The investigation period covered the period from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2014, while the reporting period covered the period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014.

The Commission officially advised Pyrotek and the representatives of India of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were invited to make their views known and were informed of the possibility to request a hearing. No such request was received.

The Commission sent a questionnaire to Pyrotek and received a reply within the given deadline. The Commission sought and verified all the information necessary for the purposes of the review. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of Pyrotek in Chennai and in Pune, India.

The applicant is the Indian subsidiary of the US-based multinational group Pyrotek. The Pyrotek group is a supplier of various sorts of consumables and tools to the metal and aluminium industry.

In particular, the applicant produces the product under review in its Indian plant in Chennai and sells it to its related companies in the Union. The related companies in the Union in the majority of the cases further process the product under review and sell the resulting product to the final customers.

The investigation showed that the applicant started the production of the product under review in August 2011, and confirmed that the applicant was capable of producing the entire quantity that it has exported to the Union since the start of the investigation period of the investigation leading to the imposition of the extended measures. In particular, it was found that the sales volumes were compatible with the production capacity and with the purchase of raw material (yarn).

The investigation also showed that the applicant is not related to any exporting producer subject to the measures in force.

The investigation further confirmed that the applicant was not engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Article 13 of the basic Regulation.

In particular, the investigation established that, although a significant amount of raw material (in particular, yarn) is purchased from the People's Republic of China, this could not be considered to constitute an assembly operation pursuant to article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.

In view of these findings, the Commission established that the applicant is a genuine producer of the product under review, and that therefore it should be exempted from the extended measures.