2007/214/EC: Commission Decision of 3 April 2007 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of pentaerythritol originating in the People’s Republic of China, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States of America
Date: 2007-04-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Russia, Türkiye, Ukraine, United States, anti-dumping legislation, chemical alcohol, import, originating product

4.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/55

COMMISSION DECISION

of 3 April 2007

terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of pentaerythritol originating in the
People’s Republic of China, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States of America

(2007/214/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

2. Parties concerned by the proceeding

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

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

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Initiation

lodged pursuant

the Commission received a
On 2 December 2005,
the basic
complaint
to Article 5 of
Industry
Regulation by CEFIC (European Chemical
Council) (the complainant) on behalf of producers repre-
senting a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %,
of the total Community production of pentaerythritol.

complaint

contained evidence of dumping of
This
from the People’s Republic of China
pentaerythritol
(PRC), Ukraine, Russia, Turkey and the United States of
injury resulting there
America (USA) and of material
from, which was considered sufficient
to justify the
opening of a proceeding.

(3)

On 17 January 2006, the proceeding was initiated by the
in the Official
publication of a notice of
Journal of the European Union.

initiation (2)

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

(EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

(2) OJ C 11, 17.1.2006, p. 4.

exporting

producers,

The Commission officially advised the complainant, the
Community
producers,
the
importers, users, suppliers and associations known to
be concerned and the representatives of the exporting
countries concerned of the initiation of the proceeding.
Interested parties were given an opportunity to make
their views known in writing and to request a hearing
within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.

The complainant producers, other Community producers,
exporting producers, importers, users and suppliers made
interested parties, who so
their views known. All
requested and showed that
there were particular
reasons why they should be heard, were granted a
hearing.

In order to allow exporting producers in the PRC and
Ukraine to submit a claim for market economy treatment
(MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the
Commission sent claim forms
to the Chinese and
Ukrainian authorities and to the exporting producers in
those two countries known to be concerned. One
company in the PRC requested MET pursuant to Article
2(7) of the basic Regulation or IT should the investi-
gation establish that they do not meet the conditions
for MET. The sole Ukrainian producer requested only IT.

In the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated that
sampling may be applied in this investigation for expo-
rters/producers in the PRC. However, since only one
company cooperated and indicated its willingness to be
included in the sample, sampling was not required.

to all parties known to be
Questionnaires were sent
concerned and to all other companies that made them-
selves known within the deadlines set out in the notice
from three
of
initiation. Replies were
two
Community producers, one of
production plants, three unrelated importers, five users,
one supplier, one exporting producers in the PRC, one
exporting producer in Turkey, one exporting producer in
Ukraine and one producer which accepted to cooperate
in a possible analogue country, Chile.

them having

received

L 94/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2007

(9)

The Commission sought and verified all the information
deemed necessary for a determination of dumping,
resulting injury and Community interest and carried
out verifications at
following
companies:

the premises of

the

(a) Community producers

— Perstorp
Sweden,

Specialty Chemicals AB,

Perstorp,

— Perstorp Chemicals GmbH, Arnsberg, Germany,

— Chemza AS Strazske, Strazske, Slovakia,

— S.A. Polialco, Barcelona, Spain;

(b) Exporting producers in the PRC

— Hubei Yihua Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Yichang;

(c) Exporting producers in Ukraine

— Rubezhnoye State Chemical Plant (Zarja),

Rubezhnoye;

(d) Exporting producers in Turkey

— MKS Marmara

Beșiktaș.

Entegre Kimya

Sanayi A.Ș.,

(10)

In view of the need to establish a normal value for
exporting producers in the PRC and Ukraine to which
MET might not be granted, a verification to establish
normal value on the basis of data from a possible
analogue country, Chile in this case, took place at the
premises of the following company:

— Oxiquim, Viña del Mar;

(e) Industrial user in the Community

— Nuplex Resins BV, Bergen op Zoom, The Neth-

erlands.

3. Investigation period

(11)

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the
period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005
(investigation period or
the
trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the
period from 1 January 2002 to the end of the investi-
gation period (period considered).

IP). The examination of

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

(12)

crystalline,

(penta), clas-
The product concerned is pentaerythritol
It is an odourless,
sified under CN code 2905 42 00.
white,
solid compound, produced from
formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, and the most widely
used polyol for production of alkyd resins around the
world. Main raw materials used are methanol, which is
used for the production of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde
and sodium hydroxide.

(13) Alkyd resins, used mainly in coatings account
the end use of

for
approximately 60 to 70 % of
the
product concerned. Other applications include synthetic
lubricants for refrigeration compressors, rosin esters used
in adhesives as tackifiers and pentaerythritol tetranitrate
(PETN).

(14)

(15)

(16)

There are a three main grades produced worldwide, the
most commonly produced being penta mono grade. The
other two grades are technical and nitration grade. The
grade depends on the degree of purity, which is defined
by the content of mono- and di-pentaerythritol. For
example penta mono grade has a monopentaerythritol
content of 98 % compared to 87 % in the technical
grade. The investigation has shown that the production
process is largely the same for the most common grades
of penta and thus also the cost of production was found
to be identical for all different grades. Moreover, it was
found that all grades share the same basic chemical and
physical characteristics and are basically used for the
same purposes.

Penta mono and penta technical grades are in a few cases
also supplied in a micronized form, which means that
the product is submitted to milling after the production
process. Chemically speaking micronized penta is exactly
the same product but due to the milling, it has a slightly
higher cost and sales price.

The Turkish exporting producer argued against the use of
only one type of penta, which combines the three
different grades: mono, technical and nitration grade. It
claimed that in particular the micronized penta should be
considered as a different type. The latter claim could be
accepted and micronized penta, which represents a very
small part of the Community industry’s production and
which was not found to be exported to the Community
from any of the countries concerned, was disregarded
from the product scope in the framework of this inves-
tigation. However, it was considered that there was no
reason to separate the three different grades produced
into different types, since their cost and price levels are
identical. It should also be stressed that penta is to a large
extent a commodity, perceived by the end-customer as
one and the same product. Therefore this claim was
rejected and one single type was maintained.

