Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/934 of 11 May 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of high tenacity yarns of polyesters originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

• (124) Concerning the Chinese exports of HTYP, in the light of the Chinese export statistics, exports grew from 458 246 tonnes in 2018 to 514 141 tonnes in RIP. Compared to the increase of the production capacity, this modest rise had a negligible, if any effect on the ability to absorb the massive Chinese production capacity.

• (125) As a result, the stagnant levels of domestic consumption and production in China and the modest growth in exports coupled with a sharp rise of the production capacity led to an increase of already enormous spare capacities of the Chinese HTYP producers.

• (126) More specifically and in terms of magnitude, the spare capacity of the Chinese HTYP producers subject to measures was between [1,3 – 1,5] million tonnes in RIP, which corresponds to around 6 times the 2021 Union HTYP consumption and around 12 times the production volumes of Union producers.

• (127) Furthermore, the production capacity is projected to be maintained in the period beyond 2021 up until 2025, remaining at [2 508 000- 3 210 000] tonnes.

• (128) Therefore, the Commission concluded that compared to the size of the Union market, Chinese producers dispose of vast overcapacity, which is unlikely to be absorbed by domestic consumption or by exports to other third countries. If only portion of these capacities was fully directed to the Union market, significant volumes would be exported to the Union.

3.5.2.   Attractiveness of the Union market

• (129) The Union market has been consistently considered by China among the most attractive export markets, representing the first export destination in the RIP, with or without the exports not subject to the measures currently in place. Not only were the Chinese exports (subject to measures) to the Union constantly high between 2018-RIP, accounting in total for over 25 % of the market share in the Union; in fact, they almost doubled for the Chinese exports subject to measures between the RIP of the original investigation and 2021. Moreover on the global scale, the sales to the Union represented also nearly 25 % ⁸³ of the total Chinese HTYP exports.

• (130) Considering individually the prices in big export destinations for Chinese HTYP, the Chinese producers decreased their export prices to the Union by more than 13 % to keep their export volume steady in the period 2018-RIP. It further follows from the statistics that, while the price in the US (second biggest export market in the RIP) has been at a similar level with the Union prices, the price on the Korean market was approximately 10 % lower than the export prices to the Union. At the same time, the export quantities to Korea rose by more than 50 % in the period 2018-2021. Such behaviour is a manifestation of aggressive pricing policies in the export markets pursued with the objective of increasing the capacity utilisation.

• (131) Furthermore, India, which was the fourth largest export market for Chinese HTYP during the RIP, imposed an anti-dumping duty (still in force) on imports of HTYP from China ⁸⁴ in 2018. These trade defence measures in other export markets further increase the attractiveness of the Union market and would incentivize the Chinese exporting producers to direct their exports at the Union, if the anti-dumping measures in the Union were allowed to lapse.

• (132) Moreover, two major Chinese HTYP industry players ⁸⁵, companies Fujian Billion Polymerization Fiber Technology Industrial Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Sanwei Material Technology Co., Ltd. have requested and were granted a new exporting producer treatment by the Commission in June 2022 ⁸⁶, which further shows how attractive the Union market is for the Chinese exporting producers.

• (133) Therefore, it is likely that, if the measures were allowed to lapse, the Chinese exporting producers would keep engaging in aggressive pricing practices, in order to increase their (already high) market share in the Union and to direct their significant over-capacity towards the Union market.

3.6.   Conclusion on dumping and likelihood of continuation of dumping

• (134) The investigation showed that Chinese HTYP producers have been dumping during the review investigation period.

• (135) It was further established, consistently with the 2017 expiry review that in China vast spare capacity exists in comparison with the size of the Union market.

• (136) Moreover, given the stagnant consumption in the Chinese market and long-standing high attractiveness of the Union market for the Chinese exporting producers, it is likely that the Chinese HTYP producers would keep entering the Union market with increasingly large quantities of HTYP at dumped prices, in the absence of the measures.

• (137) Therefore, the Commission concluded that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping should the measures lapse.

3.7.   Injury

3.7.1.   Definition of the Union industry and Union production

• (138) The like product was manufactured by six producers in the Union during the period considered. They constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

• (139) The total Union production during the review investigation period was established at around 117 000 tonnes. The Commission established the figure on the basis of all the available information concerning the Union industry, such as figures provided by the Union producers. As indicated in recital (24), three Union producers were selected in the sample representing more than 50 % of the total Union production of the like product.

3.7.2.   Union consumption

• (140) The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of the sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market, plus the volume of all imports of HTYP. Since imports of HTYP from China were subject to measures during the period considered, the Commission used the statistics collected pursuant to Article 14(6) ⁸⁷ of the basic Regulation (‘Article 14(6) database’) to establish the volume and average prices of imports from this country during the period considered, as it contained sufficiently detailed information at the level of the 10-digit TARIC codes and TARIC additional codes per company.

• (141) Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 1

Union consumption (tonnes)

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Total Union consumption	244 112	228 168	208 516	253 039
Index	100	93	85	104
Captive market	16 046	13 911	16 563	22 322
Index	100	87	103	139
Free market	228 065	214 256	191 953	230 717
Index	100	94	84	101
Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers, Eurostat and Article 14(6) database.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers, Eurostat and Article 14(6) database.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers, Eurostat and Article 14(6) database.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers, Eurostat and Article 14(6) database.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers, Eurostat and Article 14(6) database.

• (142) The Union free market consumption within the period considered first decreased by 6 percentage points from 2018 until 2019, followed by a steep decrease of 10 percentage points due to COVID in 2020. However, consumption then recovered and in the RIP was 1 percentage point higher than in 2018.

3.7.2.1.   Volume and market share of the imports from the country concerned

• (143) The Commission established the volume of imports as well as the market share of the imports on the basis of the import statistics from the country concerned of Article 14(6) database which provides data per 10-digit TARIC code and per exporting producer (TARIC additional code).

• (144) Imports into the Union from the country concerned developed as follows for the exporters currently subject to duties:

Table 2

Import volume (tonnes) and market share

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Volume of imports from exporters currently subject to duties (tonnes)	[58 000 – 63 000 ]88	[59 000 – 64 000 ]	[58 000 – 63 000 ]	[69 000 – 74 000 ]
Index	100	101	99	117
Market share	[25  % -30  %]	[27  % –32  %]	[30  % –35  %]	[29  % –34  %]
Index	100	107	118	115
Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.

• (145) The Chinese exporters currently subject to the duties under review increased their export volume during the period considered by 17 %. The temporary decline in export volume in 2020 is linked to the lower consumption in that year. Nevertheless, these exporters were able to further extend their market share over the period concerned by 4 percentage points. The slight decrease in market share from 2020 to the RIP can be explained by the shortage of transport containers for shippings from China and the connected steep increase in transport costs for these shippings.

3.7.2.2.   Prices of the imports from the country concerned: price undercutting and price suppression

• (146) In the absence of cooperation of exporting producers in the expiry review, the Commission established the prices of imports on the basis of the import statistics of the Article 14(6) database. Price undercutting of the imports was established on the basis of the comparison of the figures in the Article 14(6) database with the verified prices of the sampled Union producers.

• (147) The weighted average price of imports into the Union from the country concerned developed as follows for the exporters currently subject to duties as well as in total for all exporters:

Table 3

Import prices (EUR/tonne)

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
China (exporters currently subject to duties)	1 655	1 531	1 195	1 440
Index	100	92	72	87
Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.

• (148) The import price of the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties was volatile, decreasing by 28 % to a price of 1 195 EUR/ton in 2020 and then increasing by 15 percentage points in the RIP. Despite the price recovery in the RIP to 1 440 EUR/ton, this still shows an overall decrease of 13 % throughout the period considered. While the general decreasing price trend is linked to the strategy of gaining market shares, the increase in the RIP was caused by increased transport costs and a high demand in the RIP.

• (149) The Commission determined the price undercutting during the RIP by comparing:

• (a) the weighted average sales prices per product type of the three sampled Union producers charged to unrelated customers on the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level; and

• (b) the corresponding weighted average prices per product type of the Chinese imports. Since in the expiry review there was no cooperation, the Commission used the best facts available. Since in the parallel interim review there was cooperation, the prices from the sampled Chinese producers in that procedure to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a Cost, Insurance, Freight (CIF) basis, including the anti-dumping duty, with appropriate adjustments for customs duties and post-importation costs, were taken as facts available.

• (c) The price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts. The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers’ turnover during the review investigation period. It showed a weighted average undercutting margin of 26 % by the imports from the country concerned, done by the exporters currently subject to duties, on the Union market. Without the anti-dumping duties, the undercutting amounted to 29 %.

• (150) In addition, the Union industry was unable to raise its prices above the level of its cost of production because of the price pressure from the Chinese exporting producers, whose prices remained below the Union industry’s cost of production during the entire period concerned

3.7.3.   Economic situation of the Union industry

3.7.3.1.   General remarks

• (151) In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

• (152) As mentioned in recital (24), sampling was used for the assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry.

• (153) For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of the verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers. The data related to all Union producers. The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers. The data related to the sampled Union producers. Both sets of data were found to be representative of the economic situation of the Union industry.

• (154) The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, magnitude of the dumping margin, and recovery from past dumping.

• (155) The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital.

3.7.3.2.   Macroeconomic indicators

3.7.3.2.1.   Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

• (156) The total Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 4

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Production volume (tonnes)	104 834	100 373	90 470	116 803
Index	100	96	86	111
Production capacity (tonnes)	128 826	133 544	134 426	133 517
Index	100	104	104	104
Capacity utilisation	81 %	75 %	67 %	87 %
Index	100	92	83	108
Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (157) The production volume first decreased by 14 % from 2018 to 2020 and then increased by 25 percentage points from 2020 to the RIP, showing an overall increase of 11 % over the period considered. The capacity utilisation decreased from 2018 to 2020 by 17 %, but increased overall 8 % over the period considered.

3.7.3.2.2.   Sales volume and market share

• (158) The Union industry’s sales volume and market share developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 5

Sales volume and market share (tonnes)

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Sales volume on the Union market (tonnes)	70 753	64 150	59 880	67 335
Index	100	91	85	95
Market share	31 %	30 %	31 %	29 %
Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (159) Total sales volume of the Union industry in the Union market decreased by 5 % during the period considered. The Union industry’s market share decreased by 2 percentage points during the period considered. The market share shows a declining trend over the period considered, interrupted by an intervening upward trend in 2020, which can be explained by the COVID-pandemic and the container shortage in 2020, which made shipping from East Asian countries more difficult.

3.7.3.2.3.   Growth

• (160) Between 2018 and the RIP, the Union free market consumption increased by 1 %. The sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 5 %, which translated into a loss in market share of 2 percentage points over the period considered.

