Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/939 of 10 June 2021 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of mono ethylene glycol originating in the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

11.6.2021	EN	Official Journal of the European Union	L 205/4

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union ¹, and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:

1. PROCEDURE

1.1.   Initiation

• (1) On 14 October 2020, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of mono ethylene glycol (‘MEG’) originating in the United States of America (‘US’) and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (‘KSA’) (‘the countries concerned’) on the basis of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the basic Regulation’). It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union ² (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

• (2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 31 August 2020 by the Defence Committee of European MEG Producers (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of MEG in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of resulting material injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.

• (3) Pursuant to Article 14(5a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission should register imports subject to an anti-dumping investigation during the period of pre-disclosure unless it has sufficient evidence within the meaning of Article 5 that the requirements either under point (c) or (d) of Article 10(4) are not met.

• (4) In the case at hand, the complainant did not request registration and the Commission found that the requirements under point (d) were not met, as there was not, in addition to the level of imports which caused injury during the investigation period, a further substantial rise in imports thereafter. According to Eurostat data, the average monthly volume of imports of MEG from the countries concerned in the first five months following the initiation of the investigation (i.e. from November 2020 to March 2021) decreased by 15 % when compared to the average monthly volume of imports during the investigation period. Individually on the same basis, imports from the US decreased by 30 % and imports from KSA by 4 %. This was linked to the temporary disruptions (1) in US companies caused by extreme weather events; and (2) in the Union due to slowing demand due to COVID. Therefore, the Commission did not register imports during the period of pre-disclosure.

1.2.   Interested parties

• (5) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers, the authorities in the countries concerned, known importers, traders and users, and invited them to participate.

• (6) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

• (7) A hearing took place with Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (‘SABIC’), which took part in the hearing together with Arabian Petrochemical Company (‘Petrokemya’), Eastern Petrochemical Company (‘SHARQ’), Jubail United Petrochemical Company (‘United’), SABIC Italia S.r.l, SABIC Petrochemicals B.V., Saudi Kayan Petrochemical Company (‘Saudi Kayan’), Saudi Yanbu Petrochemical Company (‘Yanpet’) and Yanbu National Petrochemical Company (‘Yansab’).

• (8) Hearings also took place with Arteco NV (‘Arteco’), Indorama group, Oxyde Belgium BV (‘Oxyde’), Mitsubishi Corporation (‘Mitsubishi’), the Committee of PET Manufacturers in Europe (‘CPME’) and HELM AG (‘Helm’).

1.3.   Comments on initiation

• (9) The Commission received comments on initiation from:

• — the Mission of the KSA,

• — the complainant,

• — ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical BV (‘ExxonMobil’),

• — SABIC, which submitted its comments together with Petrokemya, SHARQ, United, SABIC Italia S.r.l, SABIC Petrochemicals B.V., Saudi Kayan, Yanpet and Yansab,

• — CPME,

• — the European Man-Made Fiber Association (‘CIRFS’),

• — Mitsubishi,

• — HELM,

• — Oxyde,

• — Proviron Industries nv (‘Proviron’), and

• — Arteco.

1.3.1.   Comments on dumping

• (10) As regards the assessment of dumping, Mitsubishi submitted that, given that price indexes play a significant role in how MEG is sold in the Union, the Commission should investigate whether the alleged dumping could not be attributable to a conscious commercial policy, but it could rather be simply caused by the differences in trends in the Union and non-Union indexes over time. Contract prices are agreed by negotiating discounts against various indexes and contracts are typically of 1 or 2 years duration. Producers agreeing prices in a 1- or 2-year contract will not know whether there will ultimately be a price difference between their Union and non-Union contracts until after the moment when the contract is settled and prices are determined and paid.

• (11) The complainant replied that the role of the Union price indicator employed is overstated and misinterpreted. This index is the indication of a price in the Union at a given time, which is the result of the equilibrium between supply and demand based on multiple buyers and sellers. The complaining Union producers, since they are on the sales side only, cannot control or manipulate this index.

• (12) The complainant replied recalling that a finding of dumping is a purely objective comparison between the normal value and the export price. The concept of intent is alien to the rules to determine dumping.

• (13) The analysis of the evidence provided by the complainants, in accordance with the principles of Article 2 of the Basic Regulation, has yielded the result that the complaint contained sufficient evidence of dumping in the EU market.

• (14) In particular, the complainant has provided sufficient evidence on export price and normal value showing that the dumping margins are significant. The figures on which the normal value was based were supported by sufficient evidence as confirmed by the Commission services’ analysis. The necessary adjustments were taken into account in the Commission’s analysis of dumping. In conclusion, it was found that, based on a fair comparison of normal value and export price, dumping margins were significant.

• (15) In this sense, the Commission agrees with the complainant that the issue of intent is alien to the statutory analysis just described.

• (16) The KSA submitted that the complainant incorrectly constructed the normal value for MEG produced in Saudi Arabia based on cost elements that do not relate to Saudi Arabia and failed to establish a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price.

• (17) The KSA also submitted that, in constructing the normal value, the complainant erred in its assessment of the facts, as (i) SABIC does not produce MEG – the MEG producers are listed in the Complaint; (ii) SABIC and Saudi Aramco were not related during the period considered in the Complaint; and (iii) Saudi producers of MEG do not purchase ethylene from Saudi Aramco.

• (18) Moreover, the complainant made no attempt to adapt the surrogate value for ethylene used to construct normal value such that it relates to the actual cost of production in Saudi Arabia.

• (19) Furthermore, the complainant reported an average electricity of 0,067 EUR/kWh, whereas the published electricity tariff corresponds to 0,043 EUR/kWh.

• (20) All this first set of remarks has been reiterated in SABIC’s comments.