4.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/57

(17)

Based on the physical, chemical and technical character-
istics, the production process and the substitutability of
the different types of the product from the perspective of
the user, all grades of penta is considered to constitute a
single product for the purpose of the proceeding.

In cases where the volume of profitable sales of penta
represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that
product, or where the weighted average price was below
the cost of production, normal value was based on the
actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of
profitable sales only, provided that these sales represented
10 % or more of the total sales volume of penta.

2. Like product

(18)

The product concerned and the penta produced and sold
on the domestic market of the countries concerned, and
on the domestic market of Japan, which was initially
considered to serve as analogue country, as well as the
penta produced and sold in the Community by the
Community industry were found to have the same
basic chemical and physical characteristics and uses.

(23)

In cases where the volume of profitable sales of penta
represented less than 10 % of the total sales volume of
that product, it was considered that the product was sold
in insufficient quantities for the domestic price to provide
an appropriate basis for the establishment of the normal
value. Wherever domestic prices of penta sold by a
producer could not be used in order
to establish
normal value, another method had to be applied.

(19)

It was
these
therefore provisionally concluded that
products are alike within the meaning of Article 1(4)
of the basic Regulation.

(24)

In accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation,
normal value was constructed on the basis of each
producer’s own cost of manufacturing plus a reasonable
amount for selling, general and administrative (SG&A)
expenses and for profit.

C. DUMPING

1. General methodology

(20)

The general methodology is described below. The
the findings on dumping
subsequent presentation of
for
the countries concerned therefore only describes
issues specific to each exporting country.

(25)

Therefore, the Commission examined whether the SG&A
incurred and the profit realised by each of the producers
concerned on the domestic market constituted reliable
data.

(21)

(22)

2. Normal value

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, it
was
first examined for each cooperating exporting
producer whether its domestic sales of penta were repre-
i.e. whether the total volume of such sales
sentative,
represented at
sales
volume of the producer to the Community.

the total export

least 5 % of

(26) Actual domestic SG&A expenses were considered reliable
the company
where the domestic sales volume of
as
concerned could be
defined in Article 2(2) of
the basic Regulation. The
domestic profit margin was determined on the basis of
domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade.

representative

regarded as

this product.

The Commission subsequently examined whether the
domestic sales of penta, sold domestically in represen-
tative quantities could be regarded as having been
made in the ordinary course of
trade in accordance
with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation, by establishing
to independent
the proportion of profitable
customers of
In cases where the sales
volume of penta, sold at a net sales price equal to or
above the calculated cost of production,
represented
more than 80 % of the total sales volume, and where
the weighted average price was equal to or above the
cost of production, normal value was based on the
actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average
of the prices of all domestic sales made during the IP,
irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.

sales

(27)

In all cases where these conditions were not met, the
Commission examined whether data of other exporters
or producers in the domestic market of the country of
origin could be used in accordance with Article 2(6)(a) of
the basic Regulation. Where reliable data were only
available for one exporting producer, no average as set
out in Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation could be
established and it was examined whether the conditions
of Article 2(6)(b) were fulfilled, i.e. the use of data with
regard to the production and sales of the same general
category of products for the exporter or producer in
question. Where these data were not available or were
not provided by the producer, SG&A and profits were
established in accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic
Regulation,
i.e. on the basis of any other reasonable
method.

L 94/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2007

3. Export price

(b) Export price

(28)

In all cases when sales of the product concerned were
exported to independent customers in the Community
the export price was established in accordance with
the basic Regulation, namely on the
Article 2(8) of
basis of export prices actually paid or payable.

(36)

In all cases the product concerned was sold to inde-
pendent customers in the Community. Consequently
the export price was established in accordance with
the basic Regulation, namely on the
Article 2(8) of
basis of export prices actually paid or payable.

(a) Comparison

(29)

The normal value and export prices were compared on
an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair
comparison between the normal value and the export
price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was
made for differences affecting prices and price compar-
ability in accordance with Article 2(10) of
the basic
Regulation. Appropriate adjustments were granted in all
cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate
and supported by verified evidence.

(37)

to ensure a proper comparison given the
In order
variations of normal value during the
it was
considered appropriate to establish a weighted average
export price per month during the IP.

IP,

(c) Comparison

(38) Adjustments were made in respect of differences in trans-
portation, insurance, loading and credit costs, as well as
for discounts, commissions and rebates.

(b) Dumping margin

(30) According to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regu-
lation the dumping margin for each exporting producer
was established on the basis of a comparison between
the weighted average normal value with the weighted
average export price.

4. Turkey

(31) A questionnaire reply was received from the sole known

exporting producer.

(39)

(40)

(a) Normal value

(32)

The producer had overall representative sales of the like
product on the domestic market and all sales could be
regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of
trade.

(33) Moreover, it was found that the domestic prices varied

significantly according to the month of sale.

(34) Given the above, and in order to properly reflect the
normal value of the product concerned during the IP,
it was considered appropriate in this particular case to
determine a monthly normal value for
the product
concerned.

(35)

For each month, domestic prices were considered as an
appropriate basis for the establishment of the normal
value. Therefore, normal value was based on the actual
prices paid or payable, by independent customers in the
Turkish domestic market during each month of the IP.

It was found that the reported insurance costs, rebates
granted and packing charges slightly deviated from the
data as contained in the bookkeeping of the exporting
producer. The amounts of the adjustments were therefore
corrected accordingly.

revealed that

the exporting
The investigation further
producer paid a significant amount
for consultancy
services. The company claimed that such fees do not
justify for an adjustment and should therefore neither
be deducted from the export price nor
from the
it was found that this
domestic sales price. However,
expense had an impact on costs and prices of
the
product concerned and therefore affected price compar-
ability. Therefore the respective amount was allocated on
basis of quantity to the sales in question (domestic sales,
EC sales and sales to third countries) and deducted from
the sales prices as an adjustment within the meaning of
Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.

(41)

Regarding credit costs it was found that the reported
interest rate for the IP did not reflect the actual short
term financing cost incurred by the company. Therefore,
credit costs were adjusted accordingly.

(d) Dumping margin

(42) Given the existence of a clear pattern of export prices
it was considered that such
differing by time period,
element should be taken into account in the calculation
of the dumping margin. Therefore, the comparison was
made on a monthly basis between the weighted average
export price and the weighted average normal value for
the product concerned.

4.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/59

(43) On the basis of the above, the dumping margin found
for the cooperating exporting producer, expressed as a
percentage of
free-at-Community-frontier
price, was below the de minimis threshold set out in
Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.

the cif net

(ii) firms have one clear set of basic accounting records
which are independently audited in line with inter-
national accounting standards and are applied for all
purposes;

(44)

It is noted that the dumping margin would also be de
minimis, if the comparison had been carried out between
a weighted average normal value and individual export
transactions. However, such a comparison was not found
to be appropriate. While there was indeed a pattern of
export prices which differed significantly per month (a
difference up to 20 % of
the export price could be
observed between different months of the IP — with
significant
lower levels from May to October 2005),
monthly normal values followed the same trend. This
the main raw
development was due to the fact
materials, accounting for a significant proportion of the
cost of production of the product concerned, followed
the same evolution. Thus, the method described in recital
42 reflects the full amount of dumping taking place.

that

(45)

for

Since the cooperating exporting producer appeared to
account
the product
all Turkish exports of
concerned to the Community, there was no reason to
believe that any exporting producer abstained from coop-
erating.

(iii) there are no significant distortions carried over from

the former non-market economy system;

(iv) bankruptcy

and property

laws guarantee

legal

certainty and stability;

(v) exchange rate conversions are carried out at market

rates.

(49) One exporting producer

in the PRC requested MET
pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and
replied to the MET claim form for exporting producers
within the given deadline. The Commission sought and
verified at the premises of this company all necessary
information submitted in its MET application as
deemed necessary.

(46)

Consequently, the proceeding should be terminated with
regard to Turkey, as determined by Article 9(3) of the
basic Regulation.

(50)

The investigation revealed that the MET claim had to be
rejected for this company as the company did not meet
the requirements of the above-mentioned criteria one,
two and three.

5. People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Ukraine

(a) Market economy treatment (MET)

(47)

in
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation,
anti-dumping investigations concerning imports origi-
nating in the PRC and Ukraine, normal value shall be
determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the
said Article for those producers which were found to
meet
the
the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of
basic Regulation.

a

hold

it was

shareholders

disproportionate

(51) Due to the fact that the main shareholders are State-
owned enterprises and that the directors appointed by
these
and
in the Board of
controlling number of positions
the State could exert
Directors,
significant
business
decisions regarding day to day management as well as
issuing of new shares, capital
on profit distribution,
the Articles of Association
increases, amendment of
and the dissolution of the company, and that therefore,
such decisions were not made in response to market
signals.

found that
on

company’s

influence

the

(48)

Briefly, and for ease of reference only, the MET criteria
are set out in summarised form below:

(52)

(i) business decisions and costs are made in response to
significant State

market conditions and without
interference;

In addition, the company’s accounts did not reflect the
true financial situation since the company made some
reallocations for the depreciation of fixed assets without
justification, which constitutes a violation of IAS 1-13.
This,
the
company did not express any reservations or expla-
nations about the practices found, constituted a clear
violation of international accounting standards.

together with the fact

the auditors of

that

L 94/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2007

(53) With regard to the valuation of

initial assets,

the
company was not able to provide any explanation as
to the basis on which such a valuation was made.
Finally, the company could not provide any proof of
payment of the rent of the office building. Both defi-
ciencies indicated that there were significant distortions
carried over
from the former non-market economy
system.

(54)

concerned were given an opportunity
findings. However,

The Advisory Committee was consulted and the parties
directly
to
no
comment
comments were received. The Community industry was
also given the opportunity to comment, and agreed with
the MET determination.

above

the

on

confirmed by the fact that exports of penta from Ukraine
to the Community reported by the cooperating exporting
producer were equivalent to the quantities indicated by
Eurostat. Therefore,
it was considered unnecessary to
make a determination whether this exporting producer
should be granted IT since a single country-wide duty
would be imposed in any event.

(c) Normal value

(i) A n a l o g u e c o u n t r y

(60) According to Article 2(7)(a) of

the basic Regulation,
normal value for the exporting producers not granted
MET has to be established on the basis of the prices or
a constructed normal value in an analogue country.

(55)

Following the above, it was concluded that MET should
not be granted to the Chinese exporting producer.

(61)

(b) Individual treatment (IT)

In the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its
intention to use Japan as an appropriate analogue
country for the purpose of establishing normal value
for the PRC and Ukraine and interested parties were
invited to comment on this. No interested parties
objected to this proposal.

(56)

(57)

if any,

to Article 2(7)(a) of

the basic Regulation a
Pursuant
country-wide duty,
is established for countries
falling under that Article, except in those cases where
companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all
criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation
for receiving individual treatment.

The Chinese exporting producer to which MET could not
be granted also claimed IT in the event
it was not
granted MET. However, as described in recital 51, the
State was found to exert, via its representatives in the
company’s Board of Directors, significant influence with
regard to export prices and quantities, as well as
conditions and terms of sale, in such a way that these
In
could not be considered to be freely determined.
addition, such State interference, relating to the day-to-
day management of the company, meant that the risk of
circumvention could not be excluded, if this exporter was
to be given an individual duty rate.

(58)

Consequently, and since it was found that the Chinese
exporting producer did not meet all of the requirements
to be granted IT in accordance with Article 9(5) of the
basic Regulation, IT had to be rejected.

(62)

The Commission contacted the known producer of penta
in Japan and asked for its cooperation in the present
proceeding. However, no cooperation could be obtained.

(63)

Initially, countries concerned by the present proceeding
were not selected because there was either no coop-
eration or because their domestic market could be
distorted because of
the dumping being practised.
Therefore the Commission sought cooperation from all
other known producers in Chile, Taiwan, Brazil and the
Republic of Korea, the other countries where production
of penta takes place.

(64) Only the producer

in Chile

agreed to cooperate.
the
Although there was just one producer in Chile,
Chilean domestic market of penta was
to
subject
significant competition during the IP due to imports
from China, Taiwan, USA, Sweden and the Republic of
Korea, as there are neither quotas nor any other quanti-
tative import restrictions in place.

(59)

The sole cooperating exporting producer in Ukraine, not
having claimed MET, requested only IT. However, there is
no other known producer of penta in Ukraine, which is

(65)

In view of the foregoing it was provisionally concluded
that Chile was the most appropriate and reasonable
analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7) of the
basic Regulation.

4.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/61

(66) A questionnaire was therefore sent

to this producer
requesting information on domestic sales prices and
cost of production of
the like product and the data
submitted in its reply were verified on the spot.

(67) However, the investigation revealed that no dumping was
practised by the cooperating Turkish exporting producer.
There were no apparent distortions of the Turkish market
of penta and the production process and raw materials
used by the Turkish producer are more similar to those
of the Chinese and Ukrainian exporting producers.

(75)

(68)

Therefore,
regarded as a reasonable analogue country for
purpose of this proceeding.

it was concluded that Turkey could be
the

(ii) D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f n o r m a l v a l u e i n t h e

a n a l o g u e c o u n t r y

(69)

to Article 2(7)(a) of

Pursuant
the basic Regulation,
normal value for the exporting producers not granted
MET was established on the basis of verified information
received from the producer in the analogue country.

(70) Normal value was determined as described above in

recitals 32 to 35.

(d) Export prices

(71) All export sales to the Community by the Chinese and
Ukrainian exporting producers were made directly to
independent
and
in
therefore, the export price was established in accordance
with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation on the basis of
the prices actually paid or payable.

Community

customers

the

(72)

Since an average normal value for the whole IP was
found not
reasons
explained above in recitals 33 to 37, monthly average
export prices were established.

representative,

to be

the

for

(e) Comparison

(73) Adjustments were made

transport,
insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing, credit
and bank charges where applicable and justified.

in respect of

(f) Dumping margins

(74)

For each of the exporting producers not granted MET,
the monthly weighted average normal value established
the analogue country was compared with the
for

to
average
monthly weighted
Community, as provided under Article 2(11) of
basic Regulation.

export

price

the
the

In the case of PRC, the volume of penta exported by the
cooperating exporting producer represented significantly
less than 70 % of the total volume of penta imported
during the IP from that country, according to Eurostat
data. Thus, for non-cooperating exporting producers in
the PRC, the dumping margin had to be established on
the basis of facts available, pursuant to Article 18 of the
basic Regulation. Hence, it was considered necessary that
the dumping margin be determined on the basis of the
highest
cooperating
producer. This approach was also considered necessary
in order to avoid giving a bonus for non-cooperation and
in view of the fact that there were no indications that a
non-cooperating party had dumped at a lower level.

transactions

dumped

the

for

(76)

Therefore a countrywide average dumping margin was
calculated using as a weighing factor the cif-value of
both group of exporters, i.e. cooperators and non-coop-
erators.

(77)

In the case of Ukraine, as explained above in recital 59,
due to the high level of cooperation it was considered
appropriate
country-wide dumping
margin at the same level as the one found for the coop-
erating exporting producer.

to establish the

(78)

The dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the cif
import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, is as
follows:

Country

Dumping margin

PRC

Ukraine

18,7 %

10,3 %

6. Russia and the United States of America (USA)

(79) None of the producers in Russia and the United States of
America cooperated in this investigation. Consequently,
and in the absence of any other more appropriate basis,
the country-wide dumping margin was provisionally
established on the basis of facts available in accordance
with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, i.e. data derived
from the complaint.

L 94/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2007

(80)

The dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the
cif import price at the Community border, duty unpaid,
are as follows:

Country

Dumping margin

Russia

USA

25 %

54 %

D. INJURY

1. Community production

(81)

the like product

The investigation established that
is
manufactured by five producers in the Community, one
of which has two production sites. The complaint was
lodged on behalf of two of these producers. After the
initiation, a third producer decided to support
the
proceeding by cooperating fully in the investigation. Of
the remaining two producers, both of which supplied
general data on production and sales, both expressed
their support for the proceeding.

(82) Hence, the volume of Community production for the
the basic Regulation has
purpose of Article 4(1) of
the
been provisionally calculated by adding together
production
cooperating
of
Community producers and the production volume of
the two other producers, according to the data supplied
by them. On this basis, the total Community production
of the like product amounted to 115 609 tonnes in the
IP.

volume

three

the

2. Definition of the Community industry

(83)

The production of the three Community producers that
fully cooperated in the investigation represents 94 % of
the like product produced in the Community. They are
therefore
the Community
industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4)
of the basic Regulation.

considered to constitute

3. Community consumption

(84)

the known producers

Community consumption was established on the basis of
the sales volumes of
in the
Community plus imports from all third countries under
the relevant CN code according to Eurostat.
In this
respect it should be noted that only one of the two
non-complainant Community producers provided sales
figures for the whole period considered. Therefore sales
of the other producer were not taken into account, as
they were only provided for the IP. Since these sales
volumes were low, excluding them does not affect the

shown in the table below,

the
overall picture. As
the product concerned
Community consumption of
the
and the like product decreased by 12 % over
period considered. The demand was
stable between
2003 and 2004 whereas in the IP it dropped by 9 %
compared to the previous year.

Community
consumption (tonnes)

2002

2003

2004

IP

83 195

80 697

80 403

73 025

Index

100

97

97

88

4. Imports into the Community from the countries
concerned

(a) Cumulation

The Commission considered whether
the effects of
imports of penta originating in the PRC, USA, Turkey,
Russia and Ukraine should be assessed cumulatively in
accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. It is
recalled that imports from Turkey were not found to be
made at dumped prices and therefore the proceeding
should be terminated as
from that
country.

imports

regards

(b) Margin of dumping and volume of imports

The average dumping margins established for each of the
four remaining countries, after excluding Turkey, are
above the de minimis
threshold as defined in Article
9(3) of
the basic Regulation, and the volume of
imports from each country is not negligible in the
their
sense of Article 5(7) of
respective market shares attaining 1,8 % for the PRC,
1,5 % for Russia, 3,7 % for Ukraine and 1,9 % for the
USA in the IP.

the basic Regulation,

(85)

(86)

(c) Conditions of competition

(87)

Import volumes from the PRC, Russia and Ukraine
increased significantly over the period considered and
price trends are similar, clearly undercutting the prices
of the Community industry.