3.7.3.2.4.   Employment and productivity

• (161) Employment and productivity developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 6

Employment and productivity

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Number of employees	1 024	1 014	993	1 034
Index	100	99	97	101
Productivity (tonnes/employee)	102	99	91	113
Index	100	97	89	110
Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (162) Due to the recovery of the demand in the RIP, the employment of the Union industry increased by 1 % during the period considered, despite showing a negative trend from 2018 to 2020. Similarly, the productivity also decreased from 2018 to 2020. However, for the entire period considered, productivity shows an increase.

3.7.3.2.5.   Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping

• (163) All dumping margins were above the de minimis level. The impact of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping on the Union industry was substantial, given the volume and prices of imports from Chinese exporters, currently subject to duties.

• (164) Continuous unfair pricing by exporters from China, currently subject to duties, made it also impossible for the Union industry to recover from the past dumping practices. With an average price of 1 440 EUR/tonne their price was also 31 % lower than the import price from South Korea, 6 % lower that the import price from Vietnam and 21 % lower than the import price from Taiwan.

3.7.3.3.   Microeconomic indicators

3.7.3.3.1.   Prices and factors affecting prices

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

Table 7

Sales prices and cost of production in the Union (EUR/tonne)

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Average unit sales price in the Union (EUR/tonne)	2 042	1 974	1 713	1 957
Index	100	97	84	96
Unit cost of production (EUR/tonne)	2 371	2 357	2 039	2 246
Index	100	99	86	95
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (166) The Union industry’s average unit sales price to unrelated customers in the Union decreased from 2018 to 2020 by 16 % and only partially recovered 12 percentage points in the RIP reaching 1 957 EUR/tonne. The decline of the sales price is mostly linked to the pricing pressure from Chinese exports. In addition, in 2019 and 2020, the global economic slowdown has been affecting the prices of raw materials and, as a consequence, of industrial polyester yarn downwards.

• (167) The cost of production developed in a similar trend, partially due to decreasing raw material prices during the global economic slowdown in 2019 and 2020 and partially due to rationalisations like reducing staff during these years. In 2019 and 2020, the Unit cost decreased by 1 percentage point and 13 percentage points respectively. However, the prices decreased at a higher rate of 16 percentage points over these two years. This shows that the Union industry could not benefit from these cost decreases. In the RIP, unit costs increased by 9 percentage points whereas the sales price increased by 12 percentage points. However, compared to the beginning of the period considered the prices decreased almost at the same percentage as the unit costs, showing that the prices were suppressed. The Union industry was not able to benefit from the cost decrease, it could not raise prices, and could not even maintain prices at their original level.

3.7.3.3.2.   Labour costs

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

Table 8

Average labour costs per employee

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Average labour costs per employee (EUR)	48 153	49 499	46 821	51 680
Index	100	103	97	107
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (169) The average labour costs per employee continuously increased, over the period considered by 7 %. This trend was only interrupted in 2020, partially due to rationalisations and partially due to COVID-pandemic specific measures like short-time work.

3.7.3.3.3.   Inventories

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

Table 9

Inventories

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Closing stocks (tonnes)	7 721	8 052	6 510	6 991
Index	100	104	84	91
Closing stocks as a percentage of production	14	16	13	12
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (171) The level of closing stocks of the sampled Union producers decreased by 9 % over the period considered. In the RIP, the level of stocks represented around 12 % of their production.

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

• (172) Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 10

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)	-10	-15	-17	-8
Index	100	153	174	86
Cash flow (EUR)	-8 902 195	-4 318 803	-2 067 021	-5 374 726
Index	100	49	23	60
Investments (EUR)	12 926 148	7 405 795	2 087 298	4 495 812
Index	100	57	16	35
Return on investments	-4  %	-6  %	-6  %	-4  %
Index	100	158	154	101
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (173) The Commission established the profitability of the sampled Union producers by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. The profitability of the Union industry was negative throughout the period considered. It started at -10 % in 2018 and extended the loss until 2020 at -17 %. In the RIP, it could slightly improve to -8 % due to high demand.

• (174) The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. The trend in net cash flow was negative throughout the period considered. While it gradually improved from 2018 to 2020, it dropped again in the RIP. While it showed a 40 % improvement over the period considered it continued to be negative. Consequently, the improvement in cash flow does not indicate a stabilizing of the financial situation of the Union industry as it still remains negative.

• (175) Investments decreased by 65 % over the period considered. Investments related to compliance improvements in relation to health, safety and environmental requirements, increase in the capacity and effectiveness of the production plants. While in 2018, investments in a capacity increase were possible, in the following years this was no longer possible.

• (176) The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. The return on investment from the production and sale of the like product followed similar trend as the profitability. It dropped from 2018 to 2020 and then in the RIP returned to a level closer to 2018. It stayed negative throughout the entire period considered. Consequently, the return on investment indicates a negative financial situation of the Union industry over the entire period considered.

3.7.4.   Conclusion on the situation of the Union industry

• (177) On a macro level, the investigation showed that the situation of the Union industry did not improve and even the increased demand in the RIP did not lead to higher sales on the EU market than in the beginning of the period considered. Despite investments into a capacity increase, the Union was not able to even maintain its market share.

• (178) The investigation has also shown that the situation of the industry on a micro level was not reaching a sustainable level and the industry incurred losses in all years of the period considered, even in the RIP in which the demand had recovered. The economic situation of the Union industry was thus injurious despite the existence of anti-dumping measures at the current levels on the imports of the product under review from the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties.

• (179) The imported volumes of the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties over the period considered increased by 17 % while their price further dropped by 13 %.