• (21) It is recalled that, according to Article 5(2) of the Basic Regulation, a complaint shall contain such information as is reasonably available to the complainant. In this respect, it must be recalled that the legal standard of evidence required for a complaint (‘sufficient prima facie’ evidence) makes it clear that the quantity and quality of information in the complaint is not the same as the one available at the end of an investigation. At the stage of the complaint, it is not necessary that the investigating authority (in this case, the Commission) has before it the same evidence of dumping and injury (within the meaning of Articles 2 and 3) that would be necessary to support the imposition of provisional or definitive anti-dumping (hereinafter: ‘AD’) duties. An AD investigation is a process where certainty on the existence of the elements necessary to adopt a measure or to terminate a proceeding is reached gradually as the investigation moves forward. It is not excluded that changes will occur between the stage of the complaint and the conclusion of the investigation. However, it is not considered that such changes have an impact on the overall conclusion that the file merits investigation since there is sufficient evidence of injurious dumping.

• (22) In this sense, the information provided on costs was considered to be sufficiently adequate and accurate to establish normal value, in the prima facie context applicable at initiation, against the backdrop of the evidence available to the applicant.

• (23) As for the claims by KSA on the factual elements of the complaint, the Commission underlines that ethylene is the main feedstock for the production of MEG and that the complainant correctly pointed out that the ethylene supply chain in Saudi Arabia was vertically integrated, even before the acquisition of SABIC by Saudi Aramco.

• (24) Secondly, concerning the comparison between the normal value and the export price in the complaint, according to the KSA and SABIC this was not fair because the complainant did not make it at ex-works level. In fact, according to Saudi Arabia, it compared the FOB export price, because it only deducted estimated freight charges from the CIF statistical value, with a constructed normal value, which certainly included direct selling costs.

• (25) Regarding the comparison between the normal value and the export price, the Commission recalls that the dumping margin calculated in the complaint does not necessarily reflect the exact degree of dumping which will be calculated in the investigation on a transaction by transaction and type per type basis.

• (26) However, in light of the information available, the complainant has provided sufficient evidence on export price and normal value showing the existence of dumping. The figures on which the normal value was based were supported by sufficient evidence, as confirmed by the Commission services’ analysis and the necessary adjustments were taken into account in the Commission’s analysis of dumping.

• (27) On the same line as Saudi Arabia and SABIC, ExxonMobil objected to the calculation of the cost of production of mono ethylene glycol in Saudi Arabia, in particular for the raw material ethylene, described in the complaint.

• (28) It underlined that the cost to produce ethylene is primarily determined by the type of feedstock used in the steam cracker, and the costs of such feedstocks can differ significantly.

• (29) ExxonMobil’s joint venture with SABIC, called Saudi Yanbu Petrochemical Company (‘Yanpet’), purchases the feedstock from Saudi Aramco. Instead, the complainant referred to the ethylene price in the Asian market, which is not suitable to determine the ethylene price in Saudi Arabia, where ethylene production costs are much lower than in Asia.

• (30) Indeed, Yanpet’s steam cracker uses ethane as a primary feedstock to produce ethylene, whereas steam crackers in Asia and the Union generally use naphtha.

• (31) Therefore, the assertion by the complainant that production processes are similar in all countries is misleading according to ExxonMobil.

• (32) In particular, ethylene production from naphtha is generally more expensive than that from ethane, thus the Union cost of production is higher compared to Saudi Arabia and the United States of America, as both are primarily based on ethane feedstock.

• (33) Moreover, the use of the Asian price does not take into account the different situation of an integrated producer which produces both the ethylene and the mono ethylene glycol, such as Yanpet.

• (34) The Commission acknowledged the existence of differences in the production of ethylene but it did not consider that such difference in costs of raw materials made the situation of Union and KSA’s industry radically different and incomparable.

• (35) Therefore, the Commission considered that the complainant, given the information available to it, brought sufficient evidence of the existence of dumping justifying the initiation of an investigation.

1.3.2.   Comments on injury

• (36) SABIC and the Mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia submitted that the requests for confidential treatment in the complaint were unwarranted such as the total consumption of MEG in the Union and the macroeconomic indicators which was based on the data of 12 Union MEG producers. Furthermore, SABIC and the Mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia claimed that the complainant failed to provide non-confidential summaries of the information provided on a confidential basis such as for captive market. It was further argued that the limited disclosure of information by the complainant and the absence of enforcement by the Commission of clear rules regarding the treatment of confidential information impairs the rights of defence of the KSA.

• (37) The Commission considered that the version open for inspection by interested parties of the complaint contained all the essential evidence and meaningful non-confidential summaries of data provided under confidential cover in order for interested parties to exercise their right of defence throughout the proceeding. Article 19 of the basic Regulation and Article 6(5) of the WTO ADA allow for the safeguarding of confidential information in circumstances where disclosure would be of significant competitive advantage to a competitor or would have a significantly adverse effect upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom that person has acquired the information. The information provided under confidential cover and in the limited annexes to the complaint falls under these categories. At any rate, the complainant disclosed additional information in this regard.

• (38) The Mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contested the inclusion of imports into the United Kingdom in the complaint and in the scope of investigation.

• (39) On 31 January 2020 the United Kingdom withdrew from the Union. The Union and the United Kingdom jointly agreed on a transition period during which the UK remained subject to Union law, which ended on 31 December 2020 ³. The complaint was based on EU-28 data as it was lodged before the end of the transition period. As of 1 January 2021, companies and associations from the United Kingdom no longer qualified as interested parties in trade defence proceedings. Therefore, the investigation was carried out on an EU-27 basis.

