Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People's Republic of China
Date: 2012-03-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), organic acid, originating product

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 16.3.2012  
COM(2012) 111 final 

2012/0050 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People's Republic of 
China 

 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

Context of the proposal 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This proposal concerns the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 
30  November  2009  on  protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not 
members  of  the  European  Community  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  anti-dumping 
proceeding  concerning  imports  of  oxalic  acid  originating  in  India  and  the  People's 
Republic of China. 

•  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  (EU)  No  1043/2011  imposing  a  provisional  anti-dumping 
duty  on  imports  of  oxalic  acid  originating  in  India  and  the  People's  Republic  of 
China. 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

Consultation of interested parties and impact assessment 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  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 contain provisions for a general impact assessment but 
contains an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on 
dumping,  injury,  causation  and  Union  interest.  It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the 
Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation which should be published no 
later than 20 April 2012. 

•  Legal basis 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against 
dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

The  proposal  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  European  Union.  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  Union, 
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: 

Other means would not be adequate because the basic Regulation does not provide 
for alternative options. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
2012/0050 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People's Republic of 
China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commisison) after 
having consulted the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

1. 

PROCEDURE 

1.1. 

Provisional measures 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  1043/20112  ('the  provisional  Regulation') 
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid originating in India 
and the People's Republic of China ('the PRC').  The  provisional  anti-dumping duties 
ranged from 14.6% to 52.2%. 

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 13 December 2010 
by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) on behalf of Oxaquim S.A. (‘the 
complainant’),  representing  a  major  proportion,  in  this  case  more  than  25%,  of  the 
total Union production of oxalic acid. 

As  set  out  in  recital  (9)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  investigation  of  dumping 
and  injury  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2010  to  31  December  2010 
(‘investigation  period’  or  ‘IP’).  The  examination  of  the  trends  relevant  for  the 
assessment  of  injury  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2007  to  the  end  of  the 
investigation period (‘period considered’).  

1.2. 

Subsequent procedure 

1 
2 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p.1 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations  on the basis of 
which  it  was  decided  to  impose  provisional  anti-dumping  measures  ('provisional 
disclosure'),  several  interested  parties  made  written  submissions  making  their  views 
known  on  the  provisional  findings.  The  parties  who  so  requested  were  granted  an 
opportunity  to  be  heard.  In  particular,  one  exporting  producer  from  India  requested 
and was afforded a hearing in the presence of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-
General for Trade. 

The Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its definitive 
findings.  

Recital (150) of the provisional Regulation invited Chinese companies which had not 
yet  made  themselves  known  but  considered  that  an  individual  duty  should  be 
established  for  them  to  come  forward  within  10  days  from  publication.  No  Chinese 
company did so. 

Subsequently, 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  oxalic  acid  originating  in  India  and  the  PRC  and  the 
definitive  collection  of  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  duty  ('final 
disclosure').  All  parties  were  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  make 
comments on this final disclosure.  

(8) 

The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  were  considered 
and were taken into account where appropriate. 

1.3. 

Parties concerned by the proceeding 

(9) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  with  regard  to  the  parties  concerned  by  the 
proceeding, recitals (3) to (8) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

2.1. 

Product concerned 

(10)  The  product  concerned  is  as  described  in  recitals  (10)  and  (11)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, i.e. oxalic acid, whether in dihydrate (CUS number 0028635-1 and CAS 
number  6153-56-6)  or  anhydrous  form  (CUS  number  0021238-4  and  CAS  number 
144-62-7), and whether or not in aqueous solution, currently falling within CN code ex 
2917 11 00 and originating in India and the PRC. 

(11)  There  are  two  types  of  oxalic  acid:  unrefined  oxalic  acid  and  refined  oxalic  acid. 
Refined oxalic acid, which is produced in the PRC but not in India, is manufactured 
through  a  purification  process  of  unrefined  oxalic  acid,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to 
remove iron, chlorides, metal traces and other impurities. 

(12)  Oxalic  acid  is  used  in  a  wide  range  of  applications,  for  example  as  a  reducing  and 
bleaching agent, in pharmaceutical synthesis and in the manufacture of chemicals. 

2.2. 

Like product 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
(13)  The investigation has shown that oxalic acid produced and sold by the Union industry 
in the Union, oxalic acid produced and sold on the domestic market of India and the 
PRC and oxalic acid imported into the Union from India and the PRC have essentially 
the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same basic end uses.  

(14) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  regarding  the  product  concerned  or  like  product, 
recitals (10) to (13) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

DUMPING 

3.1. 

India  

3.1.1.  Preliminary remark 

(15) 

In  recital  (14)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  Commission  found  that  one  Indian 
exporting producer could not be considered as a cooperating party and accordingly the 
findings for that company were made on facts available as set out in Article 18 of the 
basic Regulation.  

(16)  Following the disclosure of provisional findings to this company, Star Oxochem Pvt. 
Ltd, it provided additional explanations and clarifications in respect of the information 
submitted earlier in the investigation by the company. It also requested to be heard by 
the Commission and by the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade. The 
company argued that, given that it had submitted a questionnaire response and bearing 
in  mind  that  the  Commission  services  had  visited  the  premises  of  the  company  and 
also  in  light  of  the  additional  explanations  and  clarifications  now  provided,  it  would 
not be appropriate if it were to continue to be treated like exporting producers who had 
not cooperated in any way with the investigation.  

(17) 

In  light  of  the  above,  in  particular  the  additional  explanations  and  clarifications 
provided,  the  Commission's  services  consider  that  they  can  use  part  of  the  original 
information, namely data related to export prices, as they were found to be reliable. It 
follows from the above considerations that the provisional findings, as set out in recital 
(14)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  are  only  partially  maintained  and  findings  in 
respect of this company are made partially on facts available and partially on its own 
export prices in accordance with Articles 18(1) and 18(3) of the basic Regulation.  

3.1.2.  Normal value 

(18)  No comments have been submitted in respect of the methodology to calculate normal 
value  for  India.  Accordingly,  the  findings  in  recitals  (15)  to  (18)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are confirmed with regard to the cooperating company. 

(19)  With  regard  to  Star  Oxochem,  and  taking  into  account  the  findings  above  (recitals 
(16)-(17)), the normal value was established on the basis of facts available pursuant to 
Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, the normal value for this company 
was based on the weighted average of a representative quantity of domestic sales by 
the other cooperating company, Punjab Chemicals.  

3.1.3.  Export price 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(20) 

(21) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  determination  of  the  export  price,  as  set  out  in 
recital  (19)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  is  confirmed  with  regard  to  Punjab 
Chemicals. 

In view of the conclusions as set out above in recitals (16)-(17), the export price for 
Star Oxochem is, pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, established on the 
basis of the prices actually paid or payable by independent customers for the product 
concerned when exported to the Union. 

3.1.4.  Comparison 

(22) 

In the absence of any comments with regard to the comparison of the normal value and 
the export prices, recitals (20) and (21) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed as 
far as the cooperating producer, Punjab Chemicals, is concerned.  

(23)  With regard to Star Oxochem, adjustments  have  been  made  in  accordance  to  Article 

2(10) of the Basic Regulation based on the verified allowances of Punjab Chemicals.  

3.1.5.  Dumping margin 

(24)  With  regard  to  the  cooperating  producer  no  comments  have  been  made  on  the 
Commission's  provisional  findings.  Therefore,  the  dumping  margin,  as  set  out  in 
recitals (22) and (23) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

(25)  With regard to STAR Oxochem and taking into account the above considerations, the 
dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union border price, duty unpaid 
is 31.5%. 

(26) 

In  view  of  the  low  cooperation  from  India  (below  80%)  it  was  provisionally 
considered that the highest dumped transaction of the cooperating party was the most 
appropriate  method  for  establishing  the  country-wide  dumping  margin.  This 
transaction  is  not  exceptional  in  terms  of  either  quantity  or  price  and  is  therefore 
considered a representative sample that leads to a reasonable and proportionate result 
in relation to the dumping margin established for the cooperating producer. 

(27) 

In  view  of  the  above  the  considerations  the  findings  in  recitals  (24)  and  (25)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

(28)  On  this  basis  the  definitive  dumping  margins  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF 

Union frontier price, duty unpaid, for India are:  

Company 

Definitive dumping 
margin 

Punjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Limited 

Star Oxochem Pvt. Ltd 

All other companies 

22.8% 

31.5% 

43.6% 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
3.2. 

People's Republic of China 

3.2.1.  Market Economy Treatment (MET) / Individual Treatment (IT) 

(29)  As  set  out  in  the  provisional  Regulation,  one  group  of  Chinese  companies  requested 
MET or, failing that, IT, while another group of Chinese companies requested IT only. 
As set out in recitals (26) to (32) of the provisional Regulation, the claim for MET was 
rejected whereas both groups of companies were provisionally granted IT.  

(30)  No comments have been submitted in respect of these provisional finding and recitals 

(26) to (32) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.2.2.  Analogue country 

(31)  No  comments  were  received  on  the  provisional  choice  of  analogue  country. 
Accordingly, recitals (33) to (34) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

3.2.3.  Normal value 

(32) 

It  was  explained  in  the  provisional  Regulation  that  the  Commission  established 
separate  normal  values  for  both  unrefined  and  refined  oxalic  acid.  While  the  normal 
value  for  unrefined  oxalic  acid  was  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  normal  value 
established for India, the normal value for refined oxalic acid, which is not produced 
in India, was constructed on the basis of the manufacturing costs for Indian unrefined 
oxalic  acid,  adjusted  with  an  uplift  of  12%  to  take  into  account  additional 
manufacturing costs, plus SG&A and profit. 

(33)  Both  cooperating  producers  from  China  contested  the  12%  uplift  for  additional 
manufacturing costs, claiming that these additional costs have never been verified by 
the Commission and appear to be simply a rough estimation based on a methodology 
that has not been disclosed to them at the time of the provisional disclosure. One of the 
exporting producers claimed that it had estimated the additional manufacturing cost at 
only 5% although it did not substantiate this claim with any supporting evidence. 

(34) 

It  is  pointed  out  that  the  uplift  has  been  determined  on  the  basis  of  information 
provided by the cooperating Chinese exporting producers themselves. First, it is noted 
that  the  same  company  which  now  alleges  that  the  additional  manufacturing  cost  is 
only around 5% had originally explicitly referred to additional costs of 10-15% in its 
MET/IT claim form. Second, during the verification visits at the companies' premises, 
both  cooperating  producers  confirmed  that  the  additional  costs  for  manufacturing 
refined oxalic acid as compared to unrefined oxalic acid were in the band of 10-12%. 
Third, this latter level of 10-12% additional manufacturing cost was also supported by 
calculations  of  the  Union  industry.  In  view  of  the  information  provided  by  the 
cooperating producers an uplift of 12% was considered approriate. 

(35)  Therefore  in  the  absence  of  any  substantiated  information  or  supporting  evidence 
justifying  a  lower  uplift  the  findings  in  recitals  (35)  to  (37)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.2.4.  Export price  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(36)  Both exporting producers from the PRC were granted IT, therefore their export prices 
were based on the prices actually paid or payable by the first independent customer in 
the Union in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. 

(37) 

In  the  absence  of  comments  with  regard  to  the  export  price,  recital  (38)  of  the 
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

3.2.5.  Comparison 

(38)  One of the cooperating producers claimed that the SG&A expenses of its related trader 
and commissions should not be removed from the export price as an adjustment under 
Article  2(10)(i)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  producer  stated  that  the  direct  selling 
costs of their related trader had already been removed from the export price in order to 
arrive at an ex-works price to compare with the normal value on the same basis. 

(39)  The  producer  argued  that  their  related  trader  was  a  wholly  owned  subsidiary  and,  in 
view  of  the  export  profit  distribution  strategy  within  the  group,  did  not  charge  any 
commission. Furthermore, according to the company, the remaining SG&A expenses 
represented  the  combined  costs  of  operating  the  company  and  were  not  expenses 
directly related to sales and should therefore not be removed from the export price. 

(40)  Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation states that commissions are to be understood to 
include the mark-up received by a trader if the functions of such a trader are similar to 
those of an agent working on a commission basis. It is therefore irrelevant whether a 
commission was actually paid or not. What is relevant is whether the trader re-sold the 
goods with a mark-up and whether the functions of the trader were similar to those of 
an agent. 

(41)  Evidence  on  file,  obtained  before  and  during  the  inspection  of  the  trading  company, 
shows that the trader during the IP sold oxalic acid produced by the related producer to 
a customer in the EU. At the same time the producer was also exporting directly to the 
same  customer  in  the  EU.  The  related  trader  therefore  duplicated  the  effort  of  the 
producer with different staff in a different office in a different city, thereby incurring 
its own costs that are reflected in their export price. 

(42) 

It is also clear from evidence on file that the trading company purchased the exported 
goods  from  the  related  exporting  producer  and  re-sold  them,  with  a  mark-up,  in  its 
own name, after having itself concluded price negotiations with the final independent 
customer.  

(43)  Evidence was also collected regarding the trading company performing the functions 
of an agent. This evidence firstly shows that the producer sold significant volumes of 
the  product  concerned  directly  to  the  EU  as  well  as  exporting  to  the  EU  via  their 
related trading company. Only about one-third of sales to the EU were made via this 
related  company.  The  trader  also  re-sold  oxalic  acid  from  other  unrelated  producers. 
Evidence  on  file  shows  that  over  half  of  the  trader's  purchases  of  oxalic  acid  were 
from unrelated suppliers and less than half of their purchases came from their related 
producer. 