(88) As mentioned above,

concerned

it has been established that the
countries
from the
imported
product
concerned and the like product produced and sold by
the Community industry share the same basic technical,
physical and chemical characteristics and end-uses.
In
addition, all products are sold via similar sales channels
to the same customers, thus competing with each other.

4.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/63

(93)

(89)

imports

the prices of

from the USA did not
It was found that
undercut
the Community industry (see
recital 141 below). In fact the pricing behaviour of the
US exporters appeared to be completely different from
that of the exporters in the other countries concerned.
Indeed, USA managed to increase its market share on the
Community market at prices above those of the other
three countries. This can be explained by the fact that
one US exporting producer has been very successful in a
different market segment, where higher prices can be
obtained. In these circumstances, it was considered that
a cumulative assessment of imports from the USA with
the dumped imports from the PRC, Russia and Ukraine
was not appropriate in light of the conditions of compe-
tition between the imports from the USA and, on the
one hand, the dumped imports from the three countries
concerned and, on the other hand, the like Community
product.

to

customers,

independent

the
the determination of price undercutting,
For
Commission analysed data referring to the IP. The
relevant sales prices of the Community industry were
adjusted where
those
i.e. excluding freight
necessary to an ex-works level,
costs
and after deduction of
in the Community
discounts and rebates. These prices were compared
with the prices of
imports from the three countries
concerned. With regard to Russia, given that there was
no cooperation, the weighted average export price was
derived from Eurostat. As for the PRC and Ukraine the
comparison was made against the export prices charged
by the cooperating producers, net of discounts and
adjusted, where necessary,
to cif Community frontier
prices with an appropriate adjustment for the customs
clearance costs and post-importation costs. Prices were
considered representative in both cases since in Ukraine
there is only one producer of penta and with regard to
the PRC, exports by the cooperating producer represent
around half of all penta exported from the PRC to the
EC.

(90) On the basis of the above,

it was concluded that the
imports of
justifying the cumulation of
conditions
penta originating in the PRC, Russia and Ukraine were
met.

(94)

This comparison showed that during the IP, the weighted
average undercutting margins were 11,3 % for the PRC,
6,2 % for Ukraine and 11,9 % for Russia.

(d) Cumulated volume and market share

(91)

Import volumes from the PRC, Russia and Ukraine,
increased significantly from
derived from Eurostat,
1 235 tonnes in 2002 to 5 136 tonnes in the IP. Their
combined market share increased continually from 1 %
to 7 % during the same period. This has to be seen
against the background of a declining consumption.

5. Situation of the Community industry

(95)

In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation,
the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on
the Community industry included an analysis of all
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the
state of the industry during the period considered.

Import volumes
(tonnes)

Index

Market share

2002

2003

2004

IP

1 235

3 397

4 752

5 136

100

1 %

275

4 %

385

6 %

416

7 %

(a) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

(96)

Production decreased by 3 % between 2002 and the IP.
The increase in 2004 resulted from the increase of
production capacity by one producer. The evolution of
production volumes was as follows:

(e) Prices of imports and undercutting

(92)

Price information with regard to the total imports from
the three countries concerned was derived from Eurostat.
The following table shows the development of average
import prices from the PRC, Russia and Ukraine. Over
the period considered these prices dropped by 13 %.

(97)

Import prices
(EUR/tonne)

2002

2003

2004

IP

1 131

1 032

1 030

988

Index

100

91

91

87

Production
(tonnes)

Index

2002

2003

2004

IP

111 665 103 913 115 204

108 309

100

93

103

97

the production units of

The production capacity was established on the basis of
the nominal capacity of
the
Community industry, taking into account interruptions
in production. Production capacity increased by 6 %
during the period considered. The increase occurred
mainly in 2004 and was the result of successful de-
bottlenecking at one producer on the one hand and
the
second
production plant on the other hand.

same producer’s

reorganisation of

the

Production
capacity (tonnes)

Index

Capacity
utilisation

(b) Stocks

L 94/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2007

(98) As a result of the decrease in production volumes and
capacity utilisation

the
decreased from 95 % in 2002 to 87 % in the IP.

in capacity,

increase

slight

considered. There was a slight price increase between
2002 and 2003 after which prices decreased again and
hit a record-low level during the IP, when they stood at
1 040 EUR/tonne.

2002

2003

2004

IP

117 020 119 020 123 987

123 987

100

102

106

95 %

87 %

93 %

106

87 %

(102) The price decreases over the period considered should be
seen in the light of the Community industry’s attempts to
compete with the dumped imports. Current price levels
however are unsustainable since the Community industry
is forced to sell below cost in order to stay on the
market.

(99)

Stocks more than doubled during the period considered,
reflecting the Community industry’s increasing difficulty
in selling its products on the Community market.

Weighted
price (EUR/tonne)

average

2002

2003

2004

IP

1 163

1 203

1 151

1 040

Index

100

103

99

89

2002

2003

2004

IP

(d) Profitability and cash flow

Stocks (tonnes)

3 178

6 598

6 910

7 122

Index

100

208

217

224

(c) Sales volume, market shares and average unit prices in the

Community

the

customers

(100) Sales of penta by the Community industry to inde-
pendent
Community market
on
decreased steadily from 64 663 tonnes in 2002 to
54 543 tonnes in the IP, i.e. by 16 %. The decrease in
sales volumes was therefore sharper than the decrease in
the Community consumption which, as mentioned
above, decreased by 12 % during the same period.
Hence the industry experienced a loss of market share
amounting to 3 percentage points. The market share
dropped from 78 % in 2002 to 75 % in the IP.

