Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of peroxosulphates (persulphates) originating in the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan
Date: 2007-09-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Taiwan, United States, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical product, import, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.9.2007 
COM(2007) 513 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of peroxosulphates (persulphates) originating in the United States of 
America, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

Context of the proposal 

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 2117/2005  of  21  December  2005  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  proceeding 
concerning  imports  of  persulphates  the  United  States  of  America,  the  People’s 
Republic of China and Taiwan. 

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. 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 390/2007 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty 
on  imports  of  peroxosulphates  (persulphates)  originating  in  the  United  States  of 
America, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. 

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

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. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On  13  July  2006,  the  Commission  opened  an  anti-dumping  investigation  regarding 
imports  into  the  Community  of  peroxosulphates  (persulphates)  originating  in  the 
United States of America, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  390/2007  of  11  April  2007,  the  Commission  imposed 
provisional anti-dumping duties on these imports.  

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on 
dumping,  injury,  causation  and  Community  interest  which  confirmed  the  provisional 
findings while introducing some changes to the calculation of the dumping and injury 
margins. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which should be published in the Official Journal no later than 12 October 2007. 

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 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005.  

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 reasons: 

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. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of peroxosulphates (persulphates) originating in the United States of 
America, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan  

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 Community1 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  390/20072  (the  ‘provisional  Regulation’) 
imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on 
imports  of  peroxosulphates 
(persulphates), currently classifiable within CN codes 2833 40 00 and ex 2842 90 80, 
originating  in  the  United  States  of  America  ('USA'),  the  People’s  Republic  of  China 
('PRC') and Taiwan. 

As set out in recital (12) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping 
and injury covered the period from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 (‘investigation period’ 
or ‘IP’). With respect to the trends relevant for the injury assessment, the Commission 
analysed data covering the period from 1 January 2003 to the end of the investigation 
period (‘period considered’). 

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of 
persulphates  originating  in  the  USA,  the  PRC  and  Taiwan,  some  interested  parties 
submitted  comments  in  writing.  The  parties  who  so  requested  were  also  granted  the 
opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek and verify all information 
it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. 

1 

2 

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). 
OJ L 97, 12.4.2007, p. 6. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

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 
on  imports  of  persulphates  originating  in  the  USA,  the  PRC  and  Taiwan  and  the 
definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were 
also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this 
disclosure. 

The  Commission  deepened  the  investigation  with  regard  to  Community  interest 
aspects and carried out analysis of data within the questionnaire reply provided by a 
user in the Community after the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures. 

One  additional  verification  visit  was  carried  out  at  the  premises  of  the  following 
company: 

–  Antec International Ltd., Sudbury, UK – user in the Community 

(7) 

The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where 
appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly. 

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. Product concerned 

(8) 

(9) 

It is recalled that as mentioned in recital (14) of the provisional Regulation the product 
concerned consists of the following four main product types: ammonium persulphate 
(NH4)2S2O8 (APS), sodium persulphate (Na2S2O8) (SPS/NPS), potassium persulphate 
(K2S2O8)  (PPS/KPS)  and  potassium  monopersulphate  (2KHSO5  *  KHSO4  *  K2SO4) 
(KMPS). 

One  exporting  producer  in  the  USA  reiterated  its  claim  to  exclude  KMPS  from  the 
scope  of  the  investigation  on  the  grounds  that  KMPS  had  different  chemical 
characteristics  and  was  used  in  different  applications  than  the  other  three  product 
types. This exporting producer claimed that the interchangeability of all product types 
was limited to some niche applications. Thus, only a very small quantity of its exports 
of  KMPS  to  the  Community  would  be  used  in  typical  applications  of  the  three 
remaining  product  types.  To  support  its  claim,  the  exporting  producer  reiterated  that 
KMPS was sold at constantly higher price levels which showed that it would be sold 
to  different  types  of  customers  for  different  applications  than  the  remaining  three 
product types. 

(10)  The  same  exporting  producer  also  referred  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2961/95 
which  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  peroxodisulphates 
originating  in  the  PRC3.  Since  the  product  concerned  by  that  investigation  did  not 
include KMPS, it was claimed that the provisional findings in the current investigation 
contradicted the findings in that prior investigation. In particular, the criteria listed in 
recital (7) of Regulation (EC) No 2961/95 to determine the product concerned would 
not  apply  to  KMPS,  which  would  show  that  it  is  a  different  product.  This  exporting 

3 

OJ L 308, 21.12.1995, p. 61. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
producer  referred  further  to  an  anti-dumping  investigation  conducted  by  the  US 
authorities covering persulphates but not KMPS4. 

(11)  Subsequent  to  the  provisional  disclosure  the  same  exporting  producer  also  claimed 
that KMPS is treated differently than the other types for transport purposes as well as 
in  Directive  98/8/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  concerning  the 
placing  of  biocidal  products  on  the  market  (the  'Biocide  directive')5.  This  different 
treatment would indicate that they are different products. 

(12)  Finally, the above exporting producer argued that the only common criterion of KMPS 
and the other three product types was that they are "strong oxidants" which is a broad 
definition  applying  to  many  other  chemicals  such  as  hydrogen  peroxide  and  sodium 
hypochlorite  which  were  also  used  as  oxidizing  agents.  Therefore,  KMPS  should 
either be excluded from the present product scope or other oxidizing agents should be 
included. 

(13)  As far as the alleged differences in chemical characteristics are concerned, the above 
mentioned exporting producer did not bring forward any new information or evidence 
but  mainly  repeated  the  arguments  it  made  prior  to  the  imposition  of  provisional 
measures.  It  is  underlined  that  recital  (17)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  recognises 
that  each  type,  including  KMPS,  has  a  different  chemical  formula.  However,  it  was 
also found that despite these differences all types have a common structure (SO3-O2) 
and similar or comparable physical and chemical properties. Thus, all types have, for 
example, a comparable appearance (white, crystalline salt), a similar bulk density, and 
comparable  active  oxygen  content.  All  types  were  defined  as  salts  of  oxoacids  of 
sulphur in the oxidation state n° VI which measures the degree of oxidation of an atom 
in a substance. It was therefore concluded that all product types had similar chemical 
characteristics.  None  of  the  information  put  forward  by  the  exporting  producer 
concerned was such as to change these findings. 

(14)  The above characteristics were found to be unique to persulphates which differentiated 
them  from  other  products.  In  particular,  the  investigation  revealed  that  hydrogen 
peroxide  is  a  colourless  liquid  with  a  different  chemical  formula  than  the  one  of 
persulphates (H2O2). It does not contain any sulphur and its active oxidant content is 
around 10 times higher than the one of the product concerned. Hydrogen peroxide is 
moreover  used 
to  persulphates.  Likewise,  sodium 
hypochlorite has a different chemical structure than the product concerned (NA+OCl-) 
and  does  not  contain  any  oxygen/oxygen  bond  or  any  sulphur.  NA+OCl-  is  a  solid 
compound, but usually commercially available as an aqueous solution. Since it has no 
active  oxygen  content  at  all  it  is  used  in  chlorine  based  bleaching.  It  was  therefore 
concluded that the before mentioned products had different properties and applications 
and  were  not  comparable  to  persulphates.  The  argument  that  the  product  definition 
was too broad was therefore rejected. 

in  different  applications 

(15)  Regarding  the  claim  that  KMPS  had  significantly  different  end  uses  than  the 
remaining three product types, the arguments brought forward prior to the imposition 

4 

5 

United States International Trade Commission, Persulfates from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-479 
(Review); Determination and view of the Commission (USITC Publication No 3555, October 2002). 
OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  provisional  measures  were  mainly  repeated.  The  exporting  producer  claimed  in 
particular that KMPS would be largely used in cleaning and disinfection of swimming 
pools whereas other persulphates could allegedly not be used because they were skin 
irritant. It was found, however, that not only KMPS but also other persulphate types 
were  allowed  by  the  relevant  European  standard  to  be  used  in  treatment  of  water 
intended for human consumption6. It was also found that whether or not they were a 
skin  irritant,  other  persulphate  types  were  indeed  used  in  cleaning  and  disinfection 
applications. This argument had therefore to be rejected. 

(16)  The  above  exporting  producer  claimed  further  that  KMPS  cannot  be  used  in 
polymerisation  processes  which  are  the  main  field  of  application  of  the  other 
persulphate  types.  However,  the  investigation  revealed  that  KMPS  could  be  used  in 
polymerisation  processes  and  consequently,  this  argument  had  also  to  be  rejected. 
Finally,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (17)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  despite  partly 
distinct end-uses a number of overlapping applications existed such as metal treatment 
(micro-etching  and  pickling)  and  repulping  of  wet  strength  paper.  It  was  therefore 
concluded  that  all  product  types  had  largely  overlapping  applications  with  no  clear 
dividing lines. 

(17)  As mentioned above in recital (9), the exporting producer concerned argued that, while 
there was a certain overlap in applications, this did not concern a substantial part of its 
export  sales  and  should  therefore  be  considered  as  insignificant.  In  this  regard,  it 
should  be  noted  that  the  precise  consumption  of  each  product  type  in  a  specific 
application during the IP could not be determined, because of the low co-operation of 
the users concerned and the unavailability of appropriate data for such determination. 
The exporting producer concerned did not submit conclusive evidence in this respect, 
but  only  unsupported  estimates.  Furthermore,  only  two  users  co-operated  in  the 
present investigation representing only a small part of total consumption (7%). In any 
event,  it  was  considered  irrelevant  to  what  exact  extent  a  specific  product  type  was 
used in a specific application during a specific time period. Indeed, whether a certain 
product type can be used in a specific application has to be determined on the basis of 
the physical,  technical  and  chemical  characteristics. Users may use a certain product 
type at a certain time but may also be able to switch easily from one product type to 
the other for one and the same application. This argument had therefore to be rejected. 

