers in the countries concerned of semi-finished and finished 
products  not  subject  to  anti-dumping  duties,  in  particular  because  such  producers 
would shift their exports to the Community from granular PTFE to semi-finished and 
finished products. As a consequence, users in the Community would need to relocate 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
part  of  their  business  outside  the  European  Community  in  order  to  have  access  to 
cheaper raw material.  

(134)  As  regards  the  semi-finished  and  finished  products,  it  was  found  that  the  threat  of 
increasing  imports  of  cheaper  semi-finished  and  finished  downstream  products  from 
the countries concerned is not imminent. On the basis of the information available, i.e. 
in particular the known quality difference between the imported granular PTFE from 
the  countries  concerned  and  the  one  produced  by  the  Community  industry,  neither 
Russian  nor  Chinese  producers  are  currently  able  to  produce  the  complete  product 
range  produced  by  the  users  in  the  Community,  due  to  a  lack  of  the  necessary 
technical know-how. A number of parties observed that the know-how of Russian and 
Chinese producers as well as the quality of their products is constantly increasing and 
that  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  would  accelerate  this  process 
because it would create an incentive for shifting the production of semi-finished and 
finished products to these countries where the granular PTFE was available at cheaper 
prices.  It  is  noted  that  according  to  some  operators  in  the  market,  imports  of  semi-
finished products from the countries concerned indeed appeared to have an increasing 
trend.  There  is,  however,  no  evidence  available  suggesting  that  the  quality  of  the 
products imported is comparable to that of the products manufactured and sold on the 
Community market and that there would therefore indeed be a higher competition and 
a risk of increasing imports of semi-finished and finished products.  

(135)  Furthermore, the claim that the processing activities would actually consider to move 
outside the Community, or that exporters would shift into further processed products 
was not substantiated by sufficient evidence. The investigation also revealed that some 
users had only recently invested in their production process in the Community, which 
indicates that the relocation of those production facilities would be highly unlikely.  

3. Employment 

(136)  It was also argued that the processing industry  employs  by  far  more  people  than  the 
granular  PTFE  producers  in  the  Community  and  that  those  jobs  would  be  in  danger 
should anti-dumping measures be imposed.  

(137)  The  investigation  revealed  that  the  information  submitted  by  the  users/importers 
organisation  concerned  with  regard  to  employment  was  largely  overestimated.  In 
addition, only part of those jobs would be directly threatened by the imposition of anti-
dumping duties. It should also be noted that the production of granular PTFE is more 
capital-intensive,  while  the  production  of  semi-finished  or  finished  products  is  much 
more labour-intensive. Therefore, a direct comparison between the number of jobs of 
the  granular  PTFE  industry  and  the  downstream  industry  is  not  appropriate. 
Furthermore,  it  should  be  noted  that  some  jobs  at  the  non-complainant  Community 
producers  and  suppliers  would  also  be  threatened.  As  indicated  above,  the  non-
complainant Community producers have already lost significant market share since the 
beginning  of  the  period  considered.  Finally,  a  number  of  users  and  therefore  jobs  in 
the Community are also dependent fully or partly on the supply from the Community 
industry and from the non-complainant Community producers. Therefore,  should the 
Community industry disappear these jobs would be equally in danger. 

4. Shortage of supply 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
(138)  A number of parties also reiterated that the imposition of definitive duties would lead 
to  a  shortage  of  supply  because  it  would  prevent  the  exporting  producers  from  the 
PRC  and  Russia  to  export  their  products  to  the  Community,  while  the  Community 
industry would not have sufficient capacity to supply the Community demand. It was 
also argued that even if the Community industry would have the theoretical capacity to 
increase its production of PTFE, this would economically not be interesting since the 
production  of  granular  PTFE  would  generate  less  profit  than  the  production  of  other 
fluoropolymers. It was claimed that other sources, such as Japan and the USA would 
not  be  a  valid  alternative  because  import  prices  from  these  countries  remain  high.  It 
was further claimed that the shortage in the Community market would be aggravated 
by the expected increase in demand on the Community market. On the other hand, for 
certain low-end applications, the product produced in the Community would be over-
specified and would be too expensive to be used in such applications. Finally, it was 
argued that reactor bead would not be sold at all in the Community, while pre-sintered 
grades are only produced in limited quantities in the Community, thus users would be 
dependent on imports from the countries under consideration.  

