For the determination of normal value, it was first established for each exporting producer whether its total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation domestic sales are considered to be representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total volume of sales of the product concerned to the Union. It was found that the overall sales by each exporting producer of the like product on the domestic market were representative.

For each product type sold by an exporting producer on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the product type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold by the exporting producer concerned on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented at least 5 % of its total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.

It was also examined whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market which were profitable for each exported type of the product concerned during the IP.

For those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.

Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the IP.

Both exporting producers in India exported the product concerned directly to independent customers in the Union. Export prices were therefore established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable by these independent customers for the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

The normal value and the export price of the exporting producers were compared on an ex-works basis.

For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in indirect taxes, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, and commissions have been made where applicable and justified.

Both exporting producers claimed that their sales made to one of the complainants in the Union during the IP should be ignored when calculating the dumping margin since these sales were made in significant quantities and at strongly negotiated prices. However, there is no legal reason why such exports of the product concerned should be ignored when calculating dumping. The claims by both exporting producers are therefore rejected.

Both exporting producers claimed an adjustment for currency conversion arguing that there was a sustained appreciation of the Indian Rupee (INR) against the Euro (EUR) as from November 2009 which would have a distorting effect on the dumping calculations. The claim related to sales made in EUR from January 2010 onwards and consisted of a request that, for the purposes of converting the value of those sales into INR, the exchange rate of the month in which the sales were made be substituted by the exchange rate of 2 months earlier. Article 2(10)(j) indeed provides for an adjustment for currency conversions under certain circumstances. However, it is noted that the appreciation of the INR only occurred during the second half of the IP. Furthermore, it is noted that both Indian companies frequently increased their prices to their main customers in the Union during that period following a fairly regular pattern, and that the prices made in the Union by the complainants were also steadily increasing during the second half of the IP. There is therefore no clear evidence that the appreciation of the INR was not timely reflected in the prices charged by the Indian exporting producers to their customers in the EU or had an undue penalising effect in the dumping calculations. The claims by both companies were therefore rejected.

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins for the cooperating Indian exporting producers were established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.

Based on information available from the complaint and the cooperating Indian exporting producers, and considering the statistical information available, there are no other producers of the product concerned in India. Therefore, the country-wide dumping margin to be established for India was set at the same level as the highest margin found for a cooperating exporting producer.

For the determination of normal value, it was first established for each exporting producer whether its total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation domestic sales are considered to be representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total volume of sales of the product concerned to the Union. It was found that the overall sales by each exporting producer of the like product on the domestic market were representative.

For each product type sold by an exporting producer on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the product type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold by the exporting producer concerned on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented at least 5 % of its total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.

It was also examined whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market which were profitable for each exported type of the product concerned during the IP.

For those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.

Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the IP.

Wherever there were no domestic sales of a particular product type by an exporting producer, the normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.

When constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to Article 2(6) chapeau of the basic Regulation, on the actual data pertaining to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer.

The exporting producers made export sales to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related trading companies located in Singapore and in the Union.

Where export sales to the Union were made either directly to independent customers in the Union or through related trading companies located in Singapore, export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

Where export sales to the Union were made through related trading companies located in the Union, export prices were established on the basis of the first resale prices of these related traders to independent customers in the Union, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.

The normal value and the export price of the exporting producers were compared on an ex-works basis.

For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for differences in indirect taxes, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, and commissions have been made where applicable and justified.

One company claimed an adjustment for differences in physical characteristics on the basis that it exports the product investigated in both liquid and solid form to the EU whilst it only sells it in solid form on the domestic market and that the prices for the liquid form are lower than those for the solid form of the product investigated. However, the company did not provide a quantification of such adjustment. A simple comparison of export prices of solid and liquid forms of the product investigated cannot constitute a basis for granting an adjustment for differences in physical characteristics. Moreover, the accounting system of the company does not allow for a proper segregation of the cost differences between the solid and liquid product. Therefore, there was no reliable way to calculate a potential adjustment and the claim had to be rejected.

The complainants submitted a claim that the cost of energy in Indonesia is distorted due to very cheap and subsidised energy prices. However, they have not submitted any substantiated information on how such distortion of the cost of energy used for domestic and export production would affect the dumping calculations. The claim was therefore rejected.

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins for the cooperating Indonesian exporting producers were established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.

Based on information available from the complaint and the cooperating Indonesian exporting producers, and considering the statistical information available, there are no other producers of the product concerned in Indonesia. Therefore, the country-wide dumping margin to be established for Indonesia was set at the same level as the highest margin found for a cooperating exporting producer.

For the determination of normal value, it was first established for each exporting producer whether its total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation domestic sales are considered to be representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total volume of sales of the product concerned to the Union. For two of the cooperating exporting producers it was found that the overall sales by the exporting producers of the like product on the domestic market were representative. For the remaining cooperating exporting producer no independent domestic sales were found in the IP.

For each product type sold by an exporting producer on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the product type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold by the exporting producer concerned on the domestic market to independent customers during the IP represented at least 5 % of its total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.

It was also examined whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market which were profitable for each exported type of the product concerned during the IP.

For those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and the weighted average sales price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.

Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the IP.

Wherever there were no domestic sales of a particular product type by an exporting producer, the normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.

When constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to Article 2(6) chapeau of the basic Regulation, on the actual data pertaining to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer.

For the exporting producer with no domestic sales in the IP, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation, on the weighted average of the actual amounts determined for the two other exporting producers subject to investigation in respect of production and sales of the like product in the Malaysian market.

The exporting producers made export sales to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related companies located in the Union.

Where export sales to the Union were made directly to independent customers in the Union, export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

Where export sales to the Union were made through related companies located in the Union, export prices were established on the basis of the first resale prices of these related companies to independent customers in the Union, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.

The normal value and the export price of the exporting producers were compared on an ex-works basis.

For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments for, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, and credit costs have been made where applicable and justified.

One Malaysian exporting producer claimed that its related company in the Union is, in fact, the export department of the manufacturer. On this basis, the company claimed that there would be excessive deductions in establishing the ex-works price if full adjustments for selling, general and administration costs and profits, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, were made. In this regard, it was found that invoices were issued by the related company to customers in the Union and that payments were received by the related company from customers in the Union. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the sales made by the related company included a mark-up. Also, the financial accounts of the trader showed that it bore normal selling, general and administrative costs incurred between importation and resale. It would therefore appear that the related company indeed performs the typical functions of an importer. On this basis, the company’s claim was rejected.

The complainants submitted in respect of Malaysia the same claim concerning energy costs mentioned at recital (40) for Indonesia. This claim also was rejected for the same reasons.

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins for the cooperating Malaysian exporting producers were established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price.

Based on information available from the complaint and the cooperating Malaysian exporting producers, and considering the statistical information available, there are no other producers of the product concerned in Malaysia. Therefore, the country-wide dumping margin to be established for Malaysia was set at the same level as the highest margin found for a cooperating exporting producer.

The Commission considered whether the effects of dumped imports from the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively, on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. This Article provides that the effects of imports from two or more countries simultaneously subject to anti-dumping investigations shall be assessed cumulatively only if it is determined that (a) the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and that the volume of imports of each country is not negligible and (b) a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in the light of the conditions of competition between imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like Community product.

The margins of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country concerned are more than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation, i.e. 2 % of the export prices, and the volume of imports from each country concerned is above the threshold of 1 % market share set by Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation.

The investigation further showed that the conditions of competition both between the dumped imports and between the dumped imports and the like product were similar. It was found that average import prices from all countries concerned dropped over the period considered, and followed the same trend. Furthermore, the product investigated imported from the countries concerned was alike in all respects, it is interchangeable and is marketed in the Union through comparable sales channels and under similar commercial conditions, thus competing with each other and with the product investigated produced in the Union.

On this basis, it is provisionally concluded that all conditions of cumulation are met and that accordingly the effects of the dumped imports originating in the countries concerned should be assessed jointly for the purpose of the injury analysis.

The volume of imports from the countries concerned increased significantly by 57 % during the period considered. The biggest increase took place between 2007 and 2008 when imports increased by 58 %. Imports then decreased slightly in 2009 to increase again to the 2008 level during the IP.

Average prices of imports from the countries concerned fluctuated heavily during the period considered, reflecting an overall 6 % decrease. Throughout the period considered, average prices of the imports from the countries concerned were always lower than those set by the rest of the world and by the Union Industry, thus resulting in an increase in the market share of the countries concerned.

The market share of the countries concerned increased significantly, by 54 %, during the period considered. The biggest increase took place between 2007 and 2008. There was a slight decrease of imports during the economic crisis, which reduced the market share of the countries concerned by 2 %, between 2008 and 2009, but then they recovered again this market share by the end of the period considered.

In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators for an assessment of the state of the Union industry from 2007 to the end of the IP.

From 2007 to 2009, Union production decreased significantly by 23 % to improve slightly between 2009 and the end of the IP, resulting in an overall decrease of 17 % over the period considered. It should be noted that although Union consumption reduced by around 5 % between 2008 and 2009, the production of the Union industry fell much more, by 15 %, and that it failed to benefit from the recovery of the Union consumption experienced in the IP.

The production capacity of the Union industry decreased by around 2 % over the period considered. After increasing around 9 % in 2008, capacity was downsized in the following years, to result in an overall 2 % reduction over the period considered.

However, in line with the decreasing production volumes, the utilisation of the available capacity decreased by 15 % over the period considered. The main decrease occurred in 2009, during the general economic crisis, and improved slightly during the IP.

Sales volumes and market share declined between 2007 and the IP, by 18 % and 12 % respectively. At the beginning of the period considered, from 2007 to 2008, despite an increase in Union consumption, the sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 15 % and they lost 12 % of market share. In 2009, Union consumption contracted, resulting in a further loss in sales volume of 6,5 % for the Union industry. In the IP, in line with the increased Union consumption, Union sales increased slightly. Market share however, remained stable from 2008 to the end of the IP.

Prices increased significantly from 2007 to 2008, by 20 %. It has to be noted that the exporting producers also raised their prices during this period, although by much less than the Union industry.

In 2009 the Union industry had to reduce prices, in order to respond to the pressure of the increased imports from the countries concerned. In 2008 imports from these countries had grown by 57 % and their prices were significantly lower than the Union industry’s. However, the Union industry was not able to reduce its prices to the same level as the exporting producers.

During the IP, the Union industry kept the 2009 price level, resulting in an overall price increase during the period considered of 7 %.

Due to the downsizing activities of the Union industry, the number of employees was reduced accordingly during the period considered, by 13 %. Labour costs per employee increased slightly over the period considered, by 6 %. This is considered a natural increase and is less than the inflation rate over the period considered.

Profitability of the Union industry was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit (in this case loss) of the sales of the like product as a percentage of the turnover of these sales. It was established that the profitability of the Union industry has been negative since the beginning of the period concerned in 2007 and during the period considered the losses increased significantly. After a reduction in losses in 2008, they increased again significantly in 2009, at the time of the general economic crisis. The economic recovery felt during the IP, however, allowed the Union industry to reduce its losses with respect to turnover, but it remained still far away from returning to positive profit levels.

The trend shown by the cash flow, which is the ability of the industry to self-finance its activities, reflects to a large extent the trend of profitability. The cash flow was negative in 2007 and shows a substantial decrease during the period considered. The same comments can be made about the return on investments, which showed a similar negative development in line with the negative results achieved by the Union industry over the period considered.

Following the above, the ability of the Union industry to invest became limited as the cash flow significantly deteriorated during the period considered. As a consequence, the investments dropped by about 35 % during the period considered.

The Union consumption remained fairly stable during the period considered. Sales volume and market share of the Union industry however, decreased during this period with 18 % and 12 % respectively.

Given the volume, market share and prices of the dumped imports from the countries concerned, the impact on the Union industry of the actual dumping margins cannot be considered negligible.

Based on Eurostat data, the volume of imports into the Union of the product investigated originating in third countries not concerned by this investigation decreased by 7 % over the period considered. The corresponding market share of these countries decreased also by 9 %.

The average prices of these imports were above those of the exporting producers in the countries concerned and above those of the Union industry.

On the basis of the above, it was provisionally concluded that the imports from these third countries did not contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.

During the period considered, the volume of export sales of the Union industry decreased by 55 %. The impact of this decrease was however partly compensated by the fact that the average unit selling price increased by 71 % over the same period, limiting the decrease in export sales value to 24 %. This in combination with the fact that the export sales accounted for only 5 % of its total sales during the IP have lead to the provisional conclusion that the export performance is not a factor that breaks the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union Industry and the imports from the countries concerned.

The Economic crisis contributed to the contraction in consumption in the Union and to the price pressure. The reduced level of demand for the product investigated resulted in the decrease in production by the Union industry and contributed to part of the depression of sales prices.

Under normal economic conditions and in the absence of strong price pressure and increased import levels from the dumped imports, the Union industry might have had some difficulty in coping with the decrease in consumption and the increase in fixed costs per unit due to decreased capacity utilisation it experienced between 2007 and the IP. The dumped imports however have intensified the effect of the economic downturn and have made it impossible to sell above cost price.

Based on the above, it appears that the decrease in Union demand linked to the economic crisis contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. It is considered however that this does not break the causal link established in relation to the low-priced dumped imports from the countries concerned.