• (40) SABIC believed that there were a number of open questions concerning the reliability of the standing calculation and the overall representativeness of the complainants. In this regard, SABIC claimed that one of the complainants consistently imported MEG from the KSA and therefore it should not have been part of the complaint. Furthermore, a related company to a supporting Union producer also imported MEG from the KSA and, therefore, if these companies were suffering injury then it was self-inflicted injury. SABIC also claimed that another MEG producer approached SABIC to market MEG from the KSA into the Union. Furthermore, SABIC claimed that BASF SE and Ineos Lavera are not complainants and that the limited number of Union producers that were part of the Complainant raised questions as to their representativeness. SABIC also claimed that the Commission should investigate the reason that led to the non-inclusion of IQOXE in the complaint so as to ensure that the exclusion of IQOXE was not made on grounds other than the incident that took place in January 2020. Oxyde also raised the question of the non-cooperation of the other Union producers.

• (41) The Commission recalls that all Union producers mentioned in the complaint and otherwise known to the Commission before initiation have been contacted in the framework of the examination as to the degree of support for, or opposition to, the complaint. This calculation was based on the quantities of MEG produced as outlined by individual declarations by such producers and associations of producers and on information contained in the complaint which also includes information on the total Union production. Therefore, at initiation stage, it was concluded that the conditions of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation were met.

• (42) In line with Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the basic Regulation, producers which are related to exporters or importers and/or are themselves importers of the allegedly dumped product may be excluded from the Union industry if their relationship with the exporters or importers of the dumped product and/or their imports is such as to cause them to behave differently from non-related producers. In the pre-initiation analysis no reason to exclude any of the complainant producers from the definition of the Union industry was found. Furthermore, the Commission assessed this aspect during the investigation as stated in recitals (135) to (140). Regarding the claim that BASF SE and Ineos Lavera were not part of the complaint, this claim is factually wrong. These two producers are part of the complaint as indicated in Annex A-1 of the non-confidential version of the complaint.

• (43) SABIC and the Mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia claimed that there were no factual or legal grounds for cumulating the imports from the KSA and the US and these imports were influenced by different dynamics, had different trends in the Union and the import price from the KSA did not undercut the Union prices while the imports from the US did.

• (44) After performing the relevant analysis, the Commission found that the conditions for cumulation of the countries concerned at the stage of the complaint were met on the basis of the available information and statistics. The dumping margins were found to be above de minimis. As shown by available official import statistics, dumped imports were not negligible (above de minimis) in terms of volumes for all countries concerned. Furthermore, MEG is a commodity and the competition between products imported from the KSA and the US and the Union industry products is identical and strictly based on price, irrespective of sales channels. The absence of price undercutting in the complaint for the imports from the KSA does not mean that there is no effect on prices. Therefore, at initiation stage, it was concluded that the conditions of Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met.

• (45) SABIC and the Mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia claimed that the complainant did not assess injury objectively under Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation and the existence of material injury was not supported by factual information. The assessment of injury and causal link based on a comparison of data for different periods, i.e., January – December 2017, 2018 and 2019 and April 2019 – March 2020 did not provide an accurate and unbiased picture of the situation as the year 2019 and the IP largely overlap but instead it should have examined the data for the periods April – March 2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 to assess injury and causal link. In addition, it was argued that the comparison was distorted by the seasonal and cyclical nature of MEG sales. It was further claimed that the macroeconomic data provided by the complainant for the domestic industry as a whole showed that it performed well over the period considered, while the microindicators, which only related to the complainant, underperformed when compared to the other Union MEG producers, which also raised concerns regarding the representativeness of the complainant. Moreover, it was argued that the complainant did not provide any evidence that its profitability fell because of pressure from imports that caused prices to fall at a faster pace as compared to raw material costs. SABIC also claimed that the complainant failed to provide an accurate picture of the situation as it calculated only the profitability on sales to unrelated customers and that the complainant did not provide a proper justification for the exclusion of the captive market from the Union consumption. Furthermore, SABIC claimed, without evidence, that the high profitability margins registered by the Union industry in 2017 and 2018 on domestic sales to unrelated customers might have been a consequence of the cartel that was in place until 2017 and therefore it would not be appropriate to use a profit margin of 18 % for the underselling analysis, given that this profitability is based on 2016 numbers when the cartel was in full stream. Also the Mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia claimed that the calculation of the underselling margin based on a profit that does not appear to be based on a reasonable profitability raises questions.

• (46) As a preliminary comment, it is recalled that a prima facie finding of material injury requires an examination, inter alia, of the relevant factors as described in Article 5(2) (d) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, the wording of Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation states that the complaint shall contain the information on changes in the volume of the allegedly dumped imports, the effect of those imports on prices of the like product on the Union market and the consequent impact of the imports on the Union industry, as demonstrated by relevant (not necessarily all) factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry, such as those listed in Articles 3(3) and 3(5). Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation states that the list is not exhaustive, nor can any one or more of these factors necessarily give decisive guidance. Therefore, not all factors must show deterioration in order for a prima facie finding of material injury to be established. Furthermore, the existence of other factors which may have an impact on the situation of the Union industry does not necessarily imply that the effect of dumped imports on this industry is not material.

• (47) The specific injury analysis of the complaint performed by the Commission showed that there was sufficient evidence pointing to increased penetration of the Union market (both in absolute and relative terms) by imports from the KSA and the US at prices which undercut (in the case of the US imports) and substantially undersell the Union industry’s own prices. This appears to have had a materially injurious impact upon the state of the Union industry, shown for example by decrease in production, sales and market share, by a deterioration of financial results or by the level of prices charged by the Union industry. Regarding the claim for the period considered and the investigation period, it is the Commission practice to select an investigation period of one year and previous three calendar years, also at complaint stage. In respect of SABIC’s comment on captive sales, the complainant provided evidence regarding captive sales. As a consequence, there was an examination of the totality of the market and, for certain aspects of the injury analysis, a focus on the free market. The subsequent analysis by the Commission of the information at its disposal found inter alia a separation between free and captive markets. Regarding the claim that the profitability calculation of underselling was not accurate as it was based on an unreasonable profit margin, it is noted that the Commission was satisfied with the evidence of the underselling brought forward by the complainant and considered it sufficient prima facie evidence.