(44)  The trader could thus not be considered as the internal export sales department of the 

producing exporter despite its relationship with the exporting producer. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(45) 

It is also clear from evidence submitted and verified that the trader only pays for the 
goods supplied from the related exporting producer once the customer in the EU has 
paid  the  trader.  The  financial  risk  therefore  remains  with  the  producer  and  not  the 
trader. 

(46) 

It was therefore considered that the trader was carrying out functions similar to those 
of  an  agent  working  on  a  commission  basis.  Accordingly,  the  claim  that  no 
adjustments should be made for commission under 2(10)(i) is rejected. 

(47)  Also the claim that SG&A expenses should not be taken into account as they do not 
include  direct  selling  expenses  cannot  be  accepted.  Such  overhead  costs  have  an 
impact  on  the  cost  structure  of  the  company  and  therefore  affect  the  export  price. 
Therefore, a portion of these costs was removed from the export price to allow for a 
fair comparison of normal value and export price, ex-works. This claim is rejected. 

(48)  The commission has been established on the basis of the profit margin of an unrelated 
EU importer rather than on the actual mark-up of the trader, which was significantly 
higher.  This  methodology  was  deemed  more  approriate  as  the actual  mark-up  would 
have been based on internal transfer prices not reflecting actual market conditions.  

(49) 

In the absence of any further comments with regard to the comparison of the normal 
value  and  the  export  price,  recitals  (39)  to  (44)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

3.2.6.  Dumping margins 

For the cooperating exporting producers 

(50)  One group of exporting producers claimed that individual dumping margins should be 
established separately for unrefined and refined oxalic acid. They argued that although 
dumping  margins  were  established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  weighted 
average normal value with the weighted average export price of the product concerned 
type  by  type,  one  common  dumping  margin  for  both  types  of  oxalic  acid  was 
established.  They  claimed  that  it  would  be  more  appropriate  to  establish  a  dumping 
margin for each type of oxalic acid as the group consists of two producing companies 
of which one produces refined oxalic acid while the other produces unrefined oxalic 
acid. 

(51)  Unrefined oxalic acid can be substituted by refined oxalic acid. Both types of oxalic 
acid  are  included  under  the  same  CN  code  and  the  different  types  cannot  easily  be 
distinguished from each other. The purity of the oxalic acid is the same, the difference 
is  in  the  levels  of  other  products  in  the  remaining  'waste'  product.  As  they  both  fall 
within  the  definition  of  the  product  concerned,  one  dumping  margin  has  been 
established in line with usual practice. Given the significant price difference between 
the  two  types  and  the  difficulties  involved  in  distinguishing  them  from  each  other 
individual  dumping  margins  for  refined  and  unrefined  oxalic  acid  would  lead  to  an 
increased  risk  of  circumvention.  The  claim  to  have  individual  dumping  margins  for 
refined and unrefined oxalic acid, is rejected and the dumping margins as established 
in recitals (45) and (46) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(52)  Finally, the same exporting producer group questioned the different dumping margins 
established  for  the  two  groups  of  exporting  producers  from  the  PRC  and  requested 
clarification  of  the  calculation  methodology  and  the  classification  of  refined  and 
unrefined oxalic acid, given the difference in the dumping margins found between the 
two groups of exporters.  

(53)  The same methodology has been used in respect of both groups of exporting producers 
from the PRC and the weighted average export price of the product concerned includes 
both  refined  and  unrefined  oxalic  acid.  The  explanation  as  to  the  different  dumping 
margins rests therefore simply on the relative weight of exports of the respective types, 
considering that refined oxalic acid is normally sold at a higher price than unrefined.  

(54)  The definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier 

price, duty unpaid, are:  

Company 

Definitive dumping 
margin 

Shandong  Fengyuan  Chemicals  Stock  Co.,  Ltd  and 
Shandong Fengyuan Uranus Advanced material Co., 
Ltd 

Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co., Ltd 

37.7% 

14.6% 

For all other non-cooperating exporting producers 

(55) 

In the absence of other comments with regard to the dumping margins, recitals (47) to 
(48) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

(56)  On this basis the country-wide level of dumping is definitely established at 52.2% of 
the  CIF  Union  frontier  price,  duty  unpaid,  and  recital  (49)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4. 

INJURY 

4.1. 

Union production and Union industry 

(57)  An  exporting  producer  submitted  that  the  reference  to  two  Union  producers 
constituting the Union industry in recitals (50) and (51) of the provisional Regulation 
(the complainant and a second non-cooperating producer) did not properly reflect the 
situation regarding macro economic indicators. It was also argued that data regarding 
the non-cooperating producer as well as the data from a third Union producer having 
stopped  the  production  of  OA  should  be  disregarded  and  not  be  included  in  some 
macro indicators (see recitals (72), (74) and (78) of the provisional Regulation). First, 
it is hereby confirmed that contrary to what was stated in recitals (50) and (51) of the 
provisional Regulation, there were in fact three producers of the product concerned in 
the  Union  during  the  period  consideredconstituting  the  Union  industry  within  the 
meaning  of  Article  4(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  which  thus  represent  100%  of  the 
Union  production.  Second,  the  claim  that  figures  pertaining  to  the  non  cooperating 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
producer and the third Union producer having ceased its operation in 2008 should be 
disregarded is rejected, as it is correct to include all known figures related to the period 
considered for the purpose of the injury analysis in order to achieved the best informed 
representation of the economic situation of the Union industry as prescribed in Article 
4(1) of the basic Reegulation.  

(58)  The same exporting producer also argued that the reasons for which this third producer 
has  ceased  its  production  of  the  like  product  were  not  properly  examined  during  the 
investigation.  However,  this  matter  was  examined  during  the  investigation  and  the 
company simply invoked the fact that it had stopped the production of the like product 
for  "internal  reasons"  without  giving  any  further  explanations.  In  addition,  one 
exporting  producer  concurred  with  this  explanation  and  claimed  that  the  decision  to 
stop  the  production  was  not  due  to  the  alleged  dumping  practices  from  exporting 
producers in China, thus  contradicting  the information which was made  available by 
the complainant in the non-confidential version of the complaint, in which it is stated 
that "[the company] ceased production, once and for all, closing the factory because of 
aggressive dumping from China and India". However, the exporting producer did not 
provide any different information with regard to the alleged production figures related 
to this third Union producer. Therefore, this issue does not devaluate the fact that the 
data related to that third EU producer could be used in the current investigation.  

(59)  Another  exporting  producer  argued  that  the  minimum  threshold  for  the  standing  at 
initiation was not properly disclosed and in fact was not met. As mentioned in recital 
(2) of the provisional Regulation, the complainant represented more than 25% of the 
total Union production of oxalic acid and no producer expressing opposition has come 
forward  prior  to  the  initiation  of  the  investigation.  An  information  note  was  made 
available  in  the  non-confidential  file  summarising  the  results  of  the  standing 
examination  at  initiation  stage.  Furthermore,  the  injury  analysis  made  pursuant  to 
Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation covered a major proportion of the Union Industry. 

(60) 

In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments  concerning  the  definition  of  the  Union 
production and the Union industry, recitals (50) and (51) of the provisional Regulation 
are hereby confirmed subject to the clarification in recital (57) above. 

4.2. 

Determination of the relevant Union market 

(61)  An  exporting  producer  submitted  that  captive  use  of  oxalic  acid  should  not  be 
considered  in  the  determination  of  some  injury  indicators  and  in  any  case  the  same 
consistent approach should be applied to all injury indicators. However, the separation 
made between the captive and the free markets was explained in recitals (52), (53) and 
(55) of the provisional Regulation and in line with the basic Regulation, the focus of 
the analysis was primarily on the free market, even though, both the use in the free and 
the captive markets were included for the determination of some injury indicators as 
indicated in recital (55). Indeed, some injury indicators can only be examined in regard 
to  the  use  of  the  like  product  in  the  free  market  as,  given  the  very  nature  of  captive 
sales, such indicators can be distorted by the relationship between the seller and buyer. 
Therefore, this claim is rejected. 

(62) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  determination  of  the  relevant 
Union market, recitals (52) to (55) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
4.3. 

Union consumption 

(63) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  Union  consumption,  recitals  (56)  to 
(58) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5. 

Imports from the countries concerned 

5.1. 

Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned 

(64) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the cumulative assessment of the effects 
of the imports concerned, recitals (59) to (62) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
confirmed. 

5.2. 

Volume and market share of dumped imports from the countries concerned 

(65) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  volume  and  the  market  share  of  the 
imports  from  the  countries  concerned,  recitals  (63)  and  (64)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.3. 

Price of dumped imports and price undercutting 

(66)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (144)  of  the  provisional  regulation,  in  the  injury  margin 
calculation,  the  average  import  prices  of  the  cooperating  exporting  producers  in  the 
PRC and India have been duly adjusted for importation costs and customs duties. An 
exporting  producer  argued  however  that  the  Commission  failed  to  include  fully  an 
allowance  of  6.5%  corresponding  to  the  normal  customs  duty  in  the  injury  margin 
calculation. This claim was found to be warrarnted and the injury margins calculations 
were  corrected  accordingly  for  this  exporting  producer,  as  well  as  for  the  other 
cooperating  exporting  producers.  However,  this  had  no  impact  on  the  proposed 
definitive measures as indicated in recital (87) below.  

(67) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  price  of  dumped  imports  and 
price  undercutting,  recitals  (65)  to  (68)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

6. 

ECONOMIC Situation of the Union industry 

(68)  As mentioned in recital (57) above, an exporting producer submitted that the figures 
related to a third Union producer which ceased the production of oxalic acid in 2008 
should  not  have  been  included  in  some  macro  indicators  (see  recitals  (72),  (74)  and 
(78) of the provisional Regulation). However there are in fact three producers of the 
like  product  in  the  Union  constituting  the  Union  industry  within  the  meaning  of 
Article  4(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  representing  100%  of  the  Union  production 
throughout the whole period considered, eventhough one producer stopped producing 
oxalic acid before the IP. The claim that figures pertaining to the third Union producer 
having ceased its operation in 2008 should be disregarded is rejected, as it is correct to 
include  all  production  figures  related  to  the  period  considered  for  the  purpose  of 
determining the economic situation of the Union industry. 

(69)  The same exporting producer argued that notwithstanding the alleged error mentioned 
in  recital  (66)  above,  the  figures  related  to  the  number  of  employees,  total  yearly 
wages and average labour costs per employee in Table 6 of the provisional Regulation 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
did not tally. However, the exporting producer did not refer to the correct figure when 
stating that average wages rose by 21%, in fact, the right figure is 19%. 

(70)  With regard to the economic crisis recitals (95) to (97) of the provisional Regulation 
clearly show that imports from the countries concerned continued to gain market share 
despite  the  decline  in  consumption  and  had  a  negative  impact  on  various  injury 
indicators such as sales volumes, employment, production capacity and market share. 

(71) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  regarding  recitals  (69)  to  (94)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, these recitals are hereby confirmed. 

7. 

Conclusion on injury 

(72)  An  exporting  producer  argued  that  contrary  to  the  provisional  findings,  the  Union 
industry did not suffer material injury. It was claimed that, overall, the negative trends 
regarding  the  Union  industry  were  due  to  the  effects  of  the  economic  crisis  in  2008 
and  the  erroneous  inclusion  of  the  information  related  to  the  third  Union  producer 
having  ceased  its  production  in  2008,  which  contributed  to  give  a  vitiated 
representation  of  the  injury  situation.  However,  as  mentioned  above  the  inclusion  of 
the  third  producer  was  considered  to  be  correct  and  market  share  of  the  countries 
concerned continued to increase despite the crisis.  

(73)  Therefore, recitals (94) to (98) of the provisional Regulation concluding that the Union 
industry  suffered  material  injury  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

8. 

CAUSATION 

(74)  One  exporting  producer  stated  that  the  inclusion  of  data  related  to  a  third  Union 
producer  having  ceased  its  production  of  oxalic  acid  in  2008  was  distorting  the 
provisional conclusions regarding the causal link analysis, which should be based on 
current  producers  only.  Similarly  to  the  injury  analysis  above,  it  was  found  that 
conversely, not to include this third producer would distort the conclusions in relation 
to the like product. However, as mentioned in recital (57) above, relevant data for this 
company should also be included in the analysis of the situation of the Union industry 
and this claim is therefore rejected.  

(75)  One  exporting  producer  argued  that  as  the  import  volume  of  the  dumped  imports 
increased  at  the  same  time  as  the  profitability  situation  of  the  Union  industry  has 
improved,  the  dumped  imports  could  not  be  the main cause of injury. However, this 
minor  improvement  regarding  profitability  does  not  devalue  the  conclusion  that  the 
overall  profitability  remained  very  low  and  under  the  normal  profit  of  8%. 
Furthermore,  despite  the  fact  that  consumption  increased  substantially  in  2008  and 
again  during  the  IP  the  Union  industry  lost  9%  market  share  against  the  Chinese 
imports during the period considered. 

(76)  Another exporting producer argued that based on the information available, the Union 
industry achieved in the IP, a profit which was very close to the target profit of 8%. As 
the information regarding profits relates to only one Union producer, the precise profit 
levels  cannot  be  published.  However,  as  stated  in  recital  (88)  of  the  provisional 
regulation, the complainant made a small profit in the IP, after having made a loss in 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
2009. The assumptions that the exporting producer used to conclude that the profit in 
the IP was allegedly close to the target profit were in fact not correct as they did not 
include  the  relevant  financial  and  production  data  of  the  complainant,  which  for 
confidential  reasons  could  not  be  disclosed.  The  profit  level  of  the  complainant  has 
been thoroughly verified, including during an on-spot verification visit and therefore, 
allegations  that  the  profit  achieved  in  the  IP  was  very  close  to  the  target  profit  were 
found to be incorrect.  

(77) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning causation, recitals (99) to (122) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

9. 

UNION INTEREST 

(78)  Two importers argued that the measures could lead to shortages of oxalic acid in the 

EU. Allegedly, the Union industry cannot meet the demand in the EU for oxalic acid. 

(79)  The  investigation  revealed  that  during  the  IP,  the  complainant  had  spare  capacities. 
Furthermore, the complainant stated that currently it is increasing its production, even 
though,  as  the  production  of  the  product  concerned  is  based  on  chemical  reactions, 
increasing  capacity  utilisation  requires  some  time.  However,  based  on  the  EU 
consumption data and the total EU capacity, it can be considered that the complainant 
is  capable  of  meeting  total  Union  demand  for  unrefined  oxalic  acid  once  it  is 
producing close to full capacity. With regard to refined oxalic acid it is recalled that 
most  of  the  refined  oxalic  acid  is  used  in  the  production  of  products  that  are 
subsequently exported, the users could operate under the inward processing regime. In 
addition, the main Chinese exporter of refined oxalic acid is the one with the lowest 
proposed duty (14.6%). 

(80) 

In  addition,  the  complainant  argued  that  the  global  oxalic  market  (unrefined)  is 
dominated by the Chinese producers which are setting the price level for this product. 
Currently the Chinese producers are more preoccupied with their domestic market and 
it cannot be excluded that in the absence of measures and the probable disappearance 
of  the  only  remaining  EU  producer  of  unrefined  oxalic  acid,  users  in  the  EU  would 
face security  of supply  problems  potentially with chronic shortages and oligopolistic 
prices.  

(81)  Another  importer/user  operating  in  a  different  downstream  market  segment  than  the 
previous one alleged that the existence of provisional measures had a negative impact 
on the profitability of its own products for which oxalic acid is the main raw material, 
without however, providing any further details. The company was invited to attend a 
hearing  to  further  develop  these  concerns  and  provide  evidence,  but  did  not  react. 
Therefore, these allegations could not be verified.  

(82) 

In the absense of any other comments concerning the Union interest, recitals (123) to 
(139) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

10. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

10.1. 

Injury elimination level 

(83)  As mentioned above in recital (66) an exporting producer argued that the Commission 
failed to include an allowance of 6.5% corresponding to the normal customs duty in 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
the injury margin calculation. This claim was found to be partially correct as for some 
imports that were delivered to the EU customer on a duty paid basis, the duty had been 
underestimated.  Therefore  the  injury  margins  were  corrected  accordingly,  without 
however  having,  any  significant  impact  on  the  proposed  definitive  measures  (see 
recital (87) below).  

(84) 

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to Star Oxochem, an injury margin was 
also  established  for  this  exporting  producer  on  the  basis  of  the  same  calculation 
methodology as laid down in recitals (142) to (144) of the provisional Regulation. 

(85) 

In the absence of comments on the injury elimination level, recitals (145) to (148) of 
the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

10.2. 

Form and level of the duties 

(86) 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the 
dumping  margins  found,  since  for  all  the  exporting  producers  concerned  the  injury 
margins were found to be higher than the dumping margins. 

(87)  On the basis of the above, the dumping and injury margins established are as follows:  

Company/group name 

Injury 
margin 
(%) 

Dumping 
margin 
(%) 

Provisional 
duty (%) 

Proposed 
duty (%)  

India 

Punjab Chemicals and Crop 
Protection Limited (PCCPL) 

Star Oxochem Pvt. Ltd 

All other companies 

PRC 

Shandong Fengyuan 
Chemicals Stock Co., Ltd and 
Shandong Fengyuan Uranus 
Advanced Material Co., Ltd 

Yuanping Changyuan 
Chemicals Co., Ltd 

38,9 

22,8 

32,3 

47,9 

31,5 

43,6 

22,8 

43,6 

43,6 

22,8 

31,5 

43,6 

53,3 

37,7 

37,7 

37,7 

All other companies 

63,5 

52,2 

18,7 

14,6 

14,6 

52,2 

14,6 

52,2 

(88)  The  individual  company's  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  countrywide  duty  applicable  to  ‘all  other 
companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in India 
and  the  PRC  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 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
entities  related  to  those  specifically  mentioned,  cannot  benefit  from  these  rates  and 
shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’. 

(89)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. 
following  a  change  in  the  name  of  the  entity  or  following  the  setting  up  of  new 
production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission3 forthwith with all 
the  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. 

(90)  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 oxalic acid originating in the PRC and India. They were also granted a 
period  of  time  within  which  they  could  make  representations  subsequent  to  the  final 
disclosure. 

(91)  The comments submitted by the interested parties were duly considered. None of the 

comments was such as to alter the findings of the investigation. 

(92) 

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 
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. 

10.3.  Definitive collection of provisional duties 

(93) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the  injury  caused  to  the  Union  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the  amounts 
secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by  the  provisional 
Regulation  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,  the  amount  provisionally  secured  in  excess  of  the  definitive  rate  of  anti-
dumping duties should be released. 

11. 

undertakings 

(94)  One exporting producer in India and two exporting producers in the People's Republic 
of  China  offered  price  undertakings  in  accordance  with  Article  8(1)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

(95)  The product concerned has shown in the last years a considerable volatility in prices 
and therefore it is not suitable for a fixed price undertaking. In order to overcome this 

3 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Directorate H, Office: N105 04/092  
B - 1049 Brussels  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
problem, the Indian exporting producer offered an indexation clause without, however, 
determining  the  respective  minimum  price  (MIP).  In  this  respect  it  is  noted  that  no 
direct link between the fluctuation of prices and that of the main raw material could be 
established and, thus, indexation is not considered appropriate. In addition, the level of 
cooperation of this company throughout the investigation and the accuracy of the data 
it had provided was not ideal. Accordingly, the Commission was not satisfied that an 
undertaking from this company could be effectively monitored. 

(96)  Moreover,  in  relation  to  the  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC,  the  investigation 
established that there are different types of the product concerned which are not easily 
distinguishable  and  have  considerable  differences  in  prices.  The  single  MIP  for  all 
product types offered by one of the Chinese exporting producers would therefore not 
eliminate  the  injurious  effect  of  dumping.  Furthermore,  both  exporting  producers 
concerned in the PRC are producers of different types of other chemical products and 
may  sell  these  products  to  common  customers  in  the  European  Union  via  related 
trading companies. This would create a serious risk of cross-compensation and would 
render extremely difficult to monitor effectively the undertaking. The different MIPs 
proposed  by  the  other  Chinese  exporting  producer  would  also  render  the  monitoring 
impracticable due to the complexity of distinction between the various product types. 
On  the  basis  of  the  above,  it  was  concluded  that  the  undertaking  offers  cannot  be 
accepted. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of oxalic acid, whether 
in  dihydrate  (CUS  number  0028635-1  and  CAS  number  6153-56-6)  or  anhydrous 
form  (CUS  number  0021238-4  and  CAS  number  144-62-7)  and  whether  or  not  in 
aqueous solution, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 11 00 (TARIC code 2917 
11 00 91) and originating in India and the People’s Republic of China. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-Union-
frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and produced by 
the companies below shall be as follows: 

Country 

Company 

Anti-dumping 
duty rate 

TARIC additional 
code 

India 

Punjab  Chemicals 
Protection Limited 

and  Crop 

Star Oxochem Pvt. Ltd 

All other companies 

PRC 

Shandong Fengyuan Chemicals 
Stock Co., Ltd; Shandong Fengyuan 

% 

22.8 

31.5 

43.6 

37.7 

B230 

B270 

B999 

B231 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
Uranus Advanced Material Co., Ltd.  

Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals 
Co., Ltd  

All other companies 

14.6 

52.2 

B232 

B999 

3. 

4. 

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

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

Article 2 

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Commission 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1043/2011  imposing  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of 
oxalic  acid  originating  in  India  and  the  People's  Republic  of  China  shall  be  definitively 
collected. The amounts secured in excess of the amount of the definitive anti-dumping duties 
shall be released. 

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX  

The  valid  commercial  invoice  referred  to  in  Article  1(4)  of  this  Regulation  must  include  a 
declaration signed by an official of the entity, in the following format: 

(1) 

(2) 

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

The following declaration: “I, the undersigned, certify that the “volume” of oxalic acid 
sold for export to the European Union covered by this invoice  was manufactured by 
(company  name  and  address)  (TARIC  additional  code)  in  (country  concerned).  I 
declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.” 

Date and signature 

EN 

20 

   EN