2002

2003

2004

IP

64 663

61 308

58 681

54 543

Sales volume in
the EC (tonnes)

Index

100

95

91

84

Market share

78 %

76 %

73 %

75 %

(101) Average sales prices

in the
Community market decreased by 11 % over the period

to unrelated customers

(103) During

the period considered profitability of

the
Community industry decreased sharply from 12,6 % in
2002 to – 11,5 % in the IP. In 2004 the Community
industry still managed to make a small profit but the
situation changed dramatically in the IP, when the
industry started to make losses. The main reason for
this development is that the increase in raw material
prices,
for
the cost of production could
approximately 25 % of
not be passed on to the end-customers due to the low
price levels of imports from the countries concerned.

in particular methanol, which accounts

2002

2003

2004

IP

12,6 %

7,5 %

5,7 %

– 11,5 %

Pre-tax profit
margin

(104) Cash flow also deteriorated over the period considered, in
line with the decrease in profitability and turned negative
in the IP. The decrease in the absolute level of negative
cash flow at the end of the period is due to the decrease
in the production and sales volumes.

2002

2003

2004

IP

16 189 720 9 427 189 4 441 120 – 3 012 661

100

58

27

– 19

Cash
Flow
(EUR)

Index

4.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/65

(e) Investments, return on investments, and ability to raise

capital

(105)

Investments showed a positive trend over the period
considered. However, main investments were made in
2003 when the Community industry was still profitable.
The investments in the IP concerned de-bottlenecking at
one producer and upgrading of production equipment to
conform to environmental
requirements at another
producer.

(109) The number of employees increased by 3 % during the
period considered. This was the result of the reorgani-
sation at one Community producer, which resulted in an
internal re-allocation of staff employed on penta, even if
the total number of people employed by the company as
a whole remained stable. As a result of the slight increase
and the decreasing
in the number of
employees
production volumes, productivity shows
a negative
trend during the period considered.

2002

2003

2004

IP

3 756 302 8 483 655 2 956 275 4 394 137

(110) Average wage levels per employee increased by 4 %
during the period considered which was less than the
increase in inflation during the same period.

100

226

79

117

Invest-
ments
(EUR)

Index

(106) The return on investment from the production and sales
of the like product was negative in the IP and decreased
substantially during the period considered, reflecting the
abovementioned negative trend in profitability.

2002

2003

2004

IP

18,5 %

10,5 %

7,9 %

– 13,5 %

Return on
investment

Index

100

57

43

– 73

(107) There were no indications that the Community industry,
which consists of large companies also involved in the
production of other products, encountered problems to
therefore
raise capital
concluded that
in a
position to raise capital for its activities throughout the
period considered.

its activities and it was
the Community industry was

for

(g) Growth

the sales volume of

(111) While the Community consumption decreased by 12 %
over the period considered,
the
Community industry decreased by 16 % and in parallel
the import volumes from the PRC, Russia and Ukraine
increased by more than 300 % and those from the USA
by over 700 %. This lead to the loss of market share by
the Community industry, whereas the imports concerned
managed to increase theirs.

(h) Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping and recovery

from past dumping

(112) The dumping margins for the PRC, Russia, Ukraine and
the USA are specified above in the dumping section.
These margins are clearly above de minimis. Furthermore,
given the volumes and the prices of the dumped imports,
the impact of the actual margin of dumping cannot be
considered to be negligible.

(113) The Community is not recovering from the effects of
past dumping or subsidisation since no investigations
have been made before.

(f) Employment, productivity and wages

(108) The evolution of employment, productivity and wages

was as follows:

6. Conclusion on injury

Number of employees

Index

Productivity
(tonnes/employee)

2002

2003

2004

IP

290

100

385

296

102

351

293

101

393

299

103

362

Index

100

91

102

94

Labour costs per
employee (EUR)

43 379

44 469

46 899

44 921

Index

100

103

108

104

(114) The analysis of

the injury indicators shows that

the
situation of the Community industry deteriorated signifi-
cantly after 2002 and reached its lowest point in the IP,
when the industry made a loss of 11,5 %.

(115)

In the context of a decreasing consumption during the
period considered, the Community production decreased
by 3 % and capacity utilisation by 8 % during the same
period. Sales on the Community market decreased by
16 % in terms of volume and 25 % in terms of value.
This development is also reflected by the increased stocks
which almost doubled in the period considered. This led
to a decrease in market share from 78 % in 2002 to

L 94/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2007

75 % in the IP. Average unit prices decreased by 11 %
during the period considered, which did not reflect the
increase in raw material costs during the same period. In
order not to lose more market share and to keep the
the Community industry had no
production running,
other option than to follow the price levels set by the
dumped imports. This resulted in the significant drop in
profitability in the IP.

(120)

the

during

Import volumes from the PRC, Russia and Ukraine
increased significantly over the period considered, both
in absolute terms and in terms of market share. Indeed,
in 2002 volumes were almost negligible, amounting to a
period
mere 1 235 tonnes, whereas
considered they increased by 316 % to 5 136 tonnes in
the IP. Their combined market share during the same
period increased from 1 % to 7 %. The weighted
average import prices decreased by 13 %, resulting in
clear undercutting during the IP. Thus the substantial
increase
three
countries concerned and their gain in market share
during the period considered, at prices which remained
well below those of the Community industry, coincided
financial
with the evident deterioration of the overall
situation of the Community industry during the same
period.

from the

volumes

in the

import

to,

(121) The Community industry has argued that even with a
low market share the dumped imports managed to
cause severe disruption on the market, due to the
nature of the business. Penta is a commodity and the
lowest price quoted on the market determines to a
the market price, which other producers
large extent
have to adapt
they wish to keep their orders.
This is demonstrated by the decreasing trend in the
Community industry’s
the period
the main raw material,
considered, while prices of
methanol, soared. The Community industry maintains
that it was not in a position to pass on the increase in
raw material prices to its customers due to the strong
price pressure of the dumped imports. This led to a sharp
decrease in profitability, return on investments and cash
flow.

sales prices over

if

In the years prior to the IP,

(122) Nevertheless, when looking at the development in more
it appears that the considerable deterioration of
detail,
the Community industry’s financial situation occurred
during the IP.
imports
from the PRC, Russia and Ukraine increased massively
from 1 235 tonnes in 2002 to 4 752 tonnes in 2004,
i.e. by 285 %, while prices from these countries decreased
by 9 % over the same period. However, the effect of this
surge in imports on the situation of the Community
industry was not dramatic,
i.e. while sales volumes
decreased by 9 % and prices by 1 %, the profit level
level
achieved in 2004 remained at
(5,7 %).
in sales by the
Community industry of 7 % coincided with a further
increase in imports from the countries concerned of
8 %, which was a relatively small increase compared to
that achieved during the previous two years. However, it
was only in the IP that the Community industry saw a
huge decline in its profitability when it fell to – 11,5 %
and a dramatic deterioration of
its financial situation
occurred.