• (48) Mitsubishi claimed that year 2017 could have been an exceptional year for the Union industry and therefore 2017 could not be an appropriate reference year for the injury assessment and the period considered in the complaint should have been extended to earlier years. Furthermore, it was argued that the use of one to two years duration contracts in the industry could also require an assessment over a longer period. Mitsubishi claimed that the complaint showed that there was no price undercutting at the overall level by the US and the KSA imports during the investigation period and that the requirement of evidence of material price undercutting was particularly important in the current case given that the majority of sales are made under contracts which are typically of one or two years duration. The Commission considered that none of Mitsubishi’s allegations disproved the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence for the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding. There was no exceptional event that justified the extension of the period considered prior to 1 January 2017. The period considered allows to take into account the peculiarity of one or two years contracts. Indeed, the complaint contained sufficient evidence that dumped imports had a materially injurious impact on the state of the Union industry and the Commission was satisfied with the evidence of the undercutting brought forward by the applicant—as well as the evidence of price depression and sales below Union industry costs.

• (49) SABIC and the Mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia claimed that the complainant did not demonstrate the existence of a causal link under Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation as the complainant only examined the prices effects, and not the correlation between the volume of imports from the KSA and the US. It further argued that the volume of imports of MEG from the KSA decreased over the period considered and that the prices of imports from the KSA could not have negatively affected the complainant as there was no undercutting.

• (50) The complainant analysed the effect of volumes on a cumulated basis as the conditions of Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met at that stage. The simultaneity of the deterioration of the situation of the Union industry and of the increased penetration of dumped imports strongly indicates the existence of a causal link. The absence of undercutting does not mean that export prices could not have caused injury when Union industry prices were the result of the strong price pressure exerted by the low-priced dumped imports. The crucial factor for the determination of injury and causation is that Union producers had no option but to decrease their sales prices in order to defend their market share and maintain reasonable levels of production. Furthermore, the situation of the Union industry was aggravated by the fact that the dumped imports were sold in an open and transparent market where prices were well known, forcing the Union industry to decrease its sales prices to limit its loss of market share.

• (51) SABIC and the Mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia claimed that the complainant did not examine other causes of injury such as the effects of the ethylene purchasers’ cartel that ran up until at least March 2017 and likely had effects after that too. SABIC highlighted other factors such as (i) the non-competitiveness of the Union industry as the average cost of production in the Union was higher than in the Middle East and North America; (ii) the declining share of ethylene oxide used for MEG production to favour other ethylene oxide derivatives; (iii) the increase in imports of polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’) which had a direct impact on the consumption of MEG; (iv) self-inflicted injury caused by imports of MEG from the KSA. It, therefore, claimed that by failing to even disclose the above listed other known causes of injury and not undertaking a non-attribution analysis, the Complainant did not observe the requirements set forth in Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation. Mitsubishi also claimed that the alleged injury was attributable to (i) the global depression in MEG prices, (ii) Union industry’s lack of competitiveness rather than any alleged dumping. It also claimed that the non-complainant Union producers performed better than the complainant Union producers and are recovering.

• (52) The Commission’s analysis confirmed that none of the elements mentioned, whether factually correct or not, disprove the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence for the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to the point that dumped imports had a materially injurious impact on the state of the Union industry.

• (53) CIRFS claimed that the complaints should have included the negative consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic as a factor causing injury for 2020 by wrongly stating that the investigation period in the complaint covered the period from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020.

• (54) In fact the investigation period of the complaint started from 1 April 2019 and ended 31 March 2020 and therefore any the impact of COVID-19 pandemic would have been felt by the Union industry after the investigation period.

• (55) On the basis of the above, the Commission confirmed that the complainant provided sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link, thereby satisfying the requirements set out in Article 5.2 of the ADA and Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, the complaint met the requirements for initiation.

• (56) The Commission considered and addressed all the other relevant comments in the sections below.

1.4.   Sampling

• (57) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

1.4.1.   Sampling of Union producers

• (58) In its Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of the volume of production and sales of the like product in the Union reported by the Union producers in the context of the pre-initiation standing analysis. This sample consisted of three Union producers, out of which two were related. The sampled Union producers accounted for 64,1 % of total Union production and 65 % of total Union sales. The sample was considered representative of the Union industry. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received and therefore the sample was confirmed.

1.4.2.   Sampling of importers

• (59) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

• (60) Two unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the low number of replies, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

1.4.3.   Sampling of exporting producers in the United States of America

• (61) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the United States of America to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the United States of America to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

• (62) Five exporting producers in the United States of America provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of two groups of exporting producers on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sampled groups of exporting producers represented approximately 55 % of imports from the United States of America to the Union-EU27 during the investigation period. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned and the authorities of the United States of America were consulted on the selection of the sample. No comments were received and the sample was confirmed.

1.4.4.   Sampling of exporting producers in the KSA

• (63) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the KSA to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the KSA to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

• (64) Four producers in the KSA provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. However, one of them declared no exports during the investigation period, whereas the other three are related because two of these produce in the KSA via joint venture agreement with the third producer. In view of the above, the Commission decided not to resort to sampling of exporting producers in the KSA.

1.5.   Questionnaire replies and remote cross-checks

• (65) The questionnaires for Union producers, unrelated importers, users and exporting producers were made available online ⁴ on the day of initiation.

• (66) The Commission received questionnaire replies from the three sampled Union producers, two unrelated importers (Helm and Oxyde), seven users (Arteco, Indorama Group, Neo Group, Novapet, PlastiVerd, Selenis, SIR Industriale) and eight exporting producers (Lotte Chemical Louisiana LLC, MEGlobal Americas Inc, Saudi Kayan petrochemical company, Yanbu National Petrochemical Company, Eastern Petrochemical Company, Saudi Yanbu Petrochemical Company, Arabian Petrochemical Company, Jubail United Petrochemical Company).