(139)  It  should  be  recalled  that  the  Community  industry’s  capacity  is  9,200  tons,  at  80% 
capacity utilisation. The sales volume during the IP was about 4,845 tons. This implies 
that  the  complaining  producers  would  be  able  to  sell  an  additional  4,355  tons  of  the 
like  product,  which  is  85%  of  the  total  imports  of  the  countries  concerned.  The 
argument  that  the  Community  industry  would  not  use  this  free  capacity  to  produce 
granular PTFE due to the low profit margins generated by the sales of this product had 
to  be  rejected.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  argument  was  not  supported  by  any 
evidence. Moreover, the low profitability generated by the Community industry’s sales 
of  granular  PTFE  was  due  to  the  dumped  imports  which  were  significantly 
undercutting the Community industry’s prices and therefore causing substantial price 
pressure.  Therefore,  with  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  prices  on 
the Community market should recover which would also have a positive effect on the 
profitability.  

(140)  As far as reactor bead is concerned, it was found that only very limited quantities were 
imported  during  the  IP.  Likewise,  imports  of  pre-sintered  grades  were  very  limited 
during  the  IP,  which  implies  that  pre-sintered  grades  are  made  by  the  users 
themselves. It was found that at least two Community producers are able to produce 
pre-sintered  grades.  Finally,  as  mentioned  above,  the  Community  industry  also  sold 
‘off-spec’ grades during the IP, which are comparable to the low quality grades from 
the PRC and Russia. 

(141)  Other  sources,  such  as  Japan  and  USA  are  also  available.  The  argument  that  import 
prices  from  these  countries  are  higher  than  those  form  the  countries  under 
investigation and that granular PTFE from Japan and the USA would therefore not be 
a valid alternative cannot be accepted because the purpose of the anti-dumping duties 
is precisely to eliminate injurious dumping and restore fair conditions of competition. 

(142)  It is further recalled that the purpose of any anti-dumping measure is by no means to 
stop access to the Community market for products from the countries concerned, but 
rather to restore a level playing field that had been distorted by unfair trade practices. 
Therefore,  granular  PTFE,  including  the  product  types  for  which  a  shortage  was 
alleged,  from  the  countries  concerned  can  continue  to  enter  the  Community  market, 
albeit at higher price levels. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
(143)  Based  on  the  above  considerations  and  other  elements  contained  in  recitals  (139)  to 
(153)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  it  is  concluded  that  no  compelling  reasons  exist 
for  not  imposing  anti-dumping  measures  on  import  of  the  product  concerned 
originating in Russia and the PRC. 

G. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

1. Injury elimination level 

(144)  Based  on  the  methodology  set  out  in  recitals  (154)  to  (159)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, an injury elimination level was calculated for the purpose of establishing 
the level of measures to be definitively imposed. 

(145)  One of the Russian exporting producer claimed that the adjustment for differences in 
the level of trade should have been based on the information provided by the fully co-
operating  unrelated  importer  which  accounted  for  the  major  part  of  its  imports. 
However,  although  the  information  of  this  importer  was  verified  on-spot,  due  to  the 
highly  complex  sales  structure  of  the  importer  in  question,  involving  a  number  of 
different  companies  from  which  no  information  was  available,  purchase  prices  and 
consequently  the  profit  margin  of  this  unrelated  importer  could  not  be  reliably 
established and were therefore not used. Alternatively, this exporting producer claimed 
that  in  order  to  calculate  the  adjustment  for  the  level  of  trade,  the  CIF  import  price 
should be compared to the re-sale price of the importer in question in the Community. 
However, it was found that this methodology would not lead to more reliable results 
than  the  methodology  used  for  the  provisional  determinations.  In  contrast,  the 
information  available,  in  particular  the  audited  accounts  of  the  importer,  confirmed 
that the estimations made in the provisional determinations were reasonable. 

(146)  Both  Russian  exporting  producers  also  claimed  that  the  comparison  of  their  export 
price  to  the  non-injurious  price  should  have  been  made  on  a  per  model  basis.  In 
particular,  it  was  argued  that  the  more  expensive  speciality  types  produced  by  the 
Community  industry  should  have  been  excluded  from  the  calculation  of  the  injury 
elimination level. In this context, it is recalled that, as outlined in recitals (28) to (40) 
above,  findings  for  both  Russian  exporting  producers  had  to  be  based  on  facts 
available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Since no reliable data 
on  a  per  model  basis  was  available,  the  determination  of  the  export  price  of  these 
exporting  producers  was  based  on  data  recorded  in  Eurostat.  Furthermore,  as 
mentioned in recital (9) and (55) above, imported PTFE after post treatment was of a 
similar quality to the PTFE produced by the Community industry and could be used in 
almost all applications, including high-end applications. This claim had therefore to be 
rejected. 

(147)  A number of parties contested the level of profit of 9.3% used for the calculation of the 
provisional  underselling  margin,  claiming  that  it  was  too  high.  In  particular,  it  was 
argued  that  it  should  be  taken  into  consideration  that  the  granular  PTFE  market  is 
shrinking  and  cost  of  production  is  increasing,  therefore  the  Community  industry 
would not have been able to achieve 9.3% profit in the absence of dumped imports. It 
was proposed to use a profit margin of 5% instead.  

(148)  In  this  regard,  it  is  recalled  that  the profit  margin  of  9.3  %  was  based  on  actual  and 
verified data submitted by the Community producers, i.e. evidence which showed that 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
9.3%  was  the  profit  effectively  obtained  before  dumped  imports  started  to  penetrate 
into the Community market. It is also noted that, as mentioned in recital (112) cost of 
production  decreased  during  the  period  considered.  In  the  absence  of  any  new 
information, the methodology used for establishing the injury margin as described in 
recitals (156) to (159) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. Definitive duties 

(149)  In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that a definitive anti-dumping duty should 
be imposed at the level of the dumping margin found, but should not be higher than 
the injury margin calculated in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(150)  The proposed definitive duty rates, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community 

border price, customs duty unpaid, are as follows: 

Exporting country 

Injury elimination 
margin 

Dumping 
margin 

Proposed anti-
dumping duty 

People’s Republic of China 

55.5% 

Russia 

40.0% 

99.7% 

36.6% 

55.5% 

36.6% 

(151)  In  order  to  ensure  a  proper  enforcement  of  the  anti-dumping  duty,  the  residual  duty 
level  should  not  only  apply  to  the  non-cooperating  exporter,  but  also  to  those 
companies  which  did  not  have  any  exports  during  the  IP.  However,  the  latter 
companies are invited, when they fulfil the requirements of Article 11(4) of the basic 
Regulation, second paragraph, to present a request for a review pursuant to that Article 
in order to have their situation examined individually. 

3. Undertakings 

(152)  One Chinese exporting producer which was granted neither MET nor IT has shown an 
interest  in  offering  an  undertaking.  However,  it  is  the  Commission  practice  not  to 
accept  undertaking  offers  from  companies  which  were  neither  granted  MET  nor  IT 
since no individual dumping margin can be established in those cases. Moreover, the 
investigation revealed that the accounts of the company concerned were not reliable so 
that the monitoring of the undertaking would have proved impractical 

(153)  The two Russian exporting producers also made proposals for offering an undertaking. 
However,  as  stated  above  in  recitals  (28)  to  (35),  the  findings  with  regard  to  both 
exporting  producers  had  to  be  made  on  the  basis of the  facts available. It is recalled 
that the companies provided misleading information in respect of certain aspects of the 
investigation  which  affected  the  accuracy  and  reliability  of  their  cooperation. 
Accordingly,  the  Commission  was  not  satisfied  that  an  undertaking  from  these 
companies could be effectively monitored and the offers were therefore rejected. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  so-called  granular 
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), containing not more than 3% of other monomer unit 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
than  tetrafluoroethylene,  without  fillers,  in  the  form  of  powder  or  pellets, with  the 
exclusion  of  micronized  material  (i.e.  fluoropolymer  micropowder  as  defined  by 
norm ASTM D5675-04) falling within CN code ex 3904 61 00 (TARIC code 3904 
61  00  50)  and  originating  in  Russia  and  the  People’s  Republic  of  China.  The 
aforementioned  product  description  covers  also  such  products  presented  as  raw 
polymer (reactor bead) in wet or dry form. 

2. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-
Community-frontier  price,  before  duty,  of  the  products  described  in  paragraph  1, 
shall be as follows: 

Country 

Rate of duty 

People’s Republic of China 

Russia 

55.5% 

36.6% 

3. 

Unless  otherwise  specified,  the  provisions  in  force  concerning  customs  duties  shall 
apply. 

Article 2 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  862/2005  on  imports  of  so  called  granular  polytetrafluoroethylene 
(PTFE), containing not more than 3% of other monomer unit than tetrafluoroethylene, without 
fillers, in the form of powder or pellets, with the exclusion of micronized material, and its raw 
polymer (reactor bead), the latter in wet or dry form, falling within CN code ex 3904 61 00 
(TARIC code 3904 61 00 50) and originating in Russia and the People’s Republic of China 
shall be collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed. Amounts secured in excess of 
the  definitive  rate  of  anti-dumping  duties  shall  be  released.  Where  the  definitive  duties  are 
higher  than  the  provisional  duties,  only  the  amounts  secured  at  the  level  of  the  provisional 
duties shall be definitively collected. 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  following  that  of  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 Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

30 

   EN