The review investigation period (RIP) lasted from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury aspects was analysed during the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the RIP (period considered).

The Commission officially advised the applicants, the other known Union producer, exporting producers, importers and users known to be concerned, as well as the representatives of the PRC, of the initiation of the expiry review.

Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of initiation. All interested parties who requested a hearing and who showed that there were specific reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.

In view of the apparently large number of exporting producers in the PRC and unrelated importers in the Union, sampling was envisaged for these parties in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the publication of the notice of initiation and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the Notice of initiation.

None of the exporting producers in the PRC cooperated in the investigation.

As regards importers, a few companies initially came forward but then withdrew their cooperation at a later stage.

The Commission sent questionnaires to all the parties known to be concerned within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation. Replies were received from the three known Union producers and from two users.

• Fluidra (Inquide Sau), Passeig de Sanllehy, 25, 08213 Polinya (Barcelona), Spain,

• Ercros (Aragonesas), Avenida Diagonal 595, Barcelona, Spain.

Since the PRC is an economy in transition and since, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value has to be determined on the basis of the price or constructed normal value obtained in an appropriate market economy third country (the analogue country), or on the basis of the price from the analogue country to other countries, including the European Union, or where those cannot be determined, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.

In its Notice of initiation the Commission announced that Japan had been used in the previous investigation as an appropriate market economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the PRC and that it envisaged using Japan again for this purpose. In the course of the present review investigation, producers in other market economy countries such as the USA and Taiwan were also contacted, to seek their cooperation. However, cooperation was obtained only from one exporting producer in Japan.

It was therefore considered that Japan was an appropriate analogue country. In this connection, no comments or objections on the appropriateness of this country were received from interested parties.

Pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of the information received from the cooperating exporting producer in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of prices paid or payable on the domestic market in Japan for like products which were found to be sold in the ordinary course of trade.

It was first established for the cooperating exporting producer in Japan whether its total domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. whether they accounted for at least 5 % of the total export sales volume of the product concerned into the Union. Domestic sales of the cooperating exporting producer in Japan were found to be representative during the RIP.

Subsequently, domestic sales were examined to determine whether they were made in the ordinary course of trade (OCOT), in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

Since all sales on the domestic market were considered to have been sold at a profit, normal value was based on the actual weighted average domestic price during the RIP.

In the absence of any cooperation from exporting producers in the PRC, the export price was established on the basis of Eurostat data.

The comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price was made on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which affect prices and price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences in transport and insurance costs.

As provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value was compared with the weighted average export price. Based on the above methodology, the dumping margin established amounts to 75 %.

In addition to analysing the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of the continuation of dumping was also investigated.

In this respect the following elements were analysed: the spare capacity available in the PRC, the attractiveness of the Union market for PRC exporting producers and their exports to third countries.

In the absence of other information concerning production capacity, the analysis was carried out in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation on the basis of the information contained in the review request.

According to the review request, with rates below 40 % production capacity utilisation in the PRC remained low during the period considered. As a result of huge production capacity and low domestic demand, there appears to be more than 180 000 tonnes of spare capacity available in the PRC which could be exported. This compares to Union consumption of around 44 000 tonnes in the RIP.

The attractiveness of the Union market is reflected in the fact that the imposition of anti-dumping duties did not stop the expansion of PRC exports to the Union. Although during the period 2007-2009 import volumes were at a lower level compared to the investigation period of the original investigation that led to the imposition of the measures, import volumes in the RIP were above that level, reaching 22 696 tonnes.

Despite the increase in the average import price during the period considered, prices remained constantly below those of the Union industry.

The fact that PRC imports during the period considered increased during the RIP to a level that was higher than during the original investigation period shows that there is continued PRC interest in the Union market.

PRC export statistics were analysed with respect to PRC export volumes and prices to other third countries. According to these statistics, 24 % of exports from the PRC in 2010 were destined for the Union market. EU export prices at FOB level were slightly higher than export prices to the rest of the world. However, in the absence of cooperation or any data in the review request regarding exports to other third countries, it was not possible to compare those prices at CIF level with the average price of the Union industry. Nevertheless, the fact that export prices to third countries are on average lower than export prices to the Union can be seen as an indication that the Union market is an attractive market for PRC exporters and that exports would be likely to increase further in the absence of measures.

Overall, the prices of PRC imports remained below the prices of the Union industry during the entire period. In determining the extent of price undercutting, the Commission based its calculation on the average CIF export prices of the PRC obtained from Eurostat. The prices of the product concerned were compared to the weighted average price of the Union industry adjusted to ex-works level. The comparison showed that imports from the PRC were undercutting the prices of the Union industry by more than 10 %, without taking into account the anti-dumping duty in place.

Production capacity followed the same trend as production during the period considered. Capacity utilisation, however, was positively influenced during the RIP by some process improvements.

This indicator was based on the information supplied by the applicants, for the reasons explained in recital 54 above. The investigation at the company’s premises revealed some seasonal patterns in the consumption of TCCA, with the product concerned being used mostly in summer. This has an impact on the variation in the level of stocks throughout the year: stocks peak in winter time and are considerably reduced in the summer period. For the years 2007-2009 the figures represent the level of stocks on 31 December of the given year. The figure for the RIP, however, shows the level of stocks at 30 June 2010, the time of the year with the highest stock utilisation. Hence, this indicator does not allow for a proper comparison between the RIP and the rest of the period concerned and is therefore considered not to be relevant for assessing injury.

Dumping from the PRC continued during the RIP at a level significantly above the current level of measures. Moreover, given the spare capacity and prices of imports from the PRC, the impact on the Union industry of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.

Anti-dumping measures were imposed in October 2005. Taking into account the overall situation of the Union industry as well as the imports from the PRC in the period from 2007 to RIP, it can be concluded that the Union industry has not recovered fully from these effects despite the anti-dumping measures in force.

Several injury indicators developed negatively during the period considered. Taking into account the overall worsening situation of the Union producers, the Union industry is considered to have suffered material injury over the period considered.

As set out in recital 49, imports of TCCA from the PRC grew significantly between 2007 and RIP, in terms of both volume and market share. Significant price undercutting was also found (see recital 51). The continuous massive inflow of dumped imports from the PRC occurred in a context of overall increasing Union consumption in the period considered, reaching in the RIP a level exceeding by 6 % the one achieved in 2007, despite a decrease between 2007 and 2009. As demonstrated by the worsening situation of the Union industry, it was mainly imports from the PRC that benefited from the increase in consumption.

The Commission analysed whether any known factors other than the dumped imports from the PRC could have had a bearing on the continued injury suffered by the Union producers.

In parallel with dumped imports from the PRC, it is likely that the reduced performance of the Union industry on third markets, where it also faced PRC competition, and on the US market in particular, had a negative impact on the Union production. However, most of the activity of the Union producers is devoted to the Union market, limiting to some extent the potential impact of reduced exports.

The economic crisis also had a negative impact on the performance of the Union industry, leading to a decrease in production and the restructuring of one of the Union producers. Nonetheless, the impact of the economic crisis was limited in time (part of 2008 and 2009), while the economic situation of the Union industry continued to deteriorate throughout the period considered. Moreover, developments in the RIP show that the Union industry did start to recover partially. It can therefore be considered that the impact of the economic crisis was not insignificant in this case, although it did not break the causal link between dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

The continued dumping of imports from the PRC along with the economic crisis altered the recovery process and accentuated the difficulties of the Union industry. Although other factors contributed to the deterioration in the performance of the Union industry, none of them proved to be sufficient to break the causal link between dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry. On these grounds, it may be concluded that dumped imports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry.