Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Sales volume on the Union market	1 037	1 890	2 683	2 357
Index (2009 = 100)	100	182	259	227
Market share	19 %	15 %	13 %	13 %
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst

Table 5-b

Cells — sales volume and market share (in MW)

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Sales volume total market	1 470	1 913	2 245	1 545
Index (2009 = 100)	100	130	153	105
Market share	68 %	57 %	52 %	38 %
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst

Table 5-c

Wafers — sales volume and market share (in MW)

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Sales volume total market	1 363	1 520	1 608	1 269
Index (2009 = 100)	100	112	118	93
Market share	81 %	64 %	59 %	59 %
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst

• (130) During the period considered, the sales volume of modules increased by 127 %. However, in the context of an increase in consumption of 221 %, this was translated into a decrease of the Union industry’s market share from 19 % in 2009 to 13 % during the IP. As regards cells, the Union industry’s sales increased only marginally by 5 % while consumption increased by 87 % resulting in a market share reduction from 68 % in 2009 to 38 % in the IP. As regards wafers total volume of sales decreased by 7 % against an increased consumption, which translated into a decrease in market share for wafers from 81 % in 2009 to 59 % in the IP.

• (131) In response to a growing consumption, the Union industry’s sales of modules and cells grew much less than the imports from the country concerned while the sales of wafers decreased. Thus, the Union industry could not benefit from the growing consumption. As a consequence, the market shares for all three segments decreased over the period considered.

Employment and productivity

• (132) Employment and productivity developed as follows during the period considered:

Table 6-a

Modules — employment and productivity

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Number of employees	11 779	15 792	17 505	16 419
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	134	149	139
Productivity (kW/employee)	183	211	247	245
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	115	135	134
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst

Table 6-b

Cells — employment and productivity

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Number of employees	5 281	5 937	5 641	4 782
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	112	107	91
Productivity (kW/employee)	319	400	483	423
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	126	151	133
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst

Table 6-c

Wafers — employment and productivity

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Number of employees	1 944	3 853	4 291	3 920
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	198	221	202
Productivity (kW/employee)	823	695	595	515
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	84	72	63
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst

• (133) Employment increased between 2009 and the IP for modules and wafers by 39 % and 102 %, respectively, while it decreased by 9 % for cells. However, it is noted that employment increased until 2011 and then decreased during the IP for modules and wafers. For cells, employment increased until 2010 and then decreased during 2011 and IP. The total productivity showed positive trends for modules and cells increasing by 34 % and 33 %. This is partly due to the efforts of the Union industry to respond to the pressure of the dumped imports from the PRC. However, the total productivity for wafers decreased by 37 % over the period considered.

• (134) Therefore, in line with the decrease in Union production of modules and wafers between 2011 and the IP, employment for modules and wafers also decreased during the same period. For cells, the employment increased until 2010 and then decreased in 2011 and in the IP while the Union production of cells grew steadily until 2011 and then started to fall.

Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping

• (135) All dumping margins are significantly above the de minimis level. As regards the impact of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping on the Union industry, given the volume and prices of imports from the country concerned, the impact can be considered substantial.

• (136) Since this is the first anti-dumping investigation regarding the product concerned, recovery from past dumping is not relevant.

Microeconomic indicatorsPrices and factors affecting prices

• (137) The average sales prices of the sampled Union producers to unrelated customers in the Union developed as follows over the period considered:

Table 7-a

Modules — average sales prices in the Union

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Average sales price in the Union on free market (EUR/kW)	2 198,75	1 777,15	1 359,35	1 030,83
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	81	62	47
Cost of production (EUR/kW)	2 155,02	1 599,44	1 400,13	1 123,60
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	74	65	52
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

Table 7-b

Cells — average sales prices in the Union

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Average sales price in the Union on free market (EUR/kW)	1 525,09	1 160,99	777,62	474,91
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	76	51	31
Cost of production (EUR/kW)	1 647,10	1 021,67	1 057,56	745,61
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	62	64	45
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

Table 7-c

Wafers — average sales prices in the Union

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Average sales price in the Union on free market (EUR/kW)	709	564	515	426
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	80	73	60
Cost of production (EUR/kW)	631	496	520	648
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	78	82	103
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

• (138) Sales prices fell sharply i.e. by 53 % for modules, by 69 % for cells and by 40 % for wafers during the period considered. Sales prices fell continuously throughout the period considered, but the decrease in prices was particularly pronounced during the IP where they collapsed to unsustainable levels. Over the period considered the cost of production fell by 48 % for modules and by 55 % for cells. For wafers, cost of production fell in 2010 as compared to 2009, but increased in 2011 while still remaining below the level of 2009. In the IP costs increased further and reached slightly higher levels than in 2009 which can be mainly explained by a production stop during the IP. The Union industry could neither benefit from its continuous efforts to increase its cost efficiency nor from the impact of the decrease in cost of the main raw material, polysilicon. This was mainly due to the increasing price pressure of the dumped imports which had a negative effect on the sales prices of the Union industry which decreased even more than efficiency gains. This can be seen in the negative trend of the Union industry’s profitability as described in recital 144 below. Overall there was a significant decrease of the average sales price and the cost of production of the like product (except for wafers) with devastating effect on Union industry’s profitability.

Labour costs

• (139) The average labour costs of the sampled Union producers developed as follows over the period considered:

Table 8-a

Modules — average labour costs per employee

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Average labour cost per employee (EUR)	38 194	40 793	41 781	42 977
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	107	110	113
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

Table 8-b

Cells — average labour cost per employee

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Average labour cost per employee (EUR)	49 677	49 357	49 140	49 350
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	99	99	99
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

Table 8-c

Wafers — average labour cost per employee

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Average labour cost per employee (EUR)	39 409	40 933	39 323	46 060
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	104	100	117
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

• (140) Between 2009 and the IP, the average labour cost per employee for modules continuously increased overall by 13 %. Regarding cells, the average labour cost remained stable throughout the period considered and slightly decreased by 1 % between 2009 and 2010 but then remained stable until the IP. Regarding wafers, the average labour cost per employee varied, increased between 2009 and 2010, decreased in 2011, but increased during the period considered overall by 17 % for the period considered. The overall increase of labour cost can be partly explained by the simultaneous increase in productivity (modules), the evolution of inflation and the social costs of some Union producers (wafers) linked to the downsizing of the industry between 2011 and the IP.

Inventories

• (141) Stock levels of the sampled Union producers developed as follows over the period considered:

Table 9-a

Modules — inventories

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Closing Stocks (in kW)	28 612	40 479	74 502	65 415
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	141	260	229
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

Table 9-b

Cells — inventories

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Closing Stocks (in kW)	16 995	23 829	76 889	68 236
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	140	452	402
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

Table 9-c

Wafers — inventories

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Closing Stocks (in kW)	34 891	5 601	36 697	59 340
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	16	105	170
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

• (142) Stocks increased significantly, i.e. by 129 % for modules, by 302 % for cells and by 70 % for wafers over the period considered. Concerning modules, stocks increased continuously reaching very high levels in 2011 (by 160 %), while it decreased in the IP but still remaining at very high levels in comparison with the beginning of the period considered. Concerning cells, the development was even more pronounced, with an increase in stocks between 2009 and 2011 more than 350 %. Likewise, the stocks decreased during the IP but remained at very high levels in comparison with the beginning of the period considered. Concerning wafers, while the Union industry decreased its stocks between 2009 and 2010 by more than 80 % caused by the increase of their sales, closing stocks increased rapidly and reached levels beyond the level of 2009 and further increased by 65 percentage points in the IP.

• (143) The investigation showed that given the adverse current situation, Union producers would tend to hold limited stocks for the like product, basing their production on orders. Therefore, the increase in stocks for the like product over the period considered is a relevant factor in establishing if the Union industry suffered material injury.

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments, ability to raise capital

• (144) Profitability and cash flow developed as follows over the period considered:

Table 10-a

Modules — profitability and cash flow

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)	2 %	10 %	– 3 %	– 9 %
Cash flow	13 %	10 %	12 %	3 %
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

Table 10-b

Cells — profitability and cash flow

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)	– 8 %	12 %	– 36 %	– 57 %
Cash flow	75 %	52 %	– 0,3 %	– 46 %
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

Table 10-c

Wafers — profitability and cash flow

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)	11 %	12 %	– 1 %	– 52 %
Cash flow	39 %	47 %	32 %	– 19 %
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

• (145) Profitability of the sampled Union producers was established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union, as the percentage of the turnover of such sales.

• (146) The profitability decreased sharply and turned to losses over the period considered for the like product. The profitability dropped by 11 percentage points for modules, by 49 percentage points for cells and by 63 percentage points for wafers.

• (147) Profitability for the like product increased between 2009 and 2010 but then decreased significantly in 2011 where Union industry realised losses and further decreased significantly in the IP. Losses were particularly high for cells and wafers.

• (148) The trend of net cash flow, which is the ability of the sampled Union producers to self-finance their activities, likewise followed a progressively negative trend between 2009 and the IP. Thus, decreasing by 10 percentage points for modules with a slight increase in 2011, the highest decrease of the cash flow occurred between 2011 and the IP. The decline of cash flow for cells and wafers was more pronounced than modules and reached significantly negative levels during the IP. Therefore, the cash flow for the like product decreased over the period considered.

• (149) The figures below represent the evolution of investments and return on investments of the sampled Union producers in relation to the total market during the period considered:

Table 11-a

Modules — investments and return on investments

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Investments (EUR)	12 081 999	50 105 017	64 643 322	32 730 559
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	415	535	271
Return on investments	– 15 %	19 %	– 15 %	– 17 %
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

Table 11-b

Cells — investments and return on investment

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Investments (EUR)	31 448 407	34 451 675	10 234 050	6 986 347
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	110	33	22
Return on investments	– 4 %	10 %	– 20 %	– 19 %
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

Table 11-c

Wafers — investments and return on investment

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Investments (EUR)	201 911 346	83 802 212	74 166 331	39 938 349
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	42	37	20
Return on investments	10 %	8 %	0 %	– 7 %
Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies	Source:  verified questionnaire replies

• (150) The table above shows that the Union industry increased its investments by 171 % for modules between 2009 and the IP. This was mainly linked to the significant additions of capacity. However, during the same period, the Union industry decreased its investments by 78 % for cells and 80 % for wafers; the investments made were mainly linked to R & D as well as improving and maintaining production technology and process in order to improve efficiency. Since the Union industry could not afford making additional investments for cells and wafers during the period considered, the level of investments during the IP was rather low. As investments were financed basically by cash flow and intercompany loans, the decrease in the cash flow had immediate effect on the level of investments made.