• (180) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry continued to suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation during the review investigation period.

3.8.   Causation

3.8.1.   Effects of the dumped imports

• (181) During the entire period considered, the exports of the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties represented a substantial share of the imports to the EU. They even increased their market share by 4 percentage points from 27 % to 31 %. The price level of their exports decreased by 13 % over the period considered: during the RIP at 1 440 EUR/tonne it undercut the Union industries’ price by 26 %. The Chinese exporters currently subject to duties thereby suppressed the price level for the Union industry, contributing to a situation of continued losses over the period considered for the Union industry. There was a clear coincidence in time between the price pressure of these imports representing an important market share of 31 % and the injury of the Union industry. Therefore, due to the significant volume and price pressure exercised by these exports there was a genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect between the imports of HTYP from China that were subject to the anti-dumping duties and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

3.8.2.   Effects of other factors

3.8.2.1.   Imports from Chinese exporters currently not subject to duties

• (182) Hangzhou Huachun Chemical Fiber ceased to exist in 2021. Its exports have decreased by 99 % during the period considered and were negligible (below 0,01 % of the Union market share) in the RIP. Furthermore, the export price was significantly above of the Union industry price, as well as above the cost of production of the Union industry. Therefore, these exports did not contribute to the injury in the RIP.

• (183) Hailide’s imports into the Union from the country concerned developed as follows:

Table 11

Import volume (tonnes) and market share

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Volume of imports into the Union from Hailide China (tonnes)	[50 000 – 55 000 ]	[51 000 – 56 000 ]	[43 000 – 48 000 ]	[43 000 – 48 000 ]
Index	100	102	86	86
Market share	[20  % – 25  %]	[23  % – 28  %]	[21  % – 26  %]	[18  % – 23  %]
Index	100	109	102	85
Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.

• (184) Hailide’s weighted average price of imports into the Union developed as follows:

Table 12

Import prices (EUR/tonne)

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Hailide	[1 700 – 1 800 ]	[1 600 – 1 700 ]	[1 300 – 1 400 ]	[1 500 – 1 600 ]
Index	100	96	77	91
Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.	Source: Article 14(6) database.

• (185) By maintaining a high export volume to the European Union during the period considered representing in the RIP a market share of [18 % – 23 %], at prices below the Union industry’s prices, Hailide has contributed to the injury of the Union Industry. Hailide sold at [1 500 – 1 600] EUR/tonne in the review investigation period, and showed an overall price decrease of 9 % throughout the period considered.

• (186) However, these imports did not attenuate the link found between the dumped imports from the exporters currently subject to duties and the material injury suffered by the Union industry such that this link can no longer be characterized as a genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect. The exports of the exporters currently subject to duties represented a market share of [29 % – 34 %] on the Union market during the RIP. This high market share, coupled with low prices has such an important weight on the market, that it exercised a significant independent price pressure on the Union industry.

• (187) Accordingly, the effects of exports from Hailide, even if they contributed to the injury, did not materially diminish the relative importance of the dumped imports of the exporters currently subject to duties in continuing the injury.

3.8.2.2.   Imports from third countries

• (188) The imports into the Union of HTYP from third countries other than China were mainly from South Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan.

• (189) The (aggregated) volume of imports into the Union as well as the market share and price trends for imports of HTYP from other third countries developed as follows:

Table 13

Imports from third countries

Country		2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
South Korea	Volume (tonnes)	15 150	13 025	9 259	15 167
	Index	100	86	61	100
	Market share	7 %	6 %	5 %	7 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	2 024	2 051	1 803	2 077
	Index	100	101	89	103
Vietnam	Volume (tonnes)	500	129	776	12 231
	Index	100	26	155	2 444
	Market share	0 %	0 %	0 %	5 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	2 340	4 136	2 276	1 537
	Index	100	177	97	66
Taiwan	Volume (tonnes)	6 776	4 485	3 795	7 375
	Index	100	66	56	109
	Market share	3 %	2 %	2 %	3 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	1 874	1 858	1 636	1 816
	Index	100	99	87	97
Other third countries	Volume (tonnes)	19 759	15 261	11 917	11 364
	Index	100	77	60	58
	Market share	9 %	7 %	6 %	5 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	2 586	2 780	2 683	2 740
	Index	100	108	104	106
Total of all third countries except the country concerned	Volume (tonnes)	42 185	32 900	25 747	46 137
	Index	100	78	61	109
	Market share	18 %	15 %	13 %	20 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	2 267	2 371	2 200	2 055
	Index	100	105	97	91
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (190) In the RIP, 46 137 tonnes of HTYP were imported from third countries excluding China – this volume represents 20 % of the Union market. In total, their market share decreased from 2018 to 2020 from 18 % to 13 % and then increased to 20 % in the RIP. This follows the trend of EU consumption, but in a more pronounced way. The average import price from third countries excluding China increased in 2019 by 5 %, then decreased 8 percentage points in 2020 and further decreased 6 percentage points in the RIP. These imports mainly stem from South Korea (7 % of the Union Market), Vietnam (5 % of the Union market) and Taiwan (3 % of the Union market). Due to the fact that all these countries are located in East Asia, they were affected by the shipping container shortage and the resulting high shipping costs, which explains that in 2020 the market share of these third countries decreased.

• (191) Imports from all third countries together have increased their market share on the Union Market by 2 percentage points. However, the average price of all third country imports in the RIP, but also in all previous years of the period considered was substantially above the average EU sales price. Therefore, all third countries together have not contributed to the injury of the Union Industry. The Commission therefore analysed if imports from a specific third country have contributed to the injury of the Union industry.

• (192) Imports form South Korea followed the trend of the EU consumption in a more accentuated way, decreasing from 2018 to 2020 and in the RIP recovering closely above the level of 2018. The market share gradually decreased from 2018 to 2020 from 7 % to 5 % and then recovered to 7 % in the RIP. The price level of South Korean imports gradually increased over the period concerned, with the exception of 2020, which shows a price decrease that can be linked to the low demand in that year.

• (193) The price level of imports from South Korea during the RIP as well as in the two preceding years was higher than the Union industry’s sales price. Due to the higher price level, the Commission concluded that imports from South Korea have not contributed to the injury.

• (194) Imports from Vietnam where at a very low level from 2018 until 2020 representing a market share clearly below 1 % in that period, they increased in the RIP to a quantity representing 5 % of the Union market share. This coincided with a price decrease from levels above the Union Industry’s average sales price to a price of 1 537 EUR/tonne in the RIP, which is substantially lower than the Union Industry’s sales price.

• (195) However, imports to the EU from the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties in the RIP were substantially higher. They amounted to [69 000 – 74 000] tonnes, whereas imports from Vietnam only amounted to 12 231 tonnes, thereby only representing a small share of imports to the EU from China.

• (196) Therefore, the Commission concluded that while imports from Vietnam may have contributed to the injury of the Union industry, they do not attenuate the causal link as the volume of imports from Vietnam represent only a small fraction of the exports from the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties to the Union and do not have a comparable weight to put pressure on Union industry.

• (197) Imports from Taiwan represented a market share of 3 % in the beginning of the period considered as well as in the RIP. While the import price of 1 816 EUR/tonne in the RIP was slightly lower than the Union Industry’s sales price, it was substantially higher than the price of the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties of 1 440 EUR/tonne.

• (198) Therefore, the Commission concluded that while imports from Taiwan may have contributed to the injury of the Union Industry, they do not attenuate the causal link as the volume of imports from Taiwan represent only a fraction of imports from the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties, their price was substantially above the price for imports from the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties and do not have a comparable weight to put pressure on Union industry.

• (199) Imports from Taiwan and Vietnam, when considered together with the imports from Hailide, did not attenuate the link found between the dumped imports from exporting producers subject to the duties and the injury suffered by the Union industry such that this link cannot be characterized as a genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect. Exports of exporting producers subject to the duties represented a market share of [29 % – 34 %] on the Union market during the RIP and were sold, on average, substantially below the costs of production of the Union industry. Considering this magnitude and the resulting price pressure imports from Taiwan, Vietnam and Hailide did not materially diminish the relative importance of the dumped imports from the exporting producers subject to the duty in bringing about the injury.

3.8.2.3.   Export performance of the Union industry

• (200) The volume of exports of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 14

Export performance of the sampled Union producers

	2018	2019	2020	Review Investigation Period
Export volume (tonnes)	21 674	19 603	18 729	21 299
Index	100	90	86	98
Average price (EUR/tonnes)	2 208	2 161	1 767	2 272
Index	100	98	80	103
Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified data provided by the Union industry and verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (201) While export volumes over the period considered followed a similar trend than the sales on the Union market, in the RIP, the volumes were only 2 % below the 2018 figures and recovered stronger than sales on the Union market, which were still 5 % below the 2018 volumes.

• (202) The average price for exports in every year was clearly above the sales price on the EU market, in the RIP it was more than 10 % higher. The average price for exports followed a trend similar to the prices on the EU market. However, while in 2020 the export price fell stronger, in the RIP it recovered quicker than the prices on the EU market, reaching a level 3 % higher than the 2018 average price, whereas the sales price on the EU market in the RIP was still 4 % below the 2018 price.

• (203) The comparison shows that the Union producers are strongly committed to the Union market, while being able to reach higher prices for export sales.

• (204) Therefore, the Commission concluded that the export performance of the Union industry has not contributed to the injury, but to the contrary contributed to limiting the loss.

3.8.2.4.   Captive consumption

• (205) The captive consumption of the Union industry has substantially increased in the RIP. Over the period considered it increased by 39 %. However, the decision to increase the captive consumption in order to sell downstream products at a higher manufacturing level, is a direct result of not being able to reach a fair market price on the free market for HTYP due to the pricing pressure from the dumped imports. Therefore, the Commission concluded that this is not a factor contributing to the injury.

3.8.2.5.   High energy prices and inflation

• (206) As a reaction to a submission of the applicant on post-RIP developments, several users together with a user association claimed that rising energy costs and inflation crisis breaks the causal link between imports of Chinese HTYP and the injury experienced by the Union industry. The rising energy costs and inflation, as submitted by the applicant, have however occurred post-RIP. The users have not detailed that any such development occurred during the RIP. Therefore, the Commission rejected this argument.

3.8.3.   Conclusion on causation

• (207) There was a clear coincidence in time between the substantial exports from China of the exporters currently subject to duties and the deterioration of the situation of the Union industry.

• (208) The Commission has also investigated other factors of injury and has not found any other factor which would attenuate the causal link between these exports from China and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (209) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the dumped exports from the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties materially contributed to the injury of the Union industry and that no other factors, considered individually or collectively, are attenuating the causal link between the dumped exports of the Chinese exporters currently subject to duties and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

3.9.   Likelihood of continuation of injury

• (210) The Commission concluded in recital (180) that the Union industry suffered material injury during the review investigation period. Therefore, the Commission assessed, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, whether there would be a likelihood of continuation of injury caused by the dumped imports from China if the measures were allowed to lapse.