• (67) The Commission sought and cross-checked all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent measures taken to deal with the outbreak (‘the COVID-19 Notice’) ⁵, the Commission was unable to carry out verification visits at the premises of the sampled companies and cooperating users. Instead, the Commission performed remote cross-checks (‘RCCs’) of the information provided by the following companies via videoconference:

Union producers:

• — BASF Antwerpen N.V., Belgium (and its related sales company BASF SE)

• — INEOS NV, Belgium (and its related sales company INEOS Europe AG)

• — INEOS Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Germany (and its related sales company INEOS Europe AG)

Exporting producers in the United States of America:

• — Lotte Chemical Louisiana LLC

• — MEGlobal Americas Inc

Related traders, importers and processors:

• — MEGlobal International FZE, United Arab Emirates

• — MEGlobal Europe GmbH, Switzerland

• — Equipolymers GmbH, Germany

Exporting producers in the KSA:

• — Saudi Kayan petrochemical company (Saudi Kayan)

• — Yanbu National Petrochemical Company (Yansab)

• — Eastern Petrochemical Company (Sharq)

• — Saudi Yanbu Petrochemical Company (Yanpet)

• — Arabian Petrochemical Company (Petrokemya)

• — Jubail United Petrochemical Company (United)

Related traders to the exporting producers in the KSA

• — Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), KSA

Related traders, importers and processors:

• — SABIC Petrochemicals B.V., The Netherlands

• — SABIC Italia Srl, Italy

• — Exxon Mobil Petroleum & Chemical BV, The Netherlands

1.6.   Investigation period and period considered

• (68) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 (‘the investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2017 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

• (69) CPME claimed that the investigation period chosen by the Commission did not include the period immediately prior to the initiation of the investigation as required under Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation. CPME argued that as the investigation was opened on 14 October 2020, the period July – September 2020 should have been included in the investigation period. CPME claimed that the period January 2020 to June 2020 included in the investigation period was distorted by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, CPME believed that the Commission should collect post-IP data for the purpose of the injury and the Union interest assessment.

• (70) The Commission has discretion in selecting the investigation period. In this case, the period selected has the twin advantage of immediacy to the date of initiation and of being based on half-year period which facilitates cooperation by companies and thus accuracy and adequacy of the findings. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are analysed under causality, as may be relevant for factors which may attenuate the causal link. The claim was thus rejected.

2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

2.1.   Product concerned

• (71) The product concerned is mono ethylene glycol (current EC-number 203-473-3), originating in the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, currently falling under CN code ex 2905 31 00 (TARIC code 2905310010) (‘the product concerned’).

• (72) MEG is also designated with the names ethylene glycol, ethanediol and ethane-1,2-diol.

• (73) MEG is produced starting from various feedstocks (ethane, propane, NGL, butane) to make ethylene. Ethylene is then mixed with oxygen to form ethylene oxide and then with water to produce mono ethylene glycol.

• (74) MEG is a commodity commercially available in two different grades: fibre grade and technical grade. The fibre grade is characterised by high purity (99,9 %), whereas the technical grade has lower purity levels.

• (75) Fibre grade MEG is predominantly used in the production of PET, polyester fibres, resins and films. Technical grade MEG is mainly used in the automotive sector as anti-freezing. Additional MEG applications include heat transfer agent, de-icing fluids, surface coatings, unsaturated polyester resins, polyester polyols, and natural gas dehydrogenation.

2.2.   Like product

• (76) The investigation showed that the following products have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses:

• — the product concerned,

• — the product produced and sold on the domestic market of countries concerned, and

• — the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry.

• (77) The Commission decided at this stage that those products are therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

2.3.   Claims regarding product scope

• (78) SABIC claimed that the product scope was overly broad and requested the exclusion from the investigation of ‘off-spec MEG’, arguing that this product was not comparable to and did not compete with prime grade (‘on-spec’) MEG. Furthermore, SABIC argued that in case the Commission decided not to exclude off-spec MEG from the scope of the investigation, it should amend the product control number (‘PCN’) construction to cover off-spec MEG as well.

• (79) The off-spec MEG is not a different product type, but a deteriorated MEG as a result of oxygenation that occurred by mistake during transportation. The MEG producers do not manufacture such product on purpose. Depending on the level of deterioration, off-spec MEG can be either discarded, or can be mixed with prime grade MEG and used in certain applications such as engine coolant for the automotive industry. Therefore, the claim was rejected and the PCN did not need to be amended.

3. DUMPING

3.1.   KSA

• (80) Sampling was not applied for exporting producers in the KSA. The sole company group, SABIC, has six production entities, each of them was checked separately for their costs of manufacturing. Only one of the six production entities produced for the domestic market, and therefore its cost of manufacturing was used in the calculation of normal value. However, both domestic sales and exports to the Union were examined at the company group level.

3.1.1.   Normal value

• (81) The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for the exporting producer group was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period. On this basis, the total sales of the like product on the domestic market were representative.

• (82) Given that there was only one product type sold on the domestic market, and also exported to the Union, the Commission did not need to check the representativeness at product type level.

• (83) The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

• (84) The normal value is based on the actual domestic price, irrespective of whether those sales are profitable or not, if:

• (a) the sales volume, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume; and

• (b) the weighted average sales price is equal to or higher than the unit cost of production.

• (85) In this case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales during the IP.

• (86) The normal value is the actual domestic price of only the profitable domestic sales during the IP, if:

• (a) the volume of profitable sales represents 80 % or less of the total sales volume; or

• (b) the weighted average price is below the unit cost of production.

3.1.2.   Adjustments to the cost of manufacturing

• (87) The cooperating exporting producers purchase the feedstock, and in particular propane, for the production of MEG from a related company, state-owned Saudi Aramco, the monopoly supplier in the country.