(18)  As regards the different price levels of the different product types, it is already set out 
in recital (17) of the provisional Regulation that it is considered that price differences 
between product types per se do not justify the conclusion that a certain product type 
should be considered as a different product. While it is true that sales prices of KMPS 
are higher than the ones of other types of persulphates, there are also price differences 
between  the  remaining  three  product  types.  It  should  be  noted  that  these  differences 
can be seen in all producing countries  including the Community. The different price 
levels are mainly explained by the limited number of producers of KMPS world-wide 
(in  the  Community,  USA  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  China)  and  are  not  necessarily 
reflected in the cost of production. Consequently and given the above findings that no 
clear  dividing  lines  existed  between  different  applications  of  the  different  product 
types, this claim had also to be rejected. 

6 

EN 12678 and 12926. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(19)  As  far  as  the  different  treatment  of  KMPS  and  the  other  three  product  types  with 
regard to packing for transport and under the Biocide directive is concerned, it should 
be  noted  that  these  were  new  arguments  provided  after  the  imposition  of  the 
provisional  measures  and  therefore  outside  the  required  deadlines.  In  any  event,  the 
investigation  has  shown  that  packing  standards  for  all  types  were  basically  the  same 
however under different classifications. It was also considered that packing standards 
as such were not a decisive criterion as to determine whether different product types 
were  one  single  product.  As  described  above,  the  main  criteria  to  define  the  product 
concerned  in  an  anti-dumping  investigation  are  their  basic  chemical,  technical  and 
physical characteristics and end-uses. 

(20)  As far as the Biocide directive is concerned, it is noted that the different treatment lies 
in the fact that the Community industry initiated the registration procedures required 
under this directive for KMPS but not for the other three product types. Registration 
procedures had not been started for these other types due to considerations unrelated to 
their  chemical  characteristics  and  end  uses,  as  claimed  by  the  exporting  producer 
concerned.  Thus,  while  for  the  product  type  KMPS  registration  costs  were  shared 
between the two main producers of this product type (one in the Community and the 
other one in the USA), registration procedures were considered very costly and time 
consuming and could be more cost and time efficiently handled in the wider context 
the new European Chemicals Regulation (REACH) which entered into force on 1 June 
20077.  The  different  treatment  under  the  Biocide  directive  can  therefore  not  be 
considered as an indication that the product types were different on the basis of their 
chemical  properties  and/or  applications.  It  was  therefore  considered  irrelevant  in  the 
definition of the product concerned and the exporting producer's claim in this regard 
was rejected. 

(21)  As  far  as  the  findings  with  regard  to  the  product  concerned  in  the  investigations 
mentioned above in recital (10) are concerned, it should be noted that KMPS was in 
none  of  these  investigations  expressively  excluded,  i.e.  there  are  no  findings  which 
would  have  established  that  KMPS  and  the  other  three  product  types  had  different 
chemical  characteristics  and  end-uses  and  should  therefore  not  be  considered  as  one 
single  product.  KMPS  was  not  included  in  the  above  complaints  (or  petitions  as 
applicable)  because  it  was  either  not  exported  during  the  IP  of  that  investigation 
(Community) or the domestic complaining industry (USA) did not produce KMPS at 
that time. 

(22) 

It  is  in  particular  noted  that  the  criteria  listed  in  recital  (7)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2961/95  (imposing  definitive  measures  on  imports  of  peroxodisulphates  from  the 

7 

Regulation  (EC)  No 1907/2006 of  the  European Parliament  and  of  the Council  of 18 December  2006 
concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals  (REACH), 
establishing  a  European  Chemicals  Agency,  amending  Directive  1999/45/EC  and  repealing  Council 
Regulation  (EEC)  No 793/93  and  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 1488/94  as  well  as  Council 
Directive  76/769/EEC  and  Commission  Directives  91/155/EEC,  93/67/EEC,  93/105/EC  and 
2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1). 
Directive 2006/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 amending 
Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions 
relating  to  the  classification,  packaging  and  labelling  of  dangerous  substances  in  order  to  adapt  it  to 
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction 
of  Chemicals  (REACH)  and  establishing  a  European  Chemicals  Agency  (OJ  L  396,  30.12.2006, 
p. 850). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
PRC) did not aim to differentiate between KMPS on the one hand and the three other 
product types on the other hand but rather to define the main characteristics shared by 
the  three  types  which  formed  the  product  concerned  in  that  investigation.  They  are 
therefore tailored to the three product types concerned and not exhaustive. The main 
findings,  however,  also  apply  to  KMPS,  i.e.  that  the  essential  characteristics 
(persulphate anion) and end-uses (initiator and oxidizing agent) are the same, that they 
are  interchangeable  to  a  certain  extent  and  that  price  differences  are  considered 
irrelevant.  As  for  the  last  criterion,  the  importance  in  the  production  process  of  the 
downstream  industry,  the  exporting  producer  claimed  that  KMPS  constituted  a  high 
percentage of its users' production costs. In this respect, it was established during the 
investigation (recitals (112) to (120) below) that although KMPS constitutes a higher 
proportion of the cost, the impact on the users' profitability is negligible. In any event, 
it was considered that this should not prevent the Community Institutions to consider 
KMPS  as  the  product  concerned  given  the  finding above  that all product types were 
interchangeable. 

(23) 

It  is  finally  noted  that  none  of  the  other  interested  parties,  in  particular  none  of  the 
Chinese  exporting  producers  of  KMPS,  challenged  the  product  definition  in  the 
present proceeding or objected to the inclusion of KMPS in the product scope of the 
present investigation. 

(24)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  provisional  conclusions  set  out  in  recital  (17)  of  the 
provisional Regulation that all four types should be considered to constitute one single 
product for the purpose of this proceeding are hereby confirmed. 

2. Like product 

(25) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the like product, recitals (18) and (19) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

D. DUMPING 

(26) 

In the absence of any comments with regard to the general methodology, recitals (20) 
to (39) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

1. USA 

(27)  Following  the  provisional  disclosure,  one  exporting  producer  argued  that  the 
deduction  made  pursuant  to  Article  2(10)(i)  as  described  in  recital  (47)  of  the 
provisional Regulation led to double counting the profit made by its related trader in 
Switzerland. However, the exporting producer failed to substantiate its claim and upon 
verification no double counting was found in the calculation. 

(28) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of dumping with 
regard  to  the  USA,  recitals  (40)  to  (50)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

2. China 

(29)  Two  exporting  producers  which  were  denied  MET  disputed  the  Commission's 
conclusions.  However,  they  did  not  put  forward  any  new  arguments  and  the 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
conclusions  made  with  regard  to  MET  for  those  two  exporting  producers  in  the 
provisional Regulation have, as a consequence, remained unchanged. 

(30)  One of those two exporting producers further alleged that, if the decision to reject its 
MET  claim  was  maintained,  it  should  nevertheless  be  granted  individual  treatment 
('IT'). However, that exporting producer was not able to demonstrate that its business 
decisions  were  taken  in  response  to  market  signals,  without  significant  State 
interference,  as  explained  in  recital  (56)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  For  the  same 
reasons it cannot be excluded, and the exporting producer did not prove otherwise, that 
State interference would permit circumvention of measures if that exporting producer 
was  given  an  individual  rate  of  duty.  It  is  therefore  maintained  that  IT  should  be 
denied  to  that  exporting  producer,  in  accordance  with  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(31)  Recital  (53)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  stated  that  for  one  of  the  three  exporting 
producers granted MET, further examination of late information that could not be fully 
investigated  at  that  stage  was  necessary.  The  information  which  had  then  been 
received,  as  well  as  further  information  received  after  the  publication  of  the 
provisional  Regulation,  was  examined  and  a  verification  visit  at  the  premises  of  the 
exporting producer was carried out in order to check its validity. This resulted, based 
on  new  information  which  was  brought  to  light  during  the  latest  steps  of  the 
investigation, in significant changes in the factual situation on the basis of which the 
evaluation of criteria 1 and 2 had been made. 

(32)  As regards criterion 1, the exporting producer was found to have previously concealed 
some essential information regarding its current managers and owners and their role in 
the company prior to its privatisation. This voluntary omission casts doubts on all the 
information  submitted  with  regard  to  privatisation.  Furthermore,  the  company  could 
not  explain  convincingly  on  which  grounds  it was  granted  two  loans  with  a  reduced 
interest  rate  by  a  bank  controlled  by  the  State,  which  points  to  State  interference. 
These specific loans had not been investigated initially as they were granted after the 
end  of  the  IP.  However,  this  clearly  has  an  impact  on  the  present  situation  of  the 
company, and it was considered appropriate, in accordance with the case law, to take it 
into  account.  For  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  which  are  based  on  information  that 
could not reasonably have been known to the Commission's services at the time of the 
initial investigation on MET, State interference in the running of the company can no 
longer be excluded, and the company did not prove otherwise. 

(33)  As  to  criterion  2,  it  was  found  that  financial  expenses  had  been  understated  in  the 
exporting producer's accounts, in breach of general accruals accounting rules and more 
specifically International Accounting Standard (IAS) No 23. It should be noted that an 
inaccurate  report  of  the  loans  held  by  the  company  in  their  MET  claim  form  had 
seriously impeded the initial examination of this point, and that the discrepancy found 
could therefore not reasonably have been known to the Commission's services during 
the prior steps of the proceeding. 