• (211) In this respect the following elements were analysed by the Commission: the production capacity and spare capacity in China and the relation between Chinese export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union.

3.9.1.   The production capacity and spare capacity in China

• (212) As analysed in detail in section 3.5.1, compared to the size of the Union market, Chinese producers dispose of vast overcapacities, which are unlikely to be absorbed by domestic consumption or by exports to other third countries.

3.9.2.   Relation between Chinese export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union

• (213) As analysed in detail in section 3.5.2 the Union market remains the largest export market for Chinese exporters also due to its attractive price level. Indeed, even with anti-dumping duties in place, Chinese prices are still undercutting Union industry prices on average by 26 %. While the price in the US (second biggest export market in the RIP) has been at a level similar to the Union prices, the Chinese export price on the Korean market was approximately 10 % lower than the Union export prices. Trade defence measures in other export markets further increase the attractiveness of the Union market.

• (214) Therefore, it is likely that if the measures were allowed to lapse, the Chinese exporting producers would keep engaging in aggressive pricing practices, in order to increase their (already high) market share in the Union and to accommodate their significant over-capacity on the Union market.

3.9.3.   Conclusion

• (215) In view of the above, the Commission concluded that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of dumped imports from China at injurious price levels and would therefore further aggravate the injury suffered by the Union industry. As a consequence, the viability of the Union industry would be at serious risk.

3.10.   Union interest

• (216) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures at the revised duty level following the combined interim review would be against the interest of the Union. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, users.

• (217) All interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known pursuant to Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation.

• (218) On this basis, the Commission first examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation of dumping and continuation of injury, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it was not in the Union interest to maintain the existing measures. It is recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union.

• (219) In addition, the Commission examined the impact of the change of the level of the measures resulting from the interim review on the users. Indeed, while the interim review itself does not include a Union Interest analysis, prolonged measures following the expiry review will necessarily take effect at the level of duties as determined by the interim review, since both procedures coincide in timing. The Commission has therefore also taken the level of duties as determined by the interim review into account, when analysing if compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it was not in the Union interest to maintain the existing measures.

3.10.1.   Interest of the Union industry

• (220) As explained in recital (215) the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of dumped imports from China at injurious price levels, and would therefore further aggravate the injury suffered by the Union industry. As a consequence, the viability of the Union industry would be at serious risk.

• (221) Therefore, the continuation of the measures against China would benefit the Union industry.

3.10.2.   Interest of unrelated importers

• (222) No unrelated importers cooperated in the current review investigations.

• (223) The Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons from the position of unrelated importers against the prolongation of the measures.

3.10.3.   Interest of users

• (224) HTYP is used in numerous applications. There are two main groups of different HTYP users: tire producers who account for an estimated 50 % of the HTYP demand in the Union, as well as technical fabrics, tapes, webbings, straps, ropes and belt producers, who also account for around 50 % of the HTYP demand in the Union. Technical fabrics, webbings, straps, ropes and belts are used in automotive, lifting, transport securing and all kinds of machine applications. Due to the high number of applications, the user industry in this segment is quite fragmented.

• (225) Upon initiation of the expiry review, 64 known users and user associations in the Union were contacted and invited to cooperate.

• (226) Two users replied to the questionnaire in the expiry review and their data was verified by the Commission. Following the initiation of the interim review, five more users came forward together with a user’s association (representing 9 users in total) to participate in the parallel procedures. The users that came forward belong to the segment of technical fabrics, tapes, webbings, straps, ropes and belt producers. The participating users represent more than 10 % of the Union consumption of HTYP. No user of the tire producer segment came forward.

• (227) Following the final disclosure, ten users, a user’s association as well as one integrated producer, which also produces woven products, commented on the final disclosure and opposed the Commission’s intention to increase the level of anti-dumping duties in comparison with the original measures.

• (228) Several users together with the user’s association claimed that the analysis of the Commission is based on incomplete facts, since the Commission only verified responses from two sampled users and ignored the submissions from the other user companies, who are SMEs, despite their offer for their data to be verified on the spot or via a remote verification.

• (229) The Commission disagreed with this claim. In fact, the Commission took into account the submissions of all users when analysing the Union interest. However, since the two users that the Commission verified also fall within the category of SMEs, and since their business models, supply needs and financial situation were comparable to the companies represented by the association, the Commission found that no additional verification was required to reach its conclusions.

3.10.3.1.   Financial impact

• (230) The participating users mainly opposed an increased duty. Several users argued that when the measures were imposed in the original procedure, the Commission struck the right balance between the interests of EU producers of HTYP and user industries. Therefore, a continuation of the measures at the original levels could be absorbed by the user industry.

• (231) On the other hand, a material increase of the level of the duties would significantly harm the segment of technical fabrics, tapes, webbings, straps, ropes and belt producers. While the tyre industry has not provided data, the Commission has gathered information from HTYP producers that indicate that HTYP only represents a lower percentage of the production cost of tyres. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the financial impact of the measures on that user industry will be minor.

• (232) From the sampled users, it is visible that belt products incorporating HTYP have a low profit level. However, the Commission also found that moderate price increases were possible in the past due to increases of raw material costs. Also, none of the sampled users exclusively produces products incorporating HTYP, and their overall financial situation is stable. This was not contradicted by the unverified information brought forward by the non-sampled users. The revised duties range from 9,7 % to 23,7 %, which represents a meaningful increase compared to the existing duties, ranging from 5,1 % to 9,8 %. However, the Commission noted that the users still have the choice of an exporting producer at the lower end of the duties.

• (233) Therefore, the Commission concluded that the financial impact on the users by the revised duty range does not constitute a compelling reason against the continuation of the measures at the revised level either.

• (234) Following the final disclosure, ten users, the user’s association as well as the integrated producer argued that an additional cost increase coming from increased duties on their main raw material will further erode their competitive position as EU based manufacturers. They provided multiple examples of offers from Chinese manufacturers of downstream products made with HTYP to European clients, whose prices were very close or even below the price of HTYP after addition of the proposed duties. They argued that the biggest problem of increased anti-dumping duties on HTYP is that they do not extend to downstream products like fabrics, belts, lashing straps, round slings and webbing slings.

• (235) Following the final disclosure, the applicants also argued that the main concern of the users are related to the unfair competition they are facing from China in downstream markets. This concern would be further exacerbated if the level of the anti-dumping duties on HTYP imports is increased. Indeed, users repeatedly indicated that they did not oppose a prolongation of the original anti-dumping measures.

• (236) In order to address the issue of unfair competition on downstream products, five users together with a user’s association requested the Commission to extend the duties to HTYP contained in imported webbings ropes and fire hoses. They referred to the Commission’s Regulation on steel wind towers from China ⁸⁹, in which the anti-dumping duty applied not only to wind towers, but also to wind turbines, which incorporate steel wind towers.

• (237) First, the Commission acknowledged that the competition from Chinese exporters of downstream products limits the users’ possibility to increase prices and pass on the additional costs of increased duties. However, a potential unfair competition on the level of the users cannot by itself constitute a compelling reason for not addressing the injurious dumping found on the upstream market. While the users have demonstrated that the increased duties on HTYP cause a competitive disadvantage against the Chinese manufacturers of the same product, they have also indicated that a protection against these imports of downstream products could be reached by anti-dumping duties on these products. They have not demonstrated that it is not feasible for the user industry to file a complaint to initiate an investigation against potentially dumped imports of HTYP based fabrics or other secondary products.

• (238) In addition, the users still have the choice of a Chinese exporting producer at the lower end of the duties, and they have the option to source from other third countries like South and Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, which are increasing their production capacity.

• (239) Concerning the proposal to extend the measures to the HTYP incorporated in the downstream products, the Commission noted that contrary to the steel wind towers case, the products to which the duties would be extended were not included in the product scope of the investigation. Indeed, the definition of the product concerned in the steel wind towers case already included the towers imported as part of a wind turbine: “The product concerned is certain utility scale wind towers of steel, […], currently falling under CN codes ex 7308 20 00 (TARIC code 7308200011), and ex 7308 90 98 (TARIC code 7308909811) and, when imported as part of a wind turbine , currently falling under CN codes ex 8502 31 00, …” The Commission cannot in principle impose duties on a product that was not within the scope of the investigation. In this case particularly, the Commission considered that the multitude of possible transformations covered within the suggested CN codes would expand the application of the duties beyond the scope of the investigation.

• (240) Therefore, the Commission found that the request of the users would have expanded the scope of the investigation beyond the application. The request was thus rejected.

• (241) Consequently, the Commission confirmed its initial position on the revised duty level.

3.10.3.2.   Supply stability

• (242) The users have also pointed out a lack of capacity of the Union producers. The Union consumption of HTYP was 230 000 tonnes in the RIP, 73 % higher than the production capacity of the Union industry, which amounts only to 134 ktonnes. This demonstrates the overall need for imports.

• (243) Furthermore, following the RIP, in 2022 several Union producers have temporarily reduced or fully stopped their production as a reaction to the increase in energy prices in Europe. However, this was only a temporary measure and it is not visible that this will lead to a long-term reduction of the production volume of the Union producers.

• (244) All cooperating users have argued that for their segment, only one Union producer provides the quality of HTYP used within their products, whereas other Union producers are to a large extent focused on supplying the tire industry or are integrated competitors. The users have further argued that other third countries either produce expensive specialised grades, like South Korea, or do not offer sufficient capacity or quality, with the exception of Vietnam.

• (245) Exports from Vietnam during the RIP had a 5 % Union market share. However, Vietnamese exports only amounted to 12 000 tonnes and cover only a fraction of the needed imports to satisfy the demand on the Union market. The Commission therefore noted that imports from China are generally needed to ensure the supply stability on the Union Market.

• (246) The Commission, however, concluded in the previous section that the revised duties ranging from 9,7 % to 23,7 %, will not have a prohibitive effect to continue to source from China especially in view of the fact that the users still have the choice of an exporting producer at the lower end of the duties. Consequently, the supply stability will not be endangered by the prolongation of the duties at the revised duty level.

• (247) Therefore, the Commission concluded that the interest of the users for supply stability does not lead to a compelling reason against the continuation of the measures.

3.10.3.3.   Risk of transferring production capacities outside the EU

• (248) Several users and the integrated producer emphasized the importance of the HTYP weaving and coating industry for the job market and the fact that the increased duties on HTYP may lead to a transfer of production capacities outside of the EU. The integrated producer argued that the workforce in the EU involved in the production of downstream products made out of HTYP consists of around 100 000 skilled workers.

• (249) The Commission recognized that the HTYP weaving and coating industry is an important employer for the EU job market. However, as stated in recitals (238) and (240), the users still have sourcing options at the lower range of the duties or from other third countries and the expected financial impact of the revised duties does not constitute a compelling reason for not imposing the duties. In addition, no concrete evidence was submitted to support these claims.

• (250) The Commission therefore maintained its conclusions.

3.10.4.   Conclusion on Union interest

• (251) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons of the Union interest against the maintenance of the measures on imports of HTYP originating in China and their extension at the revised levels.

• (252) Following the above comments of user, the user’s association and one integrated producer, the Commission confirmed its assessment.

3.11.   Claims for suspension by Unifull and OTIZ

• (253) Two Chinese exporting producers, Unifull and OTIZ, have claimed that the conditions for the suspension of the measures according to Article 14(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 were met. The claim is based on the increase of Chinese import prices post-RIP, as well as the argument that the Union industry’s injury was caused by the energy crisis, the shortage of semiconductors for the automotive industry (leading to a fall in demand of HTYP products for the Union industry), and a decrease of international ocean freight costs.

• (254) According to these two exporters, imports from China could help the EU downstream industry to overcome a current supply shortage and avoid the increase in the HTYP prices of Union producers post-RIP.

• (255) According to Article 14(4) of the basic Regulation, measures may only be suspended where market conditions have temporarily changed to an extent that injury would be unlikely to resume as a result of the suspension and the suspension is in the Union Interest.

• (256) It is correct that Chinese prices have increased post-RIP by 36 %. However, these increased Chinese prices are still at a level below the COP of the Union industry during the RIP. Therefore, the higher Chinese prices post-RIP have not led to a changed situation, in which injury is unlikely to resume. To the contrary, a suspension of the measures would lead to a situation in which the current injurious situation of the Union producers, on top of high energy prices, would be worse off by facing dumped prices from Chinese competitors. While it is in the interest of the users to get access to cheaper HTYP, Unifull and OTIZ have not detailed an overriding Union interest to suspend the measures. In any event, the interest of the users is analysed in detail below in section 3.10.

• (257) Unifull and OTIZ also do not elaborate how the alleged decrease of international ocean freight cost relate to the Union industry’s injurious situation.

• (258) The Commission therefore rejected this claim.

3.12.   Conclusion

• (259) On the basis of above, the Commission found that there was continuation of injurious dumping so that, it was in the Union interest to maintain the anti-dumping measures on imports of HTYP originating in China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

4. PARTIAL INTERIM REVIEW INVESTIGATION

4.1.   Interested parties and sampling

• (260) In the Notice of Initiation of the partial interim review investigation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, the producers in China, the importers in the Union known to be concerned, and the Chinese authorities of the initiation of the partial interim review investigation and invited them to participate in the investigation.

• (261) All interested parties had the opportunity to comment on the initiation of the partial interim review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

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

4.1.1.   Sampling of exporting producers and unrelated importers

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

• (264) One unrelated importer came forward as an interested party, but did not provide the requested sampling information. Eight exporting producers in the country concerned 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 four companies pertaining to two corporate groups on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union that could reasonably be investigated within the time available. These companies represented over 70 % of the estimated total Union imports of the product under review subject to measures. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned and the authorities of the country concerned were given the opportunity to comment on the selection of the sample. No comments were received.

4.1.2.   Individual examination request

• (265) One exporting producer in China (Oriental Industries (Suzhou) Ltd, (‘OTIZ’)) requested an individual examination under Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation and submitted a questionnaire reply within the deadline set. It is noted that the interim review investigation was conducted in parallel with the expiry investigation and an investigation initiated on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation. Given the added complexity of concurrent and distinct assessments in three HTYP investigations, the Commission considered that the examination of the request, also at definitive stage of the investigation would have been unduly burdensome and disproportionate and would prevent the proper completion of the investigation in good time. Therefore, no individual examination was granted to OTIZ.

4.2.   Questionnaire replies and remote cross-checks

• (266) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in China within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the GOC.

• (267) The Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled exporting producers. The same questionnaires had also been made available online on the day of initiation.

• (268) The Commission received questionnaire replies from three groups of exporting producers (from sampled exporting producers and from OTIZ).

• (269) In view of the outbreak of Covid-19 and the confinement measures put in place by various third countries, the Commission could not carry out verification visits pursuant to Article (16) of the basic Regulation at the exporting producers’ premises.

• (270) The Commission instead cross-checked remotely all the information deemed necessary for its determinations in line with its Notice on the consequences of the Covid-19 outbreak on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations ⁹⁰.

• (271) The Commission carried out remote crosschecks of the following exporting producers:

• — Huzhou Unifull Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Unifull Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Unifull Hi-Tech Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively ‘Unifull’)

• — Zhejiang Guxiandao Polyester Dope Dyed Yarn Co., Ltd. (‘Guxiandao’)

4.3.   Suspension request

• (272) As stated above in recital (253) two Chinese exporters, Unifull and OTIZ, claimed that the conditions to suspend the measures under Article 14(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 were met.

• (273) The Commission rejected this claim also with regard to the Interim Review for the reasons explained in recitals (253) to (258).

4.4.   Subsequent procedure

• (274) On 20 February 2023, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to revise the level of anti-dumping duties. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.

• (275) The comments made by interested parties were considered by the Commission and taken into account, where appropriate. The parties who so requested were granted a hearing.

4.5.   Dumping

4.5.1.   Determination of the normal value

• (276) As set out in Section 3.4.4.1 above, the Commission concluded that it was not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in China to establish normal value with respect to the imports of HTYP from China, due to the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.