• (151) The return on investments (‘ROI’) was expressed as the profit in per cent of the net book value of investments. ROI of the like product followed the similar negative trends as the other financial performance indicators between 2009 and the IP for all the three types of product. For cells and wafers, while there was an increase in 2009 and 2010, ROI decreased significantly in 2011 reaching negative levels. For modules, ROI was at negative levels throughout the period considered, except in 2010 where it reached 19 %. Overall, it decreased during the period considered reaching – 17 % in the IP for cells, i.e. by 1 %, however still remaining at significant negative levels, i.e. – 19 %. As for wafers ROI followed a continuously negative trend reaching – 7 % during the IP. Overall ROI for the like product showed negative trends during the period considered.

• (152) The ability to raise capital was analysed in relation to the total market and it has been found that there was a constant deterioration of the ability of the Union industry to generate cash for the like product and, consequently, a weakening of the financial situation of the Union industry.

Conclusion on injury

• (153) The analysis of the situation of the Union industry showed a clear downward trend of all the main injury indicators. Against a generally increasing consumption, overall production increased for modules and cells in the period considered. Although the volume of sales increased, the market share of the Union industry shrank in the IP due to the higher increase of the consumption during the period considered. Average sales price fell sharply throughout the period considered, negatively impacting on all the financial performance indicators such as profitability, cash flow, return on investments and ability to raise capital.

• (154) Over the period considered, the overall Union industry’s sales volume increased. However, the increase in sales volumes of the Union industry was accompanied by a tremendous decrease in average sales price.

• (155) During the period considered, imports of the interested parties from the PRC increased in terms of volumes and market share. At the same time, import prices continuously decreased, undercutting significantly the Union industry’s average price on the Union market.

• (156) Several interested parties claimed that the Union industry and in specific the sampled Union producers were performing well. It was claimed that the evolution of certain injury indicators, namely production volume, production capacity, sales and employment but even in some sampled producers’ profitability, were increasing and would not show material injury. These allegations were not confirmed by the results of the investigation, which has shown clear downward trends of many injury indicators, relevant for the conclusion that the Union industry suffered material injury.

• (157) In view of the above, the investigation confirmed in particular the fact that the sales prices are below the production costs, thus having a negative effect on the Union industry’s profitability, reaching negative levels during the IP. It is concluded that should dumped imports continue to enter the Union market, the losses of the Union industry would be likely to lead to the permanent discontinuation of any sizeable Union production of the like product. This seems to be confirmed by the developments during and after the IP, i.e. some companies has declared insolvency and/or stopped temporarily or permanently production.

• (158) In the light of the foregoing, it is provisionally concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

CAUSATION Introduction

• (159) In accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether the material injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned. Furthermore, known factors other than dumped imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those factors was not attributed to dumped imports.

• (160) One interested party claimed that market conditions of the product concerned differ per Member State and that therefore the causality analysis should be made at the level of each Member State separately. National support schemes determine to a certain extent the size of the Member States’ markets. The investigation has however also revealed that demand does not exclusively depend on support schemes. Depending on geographical location (sun exposure) and the electricity price at a given location, solar panels appear to have reached, or were at least close to, grid parity, which means that certain investments take place independently of support schemes. Therefore, it could not be established that market conditions depend exclusively on support schemes and this claim was therefore rejected.

Effect of dumped imports

• (161) The investigation showed that dumped imports from the PRC increased dramatically over the period considered, increasing their volumes significantly by more than 300 % for modules and of 482 % for cells and 648 % for wafers and their market share by 17 percentage points for modules, by 17 percentage points for cells and by 27 percentage points for wafers. Therefore, it is confirmed that volume of imports and market share for the product concerned increased dramatically during the period considered. There was a clear coincidence in time between the increase in dumped imports and the loss of market share of the Union industry. The investigation also established that as mentioned in recital 117 above, the dumped imports undercut the prices of the Union industry during the IP.

• (162) The investigation showed that the prices of the dumped imports decreased by 64 % for modules, by 42 % for cells and by 40 % for wafers during the period considered and led to an increase of undercutting. Against this price pressure, the Union industry underwent considerable effort to decrease its production costs. Despite these efforts the exceptionally low level of Chinese import prices forced the Union industry to further decrease its sales price to unprofitable levels. Thus, the profitability of the Union industry decreased dramatically during the period considered and showed losses during the IP.

• (163) Based on the above, it is concluded that the presence of Chinese imports and the increase of the market share of dumped imports from the PRC at prices constantly undercutting those of the Union industry have had a determining role in the material injury suffered by the Union industry, which is reflected in particular in its poor financial situation and in the deterioration of most of the injury indicators.

Effect of other factors Imports from other third countries

• (164) The volume of imports from other third countries during the period considered for modules increased by 19 % while the market share decreased over the period considered from 18,4 to 6,8 %. Taiwan is the second largest exporter after the PRC.

• (165) The volume of imports from other third countries for cells increased by 186 % during the period considered which translated in an increase of market share from around 24 % in 2009 to around 36 % during the IP. As for cells, Taiwan is second largest exporter after the PRC, by far exceeding import quantities and market shares from the other third countries, but still below those from the PRC.

• (166) The volume of imports from other third countries for wafers decreased by 19 % during the period considered and market share from 13,4 % in 2009 to 8,5 % in the IP. As above, Taiwan is second largest exporter of wafers after the PRC. However, import levels and market share of Taiwan did not show significant increases and remained at low levels during the period considered.

• (167) The import prices of third countries of modules, cells and wafers were on average higher than the average unit price of the Chinese imports. The information available as regards imports from Taiwan shows that the average import price for modules and wafers was higher than the average Chinese import price for modules and wafers, while the average import price for cells was in the same range as the average Chinese import price for cells. However, since no detailed price information per product type was available, the price comparison on an average basis can only be used as an indication but no firm conclusions can be drawn on this basis. Throughout the period considered, volume of imports of cells from Taiwan increased continuously, resulting in a gain of market share of around 14 percentage points. However, overall for the product under investigation, despite their increase in market share, the volumes were lower than PRC and their price levels were generally higher with the exception of cells during the IP. On these grounds, in particular in view of the import volumes and market shares from other third countries as well as their price levels, which are on average similar or higher than those from the Union industry it can be provisionally concluded that third country imports did not break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

Table 12

Imports and market shares from other third countries

Modules	2009	2010	2011	IP
Volume of imports from all other third countries (MW)	1 003	1 702	1 385	1 195
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	169	138	119
Market share of imports from all other third countries	18,4 %	14,0 %	7,0 %	6,8 %
Average import price EUR/kW	2 385,34	1 852,23	1 430,90	1 218,41
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	78	60	51
Volume of imports from Taiwan (MW)	49	144	140	135
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	294	286	276
Market share of imports from Taiwan	0,9 %	1,2 %	0,7 %	0,8 %
Average import price EUR/kW	2 102,04	1 659,72	1 350,00	1 125,93
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	79	64	54
Volume of imports from USA (MW)	140	180	51	60
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	129	36	43
Market share of imports from USA	2,6 %	1,5 %	0,3 %	0,3 %
Average import price EUR/kW	2 400,00	1 872,22	1 431,37	1 233,33
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	78	60	51
Volume of imports from rest of Asia (MW)	720	1 140	1 029	879
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	158	143	122
Market share of imports from rest of Asia	13,2 %	9,3 %	5,2 %	5,0 %
Average import price EUR/kW	2 400,00	1 870,18	1 440,23	1 229,81
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	78	60	51
Volume of imports from rest of the World (MW)	94	238	165	121
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	253	176	129
Market share of imports from rest of the World	1,7 %	2,0 %	0,8 %	0,7 %
Average import price EUR/kW	2 404,26	1 869,75	1 442,42	1 231,40
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	78	60	51
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst
Cells	2009	2010	2011	IP
---	---	---	---	---
Volume of imports from all other third countries (MW)	510	884	1 100	1 457
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	173	216	286
Market share of imports from all other third countries	23,7 %	26,6 %	25,5 %	36,2 %
Average import price EUR/kW	1 166,67	1 072,40	751,82	553,88
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	92	64	47
Volume of imports from Taiwan (MW)	235	400	540	997
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	170	230	424
Market share of imports from Taiwan	10,9 %	12,0 %	12,5 %	24,8 %
Average import price EUR/kW	948,94	1 100,00	670,37	514,54
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	116	71	54
Volume of imports from USA (MW)	40	40	40	33
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	100	100	83
Market share of imports from USA	1,9 %	1,2 %	0,9 %	0,8 %
Average import price EUR/kW	1 350,00	1 050,00	825,00	636,36
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	78	61	47
Volume of imports from Japan (MW)	60	154	170	145
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	257	283	242
Market share of imports from Japan	2,8 %	4,6 %	3,9 %	3,6 %
Average import price EUR/kW	1 350,00	1 051,95	829,41	641,38
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	78	61	48
Volume of imports from rest of the world (MW)	175	290	350	282
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	166	200	161
Market share of imports from rest of the world	8,1 %	8,7 %	8,1 %	7,0 %
Average import price EUR/kW	1 348,57	1 051,72	831,43	638,30
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	78	62	47
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst
Wafers	2009	2010	2011	IP
---	---	---	---	---
Volume of imports from all other third countries (MW)	225	333	235	183
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	148	104	81
Market share of imports from all other third countries	13,4 %	14,0 %	8,6 %	8,5 %
Average import price EUR/kW	800,00	588,59	43,30	420,77
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	74	55	52
Volume of imports from Taiwan (MW)	20	50	50	36
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	250	250	180
Market share of imports from Taiwan	1,2 %	2,1 %	1,8 %	1,7 %
Average import price EUR/kW	800,00	580,00	440,00	416,67
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	73	55	52
Volume of imports from USA (MW)	50	55	40	28
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	110	80	56
Market share of imports from USA	3,0 %	2,3 %	1,5 %	1,3 %
Average import price EUR/kW	800,00	581,82	450,00	428,57
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	73	56	54
Volume of imports from Japan (MW)	55	50	30	26
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	91	55	47
Market share of imports from Japan	3,3 %	2,1 %	1,1 %	1,2 %
Average import price EUR/kW	800,00	580,00	433,33	423,08
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	73	54	53
Volume of imports from rest of the World (MW)	100	178	115	93
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	178	115	93
Market share of imports from rest of the World	5,9 %	7,5 %	4,2 %	4,3 %
Average import price EUR/kW	800,00	589,89	434,78	419,35
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	74	54	52
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst

Development of the Union consumption

• (168) As mentioned in recital 108 above, Union consumption increased by 221 % for modules, 87 % for cells and 29 % for wafers during the period considered. Consumption reached a peak in 2011 and dropped during the IP while still remaining far above the level at the beginning of the period considered in 2009. The Union industry could not benefit from this increase in consumption as its market share fell from 19 to 13 % for modules, from 68 to 38 % for cells and from 81 to 59 % for wafers during the same period. At the same time, the market share of the PRC was increasing sharply, until 2011 and then remained stable at significant high level during the IP, when consumption fell. Therefore, in view of the fact that, despite a decrease in Union consumption in the IP, the dumped imports from the PRC either maintained their market share (modules) or increased it (cells and wafers) to the detriment of the Union industry over the period considered, it cannot be concluded that the decrease in consumption was such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (169) Based on the information available it is difficult to establish to what extend the demand is driven by the Member States support schemes. Indeed, as mentioned below in recital 171 a variety of support schemes exists and interaction between those and demand is highly complex and therefore their precise impact is difficult to quantify. However, the evidence available also indicates that even in the absence of support schemes the demand for solar energy will continue to exist and will even grow over time, albeit at lower levels than in the context of support schemes. In this context, several parties argued that ‘grid parity’ (i.e. when the cost to produce solar energy equals the cost to produce conventional energy) had already been reached or nearly reached in some regions of the Union. These claims could not be confirmed by the investigation so far and will be further investigated.

Feed-in-tariffs (‘FITs’) as the main example of support schemes

• (170) It has been claimed by several interested parties that the cause of the injury suffered by the Union industry was linked to the reductions in the feed-in-tariffs implemented by the Member States. Those cuts had allegedly led to a decrease of the solar installations and reduced demand for the product under investigation in the Union market, thus causing material injury to the Union industry.

• (171) Member States introduced FITs, quota obligations with tradable green certificates, investment grants and tax incentives to support renewable energy generation. Support is also granted in certain Member States from EU structural funds. The most frequently implemented support instrument for solar energy were FITs. At this stage, the analysis of the Commission focused on this type of support scheme.

• (172) FITs are a financial support instrument aiming to achieve mandatory national targets for the use of renewable energy, as prescribed by the Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ([^E0007]) on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. The level of support and the way FITs operate vary by Member State. By means of FITs grid operators are bound to buy solar energy at prices which ensure that solar energy producers (usually the owners of the solar installations) recover their costs and earn reasonable rates of return. FITs, as other support schemes, are in most cases also subject to State aid control pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, which ensures the absence of overcompensation for electricity producers.

• (173) In spite of the national differences, three phenomena could be observed as regards the evolution of FITs in the Union: (i) the reduction of the FIT rates, (ii) the suspension of the FIT scheme as a whole (Spain) and (iii) the introduction of capacity thresholds (‘caps’) for the installations eligible for financing as well as overall caps on the yearly installed new supported capacity at the Member State level. As regards the caps, they appear to have been introduced mainly during 2012 and, most likely, do therefore not have any effect on the consumption during the IP. Consequently, the analysis focused on the recent FIT suspensions in Spain and reductions of FIT rates in most Member States. It was analysed whether they had an impact on the demand in the Union market and whether this could have caused the material injury suffered by the Union industry. In this regard, it was considered that the impact of the evolution of FITs with regard to the demand of modules was also representative for the situation with regards to cells and wafers. Indeed, as cells and wafers are indispensable for the production of modules and as they are not used in other production processes, a decrease in demand for modules triggers automatically a decrease in demand for cells and wafers.

• (174) While the investigation confirmed the link between the evolution of FIT and consumption, the investigation established that the decrease in consumption between 2011 and the IP did not contribute to break the causal link between the dumped imports from the PRC and the material injury suffered by the Union industry as described in detail in recital 163 above. Indeed, the investigation showed that while the situation of the Union industry was deteriorating, the exporting producers were able to maintain their high market shares for modules (80 %) and even increased their market shares slightly for cells (from 22 % in 2011 to 25 % during the IP) and wafers (from 32 % in 2011 to 33 % during the IP). In addition it should be noted that the average price of modules charged by the Union industry dropped by 53 % over the period considered, mainly due to the significant increase of dumped imports and the substantial price pressure they exerted on the Union market. Therefore, the loss in profitability suffered by the Union industry cannot be mainly attributed to the FIT cutbacks.

• (175) Consequently, it is acknowledged that FITs generated demand for solar energy and that recent FIT suspensions (as in Spain) and reductions in other Member States lowered the consumption for the product under investigation during the IP, thus possibly having contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. However, the decrease in consumption during the IP was not such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (176) Several parties argued that FITs cutbacks rendered the solar investment opportunities unattractive for investors and thus lowered the demand for the product concerned in the Union.

• (177) While the investigation confirmed a link between the FIT rates and the level of investments in the solar industry, it also showed that investments in the solar energy are less dependent in regions with high sun exposure where production of solar energy is more efficient and in regions with high electricity prices. Indeed, the investigation showed that investments are still being made (e.g. in Spain) in spite of the suspension of the FIT scheme. Moreover, the investigation showed that solar energy investment opportunities still remained attractive even with lower FIT rates.

• (178) On the basis of the above it could not be clearly concluded that the FIT cutbacks rendered the solar investments unattractive for investors and thus contributing to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (179) One interested party argued that the decrease in FITs forced Union producers to decrease their prices to keep the interests of the investors in PV energy and to keep developing demand and growth.

• (180) The investigation showed that the Union industry was forced to decrease its prices mainly due to the pressure of the dumped imports and not to the FIT cutbacks. This is indicated by the fact that the most significant decrease in the prices of the Union industry occurred in 2010 and 2011, before the major FIT cutbacks took place. Indeed, the increase in dumped imports from the PRC significantly undercutting the Union industry’s prices forced the Union industry to cut down their prices to increasingly low levels.

• (181) On these grounds, the claim was therefore rejected.

• (182) In summary, FITs have been an important factor for the development of the PV market in the Union and the evolution of consumption of the product under investigation was influenced by the existence of the FITs. However, the investigation showed that the consumption did not decrease significantly despite important FIT cutbacks. Therefore, it is provisionally concluded that the developments of FITs were not such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.

Other financial support granted to the Union industry

• (183) Some interested parties claimed that the material injury suffered by the Union industry was due to a decrease of financial support granted to the Union industry. In support of this claim, information was provided based on subsidies granted to one of the Union producers prior to the period considered (between 2003 and 2006).

• (184) The evidence provided did not reveal any link between the material injury suffered by the Union industry and any alleged subsidy received by one of the Union producers during the period preceding the period considered. Moreover, as this information predates the period considered, it seems to be irrelevant. Therefore, no link could be established between any alleged subsidy received by the Union industry and the material injury suffered. On this ground, the argument was rejected.

Overcapacity

• (185) It has been claimed that the material injury suffered by the Union industry was due to an overcapacity in the Union market and in the global market in general. It was also argued that the overcapacity in the global market led to the consolidation of the Union industry that is currently taking place and that any injury suffered was a consequence of too many production facilities. Moreover, several interested parties claimed that the material injury suffered by the Union industry was linked to the self-inflicted overexpansion of capacity of the EU industry. On the contrary, some interested parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry is due to the Union industry’s failure to make the necessary investments in capacity additions.

• (186) While the Union industry indeed increased its production capacity, its total production volume did not cover the increasing consumption levels in the Union market during the period considered. Thus, the increase of the Union industry production capacity was reasonable and followed market developments, i.e. the increase in consumption. It cannot therefore be considered as a cause of the injury suffered.

• (187) Likewise, on this basis, the argument that the Union industry did not invest in capacity expansion was not confirmed during the investigation. To the contrary however, as mentioned above, throughout the period considered the Union industry progressively increased capacity and had available excess capacity throughout the period considered, indicating that it was capable of supplying additional demand. Therefore, this argument had to be rejected.

• (188) Some interested parties claimed that all operators in the market, including the ones in the downstream and upstream sectors were in a difficult situation which was due to the overcapacity in the global market and the resulted change of the market. In this regard it was argued that the product under investigation has become a commodity where individual producers are not able anymore to set prices but where prices are subject to worldwide demand and supply. It was alleged that this situation has caused the material injury of the Union industry rather than the dumped imports.

• (189) The investigation confirmed the existence of overcapacity in the global market, mainly originating in the PRC. Concerning the market change that would allegedly bring the product under investigation to be a commodity, this would not justify an unfair price behaviour and unfair trade practices. In this respect, it should be noted that the Union industry has been producing and selling the product under investigation for more than 20 years, while the PRC industry of the product concerned developed only recently (around mid of last decade), mainly attracted by the feed-in-tariffs and other policy incentives in Union and the subsequent increase in demand.

• (190) On these grounds, the arguments were rejected.

Impact of raw material prices

• (191) Several interested parties claimed that the material injury suffered by the Union industry was linked to the evolution of prices of polysilicon, the main raw material for the production of wafers. It was argued that the Union industry concluded long term fixed priced supply contracts and could therefore not benefit from the decrease in polysilicon prices during the period considered.

• (192) The investigation revealed that polysilicon prices increased in 2008, but decreased again in 2009 with only a slight upwards trend in 2010 and early 2011. Prices dropped significantly during the IP.

• (193) The investigation showed that although the Union industry had long term supply contracts for polysilicon, the terms of these contracts were mostly renegotiated based on the price developments of polysilicon and contract prices reached levels close to or sometimes even lower than prices on the spot market.

• (194) On these grounds, it is concluded that even if some specific Union producers may have been affected by long term contracts for the supply of polysilicon, the Union industry, overall, did not suffer from these long term contracts and were able to fully benefit from the price decrease in polysilicon prices. The long term contracts were therefore not found to contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.

Self-inflicted injury: impact of automation, size, economies of scale, consolidation, innovation, cost efficiency

• (195) Several interested parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry was due to the high degree of automation of the production process. It was claimed that the small-scale producers had a disadvantage compared to the larger vertically integrated producers and therefore any injury suffered by these producers cannot be attributed to the dumped imports. In this context it was also claimed that in any event, overall, the Union industry was of a small size and therefore was not able to benefit from economies of scale.

• (196) The investigation showed that also the small-scale producers in Union market had a high level of automation in their production process with a positive effect to their production costs. Most Union producers have specialised in one part of the production process (wafers, cells or modules), which, through specialisation, increased their competitiveness with regard to the specific product type they were producing. The argument that impact of the high degree automation caused the injury suffered by the Union industry, had therefore to be rejected.

• (197) Some interested parties claimed that the price pressure resulted in the consolidation of the Union industry, the latter being the cause of the material injury suffered by the Union industry. However, the investigation showed that the consolidation was rather a consequence of the dumped imports. Furthermore, this party did not support with any evidence to what extend the consolidation process could have been the cause of the injury suffered.

• (198) Moreover, it was claimed that the lack of vertical integration of the Union industry is the cause of the injury suffered. In general the vertically integrated producers in normal market conditions should have more security over their supply chain. However, the investigation showed that the advantage of vertical integration by part of the Union industry that was vertically integrated could not be fully exploited as the price pressure from dumped imports was extremely high. Moreover, the Union industry, even the vertically integrated Union producers, due to the dumped imports could not fully benefit from high capacity utilisation rates to achieve economies of scale. Furthermore, the investigation did not reveal any correlation between vertical integration and better profitability rates, as the high price pressure has altered this correlation.

• (199) Some interested parties claimed that the Union industry lacked technical innovation as well as investments in new technology. However, the investigation did not bring to light any factual evidence confirming these allegations. To the contrary, the investigation showed that the majority of the investments made by the Union industry were dedicated to new machinery and R & D and that there are no meaningful differences in technology between the products worldwide.

• (200) Moreover, one interested party claimed that the material injury suffered is due to the poor project execution (failed projects). In this respect, it should be noted that the argument was not substantiated. In addition, any failed project could rather be considered as a consequence of the dumped imports. The argument had therefore to be rejected.

• (201) Several interested parties claimed that the Union industry was not able to rationalise its costs in time to respond to the developments in the world market. Other parties claimed that labour and overhead costs are higher in the Union than in the PRC.

• (202) The investigation showed that the cost of production of the Union industry was steadily decreasing during the period considered, except for wafers where costs were decreasing in 2010 but increased in 2011 and further in the IP to levels slightly higher than at the beginning of the period considered (see recital 138 above). Productivity increased for modules and cells, but decreased for wafers. As mentioned above, due to the surge of dumped imports from the PRC and the consequent significant price pressure on the Union market, the Union industry was not able to benefit from the reductions in cost.

• (203) It is noted that the exporting producers in the PRC do not enjoy any comparative advantage with regard to raw materials (polysilicon) and the machinery used as both were mostly imported from the Union. As far as labour and overhead costs are concerned, they represented on average less than 10 % of the total cost of a module in the IP and are not considered to have played any significant role.

• (204) Moreover, it was claimed that some Union producers sourced wafers, cells and/or modules from the country concerned, and resold those products on the Union market as their own. The investigation revealed that imports from the Union industry of the product concerned were complementary in nature as well as limited in terms of volume when compared to the Union production and would therefore not be considered as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (205) Therefore, in order to match the decreasing price trend of the imports from the PRC, the Union industry had to make considerable efforts to rationalise its cost of production. Despite the efforts of the Union industry, this cost rationalisation could not be reflected in the sales price due to the significant undercutting exerted by the dumped imports.

• (206) On these grounds, all the above mentioned arguments had to be rejected.

Competition from thin film PV products and other PV technologies

• (207) Several interested parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the competition from thin film PV products and other PV technologies, as these technologies were interchangeable and with same end use.

• (208) The investigation showed that thin film PV products are produced from different raw materials and do not use crystalline silicon wafers. In general, they have much lower conversion efficiencies and a lower wattage output than crystalline silicon modules. As a result, they cannot be used on restricted areas such as roof-tops, i.e. they are not fully interchangeable with the product concerned. Therefore, although there may be some competition between the thin film products and the product concerned, this competition is considered to be marginal.

• (209) Therefore the investigation found no link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the competition of thin film PV and other PV technologies.

• (210) On these grounds, this argument had to be rejected.

Financial crisis and its effects

• (211) It was claimed that the financial crisis and the economic recession had a negative effect on the access to finance for the Union industry and thus caused the injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (212) The ability of the Union industry to raise capital decreased significantly during the period considered. As the solar industry is capital intensive, the ability to raise capital is crucial. The economic recession had a certain impact on the situation of the Union industry. The investigation showed, however, that despite the growth of the Union market between 2009 and 2011, the situation of the Union industry deteriorated as a result of the dumped imports from the PRC heavily undercutting the Union industry’s sales prices. It was therefore concluded that the potential effects of the financial crisis was aggravated by the increase of dumped imports from the PRC and that the limited access to finance was largely a consequence of the negative market climate, the situation and prospects of the Union industry a consequence of the dumped imports. Therefore, while the financial crises had a certain impact on the situation of the Union industry, it could not break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry. The argument was therefore rejected.

Export performance of the Union industry

• (213) Some interested parties claimed that the Union industry’s export sales dropped significantly during the period considered and especially between 2009 and 2011 for modules and between 2009 and first quarter of 2012 for cells and that this has caused the material injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (214) However, as shown in the table below, the export volumes for modules remain significant despite a slight decrease in the IP and average price levels during the IP were above the average costs of modules throughout the period considered. Therefore, this could not have caused the injury suffered by the Union industry. As for cells, the export volumes represented only around 12 % of the total production volume of cells. Therefore, despite the low prices during the IP, this could only have had limited impact on the situation of the Union industry. Finally, as regards wafers, exports represented around 24 % of the total production volume and likewise, despite the low export prices during the IP, this could only have had limited impact on the situation of the Union industry. The arguments in this respect had therefore to be rejected.

Table 13-a

Modules

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Volume of exports modules in MW	989	1 279	1 157	1 148
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	129	117	116
Average export price (EUR/kW)	2 500	1 900	1 470	1 230
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	76	59	49
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst

Table 13-b

Cells

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Volume of exports cells in MW	62	320	315	238
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	516	508	384
Average export price (EUR/kW)	1 350	1 050	830	640
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	78	61	47
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst

Table 13-c

Wafers

	2009	2010	2011	IP
Volume of exports wafers in MW	93	916	750	486
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	985	806	523
Average export price (EUR/kW)	850	590	530	480
(Index 2009 = 100)	100	70	63	57
Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst	Source:  Europressedienst

• (215) On these grounds, it was found that the impact of the Union’s industry’s export performance was not such as to contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry. Therefore, the parties’ arguments in this respect had to be rejected.

The discovery of shale gas deposits in the Union

• (216) One interested party claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the discovery of shale gas deposits in the Union and the prospect of increasing production of cheap shale gas in the Union has reduced public and private investments in renewable energy projects.

• (217) The investigation found that the consumption for the product under investigation increased substantially throughout the period considered, as already mentioned in recital 108 above. Moreover, the investigation did not bring into light any factual evidence that the injury suffered by the Union industry was due to the discovery of shale gas deposits in the Union. The claim was therefore rejected.

The European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)

• (218) The same party claimed that the injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the low investments in solar energy production due to the low market prices for the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme CO2 emission credits.

• (219) No evidence was however provided and the investigation did not bring into light any factual circumstances confirming these allegations. To the contrary, the investigation showed that the consumption of the product under investigation was increasing substantially during the period considered. On these grounds, the claim was rejected.

Management decisions

• (220) Some interested parties claimed that the material injury suffered by at least one of the Union producers was caused by a wrong management decisions. These allegations were based on the annuals accounts and some information contained in a letter sent by a shareholder of the company to the other shareholders.

• (221) None of the information in the file showed that any of the management decisions of the company concerned were unusual or imprudent or had an impact on the entire Union industry. Therefore, the arguments in this respect were rejected.

Other government policies

• (222) One interested party claimed that the material injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by other government policies such as renewable energy policies, policies aimed at encouraging innovation, policies of cutting red tape, trade facilitation policies and grid access regulations, as these policies benefit the exporting producers. However, even if it is true that certain of the claimed policies might facilitate imports from other third countries and overall growth of solar industry, these policies would also benefit the Union industry. Moreover, these policies should not be meant that such imports in the Union should be made at injurious dumped prices. Therefore, the arguments in this respect were rejected.

Conclusion on causation

• (223) The investigation has established a causal link between the material injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the PRC. Other possible causes of injury, such as imports from other third countries, consumption, feed-in-tariffs, other financial support granted to the Union industry, overcapacity, impact of raw material prices, self-inflicted injury, competition from thin-film, financial crisis and its effects, export performance of the Union industry, the discovery of shale gas deposits in the Union, managements decisions, the European Union’s Emissions Trading Schemes, other government policies were analysed and none of them was found to be such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (224) Based on the above analysis, which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it was therefore provisionally concluded that there was a causal link between the dumped imports from the PRC and the material injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP.

UNION INTEREST Preliminary remarks

• (225) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether, despite the provisional conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it is not in the Union interest to adopt provisional measures in this particular case. The analysis of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, companies in the upstream and downstream markets of the PV sector, importers, users and consumers of the product concerned.

• (226) Around 150 operators made themselves known after the initiation of the investigation. Specific questionnaires were sent to unrelated importers, upstream operators (including a raw material producer and suppliers of production equipment for the product under investigation), downstream operators (including project developers and installers) and BEUC — a consumer organisation. Three associations representing various operators (Union industry, upstream and downstream operators) in the PV sector submitted information.

Interest of the Union industry

• (227) The Union industry directly employed about 25 000 people in the IP in the production and sale of the like product.

• (228) The investigation established that the Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned during the investigation period. It is recalled that a number of injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. In particular, injury indicators related to the financial performance of the cooperating Union producers, such as profitability, cash flow and return on investments were seriously affected. In fact, the Union producers of modules, cells and wafers were loss making in 2011 and in the IP. Consequently, some Union producers were already forced to close down their production facilities while some others have faced insolvency. In the absence of measures, a further deterioration in the Union industry’s economic situation appears very likely.

• (229) It is expected that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties will restore fair trade conditions on the Union market, allowing the Union industry to align the prices of the like product to reflect the costs of production thus improving its profitability. It can also be expected that the imposition of provisional measures would enable the Union industry to regain at least part of the market share lost during the period considered, with a positive impact on its overall financial situation. Moreover the Union industry should be able to have better access to capital and to further invest in R & D and innovation in the PV market. Finally, the investigation also pointed to a possible restarting of the business activity of the Union producers who were forced to stop the production as a result of the pressure of the Chinese imports. Overall, under this scenario, not only the existing 25 000 jobs of the Union industry (in the IP) would be secured but there would also be a reasonable prospect for further production expansion and increase in employment.

• (230) Should measures not be imposed, further losses in the market share are expected with a further deterioration of the Union industry’s profitability. This would be unsustainable in the short to medium-term. As a consequence, in addition to the large number of the Union producers that were already forced out of the market as described in recital 157 above, other producers could be facing insolvency which would in the short to medium term lead to a likely disappearance of the Union industry with the consequent significant impact of the existing jobs.

• (231) It was therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition of the anti-dumping duties would be in the interest of the Union industry.

Interest of unrelated importers

• (232) As mentioned in recital 12 above, for only one out of three sampled importers the major business activity consisted in trading the product concerned.

• (233) An argument was put forward that the imposition of measures on the product concerned will negatively affect the importers’ business activity. Firstly, the imposition of duties should not result in the elimination of all imports from the PRC. Secondly, although it can be expected that the imposition of measures may have a negative effect on the financial situation of the importers importing only from the PRC, in view of the likely increase of imports from other third countries, the importers sourcing from different countries should be in the position to shift their sources of supply

• (234) It is therefore provisionally concluded that the imposition of measures at the proposed level may have a certain negative impact on the situation of unrelated importers of the product concerned.

Interest of the upstream operators

• (235) The upstream operators are mainly active in the production of the raw materials and in the production and engineering of the manufacturing equipment for the product under investigation. Eight replies were received to the questionnaires from the upstream operators. Two verification visits were carried out covering a raw material producer and a producer of manufacturing equipment.