the decrease

reasonable

In the

IP,

a

(116) Most of

the other injury indicators also confirm the
negative situation of the Community industry. Return
on investments and cash flows were negative and
productivity decreased. Investments, however, showed a
positive trend. Nevertheless, the investments made in the
IP, which was the year of
losses for the Community
industry, were in fact de-bottlenecking and upgrading
environmental
correspond
of machinery
new
requirements
than
production equipment. The
in the
number of employees resulted from the reorganisation
involve recruiting any
at one producer and did not
new staff by this producer at times when the economic
situation was deteriorating.

investments
slight

to
rather

increase

into

to

(117)

In the light of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the
Community industry suffered material injury within the
meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.

E. CAUSATION

1. Preliminary remark

(118)

(119)

have

examined whether

In accordance with Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic
it was
Regulation,
the dumped
the product concerned originating in the
imports of
countries
the
caused
concerned
Community industry to a degree that enables it to be
classified as material. Known factors other
than the
dumped imports, which could at
the same time be
injuring the Community industry, were also examined
to ensure that possible injury caused by these other
factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.

injury

to

2. Effect of the dumped imports

It is recalled that with regard to Turkey, whose market
share amounted to 8,6 % during the IP, the dumping
margin established was below the de minimis threshold.
Therefore imports from Turkey were not considered for
the analysis of the effect of dumped imports on the
injury
industry. The
combined market share of the remaining four countries
amounted to 9 % in the IP.

the Community

suffered by

4.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/67

(123) Based on the above considerations, it appears that when
looking at all of period considered, there is some corre-
lation between the development of the dumped imports
and the injury suffered by the Community industry.
However, the dumped imports alone do not seem to
explain the sharp drop in the Community industry’s prof-
itability during the IP. Therefore, it cannot be concluded
that the dumped imports would have played a deter-
mining
the
of
Community industry, which culminated in the IP.

injurious

situation

role

the

in

(b) Imports from other third countries

(127)

Imports from other third countries (five largest) were as
follows:

2002

2003

2004

IP

Chile

Volume (tonnes)

1 600

536

1 032

1 384

3. Effect of other factors

(a) Decrease in EC consumption

(124) Consumption of penta in the Community decreased by
12 % during the period considered. This decreasing trend
appears be linked to the reduced demand of alkyd resins
in the paint industry, which accounts for about 70 % of
the end-use of penta on the Community market. A visit
to an industrial user of penta, which produces alkyd
resins for the paint industry, revealed that the demand
for alkyds is expected to decline even sharper in the
future due to the forthcoming changes in environmental
impose restrictions on emissions
legislation, which will
of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from paint used for
both architectural and industrial applications. Since alkyd
resins are not as VOC friendly as other technologies,
their use in paints is expected to decline.

(125) The Community industry’s sales declined by 16 % in
terms of volume and three percentage points in terms
of market share, from 78 % in 2002 to 75 % in the IP.
Import volumes from the PRC, Russia and Ukraine
increased by 316 % during the period considered
leading to an increase in their market share from 1 %
to 7 %, thus taking over the Community industry’s lost
market share. Therefore, the declining demand of penta
in the Community as such does not explain the dete-
rioration of the situation of the Community industry
over the period considered.

(126) However,

the

annual development of

consumption
shows that
the decrease in consumption was much
sharper between 2004 and the IP, when it went down
by 9 %,
Indeed,
compared to the previous years.
consumption remained stable between 2003 and 2004
whereas it increased by 3 % between 2002 and 2003.
the decrease in consumption
Therefore, given that
coincides with the period when the Community
industry turned loss-making, it cannot be excluded that
the decreasing demand of penta on the Community
market has had an impact on the injurious situation of
the Community industry.

Index

100

34

65

Prices (EUR/tonne)

1 141

1 245

1 128

100

109

99

87

981

86

551

141

0

0

0

0

119

100

390

328

1 167

1 085

1 253

100

87

84

Index

India

Volume (tonnes)

Index

Prices (EUR/tonne)

Index

Taiwan

Volume (tonnes)

Index

343

100

657

192

1 840

536

863

252

Prices (EUR/tonne)

1 071

1 060

1 003

1 004

Index

Turkey

100

99

94

94

Volume (tonnes)

6 300

7 065

8 957

6 730

Index

100

112

142

107

Prices (EUR/tonne)

1 292

1 339

1 277

1 097

Index

Japan

Volume (tonnes)

Index

Prices (EUR/tonne)

Index

100

104

99

85

0

0

0

0

20

100

58

290

65

112

3 905

3 334

2 731

100

85

82

(128) According to Eurostat and the information collected
during the investigation, the main third countries from
which penta is imported are Chile, India and Taiwan.
When adding imports from Turkey into imports from
other third countries, the total volume imported from
other third countries increased by 12 % from 8 586
tonnes in 2002 to 9 636 tonnes in the IP. This corre-
sponds to an increase of their combined market share
from 10 % to 13 %. The price levels of third country
imports remained well above those of the Community
industry throughout the period considered. Thus, imports
from other third countries, competing with the dumped
imports, managed to increase their market share by three
percentage points, at prices which were above those of
the Community industry.

L 94/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2007

(129)

It should be noted, however, that imports from other
third countries followed a different trend compared to
that of the dumped imports in the sense that the peak
in imports from other third countries occurred in 2004,
whereas in the IP, which was the year of losses for the
Community industry,
third country imports dropped
again by 22 % compared to the previous year. Also
their average prices decreased by 11 % during the same
period and their market
two
percentage points. This would seem to indicate that as
of 2004, also producers in other third countries were
affected by the low market prices. Nevertheless,
their
prices
the Community
industry also during the IP.

share dropped by

remained above

those of

(c) Export performance of the Community industry

(130)

It was also examined whether exports by the Community
industry to non-EC countries may have contributed to
the injury suffered during the period considered. Exports
to unrelated customers in non-EC countries represented
almost half of the Community industry’s sales of the like
product during the period considered. Export volumes
increased by 3 %, between 2002 and the IP whereas
average export prices decreased by 7 %.

2002

2003

2004

IP

Sales volume in non-
EC markets (tonnes)

44 333

35 376

46 460

45 587

Index

100

80

105

Average sales prices in
non-EC markets
(EUR/tonne)

1 034

1 090

1 001

103

958

Index

100

105

97

93

(131) Even if export sales increased slightly in terms of volume,
the fact that the average export prices were lower than
the average sales prices on the Community market
throughout the period considered and moreover, below
the unit cost of production has certainly had a negative
effect on the overall financial situation of the Community
industry, even if it does not directly affect the profit-
ability on the Community market. Therefore it cannot
the
be
Community industry has also been indirectly caused by
the negative development
in profitability on export
markets, since this would have an effect for example
on the Community industry’s ability to make new
investments or hire new staff.

ruled out,

suffered

injury

that

the

by

(d) Other Community producers

(132) Sales volumes by the non-complainant Community
the whole period
the
than that of
this
that
seems

producer who provided data for
concerned decreased even sharper
it
Community industry. Therefore

producer is in a similar situation as the complaining
Community producers.
this
It
producer has not contributed to the injury suffered by
the Community industry.

clear

thus

that

is

(e) Increase in raw material prices

(133) Prices of the main raw material methanol have increased
considerably over the period considered. According to
statistics published on the web-site of Methanex,
the
world’s largest producer and marketer of methanol, the
European contract price increased from 125 EUR/tonne
in January 2002 to 235 EUR/tonne in December 2005.
This has contributed to the increase of 10 % in the unit
cost of production during the period considered and
consequently to the drop in profitability, given that
unit sales prices decreased by 13 % during the same
period.

(134) Soaring raw material prices as such cannot be considered
as having had an injurious effect on the Community
industry. The negative development in profitability was
rather due to the fact that the Community producers
were not able to pass on these higher raw material
costs to their customers by increasing their sales prices
because of the low price level on the Community market.
However, while methanol prices increased by 88 % over
the period considered, the increase was only 2 % during
the IP. Therefore, even if the market price of penta was
low in the IP, the simultaneous price development of the
main raw material methanol does not explain why the
Community industry turned loss-making with such a
magnitude in the IP.

4. Conclusion on causation

have

exerted

(135) The data available suggests that even with a low market
share the dumped imports from the PRC, Russia, and
Ukraine
the
a
Community industry’s prices. However, a more detailed
the establishment of a
analysis does not allow for
material causal
the
Community industry’s financial situation and the devel-
opment of the dumped imports.

link between the deterioration of

pressure

price

on

(136) The significant drop in the Community industry’s profit-
ability and its overall financial situation occurred between
2004 and the IP, when volumes of the dumped imports
increased by only 8 % compared to an increase of 285 %
over the previous three years, when the Community
industry was still making profits. Moreover the drop in
the demand of penta on the Community market
the Community
coincided with the deterioration of
industry’s financial situation.
the
price increase of the main raw material methanol was
far less marked in the IP compared to the previous
years and therefore does not explain the sudden and
dramatic drop in profitability in the IP.

It also appears that

4.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 94/69

(137) The fact that the Community industry exports almost
half of its production at prices below cost, has to be
seen as a factor which has further contributed to the
overall negative situation of the Community industry,
even if it does not directly affect the profitability on
the Community market.

(138) Therefore,

it cannot be concluded that

the dumped
imports taken in isolation have caused material
injury.
Indeed, the examination of other factors in accordance
with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation revealed that the
injury could be attributed also to the decrease in
consumption,
the
Community industry as well as imports from other
third countries.

performance

export

the

of

5. Imports from the USA

(143)

(139)

Import volumes from the USA increased from 169
tonnes in 2002 to 1 355 tonnes in the IP. This lead to
an increase in market share from 0,2 % to 1,9 % during
the same period.

(140) Average import prices from the USA decreased over the
period considered but were above those charged by
producers in the PRC, Russia and Ukraine:

of

than

those

the Community

industry.
prices
Furthermore, an additional comparison was made of
the import prices from the USA with the non-injurious
price of the like product sold by the Community industry
on the Community market. The non-injurious price was
obtained by adjusting the sales price of the Community
industry in order to reflect a profit margin which the
Community industry could be expected to obtain in
the absence of
injurious dumping. This comparison
showed that the level of underselling was de minimis.
it is concluded that these imports did
On this basis,
not
the
to
contribute
Community industry.

suffered

injury

the

by

F. TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING

In the absence of a significant causal link between the
the
and the
dumped imports
anti-dumping
the
Community
proceeding should be terminated in accordance with
Articles 9(2) and 9(3) of the basic Regulation.

suffered by

industry,

present

injury

the essential

(144) The complainant and all other interested parties were
facts and considerations on
informed of
the basis of which the Commission intends
to
terminate this proceeding. Subsequently the complainants
made known their views which, however, were not of a
nature to change the above conclusions,

Import prices
(EUR/tonne)

2002

2003

2004

IP

1 935

2 212

1 251

1 244

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Index

100

114

65

64

Article 1

(141) Price undercutting was determined as described in recital
93 above. The weighted average undercutting margin for
the USA was – 19,5 % in the IP, i.e. the average import
price was significantly higher than the price charged by
the Community industry on the Community market. As
explained below, there was also no price depression by
US imports.

(142)

In parallel to the growth in imports from the USA, the
Community industry saw, inter alia, its sales, market share
and prices decrease over the period considered, leading to
the conclusion as set out in recital 117 above that the
Community
injury.
it is noted that the prices of imports from
However,
the USA did not undercut
the Community
those of
in fact, sold at significantly higher
industry but were,

industry had suffered material

The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of pentaery-
thritol, falling within CN code 2905 42 00, originating in the
People’s Republic of China, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and the
USA, is hereby terminated.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 3 April 2007.

For the Commission

Peter MANDELSON
Member of the Commission