• (88) SABIC was owned by the KSA Public Investment Fund (‘PIF’), a government entity, until the end of June 2020, when their 70 % shareholding was bought by Saudi Aramco. The KSA government owns 95,8 % of Saudi Aramco and the Chairman of Aramco since 2016, H.E. Yasir O. Al-Rumayyan, is also the Governor and Director of the PIF since 2015. Therefore, the two companies are considered to be related, as the government is a common shareholder of the company, and as H.E. Yasir O. AL Rumayyan is an officer/director in both companies.

• (89) Due to the relationship, the feedstock purchases cannot be considered in the ordinary course of trade and cannot therefore be used to establish the normal value. In the specific case of propane (the feedstock used to produce ethylene and subsequently, MEG), prices are set by the government in view of the activity of its related companies. Prices are therefore directly affected by the relationship, as per art. 2(1) of the basic Regulation.

• (90) Therefore, the Commission examined in detail the feedstock purchases and used the method described below to calculate the normal value. SABIC purchases propane from Saudi Aramco at the government fixed price of 20 % below Japanese propane price ⁶.

• (91) Under Article 2(5) paragraph 2 of the basic Regulation, if costs associated with the production and sale of the product concerned are not reasonably reflected in the records of the party concerned, they shall be adjusted or established on the basis of other producers or exporters in the same country or, where such information is not available or cannot be used, on any other reasonable basis, including information from other representative markets.

• (92) The Commission established that cost of the propane feedstock was not reasonably reflected in the records of SABIC because of its relationship with the supplier. Therefore, the Commission resorted to adjust the cost of propane by increasing the price paid by SABIC to Saudi Aramco so as to remove the 20 % discount and bring it to the level of the benchmark used by the government of KSA.

• (93) On the basis of the adjustments made to the costs of propane, the Commission adjusted the cost of ethylene used by SABIC in the cost of production of MEG.

• (94) Based on the adjusted cost of manufacturing, the analysis of domestic sales showed that less than 80 % of all domestic sales were profitable and that the weighted average sales price was lower than the cost of production. Accordingly, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the profitable sales only.

3.1.3.   Export price

• (95) The MEG exported to the Union from the KSA was manufactured by six exporting producers, two of which are joint ventures with ExxonMobil and SPDC (a company related to Mitsubishi Corporation). The MEG is then exported through three different networks of related traders and importers in the Union: one for SABIC, one for ExxonMobil and one for SPDC.

• (96) The export price was established on the basis of the price at which the imported product was first resold to independent customers in the Union, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. In this case, adjustments to the price were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including SG&A expenses, and for profits accruing.

• (97) As to the profit margin, due to confidentiality reasons regarding the data of the cooperating unrelated importers, the Commission provisionally decided to resort to the profit margin used in a previous proceeding concerning another chemical product manufactured by a similar industry and imported under similar circumstances, namely a profit margin of 6,89 % ⁷ established in the recent PVA investigation. At this stage, this profit margin is the most objective basis available for the purpose of arriving at a satisfactory estimate of an arm's length export price.

• (98) During the investigation, the complainant submitted documentation whereby it had reasons to believe that Lotte and Mitsubishi had entered into a form of association or compensatory arrangement regarding the distribution and sales of MEG, including in the Union. The complainant noted, as a consequence, that in cases where it appears that the export price is unreliable because of an association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer or a third party, the export price may be constructed on the basis of the price at which the imported products are first resold to an independent buyer.

• (99) Lotte firmly denied that it is in association with Mitsubishi regarding the distribution and sales of MEG, including in the Union. The information reported by the complainant was outdated and referred to 2015, when discussions between Lotte and Mitsubishi regarding the possibility of starting a joint venture were ongoing but did not materialise. Lotte and Mitsubishi are thus not related.

• (100) Mitsubishi stated that the information referred to by the complainant is outdated and that it is not associated to Lotte for the purposes of the basic Regulation. It clarified that there are no compensatory arrangements between Mitsubishi Corporation and Lotte which could render Lotte’s export sales prices of MEG to Mitsubishi as not being in the ordinary course of trade.

• (101) Due to the timeframe of the investigation, the Commission could not examine these comments fully at this stage, and will further look into this matter for the purposes of the definitive determination, including on its admissibility.

3.1.4.   Comparison

• (102) The Commission compared the normal value and the export price on an ex-works basis.

• (103) Where justified by the need to ensure a fair comparison, the Commission adjusted the normal value and the export price for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made for domestic insurance, freight in the KSA, commission, handling and loading and ancillary expenses in the KSA, ocean freight, ocean insurance, customs duties in the EU, credit cost, technical assistance, bank charges, year-end rebates and other allowances.

3.1.5.   Dumping margin

• (104) The Commission compared the weighted average normal value of the like product with the weighted average export price of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

• (105) For all other exporting producers in the KSA, the Commission established the dumping margin on the basis of the facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. To this end, the Commission determined the level of cooperation of the exporting producers. The level of cooperation is the volume of exports of the cooperating exporting producers to the Union expressed as proportion of the total imports from the KSA during the IP, that were established on the basis of Eurostat data.

• (106) The level of cooperation in this case is high because the exports of the cooperating exporting producers constituted around 100 % of the total imports during the IP. On this basis, the Commission decided to establish the dumping margin for all other companies at the level of the company with the highest dumping margin.

• (107) The provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Saudi Kayan petrochemical company (Saudi Kayan)	11,1 %
Yanbu National Petrochemical Company (Yansab)	11,1 %
Eastern Petrochemical Company (Sharq)	11,1 %
Saudi Yanbu Petrochemical Company (Yanpet)	11,1 %
Arabian Petrochemical Company (Petrokemya)	11,1 %
Jubail United Petrochemical Company (United)	11,1 %
All other companies	11,1 %

3.2.   United States of America

3.2.1.   Normal value

• (108) The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for each sampled exporting producer was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period. On this basis, the total sales by each sampled exporting producer of the like product on the domestic market were representative.