(34) 

In  view  of  the  above,  it  has  been  concluded  that  this  exporting  producer's  claim  for 
MET should be rejected. The exporting producer concerned has been informed and has 
been granted an opportunity to comment on these findings. As a result, the dumping 
margin for all exporting producers not granted MET had to be recalculated, following 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
the same methodology as the one described in recital (96) and (97) of the provisional 
Regulation. 

(35)  Finally,  one  exporting  producer  which  was  granted  MET  submitted  two  claims  with 
regard to the calculation of its normal value and export prices, which were not found 
sufficient  to  justify  an  adjustment.  One  further  claim  by  that  exporting  producer 
concerning the allocation of certain logistics expenses borne by its related importer on 
the  total  company  turnover  rather  than  on  the  turnover  of  the  product  concerned,  on 
the  grounds  that  they  were  linked  to  a  general  restructuring  which  took  place  in  the 
company during the IP, was considered sufficiently substantiated and was accepted. In 
any event, this exporting producer's dumping margin had to be recalculated, following 
the corrections made by its related importer in the Community to the transaction-by-
transaction listing provided in support of the resales prices for persulphates within the 
Community. 

(36)  Given  the  above,  the  dumping  margins  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  import 

price at the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: 

Company 

Definitive  dumping 
margin 

ABC Chemicals (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 

de minimis 

Degussa-AJ (Shanghai) Initiators Co., Ltd. 

All other companies  

24,5 % 

96,0 % 

(37) 

In the absence of any other comments the determination of dumping with regard to the 
PRC,  the  other  provisions  of  recitals  (51)  to  (97)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

3. Taiwan 

(38)  Following  the  provisional  disclosure,  the  cooperating  exporting  producer  reiterated 
two claims for adjustments for level of trade and commissions, as already described in 
recitals  (101)  and  (102)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  respectively.  However,  the 
explanations  provided  by  the  exporting  producer,  which  were  not  substantially 
different from the explanations that had been received earlier in the proceeding, were 
not found convincing. The exporting producer failed in particular to address some of 
the  arguments  supporting  the  decision  to  reject  its  claims  as  disclosed  in  the 
provisional  Regulation  and  partly  contradicted  prior  statements  made  during  the 
verification visit at its premises. 

(39) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  the  determination  of  dumping  with  regard  to 
Taiwan, recitals (98) to (105) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

1. Community production and Community industry 

E. INJURY 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(40)  One exporting producer in the US reiterated that the Community producer importing 
the product concerned from its related company in China should be excluded from the 
definition of the Community  industry. It was claimed that the fact that production is 
outsourced to a third country concerned by an anti-dumping investigation would be in 
itself  sufficient  to  conclude  that  the  producer  concerned  would  be  shielded  from  the 
effects of the dumped imports. The exporting producer claimed also that the producer 
concerned had a different behaviour than an unrelated Community producer which is 
in particular shown by its investment activity in China. 

(41) 

It is considered that the fact that a Community producer outsourced production is not 
per se sufficient reason to exclude this producer from the definition of the Community 
industry.  Indeed,  it  should  first  be  examined  whether  the  Community  producer 
concerned  was  shielded  from  the  effects  of  the  dumped  imports.  In  this  regard,  as 
mentioned in recital (106) and (151) of the provisional Regulation, it was found that 
the  quantities  imported  from  the  related  company  in  the  PRC  were  small  and  were 
only made to maintain global customers. These imports constituted less than 7% of the 
total sales of this producer on the Community market. This indicated that the producer 
in question was committed to the production in the Community and that imports were 
rather an act of self-defence. As far as the investment by the Community producer in 
China  is  concerned,  the  claimant  exporting  producer  did  not  explain  how  these 
investments  had  indeed  shielded  the  Community  producer  from  the  effects  of  the 
dumped imports, as claimed. The above arguments had therefore to be rejected. 

(42)  The same exporting producer alleged that one of the main criteria to conclude that the 
Community producer in question formed part of the Community industry was that the 
resale prices on the Community market were at a higher level than the import prices 
from  the  PRC.  The  exporting  producer  claimed  that  resale  prices  should  have  been 
compared  to  the  average  import  price  from  all  countries  concerned,  rather  than  only 
those from the PRC. 

(43)  However the level of the resale prices was only one additional element which had been 
considered  (see  also  recital  (106)  of  the  provisional  Regulation).  The  resale  price 
indicated  that  the  Community  producer  did  not  undercut  its  Chinese  competitors, 
which would have harmed the Community industry. 

(44) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  Community  production  and 
Community industry, recital (106) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

2. Community consumption 

(45)  One exporting producer in the USA claimed that its export sales to its related user in 
the Community should be excluded from the determination of the total consumption in 
the Community on the basis that these sales were not made to the "merchant market". 

(46)  Consumption is defined as the total of all imports into the Community from all sources 
and  all  sales  of  the  product  concerned  from  the  Community  industry  on  the 
Community  market.  The  fact  that  imports  are  made  to  related  companies  in  the 
Community  is  irrelevant  and  does  not  prevent  these  sales  to  be  taken  into 
consideration  when  calculating  the  total  Community  consumption.  The  exporting 
producer's claim in this respect was therefore rejected. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(47) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  Community  consumption, 
recitals (107), (108) and (109) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned 

(48)  The two US exporters claimed that for the purpose of assessing injury suffered by the 
Community  industry,  imports  of  persulphates  originating  in  the  USA  should  be 
decumulated.  Both  exporting  producers  submitted  that  import  prices  from  the  USA 
were  at  a  higher  level  and  showed  different  trends  than  import  prices  from  the  PRC 
and Taiwan. This would show that the product exported from the USA was sold under 
different  market  conditions.  One  of  the  exporting  producers  further  argued  that  its 
sales  made  to  its  related  user  in  the  Community  should  be  considered  separately 
because  they  would  be  made  under  different  market  conditions  and  show  different 
trends. Thus, this exporting producer alleged that the import volume from the USA to 
unrelated customers did not increase or only increased insignificantly. Both exporting 
producers requested that import prices per country concerned should be disclosed. 

(49)  As  far  as  prices  are  concerned,  and  as  already  mentioned  in  recital  (112)  of  the 
provisional Regulation, it was found that export prices from the PRC, Taiwan and the 
USA  showed  a  similar  trend  (decreasing)  during  the  period  considered  and  were 
significantly  undercutting  the  Community  prices.  It  is  noted  that  the  provisional 
conclusions  are  based  on  verified  actual  export  data  supplied  by  the  co-operating 
exporting  producers.  These  data  were  considered  as  the  most  reliable  source  of 
information  available.  The  average  import  price  supplied  by  the  exporting  producers 
had therefore to be rejected. 

(50)  The  following  average  import  prices  have  been  determined  for  each  country 
concerned. Below table shows that the import prices from all countries concerned had 
a similar, i.e. decreasing trend. 

Table 1: Average import prices per country concerned 

Unit prices (Euro / tonne) 

2003 

2004 

2005 

IP 

US €/ton 

US index 

Taiwan €/ton 

Taiwan index 

PRC €/ton 

PRC index 

1.289 

1.250 

1.108 

1.131 

100 

633 

100 

719 

100 

97 

583 

92 

688 

96 

86 

565 

89 

649 

90 

88 

590 

93 

684 

95 

Total countries concerned 
(€/ton) 

902 

Total countries concerned 

812 

759 

784 

(index) 

100 

90 

84 

87 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(51)  As far as import volumes are concerned the findings of recital (111) of the provisional 
Regulation are confirmed, i.e. the export volume from the USA was significant within 
the meaning of Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation, and that it showed an increasing 
trend.  Export  from  the  USA  were  also  significantly  dumped  and  showed  substantial 
undercutting. All product types were exported from the USA by the two co-operating 
exporting  producer  and  half  of  the  exports  of  KMPS  were  also  made  to  unrelated 
customers.  Thus  it  was  concluded  that  the  product  exported  from  the  USA  was  sold 
through the same sales channels and to the same type of customers in the Community 
as  the  product  produced  and  sold  by  the  Community  industry  on  the  Community 
market and the product imported from the other countries concerned. 

(52)  Nonetheless,  even  if  KMPS  sales  of  the  exporting  producer  concerned  made  to  the 
related user in the Community were excluded from the analysis this would not change 
the overall picture. Market shares from the USA would still be above the de minimis 
threshold and would still show an increasing trend. Likewise, import prices would still 
show a decreasing trend. 

(53)  On the basis of the above, the two exporting producers' claim to decumulate imports 
from the USA when assessing the material injury suffered by the Community industry 
was not warranted and was rejected. 

(54)  One  importer  claimed  that  imports  from  its  supplier  in  Taiwan  decreased  when 
considering  a  longer  period  than  the  period  considered  of  this  investigation.  This 
importer did, however, not submit any figure in support of its claim, or any indication 
of the time period he was referring to. Furthermore, it is the Community Institutions' 
long standing practice to consider a period including the investigation period plus the 
preceding  three  or  four  years  in  the  trend  analysis,  which  is  considered  a  reasonable 
period to evaluate trends and there is no objective reason to deviate from this practice. 
It is also noted that as shown in recital (114) of the provisional Regulation (table 2), 
that  imports  from  Taiwan  increased  by  almost  20%  during  the  period  considered 
which translated also in a slight increase of market share (see recital (115)) over the 
period  considered.  The  importer  did  not  put  forward  any  other  reason  why  Taiwan 
should  be  decumulated  from  the  remaining  countries  concerned,  nor  did  the 
investigation reveal any reason. The importer’s claim in this respect has therefore to be 
rejected. 

