The application submitted was based on the grounds that the expiry of the definitive anti-dumping measures would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and injury to the Union industry.

As stated in recital (9) above, none of the six exporting producers in the PRC contacted cooperated with the investigation and findings on the likelihood of a continuation of dumping had to be based on facts available, in particular information submitted by the applicant, including information in the review request, and statistics in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

Within the Union, the like product is manufactured by three (groups of) companies. Two of them are represented by the applicant and are based in the UK and Italy with some processing in Poland and Romania. A third producer is based in Italy and is supporting the request. All other chamois leather producers are reported to have closed their manufacturing sites since 2006 when the original measures were introduced.

The total Union production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation was established on the basis of the questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers and the basic macro data submitted by the third producer in the standing/sampling exercise. Those companies constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation, and will hereafter be referred to as the ‘Union industry’. The two sampled producers account for 80 % of Union production.

Since the microeconomic injury indicators are based on data of two companies only, they are presented in an indexed format in order to preserve confidentiality, pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.

Union consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market and import data from Eurostat.

Pursuant to 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 factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

• The macroeconomic indicators (production, capacity, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, average unit prices and magnitude of dumping margins and recovery from the effects of past dumping) were assessed at the level of the whole Union industry, on the basis of the information collected from the full questionnaire replies by the sampled companies and the macro data provided by the third Union producer.

• The analysis of microeconomic indicators (stocks, wages, profitability, return on investments, cash flow, ability to raise capital and investments) was based on the information derived from the duly verified questionnaire replies provided by the sampled companies. This information is considered to be representative of the whole Union industry. Given that these indicators relate to two companies only, the absolute figures cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons, pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation, and only indices are provided below.

There are only three producers (all of them SMEs) left in the Union. All other chamois leather producers are reported to have closed their manufacturing sites since 2006 when the original measures were introduced. That can be seen as resulting from the increased pressure that the Chinese dumped imports have been exercising on the Union market, even in a situation of increasing consumption.

The injury analysis shows that the situation of the Union industry deteriorated in the period considered. In particular, production dropped by some 12 %, and even if the sales increased slightly, that increase was less than the increase in consumption, and consequently the market share of the Union producers decreased by 3 percentage points.

At the same time, the analysis of microeconomic indicators show that profitability, return on investment and cash flow of the Union industry remained negative throughout the period considered and further deteriorated towards the RIP.

Imports from India, Turkey, New Zealand and the rest of the world have been analysed. With regard to each of those imports flows, as well as all of them taken together, it is considered that they would not break the causal link between dumped imports and injury in the event of the likely increase in the dumped Chinese imports and further deterioration of the Union industry’s situation resulting therefrom if measures would be repealed.

In the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Union industry has continued to suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, and that its situation is very fragile and vulnerable and far from the condition that could be expected had it recovered from the injury found in the original investigation.

It is also concluded that the injurious situation of the Union industry has been predominantly caused by the continued existence (even if in lower quantities) of the dumped and low priced imports from the PRC.

Although the import volumes from the PRC decreased significantly after the imposition of measures in 2006, it is considered that there remain significant production capacities in the PRC (see recital 22). These spare capacities may be easily diverted to the Union market if measures would be repealed.

It is considered that should measures be repealed, the Chinese exporting producers would in all likelihood strive to regain any lost market share in the Union. Indeed, the significant undercutting established by the investigation shows that the level of prices in the Union makes it a very interesting market for the Chinese imports (see recital 22).

On this basis, it is concluded that the repeal of measures on the imports from the PRC would in all likelihood result in the continuation of injury to the Union industry.

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would not be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry on the one hand, and those of importers and users on the other hand.

It should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows for the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures.

On this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation of injurious dumping, it could be clearly concluded that it would not be in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.

The Union industry, composed of SMEs, has consistently lost market share and has suffered material injury during the period considered. Should measures be repealed, the Union industry would in all likelihood be in an even worse situation.

There are two unrelated importers cooperating in the investigation. The chamois leather related business constitutes only a limited part of their respective turnovers. There are no indications that a continuation of measures would have any significant negative effect on their activities.

No user or consumer associations made themselves known within the time-limit set in the Notice of initiation, as was also the case in the original investigation. Given that in the original investigation it was considered that the measures in question would not unduly affect the interest of these parties, and considering their continuous non-cooperation, it can be concluded that their interest will remain unaffected by the maintenance of the measures. Indeed, the existence of significant imports from other sources and at competitive prices will ensure that users and consumers continue to have a wide choice of different suppliers of the product in question and at reasonable prices.

Taking into account all of the factors outlined above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.