• (109) Given that there was only one product type sold on the domestic market, and also exported to the Union, the Commission did not need to check the representativeness at product type level.

• (110) The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

• (111) The normal value is based on the actual domestic price, irrespective of whether those sales are profitable or not, if:

• (a) the sales volume, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume; and

• (b) the weighted average sales price is equal to or higher than the unit cost of production.

• (112) In this case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales during the IP.

• (113) The normal value is the actual domestic price of only the profitable domestic sales of the product types during the IP, if:

• (a) the volume of profitable sales represents 80 % or less of the total sales volume of this type; or

• (b) the weighted average price is below the unit cost of production.

3.2.2.   Allocation of costs to the product concerned

• (114) On the basis of the cost allocation historically applied by the company, the analysis of domestic sales showed that for Lotte Chemicals Louisiana LLC less than 80 % of all domestic sales were profitable and that the weighted average sales price was lower than the cost of production. Accordingly, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the profitable sales only.

• (115) For MEGlobal Americas Inc, less than 80 % of all domestic sales were profitable and the weighted average sales price was higher than the cost of production. Accordingly, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the profitable sales only.

3.2.3.   Export price

• (116) The sampled exporting producers exported to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related companies.

• (117) For the exporting producer that exported the product concerned directly to independent customers in the Union, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

• (118) For the exporting producer that exported the product concerned to the Union through a related company acting as an importer in Switzerland, the export price was established on the basis of the price at which the imported product was first resold to independent customers in the Union, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. In this case, adjustments to the price were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including SG&A expenses, and for profits accruing. As to the latter, the same profit margin as described in the Export price section of KSA was applied.

3.2.4.   Construction of the export price when sold to a related processor in the Union

• (119) For MEGlobal Americas, some of their sales from their related importer in the Union were to unrelated customers, and therefore the methodology in Section 3.2.3 above was used.

• (120) However, some of their sales from their related importer in the Union were to a related processor of MEG, who then produced a different product (PET) for sale to other parties. The related processor cooperated with the investigation and provided data as requested.

• (121) Given that there was no resale price under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation the Commission established an export price under ‘any reasonable basis’, i.e. the cost structure of PET.

• (122) The price of MEG so established was then used to calculate the export price using the methodology in Section 3.2.3 above, given the presence of the related importer.

3.2.5.   Comparison

• (123) The Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers on an ex-works basis.

• (124) Where justified by the need to ensure a fair comparison, the Commission adjusted the normal value and the export price for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made for handling and loading, freight in the exporting country, ocean freight, ocean insurance, customs duty and other import charges, freight in the Union, credit cost, domestic insurance.

3.2.6.   Dumping margins

• (125) For the sampled exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of the like product with the weighted average export price of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.

• (126) On this basis, the provisional weighted average dumping margins pursuant to Article 2(12) expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Lotte Chemical Louisiana LLC	8,5 %
MEGlobal Americas Inc	38,3 %

• (127) For the cooperating exporting producers outside the sample, the Commission calculated the weighted average dumping margin in accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation. That margin was established on the basis of the margins of the sampled exporting producers.

• (128) On this basis, the provisional dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producers outside the sample is 13,5 %.

• (129) For all other exporting producers in the US, the Commission established the dumping margin on the basis of the facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. To this end, the Commission determined the level of cooperation of the exporting producers. The level of cooperation is the volume of exports of the cooperating exporting producers to the Union expressed as proportion of the total imports from the US during the IP, that were established on the basis of Eurostat data.

• (130) In this case, the exports of the cooperating exporting producers constituted around 59 % of the total imports during the IP. On this basis, the Commission decided to establish the residual dumping margin at the level of the margin established for the largest representative group of transactions per customer by the cooperating exporting producer with the highest dumping margin.

• (131) The provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Lotte Chemical Louisiana LLC	8,5 %
MEGlobal Americas Inc	38,3 %
Other cooperating companies	13,5 %
All other companies	52,0 %

4. INJURY

4.1.   Definition of the Union industry and Union production

• (132) The like product was manufactured by 12 producers or nine groups of producers in the Union during the investigation period. They constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

• (133) The total Union production during the investigation period was established at 942 911 tonnes. The Commission established the figure on the basis of all the available information concerning the Union industry, such as the data of the complainant which was cross-checked for reliability and completeness with information supplied by sampled Union producers. The data of the non-cooperating Union producers was estimated by the complainant based on market intelligence. As indicated in recital (58) the three sampled Union producers represented 64,1 % of the total Union production of the like product.

• (134) According to Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation, producers which are related to Saudi and/or American exporters or importers and/or are themselves importers of the allegedly dumped product may be excluded from the Union industry. Article 4(2) defines when producers are to be considered related to exporter or importers.

• (135) SABIC claimed that one of the complainants has consistently imported MEG from the KSA and therefore it should not be considered a Union producer.

• (136) The investigation revealed that it was not the MEG producer as such who was importing MEG from the KSA but two related companies. These related companies imported very marginal volumes of MEG from the KSA during the investigation period, to punctually complement their supplies. These related companies are users of MEG. Therefore, the Commission concluded there was no reason to exclude this producer from the Union industry.

• (137) Mitsubishi claimed that one of the complainants imported MEG from the countries concerned and therefore it should not be considered a Union producer.

• (138) The investigation revealed that the company did not import the product concerned from the countries concerned during the IP. Previous imports were very marginal to punctually complement their production. Therefore, the Commission concluded there was no reason to exclude this producer from the Union industry.

• (139) SABIC also claimed that a related company to a supporting producer also imported MEG from the KSA. The company did not cooperate and there was no other evidence at hand allowing the Commission to conclude that it should be excluded from the definition of Union industry. At any rate, should this company be excluded, it would not have had a material impact on the determination of injury and causal link, given its limited size.