(55) 

In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments  in  this  particular  respect,  the  findings  in 
recitals (110) to (113) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. Imports into the Community from the countries concerned, market share and prices 

(56)  Given  the  findings  in  recitals  (31)  to  (34),  export  sales  of  the  Chinese  exporting 
producer which were found to be dumped had to be included in the analyses of import 
volume, market share and prices from the PRC and the figures in tables 2 to 4 (recitals 
(114) to (116) of the provisional Regulation had therefore to be adapted accordingly, 
as follows:  

Table 3: Imports from the countries concerned 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Imports (tonnes) 

2003 

PRC 

Index 

4 275 

100 

2004 

7 294 

171 

2005 

IP 

7 316 

8 708 

171 

204 

Taiwan 

2 080 

2 760 

2 700 

2 480 

Index 

USA 

Index 

100 

133 

130 

119 

3 484 

3 499 

3 818 

3 878 

100 

100 

110 

111 

Total 
concerned 

countries

9 839 

13 552 

13 834 

15 065 

Index 

100 

138 

141 

153 

(57) 

Imports  from  the  countries  concerned  increased  by  53 %  between  2003  and  the  IP. 
While these imports amounted to 9 839 tonnes in 2003 they reached a level of 15 065 
tonnes during the IP. The increase of imports was particularly marked between 2003 
and 2004 since they rose by 38 % 

Table 4: Market share of the countries concerned 

Market shares 

2003 

2004 

2005 

IP 

PRC 

Taiwan 

USA 

11,0 % 

17,4 % 

18,0 % 

20,9 % 

5,3 % 

6,6 % 

6,6 % 

5,9 % 

9,0 % 

8,3 % 

9,4 % 

9,3 % 

Total 
concerned 

countries

25,3 % 

32,3 % 

33,9 % 

36,1 % 

(58)  The market share held by the countries concerned increased between 2003 and the IP 
from  25,3 %  to  36,1 %  i.e.  by  10,8  percentage  points.  The  increase  was  particularly 
marked between 2003 and 2004 when it went up by 7 percentage points. 

Table 5: Prices of the imports concerned 

Unit prices (Euro / tonne)  2003 

2004 

2005 

IP 

Total 
concerned 

Index 

countries 

902 

100 

812 

90 

759 

84 

784 

87 

(59)  From 2003 to the IP, prices of the imports from the countries concerned decreased by 
13 %. Thus, they decreased from EUR 902/tonne in 2003 to EUR 784/tonne in the IP. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(60) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  particular  regard  the  findings  and 
conclusions  set  out  in  recital  (114)  to  (119)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  are 
confirmed. 

5. Situation of the Community industry 

(61)  The  two  exporting  producers  in  the  USA  claimed  that  the  Community  industry 
realised  "reasonable"  profit  margins  during  the  IP,  and  in  any  case  was  not  loss 
making, and it cannot therefore be concluded that it suffered material injury during the 
IP.  One  of  the  US  exporting  producers  further  claimed  that  the  high  profit  margins 
realised  in  2003  would  also  be  an  indication  that  the  Community  industry  did  not 
suffer any material injury. 

(62) 

In  accordance  with  Article  3(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  impact  of  the  dumped 
imports must include an evaluation of all relevant factors and indices having a bearing 
on the state of the Community industry. In this respect, none of the factors in isolation 
can give decisive guidance. The analysis of the situation of the Community industry is 
therefore  not  limited  to  the  profitability  of  the  Community  industry  alone,  but  must 
include  all  factors  listed  in  the  above  mentioned  Article.  Furthermore,  as  outlined  in 
recital  (131)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  profitability  dropped  substantially  during 
the period considered, i.e. by 80% and as a result the Community industry's financial 
situation  deteriorated  dramatically.  In  this  context,  it  was  considered  that  it  was 
irrelevant whether the Community industry realised indeed losses during the IP. It is 
also noted that the profit margin that the Community industry could reasonably expect 
to  achieve  in  the  absence  of  dumped  imports  was  determined  in  recital  (169)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation  and  confirmed  below  in  recital  (154)  with  12%,  i.e. 
significantly higher than the profit margin realised during the IP. 

(63)  With reference to the claim that the high profit margins realised in 2003 would be an 
indication that the Community industry did not suffer any material injury, it is noted 
that even if disregarding the profit margins realised in that year, the trend would still 
be significantly negative. Thus, profits fell between 2004 and the IP by almost 60%. 
This  would  thus  not  change  the  overall  conclusions  that  the  Community  industry 
suffered material injury during the IP. 

(64)  One US exporting producer alleged that the profitability of Community industry may 
have decreased because of a EUR 830 million write-off of intangible assets linked to 
the  acquisition  of  Laporte  in  2005.  It  should  be  however  noted  that  the  downward 
trend of the profitability as set out in the provisional Regulation is constant over the 
period  considered  and  not  linked  to  a  specific  year.  In  addition,  the  investigation 
revealed  that  the  cost  for  the  acquisition  of  Laporte  was  taken  by  the  holding 
company, not by Degussa Initiators. This factor did therefore not have any impact on 
the profitability trends as shown in the provisional Regulation. 

(65)  Finally, one of the US exporting producers claimed that the injury analysis was based 
on wrong expectations of the Community industry to obtain profit margins which are 
above  the  average  of  this  industry.  With  regard  to  this  argument,  it  should  first  be 
noted  that,  as  it  becomes  apparent  from  recitals  (120)  to  (139)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, the injury analysis was based on the developments of all injury indicators 
during  the  period  considered  and  thus  on  the  actual  situation  of  the  Community 
industry during that period, which gave an objective picture based on verified actual 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
data. In other words, the Community expectations as such did not serve as a basis in 
the injury analysis and this argument was therefore rejected. 

(66)  One user alleged that there was no price depression on the Community market but did 
not  submit  any  evidence  to  support  this  claim.  Since  the  verified  information 
submitted by the exporting producers concerned and the Community industry clearly 
showed a downward trend in average selling prices during the period considered, this 
claim had to be rejected. 

(67) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  situation  of  the  Community 
industry, recitals (120) to (139) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

1. Effects of dumped imports 

F. CAUSATION 

(68) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  effects  of  dumped  imports,  the 
findings in recitals (141) to (143) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. Effects of other factors 

Imports originating in third countries other than the PRC, US and Taiwan 

(69)  Both exporting producers in the USA alleged that imports from other countries, and in 
particular  from  Turkey,  may  have  caused  injury  to  the  Community  industry 
particularly  in  view  of  their  prices  which  are  allegedly  lower  than  the  US  prices.  In 
particular, it was claimed that these imports were made in significant quantities and at 
dumped  prices  which  undercut  significantly  the  Community  industry  prices.  Both 
exporting  producers  claimed  that  imports  from  Turkey  have  injured  the  Community 
industry  at  least  at  the  same  degree  than  imports  from  the  USA,  if  not  to  a  larger 
extend. 

(70)  First,  it  should  be  noted  that  Turkey  was  not  included  in  the  complaint  because  the 
complainants had not  found  any evidence of injurious dumping from Turkey.  At the 
time of the initiation of this proceeding, the Commission did not have any evidence at 
its  disposal  that  contradicted  the  complainants'  statement.  Secondly,  the  fact  that 
Turkish  export  prices  may  appear  to  be  lower  than  the  US  prices  when  looking  at 
average prices emanating from Eurostat trade statistics may be the result of a different 
product  mix  exported  by  the  two  countries.  Indeed,  on  the  basis  of  available 
information,  the  US  exports  consist  to  a  large  extent  of  KMPS  whereas,  neither  at 
initiation stage nor during the investigation, any evidence was available that Turkish 
exports  to  the  Community  show  a  similar  product  mix.  Therefore,  no  meaningful 
conclusion  could  be  drawn  from  differences  in  average  Eurostat  prices.  Finally,  it 
should  be  recalled  that  no  such  evidence  was  provided  by  the  exporting  producers 
concerned either. 

(71)  When  analysing  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry,  the  effects  of  the  dumped 
imports  from  all  three  exporting  countries  concerned  were  assessed  cumulatively  for 
the  reasons  set  out  in  recitals  (48)to  (55)  above.  On  this  basis,  it  was  considered 
inappropriate to base the analysis with regard to causation on each country concerned 
separately.  However,  even  if  considering  US  imports  separately,  import  trends  from 
the  USA  and  Turkey  are  different.  While  import  volumes  of  Turkey  significantly 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
decreased during the period considered (i.e. by 42%), import volume and market share 
from the USA increased. As far as prices are concerned no evidence of dumping from 
Turkey was submitted by the exporting producer or was otherwise available. Likewise, 
as far as undercutting is concerned, on the basis of the evidence available, the product 
mix exported from Turkey was different than the one from the USA, in particular in 
Turkey there was no production of KMPS. When comparing average prices from the 
USA excluding exports of KMPS and average export prices from Turkey, it was found 
that Turkish prices were higher than the US prices. 

(72)  On the basis of the above, the conclusions as set out in recitals (144) to (148) of the 

provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

Imports of the Community industry 

(73) 

(74) 

It  was  reiterated  by  several  interested  parties  that  the  imports  of  one  Community 
producer  of  the  product  concerned  from  its  related  company  in  China  were  dumped 
and undercut the Community industry sales prices causing the price depression on the 
Community  market.  Any  injury  would  therefore  be  a  consequence  of  these  imports 
and thus self-inflicted. 

Imports  of  the  Community  industry  from  its  related  company  in  the  PRC  only 
represented a minor part of the Community consumption (less than 4 %) and less than 
8  %  of  the  sales  of  the  Community  producer  in  question  and  were  only  made  to 
maintain  the  custom  of  global  customers  who  would  have  otherwise  purchased  the 
product  concerned  from  the  Chinese  suppliers  at  dumped  prices.  None  of  the  above 
mentioned interested parties submitted any evidence or explained how these relatively 
small quantities (in comparison to the dumped imports made to unrelated customers in 
the  Community)  could  have  been  the  main  factor  for  the  price  depression  in  the 
Community market and this claim had therefore to be rejected. 

Investments of the Community industry in the PRC 

(75)  One of the US exporting producers claimed that the downward trend of the investment 
activities  of  the  Community  industry  shown  in  table  8  of  the  provisional  Regulation 
was due to an increased investment activity of one of the Community producers in its 
related company in the PRC and thus not due to the dumped imports. 

(76) 

It  is  noted  that  the  spare  capacity  of  the  Community  industry  was  high,  i.e.  reached 
almost  30%  during  the  IP.  Under  these  circumstances,  and  taking  into  account  that 
dumped  imports  increased  significantly  during  the  period  considered  and  took  over 
part of the Community industry's market shares, it was considered that it would have 
been unreasonable to invest in an increase of production capacity on the Community 
market.  However,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (129)  of  the  provisional  Regulation, 
investments  were  made  to  maintain  existing  production  capacities.  Under  the  given 
circumstances,  this  was  considered  as  a  reasonable  business  decision  against  the 
background  of  the  dumped  imports.  It  was  therefore  concluded  that  the  decrease  in 
investments in the Community market was not connected to the investment activities 
of  this  producer  in  the  Chinese  market  and  did  therefore  not  indicate  that  the  injury 
suffered was self-inflicted. This argument had therefore to be rejected. 

Other activities of the Community industry in the PRC 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(77)  One  unrelated  importer  claimed  that  the  production,  production  capacity  and 
utilisation decreased due to the relationship of one of the Community producers with 
one  of  the  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC.  This  importer  claimed  that  the  related 
Chinese  producer  would  serve  the  South  Asian  market  with  the  lower  priced 
persulphate  produced  by  the  related  company  in  the  PRC  and  as  a  consequence  the 
Community producer decreased significantly its exports to this area, which would be 
the reason for the decrease of the production volume in the Community. 

(78) 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  trends  with  regard  to  production  volume,  capacity  and 
capacity utilisation as shown in recital (120) of the provisional Regulation (table 5) are 
related  to  the  production  volume  for  products  sold  in  the  Community.  The  alleged 
decrease in exports of one of the Community producer had therefore no impact and the 
importer’s claim had to be rejected. 

Efficiency of the Community industry 

(79)  One  of  the  US  exporting  producers  claimed that the increase in production cost as a 
plausible cause of the injury suffered by the Community industry was not addressed in 
the provisional Regulation. 

(80)  This had to be rejected. The reason for the Community industry's increase in the unit 
cost is outlined in recital (125) of the provisional Regulation. Thus, it is the result of 
the decrease in production volume due to the dumped imports at stable capacities. As a 
result, overhead costs were allocated to lower production volumes which increased the 
unit  costs.  Since  there  is  a  direct  link  to  the  dumped  imports,  the  argument  of  the 
exporting producer concerned had to be rejected.  

Profitability levels of the Community industry in 2003 

(81)  The same US exporting producer claimed also that the reasons for the high levels in 
profitability in 2003 should have been analysed further and taken into consideration in 
the causality analysis.  

(82)  This exporting producer also failed to provide any explanation or evidence as to how 
the  profit  levels  in  2003  could  have  broken  the  causal  link  between  the  dumped 
imports and the injury suffered by the Community industry. The question whether the 
profit  margins  realised  in  2003  would  indicate  that  the  Community  industry  did  not 
suffer material injury during the IP is addressed above in recital (63).  

Cost of the merger of one of the Community producers  

(83)  The  other  exporting  producer  in  the  USA  claimed  that  the  cost  increase  and 
consequently the decrease in the Community industry's profitability during the IP are 
due  to  the  acquisition  of  a  company  by  one  of  the  Community  producers  and  the 
consequent significant write-off of intangible assets in their accounting.  

(84)  However, the downward trend of the profitability as set out in table 9 of recital (130) 
of the provisional Regulation is constant and not linked to a specific year during the 
period  considered.  In  addition,  the  investigation  revealed  that  the  cost  of  the 
acquisition  was  not  borne  by  the  Community  producer  but  by  its  holding  company. 
This argument had therefore to be rejected. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
Uncompetitive behaviour of the Community industry 

(85)  One  user  claimed  that  the  Chinese  producers  related  to  the  Community  industry 
offered  the  product  concerned  on  the  Community  market  at  levels  that  were  largely 
above  the  market  prices,  while  the  same  producers  were  able  to  offer  the  product  at 
much lower prices in any other given market, and even below the price levels of their 
competitors  in  these  third  markets.  This  user  claimed  that  the  producers  concerned 
should  have  known  that  such  price  offers  would  be  unacceptable  for  any  potential 
customer  and  alleged  that  the  Community  industry  through  their  links  to  these 
producers  intentionally  refrained  to  sell  the  product  to  certain  customers  in  the 
Community.  Therefore,  the  decrease  in  sales  volume  and  market  share  on  the 
Community  market  was  due  to this  uncompetitive  behaviour rather than the dumped 
imports.  

(86) 

It  was  found  that  only  one  of  the  above  mentioned  producers  was  exporting  the 
product concerned to the Community during the IP. The arguments with regard to the 
other producer were therefore considered irrelevant and rejected.  

(87)  As  far  as  the  producer  in  the  PRC  is  concerned,  it  indeed  exported  the  product 
concerned  during  the  IP  (see  also  recital  (74)  above).  However,  it  was  found  that 
business  decisions  were  taken  completely  independently  from  the  Community 
producer concerned and in particular, price strategy in the Community market was not 
agreed. The user concerned did not submit any evidence to support its claim that the 
Community  industry  should  be  held  responsible  for  business  decisions  of  its  related 
exporting  producer  in  the  PRC.  Therefore,  on  the  basis  of  the  information  available, 
this claim was rejected.  

(88) 

It should also be noted that the evidence submitted with regard to prices by this user 
was  anecdotal  and  could  not  be  verified,  given  that  it  was  submitted  outside  the 
deadlines  required  and  at  a  very  late  stage  of  the  proceeding.  In  any  case,  the  price 
offers shown were offers before negotiation and were therefore not final. They also did 
not  relate  to  the  IP.  Moreover,  the  actual  verified  average  sales  price  of  the 
Community  industry  was  well  below  the  levels  of  the  offers  shown.  It  is  also  noted 
that  as  in  recitals  (117)  to  (119)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  average  undercutting 
levels were found to be significant. The dumped imports caused a price depression on 
the  Community  market  and  under  these  circumstances  the  “market  price”  is  built 
under unfair conditions and cannot necessarily be used as a benchmark. In any case, 
this is  irrelevant  because  dumping is  defined in Article  1(2)  of the basic  Regulation, 
which does not make reference to a "reasonable" or "market price". 

(89)  As  far  as  the  price  levels  of  this  exporting  producer  to  other  third  markets  are 
concerned the evidence submitted in this regard was anecdotal and also could not be 
verified.  In  addition,  these  prices  were  unrelated  to  the  situation  in  the  Community 
market and therefore irrelevant in the causality analysis. In any case, no evidence or 
information was available regarding the different market conditions in these markets. 
It  was  considered  that  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  submitted,  no  meaningful 
conclusions  could  be  drawn  as  to  the  comparability  of  the  prices  charged  in  the 
different markets. Likewise, the conditions of production and price setting in the PRC, 
where  the  related  company  of  one  of  the  Community  producer  was  located,  cannot 
necessarily be compared to the one in the Community market, which, however, may 
justify difference in price levels. This claim had therefore to be rejected. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
(90) 

In  contrast,  one  of  the  exporting  producers  in  the  USA  claimed  that  the  Community 
industry  was  responsible  for  the  price  depression  on  the  Community  market  since  it 
pursued  a  policy  of  price  undercutting  with  regard  to  its  competitors  on  the 
Community  market.  The  exporting  producer  supported  this  argument  by  submitting 
several  examples  where  it  had  to  lower  its  price  in  order  to  meet  the  level  of  the 
Community industry's price offer. 

(91)  The evidence submitted was considered anecdotal and no general conclusions could be 
drawn therefrom. As recitals (85) and (89) above show, other examples of the opposite 
situation have been provided. While it shows that there is high degree of competition 
on  the  Community  market,  on  the  basis  of  the  information  available  it  could  not  be 
concluded  that  the  Community  industry  was  driving  down  the  prices  on  the 
Community market and this argument had therefore to be rejected. 

Situation on the world market 

(92)  One  importer  claimed  that the  loss  of  sales  of  the  Community  industry  is  due  to  the 
situation in the world market where international customers centralised their purchase 
strategies. This importer  did,  however, not show  how  this  change  in  strategies  could 
have  an  impact  on  the  Community  industry  consumption  and  on  the  causal  link 
between  the  dumped  imports  and  the  material  injury  suffered  and  this  argument  had 
therefore to be rejected. 

Increase in costs of production of the Community industry 

(93)  One Chinese exporting producer claimed that it should have been considered whether 
the  cost  increase  of  the  Community  industry  could  have  caused  the  material  injury 
suffered by the Community industry.  

(94)  The  development  of  unit  costs  during  the  period  considered  are  not  listed  in  Article 
3(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  therefore  not  systematically  mentioned  when 
assessing the situation of the Community industry. However as part of the analysis of 
material  injury,  sales  prices  and  profitability  systematically  addressed  which  implies 
that cost of production is also considered. In any case, as set out in recital 125 of the 
provisional Regulation, unit costs were considered in the provisional determinations.  

(95)  Thus,  recital  (125)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  explains  that  unit  costs  of  the 
Community  industry  increased  by  5%  due  to  a  decrease  in  production  volume  by 
stable capacities. The production volume decreased due to the loss of sales volume and 
market share as a consequence of the price pressure from the dumped imports. It was 
therefore concluded that the increase of production cost of the Community industry on 
the Community industry's negative developments was, if existent at all, only limited.  

Conclusion on causation 

(96) 

In  conclusion,  it  is  confirmed  that  the  material  injury  of  the  Community  industry, 
which is as mentioned in recital (137) of the provisional Regulation characterized by a 
downward trend of all injury indicators, was caused by the dumped imports concerned. 
Indeed, the effect of the non dumped imports from other third countries in particular, 
from Turkey, the Community industry's investments as well as other activities in the 
PRC,  the  acquisition  cost  of  a  third  company,  the  increase  in  unit  costs,  the  alleged 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
non  efficiency  and  uncompetitive  behaviour  of  the  Community  industry  and  the 
situation  on  the  world  market,  on  the  Community  industry's  negative  developments 
was, if existent at all, only limited. 

(97)  Given the above analysis which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of 
all  the  known  factors  on  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry  from  the  injurious 
effects of the dumped imports, it is hereby confirmed that these other factors as such 
do  not  reverse  the  fact  that  the  injury  assessed  must  be  attributed  to  the  dumped 
imports. 

(98)  Given  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  the  dumped  imports  of  persulphates  from  the 
PRC, USA and Taiwan have caused material injury within the meaning of Article 3(6) 
of the basic Regulation.  

(99) 

In the absence of any other comments in this respect, the conclusions in recitals (140) 
to (153) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. Interest of the Community industry 

(100)  One of the users who did not fill in the questionnaire reply but submitted comments 
further  to  the  provisional  disclosure,  claimed  that  the  Community  industry  is 
recovering from the dumped imports and that prices of persulphates in the Community 
have  increased  after  the  IP  and  prior  to  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures. 
Therefore,  there  would  be  no  need  to  impose  anti-dumping  measures  to  improve  the 
situation of the Community industry.  

(101)  This user also contested the conclusions in recital (158) of the provisional Regulation 
that  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  duties  would  allow  the  Community  industry  to, 
inter alia, regain market share and thereby generate better economies of scale. It was 
claimed that based on the findings of the Community industry’s market shares it is one 
of the largest players in and outside the Community and there would therefore not be 
any  further  scope  for  substantial  economies  of  scale.  The  same  user  questioned  the 
Community industry’s intention to invest in its production facilities in the Community 
and  argued  that  the  conclusions  in  recital  (158)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  in  this 
respect were speculative.  

(102)  The same user claimed that anti-dumping duties would not have the effects to restore 
fair  competition  as  concluded  in  recital  (158)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  Rather, 
anti-dumping  measures  would  enforce  the  already  dominant  position  of  the 
Community industry and therefore decrease competition on the Community market.  

(103)  As to the argument that the Community industry was already recovering, it should be 
noted  that  the  information  submitted  by  the  user  in  this  respect  was  anecdotal  and 
related to events after the IP. It could not be verified given that it was submitted at a 
very  late  stage  of  the  investigation,  i.e.  after  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures. 
The  evidence  submitted  was  therefore  considered  insufficient.  It  is  noted  that 
movements  in  the  market  and  in  particular  price  increases  during  an  anti-dumping 
investigation  are  not  unusual.  Indeed,  as  mentioned  below  in  recital  (126),  price 
increases on the Community  market  are  an expected affect of an  anti-dumping duty. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
Furthermore,  the  alleged  price  increase  may  also  have  had  other  reasons  such  as  an 
increase in cost. It is not per se considered as a reason to refrain from the imposition of 
definitive  measures,  if  the  conditions  of  the  basic  Regulation  are  fulfilled.  This 
argument had therefore to be rejected.  

(104)  As  far  as  the  ability  of  the  Community  industry  to  realise  economies  of  scale  is 
concerned,  likewise,  the  evidence  submitted  was  considered  insufficient.  It  is 
reminded  that  it  was  established,  on  the  basis  of  verified  data  submitted  by  the 
Community  industry  in  their  reply  to  the  questionnaire,  that  the  production  volume 
decreased  with  a  stable  production  capacity  and  that,  as  a  consequence,  unit  costs 
increased. In view of this, by increasing production volume there is indeed room for 
economies  of  scale,  at  least  in  order  to  reach  the  unit  cost  level  before  the  dumped 
imports.  The  market  share  of  the  Community  industry  inside  or  outside  the 
Community was considered irrelevant in this context.  

(105)  As far as the allegations are concerned that the Community industry would not invest 
in its production facilities in the Community, even if its financial situation improved, 
the  user  argued  that  this  conclusion  can  be  drawn  on  the  basis  of  the  Community 
industry’s  behaviour  further  to  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on 
imports of peroxodisulphates originating in the PRC in 1995 by the before mentioned 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2961/95  (see  recital  (10)above).  Thus,  this  user  claimed,  the 
Community  industry  did  allegedly  not  invest  in  its  production  facilities  even  when 
anti-dumping  measures  were  in  place,  otherwise,  this  user  claimed  further,  the 
Community industry would not have suffered any injury during the IP.  

(106)  In  this  regard,  it  is  noted  that  the  user  concerned  did  not  submit  any  evidence  to 
support  these  allegations.  In  particular,  he  could  not  provide  any  information  that 
would indicate a lack of investments after imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties 
in 1995 or that there was a link between this alleged lack of investments and the injury 
suffered  during  the  IP  of  the  current  investigation.  On  the  other  hand,  as  outlined  in 
the provisional Regulation in recitals (140) to (153) and as confirmed above in recitals 
(68)  to  (99),  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry  was  indeed 
caused by the dumped imports from the countries concerned. Given in particular the 
conclusions above in recitals (75) and (76), it was not unreasonable to assume that the 
Community industry is committed to the Community market and that it will continue 
its investment activities should the situation in the Community market allow to do so. 
None  of  the  arguments  brought  forward  could  invalidate  these  conclusions  and  the 
claims in this respect had therefore to be rejected.  

(107)  Finally,  as  far  as  the  competitive  situation  in  the  Community  market  is  concerned, 
anti-dumping measures should under normal circumstances restore a fair level playing 
field  between  the  Community  industry’s  sales  in  the  Community  market  and  the 
imports  form  the  countries  concerned  because  measures  should  compensate  for  the 
dumping practiced. As far as the alleged dominant position of the Community industry 
is  concerned  and  as  mentioned  below  in  recital  (124)  and  (130),  there  were  no 
indications  of  an  infringement  of  Article  82  of  the  EC  Treaty  and  it  was  therefore 
concluded that competition within the Community was fair. The argument of the user 
concerned had therefore to be rejected.  

(108)  In the absence of any other comments in this particular regard, the findings set out in 

recitals (157) to (160) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
2. Interest of unrelated importers 

(109)  Further to provisional disclosure, one co-operating importer claimed that in contrast to 
what was concluded in recital (163) of the provisional Regulation, anti-dumping duties 
would  have  a  significant  impact  on  its  overall  profitability,  which  may  lead  to  the 
closure of the company.  

(110)  However,  this  importer  did  not  submit  any  evidence  which  could  have  reversed  the 

provisional conclusions, which are therefore confirmed.  

(111)  In the absence of any other comments in this particular regard, recitals (161) to (164) 

of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. Interest of users 

(112)  As  mentioned  above  in  recital  (6),  after  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures  the 
Commission invited the related user of one of the exporting producers in the USA to 
complete  a  questionnaire.  Despite  the  fact  that  this  user  did  not  co-operate  in  the 
investigation so far, this was considered appropriate because of the alleged substantial 
impact of the anti-dumping duty on the profitability of this user. In particular, it was 
claimed that the impact on the user's profitability of the anti-dumping duty would be 
significant.  

(113)  The  user  in  question  purchased  KMPS  from  its  related  supplier  in  the  USA  and 
produced disinfectants used by farmers to protect their farms against viruses, e.g. for 
cases of avian influenza.  

(114)  The  verification  of  the  information  submitted  by  the  above  user  revealed  that  the 
company  realised  high  profit  margins  on  the  Community  market.  Although  it  was 
claimed that KMPS constituted a substantial part of the user’s cost of production, the 
maximum  impact  on  the  company’s  profitability  was  insignificant,  i.e.  0,2%.  Given 
the  high  profit  margin  realised  by  this  company,  it  was  concluded  that  the  minimal 
increase in cost could be easily absorbed. Given the lack of significant competition on 
the Community market for this product, it is also considered that the cost increase can 
be easily passed on to the customers of this company. 

(115)  This  user  claimed  further  that  although  realising  high  profit  margins  on  the 
Community  market,  it  sells  the  product  also  via  other  third  country  markets.  For 
accounting  purposes  the  profitability  for  all  these  operations  are  consolidated  by 
eliminating  transfer  prices  and  overall  profit  margins  are  negative.  However,  in  the 
current analysis only data in relation to the product concerned and to the Community 
market can be taken into consideration. The information on sales prices and costs to all 
third  country  markets  and  details  of  the  consolidation  for  accounting  purposes  were 
furthermore  not  available  and  could  therefore  not  be  verified.  This  argument  had 
therefore to be rejected. 

(116)  The other co-operating user in the Community claimed to be one of the largest users of 
the persulphate type APS in the Community and claimed to represent about 3,5 % of 
the total Community consumption. This user argued that any increase in its costs, even 
small, would have a significant impact on its overall financial situation. Although the 
user estimated the impact of the anti-dumping duty with 0,2 %, it claimed that since it 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
used  large  quantities  of  the  product  concerned,  it  would  be  more  appropriate  to 
consider  the  absolute  total  amount  of  the  duties  payable  in  the  analysis  of  the 
Community interest. 

(117)  This  user  produces  latex  binders,  which  it  resells  to  the  coated  paper  industry.  They 
also produce products for water treatment. They claimed that they could not pass on 
any increase in cost to their customers because they had to compete with low priced 
imports  from  Asia.  Furthermore,  they  claimed  that  the  paper  industry  had  to  face 
important difficulties and is shrinking, due to a large part, to the raise of the electronic 
media.  Therefore,  the  demand  of  latex  binders  is  also  decreasing.  The  user  claimed 
that its profit margin was already very low and close to break even.  

(118)  The user concerned did not submit any reply to the questionnaire but provided some 
information  on  sales  and  profitability.  On  the basis  of this information,  it was  found 
that the maximum impact on this user's profitability of the business segment using the 
product concerned would only amount to 0,03 %. It was considered that this minimal 
impact  could  not  be  considered  as  significant  which  would  trigger  the  relocation  or 
any job losses in this specific downstream industry, as claimed.  

(119)  None of the information provided by this user with regard to the Community interest 
aspects  could  therefore  be  confirmed  during  the  investigation.  In  any  event,  it  was 
considered  that as a result of the  anti-dumping duties price levels in the Community 
would  on  a  general  basis  increase.  Furthermore,  there  was  no  indication  nor  did  the 
user  concerned  submit  any  evidence  that  imports  of  the  downstream  product  from 
third countries would significantly undercut the prices of the users’ in the Community. 
This argument had therefore to be rejected.  

(120)  Furthermore,  as  admitted  by  the  user  concerned,  the  paper  industry  faced  problems 
unrelated  to  the  anti-dumping  duties  and  it  is  therefore  uncertain  whether  the  anti-
dumping duties will have an impact at all, given the negligible part it would represent 
in the cost of the user or whether other factors, such as the shrinking market for paper 
would be the cause for the decline of this industry. Therefore, it was considered that 
the imposition of the anti-dumping duties would not have a significant adverse effect 
on the downstream industry.  

(121)  Given  the  above,  recitals  (165)  and  (166)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 

confirmed. 

4. Shortage of supply 

(122)  The other user in the Community claimed that the Community industry would not be 
able  to  supply  the  demand  on  the  Community  market  due  to  a  lack  of  sufficient 
capacities.  This  user  furthermore  claimed  that  the  other  sources  of  supply  available 
such as Turkey and Japan cannot be real alternatives because the production volume in 
these countries is too small in comparison to the one in the PRC and moreover, in the 
case of Japan, would be destined almost exclusively to the Japanese domestic market. 

(123)  The above user did not support its claim with any evidence. Furthermore, on the basis 
of  verified  actual  data,  the  Community  production  capacity  was  found  to  practically 
equal the demand on the Community market. It should also be noted that anti-dumping 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
duties do not aim to cease imports of third countries in the Community market but to 
establish a level playing-field. This argument had therefore to be rejected.  

5. Dominant position of the Community industry 

(124)  The two exporting producers from the USA and one of the users raised their concern 
that  the  imposition  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  would  reinforce  the  already 
dominant  position  of  the  Community  industry  because  it  would  shelter  the  two 
Community producers from effective competition.  

(125)  The  user  argued  that  the  fact  that  prices  increased  after  the  imposition  of  the 
provisional  Regulation  from  suppliers  not  subject  to  any  anti-dumping  duty  would 
show the distorting effect of the measures. It was claimed that such price increase was 
only based on the imposition of anti-dumping duties and otherwise unjustified. 

(126)  In this context it is considered that the expected effect of an anti-dumping duty is to 
increase  price  levels  in  the  Community  market  and  thus  to  compensate  for  the  price 
pressure suffered by the Community industry from the dumped imports. It is noted that 
non  dumped  imports  are  in  competition  which  the  dumped  imports  and  may  also  be 
affected  by  the  same  price  pressure.  It  is  therefore  not  unusual  that  an  exporting 
producer  with  a  de  minimis  dumping  margin  increases  its  prices  further  to  the 
imposition  of  an  anti-dumping  duty.  This  behaviour  does  not  necessarily  show  any 
distortion of the market and the claims in this respect were rejected.  

(127)  The  user  alleged  further  that  there  are  close  links  between  the  two  Community 
producers. Thus, both producers shared the same production sites and one Community 
producer supplied the other with energy for its production process. Furthermore, it has 
been  alleged  by  several  of  the  interested  parties  that  the  two  Community  producers 
had  a  history  of  controlling  the  prices  in  the  Community  market  through  anti-
competitive practices. 

(128)  However,  the  investigation  did  not  confirm  these  allegations.  It  did  not  reveal  any 
evidence  which  would  point  to  an  uncompetitive  behaviour  of  the  Community 
industry, i.e. an abuse of the alleged dominant position. As far as the alleged links of 
the  two  Community  producers  are  concerned,  the  investigation  has  shown  that 
business  decisions  were  taken  independently  from  each  other  and  that  managements 
were  completely  separated.  It  was  also  considered  that  the  Community  industry  did 
not  enjoyed  abnormally  high  profits,  but  in  contrast  suffered  from  a  significantly 
deteriorating  profitability.  It  is  noted  that  as  shown  above  in  recitals  (85)  to  (91), 
several  suppliers  of  persulphate  competed  in  the  Community  market  and  price 
negotiations with the customers were ongoing.  

(129)  Furthermore, as also mentioned above in recital (107) anti-dumping measures should 
restore  a  level  playing-field  between  the  Community  industry’s  sales  in  the 
Community market and imports entering the Community market. Indeed, the purpose 
of  the  duties  is  merely  to  raise  the  import  prices  to  a  level  which  would  allow  the 
Community  industry  to  achieve  a  normal  profit.  It  is  also  noted  that  despite  other 
possible sources of supply such as Turkey, Japan and India, there is also one exporting 
producer in the PRC for which dumping was found to be de minimis and these imports 
will therefore enter the Community market without payment of an anti-dumping duty.  

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
(130)  Considering the above, the interested parties' claims in this respect had to be rejected. 

6. Relocation of the downstream industry 

(131)  One  exporting  producer  in  the  US  and  the  two  co-operating  users  alleged  that  the 
imposition  of  the  anti-dumping  duties  would  accelerate  the  relocation  process  of  the 
downstream industry.  

(132)  As  far  as  the  USA  exporter  is  concerned,  they  alleged  that  the  product  type  KMPS 
constituted  a  large  share  of  the  downstream  industry's  production  cost  and  therefore 
any  anti-dumping  duty  would  have  a  significant  impact  on  these  industries' 
profitability.  

(133)  One of the users alleged that the number of employees in the downstream industry is 
substantially  higher  than  the  number  of  employees  of  the  Community  industry  of 
persulphates, i.e. a much higher number of jobs was at stake.  

(134)  As  mentioned  above  in  recitals  (112) to (121), the impact of anti-dumping measures 
on  the  downstream  industries'  production  cost  was  found  to  be  negligible.  This  was 
true  for  all  product  types,  including  KMPS.  On  this  basis,  it  could  not  be  concluded 
that  anti-dumping  duties  would  be  a  trigger  to  outsource  the  production  of  the 
downstream industry to third countries. It is also noted that the number of employment 
in the downstream industry is not directly comparable to the number of employees of 
the  Community  industry  of  persulphates.  For  instance,  the  user  concerned  did  not 
submit  any  indication  or  evidence  how  many  of  the  employment  in  the  downstream 
industry were directly linked to the product concerned and thus potentially affected by 
the imposition of anti-dumping duties. 

(135)  Given the above considerations, these claims had to be rejected.  

7. Anti-dumping duties imposed in 1995  

(136)  One of the users claimed that the material injury suffered by the Community industry 
during  the  current  IP  showed  that  the  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  on 
peroxodisulphates  in  1995  were  ineffective.  It  is  therefore  not  in  the  interest  of  the 
Community to impose new anti-dumping measures on a similar product scope which 
can also be expected to be ineffective. In particular, it is not in the Community interest 
to impose measures which will not be beneficial to the Community industry but will 
be detrimental to the downstream industry. 

(137)  It should first be noted that the definitive anti-dumping measures to which reference 
was made were terminated in 20028 due to the withdrawal of the request for an expiry 
review  by  the  Community  industry  in  accordance  with  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  It  was  found  that  the  continuation  of  the  investigation  was  not  in  the 
Community  interest.  Since  the  Community  industry  was  not  interested  in  the 
continuation  of  the  investigation,  it  can  be  reasonably  assumed  that  it  was  not  in  an 
injurious situation and that measures were indeed effective. 

8 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  695/2002  of  22  April  2002  terminating  the  anti-dumping  proceeding 
concerning  imports  of  peroxodisulphates  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  (OJ  L  109, 
25.4.2002, p. 1). 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(138)  Second, it was found during the present investigation that the material injury suffered 
by the Community industry was caused by the dumped imports after the termination of 
the  above  mentioned  proceeding.  It  was  therefore  concluded  that  the  assumptions 
made by this users with regard to the effectiveness of the anti-dumping measures were 
wrong and had to be rejected.  

(139)  Furthermore, as concluded in recitals (157) to (160) in the provisional Regulation and 
as  confirmed  by  the  present  investigation,  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping 
measures  was  in  the  interest  of  the  Community  industry  and  which  is  expected  to 
benefit  from  them  and  to  improve  its  financial  situation.  On  the  other  hand,  as 
concluded  above,  the  impact  of  anti-dumping  measures  on  users  and  importers  is 
expected to be negligible.  

(140)  The above arguments had therefore to be rejected. 

8. Supply chain of downstream product 

(141)  One  of  the  US  exporting  producers  claimed  that  since  its  related  producer  in  the 
Community  is  likely  to  cease  its  production  in  the  Community,  the  supply  of  the 
disinfectant  used  in  cases  of  avian  influenza  could  no  longer  be  sufficiently 
guaranteed. Since this product would have to be sourced outside the Community, this 
would  lengthen  the  supply  chain  and  deteriorate  the  Community's  capability  to 
respond in the event of an outbreak of this disease.  

(142)  In this regard, reference is made to the findings above in recitals (112) to (120), which 
show that the financial impact of the anti-dumping duties is estimated to be very low 
and  that  therefore,  it  is  not  very  likely  that  the  downstream  industry  would  relocate 
their  production  sites  as  a  consequence  of  the  anti-dumping  duty,  but  rather  as  a 
consequence of the consolidated negative business result.  

(143)  It was also found that the disinfectant produced by this company was not the only one 
used  for  disinfection  purposes  and  that  therefore,  even  in  the  case  that  the  company 
would cease production in the Community other products were largely available. 

(144)  The claims in this regard had therefore to be rejected. 

9. Conclusion on Community interest 

(145)  Considering the above, the conclusions in recital (167) of the provisional Regulation 
are hereby confirmed, i.e. that there are no compelling reasons of Community interest 
which  would  show  that  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  is  not  in  the 
Community interest. 

H. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

1. Injury elimination level 

(146)  Several  interested  parties  contested  the  provisional  findings  that  12  %  profit  margin 
would  be  the  profit  margin  before  tax  that  could  be  reasonably  be  achieved  by  an 
industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
(147)  One exporting producer of the USA claimed that persulphate would be a commodity 
chemical  and  that  the  Community  Institutions  have  a  long  standing  practice  to 
consider 5-8 % as appropriate to determine the injury elimination level. This exporting 
producer also claimed that in the previous investigation concerning a similar product, 
the profit margin considered for this purpose was 5 % which should also be used in the 
present investigation for consistency reasons. 

(148)  The same exporting producer alleged that the profit margin of 12% was not achieved 
therefore  excessive.  It  should 
under  normal  conditions  of  competition  and 
consequently  not  be  considered.  The  exporting  producer  supported  this  claim  by 
providing  overall  publicly  available  profitability  figures  of  one  of  the  Community 
producers, which amounted to 5,1 %. 

(149)  It  was  claimed  that  the  profit  margin  necessary  to  ensure  the  viability  of  the 
Community industry should be considered or the profit margin which corresponded to 
a reasonable return on capital employed. 

(150)  It is first noted that the criteria mentioned above in  recital (149) are irrelevant when 
determining the injury elimination  level. Indeed,  the  Community Institutions  have to 
base their determination on an evaluation as to the level of the profit margin which the 
Community  industry  can  reasonably  expect  to  achieve  in  the  absence  of  dumped 
imports, on the sales of the like product in the Community market. In this respect, it is 
generally considered that the profit margin at the beginning of the period considered is 
the profit margin realised in the absence of dumped imports. It is noted that there is no 
practice,  as  claimed  by  one  of  the  US  exporting  producers,  of  the  Community 
Institutions to use the same profitability level for similar industries. Profit margins in 
order  to  determine  the  non-injurious  price  level  in  the  Community  industry  are 
established on actual verified data collected during each investigation and are therefore 
case specific. 

(151)  For the reasons mentioned above, it is rejected to use the overall profit margin of one 
of the Community producers because it does not relate to the product concerned or the 
Community market or to the entire Community industry. 

(152)  As  far  as  the  prior  anti-dumping  investigation  concerning  a  similar  product  is 
concerned to which reference was made, it is noted that the product type KMPS was 
not  included  in  that  investigation,  which  may  have  had  an  impact  on  the  overall 
profitability of the Community industry. 

(153)  Finally,  as  far  as  the  alleged  uncompetitive  behaviour  of  the  Community  industry  is 
concerned, it is noted that as outlined above in recitals (124) to (130), these allegations 
were not confirmed in the current investigation and the claims in this regard had to be 
rejected. 

(154)  It is therefore concluded that the profitability of 12 % was appropriate and was used in 
the  definitive  findings.  In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  injury 
elimination  level,  recitals  (168)  to  (171)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

2. Form and level of the duties 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
(155)  In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level sufficient to 
eliminate  the  injury  caused  by  the  imports  without  exceeding  the  dumping  margin 
found. 

(156)  On the basis of the above, the definitive duties are as follows: 

Country 

Company 

Anti-dumping duty  

United 
of 

The 
States 
America 

E.I. DuPont De Nemours 

FMC Corporation 

All other companies 

10,6 % 

39,0 % 

39,0 % 

The  People’s 
of 
Republic 
China 

ABC Chemicals (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 

Degussa-AJ (Shanghai) Initiators Co., Ltd. 

All other companies 

Taiwan 

San Yuan Chemical Co., Ltd. 

All other companies 

0 % 

24,5 % 

71,8 % 

22,6 % 

22,6 % 

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

(158)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty 
rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of 
new  production  or  sales  entities)  should  be  addressed  to  the  Commission9  forthwith 
with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities 
linked  to  production,  domestic  and  export  sales  associated  with,  for  example,  that 
name  change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the 
Regulation  will  then  be  amended  accordingly  by  updating  the  list  of  companies 
benefiting from individual duty rates. 

(159)  In  order  to  ensure  a  proper  enforcement  of  the  anti-dumping  duty,  the  residual  duty 
level  should  not  only  apply  to  the  non-cooperating  exporters,  but  also  to  those 
companies  which  did  not  have  any  exports  during  the  IP.  However,  the  latter 

9 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Trade,  Direction  H,  Office  J-79  4/23,  1049  Brussels, 
Belgium. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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. Definitive collection of provisional duties and special monitoring 

(160)  In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the 
amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by  the 
provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  Regulation  (EC)  No  390/2007,  should  be  definitively 
collected  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  of  the  definitive  duties  imposed.  Where  the 
definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally 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 definitely collected. 

(161)  In order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty 
rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper 
application  of  the  anti-dumping  duties.  These  special  measures,  which  only  apply  to 
companies for which an individual duty rate is introduced, include the presentation to 
the  customs  authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  a  valid  commercial  invoice,  which 
shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Imports not 
accompanied  by  such  an  invoice  shall  be  made  subject  to  the  residual  anti-dumping 
duty applicable to all other exporters. 

(162)  It  is  recalled  that  should  the  exports  by  the  companies  benefiting  from  lower 
individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the anti-
dumping measures, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in 
itself  a  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  due  to  the  imposition  of  measures  within  the 
meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances, and provided 
the  conditions  are  met,  an  anti-circumvention  investigation  may  be  initiated.  This 
investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rates 
and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1.  A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  peroxosulphates 
(persulphates),  including  potassium  peroxymonosulphate  sulphate,  falling  within  CN  codes 
2833  40  00  and  ex  2842  90  80  (TARIC  code  2842 90 80 20)  and  originating  in  the  United 
States of America, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. 

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

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
Country 

Company 

Anti-Dumping 
Duty 

TARIC 
Additional Code 

The  United  States  of 
America 

E.I.  DuPont  De  Nemours, 
Wilmington, Delaware 

10,6 % 

A818 

FMC 
Tonawanda, New York 

Corporation, 

39,0 % 

A819 

All other companies 

39,0 % 

The People’s Republic 
of China 

ABC  Chemicals  (Shanghai) 
Co., Ltd., Shanghai 

0 % 

A999 

A820 

Taiwan 

Degussa-AJ 
(Shanghai) 
Initiators Co., Ltd., Shanghai 

24,5 % 

A821 

All other companies 

San  Yuan  Chemical  Co., 
Ltd., Chiayi 

71,8 % 

22,6 % 

A999 

A823 

All other companies 

22,6 % 

A999 

3.  The  application  of  the  individual  duty  rates  specified  for  the  companies  mentioned  in 
paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member 
States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the 
Annex. If no such invoice is presented, the duty rate applicable to all other companies shall 
apply.  

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

Article 2 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  390/2007  on  imports  of  peroxosulphates  (persulphates),  including 
potassium peroxymonosulphate sulphate, falling within CN codes 2833 40 00 and ex 2842 90 
80 (TARIC code 2842 90 80 20) and originating in the United States of America, the People’s 
Republic of China and Taiwan shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess 
of  the  amount  of  the  definitive  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 definitely 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 

EN 

32 

   EN 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 

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

(1) 

(2) 

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

The  following  declaration  “I,  the  undersigned,  certify  that  the  [volume]  of 
peroxosulphates sold for export to the European Community covered by this invoice 
was manufactured by (company name and registered seat) (TARIC additional code) in 
(country concerned). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete 
and correct.” 

Date and signature 

EN 

34 

   EN