12.5.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 127/83
(153) Furthermore, Hailide also sold the product concerned to the Union through an additional related company in the Union acting as an importer.
For these sales, the export price was constructed on the basis of the price at which the imported product was first resold to independent customers in the Union in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
The adjustments made related to all costs incurred between importation and resale, including the SG&A expenses of the related importer located in the Union, and a reasonable profit (established at 6,89 % in the recent polyvinyl alcohols (‘PVA’) investigation (89) for another chemical product and used in the present investigation given the similarity of the industry and the lack of cooperation from unrelated importers), in order to establish a reliable export price at the Union frontier level.
(154) Hailide stated in response to the final disclosure that the application of the notional profit level of 6,89 % from recent investigation concerning PVA is groundless and overstated.
Hailide submitted that PVA and HTYP do not share similar chemical or physical characteristics, they have different end use and end users and the markets for the two products are distinct.
Therefore, according to Hailide, the profit in PVA sector is in no way representative of what a company can achieve in trading HTYP.
Furthermore, Hailide argued that if the profit level that Union HTYP producers can obtain in the normal market conditions without dumped imports is less than 6 %, it would be odd that traders of this product can achieve higher profit in the same market.
(155) Furthermore, CIRFS also considered that the notional profit used is not an appropriate benchmark for the HTYP case, arguing contrary to Hailide’s position that such profit margin largely underestimates profit of importers in the HTYP sector.
Instead, CIRFS suggested that there is a more recent case involving man-made fibres, which would better represent the profit margin of unrelated importers, namely the optical fibre cables (‘OFC’) case (90) which was between 15-25 %.
Moreover, CIRFS submitted that the Commission should not encourage the non-cooperation from unrelated importers by underestimating the profit margin.
Instead, the Commission should according to CIRFS adopt a proactive approach by accessing the financial reports of the known importers and relying on these reports as the best facts available.
(156) First, as stated in recital (153), in the absence of cooperation from unrelated importers in the present case, the Commission resorted to the use of a notional profit from a recent investigation in the chemical industry, establishing that such profit was considered reasonable.
Second, Hailide’s comparison of a trader’s profit with a profit that Union producers could obtain is unfounded given the fundamental differences in the activities of a manufacturing company as opposed to a trading company.
(157) Further to the similarity of PVA and HTYP, while it is not disputed that PVA and HTYP have different chemical and physical characteristics, uses, users and markets it is an established fact that both products are part of a chemical industry.
Moreover, Hailide failed to substantiate why the nominal profit used would not be representative of a profit achieved by a trader of HTYP.
Therefore, the Commission concluded that the profit in PVA sector is representative of what a company can achieve in trading HTYP.
On the other hand, the optical fibre cables as well as the main raw material used in their production (optical fibre) are used in telecommunication industries without even a remote link to chemical industry.
Therefore, it would be inappropriate to apply in the present HTYP investigation profit margins for unrelated importers used in the OFC case.
(158) Moreover, contrary to what CIRFS suggested, the Commission only resorted to use of a notional profit from PVA case after it encouraged unrelated importers to come forward and cooperate with the investigation (whether by specifically inviting the known importers to take part in a sampling exercise or by publishing on the website dedicated questionnaire intended for the unrelated importers willing to cooperate) and following the absence of any such cooperation.
Hence, the Commission could not possibly encourage non-cooperation from unrelated importers by underestimating the profit margin ultimately used.
(89) Recital (352) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336, of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 315, 29.9.2020, p. 1).
(90) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2011 of 17 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of optical fibre cables originating in the People’s Republic of China, OJ L 410, 18 November 2021, p. 51, recital 367.