• (140) The Commission also investigated the existing relationships of the Union industry with exporters or importers of the product concerned. The investigation showed that one of the main shareholders of a non-cooperating Union producer is the Saudi MEG producer and two more non-cooperating Union producers are owned by US MEG producers. Given the lack of cooperation of these companies and the lack of other evidence at hand in this regard, Commission could not conclude that they should be excluded from the definition of Union industry.

4.2.   Determination of the relevant Union market

• (141) To establish whether the Union industry suffered injury and to determine consumption and the various economic indicators related to the situation of the Union industry, the Commission examined whether and to what extent the subsequent use of the Union industry’s production of the like product had to be taken into account in the analysis.

• (142) To provide a picture of the Union industry that was as complete as possible, the Commission obtained data for the entire MEG activity and determined whether the production was destined for captive use or for the free market.

• (143) The Commission found that around 7 % of the total Union consumption was captive during the investigation period as shown in Table 1 below. The captive market decreased by 28 % over the period considered.

• (144) The distinction between captive and free market is relevant for the injury analysis because products destined for captive use are not exposed to direct competition from imports. By contrast, production destined for free market sale is in direct competition with imports of the product concerned.

• (145) One of the sampled MEG producers is swapping part of its MEG production in exchange for an equivalent volume of ethylene oxide under a long-term swap agreement which includes also a conversion fee set up at the time of signing the swap agreement. The volume of MEG part of this contract is included in the assessment of the macroeconomic indicators, but are excluded from the microeconomic indicators as the conversion fee received by the sampled Union producer is not based on market conditions. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the sales under this swap agreement in the assessment of the microeconomic indicators would not have affected the profitability trend nor the conclusion that Union industry suffered material injury as stated in recital (197) and (206).

• (146) The Commission examined certain economic indicators relating to the Union industry on the basis of data for the free market. These indicators are: sales volume and sales prices on the Union market, market share, growth, export volume and prices, profitability, return on investment, and cash flow. Where possible and justified, the findings of the examination were compared with the data for the captive market in order to provide a complete picture of the situation of the Union industry.

• (147) However, other economic indicators could meaningfully be examined only by referring to the whole activity, including the captive use of the Union industry. These are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, investments, stocks, employment, productivity, wages, and ability to raise capital. They depend on the whole activity, whether the production is captive or sold on the free market.

4.3.   Union consumption

• (148) The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of total Union sales as determined by the complainant plus imports from all third countries as recorded in Eurostat.

• (149) Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 1 Union consumption (tonnes)	Table 1 Union consumption (tonnes)	Table 1 Union consumption (tonnes)	Table 1 Union consumption (tonnes)	Table 1 Union consumption (tonnes)
	2017	2018	2019	Investigation period
Total Union consumption	1 687 120	1 765 864	1 755 524	1 624 170
Index	100	105	104	96
Captive market	164 452	163 791	140 637	119 102
Index	100	100	86	72
Free market	1 522 668	1 602 073	1 614 888	1 505 068
Index	100	105	106	99
Source: Eurostat, the complainant	Source: Eurostat, the complainant	Source: Eurostat, the complainant	Source: Eurostat, the complainant	Source: Eurostat, the complainant

• (150) Overall the free market consumption in the Union was fairly stable, decreasing by 1 %. From 2017 to 2019 the Union market increased by 6 % from 1 522 668 tonnes to 1 614 888 tonnes before decreasing in the investigation period by 6,8 % reaching 1 505 068 tonnes, almost at the same level as in 2017.

4.4.   Imports from the countries concerned

4.4.1.   Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from the countries concerned

• (151) The Commission examined whether imports of MEG originating in the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.

• (152) That provision stipulates that the effects of imports from more than one country shall be cumulatively assessed 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) and the volume of imports from each country is not negligible; and

• (b) a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between imported products and the like Union product.

• (153) The margins of dumping established in relation to the imports from the US and the KSA were above the de minimis threshold laid down in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. The volume of imports from each of the countries concerned was not negligible within the meaning of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, market shares in the investigation period were 16,7 % for imports from the US and 24,2 % from the KSA.

• (154) The conditions of competition between the dumped imports form the US and the KSA and between the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the like product were similar. More specifically, the imported products compete fiercely with each other and with the MEG produced in the Union because MEG is a very price sensitive homogenous commodity, which is sold to similar categories of customers. While there might be some differences regarding sales channels (the Union industry sells directly to the unrelated customers, the US exporting producers sell either directly or via related importers/traders and the Saudi exporting producers sell mostly via related importers/traders) the competition is primarily based on lowest price and not on those sales channels.

• (155) In addition, imports from both countries were sold at prices well below Union industry costs as stated in recital (211), thus contributing in a similar fashion to the price depression suffered by the Union industry as described in recitals (188) to (190).

• (156) Therefore, all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met and imports from the US and the KSA were examined cumulatively for the purposes of the injury determination.

• (157) SABIC claimed that the imports from the KSA should not be cumulated with the imports from the US as (i) imports from the KSA and the US followed different trends; (ii) ‘the average unit value of imports’ from the KSA was 5 % higher than from the US; (iii) Saudi and US producers sell MEG to the EU through different channels and at different prices.

• (158) The Commission rejected those claims. The decision as to whether or not imports should be assessed cumulatively must be based on the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation, which were met in this case as highlighted in recitals (153) to (155). None of the aspects raised by SABIC could question the appropriateness of examining imports from the KSA together with those from the US.

4.4.2.   Volume and market share of the imports from the countries concerned

• (159) The Commission established the volume of imports on the basis of Eurostat data. The market share of the imports was established by comparing the volume of imports with the Union consumption.

• (160) Imports into the Union from the countries concerned developed as follows: