Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1943 of 11 July 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of optical fibre cables originating in India

Image omitted; see official source	Official Journal of the European Union	EN L series
---	---	---
	2024/1943	12.7.2024

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 (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

1. PROCEDURE

1.1.   Initiation

• (1) On 16 November 2023, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of optical fibre cables (‘OFC’) originating in India (‘the country concerned’) on the basis of Article 5 of 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 3 October 2023 by Europacable (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of optical fibre cables 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.

1.2.   Registration

• (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. One of these requirements, as indicated in Article 10(4)(d) of the basic Regulation, is that there is a further substantial rise in imports in addition to the level of imports which caused injury during the investigation period (i.e. 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2023).

• (4) However, as can be seen in Table 1, in the present case, the Commission analysis showed that when comparing the monthly average of imports from the initiation of the investigation onwards (i.e. December 2023 until April 2024) to the monthly average in the investigation period and the monthly average of the same months in the investigation period based on Surveillance statistics, no increase in imports took place. Therefore, the legal condition under Article 10(4)(d) are not met. Thus, the Commission decided not to register imports of OFC originating in India.

Table 1

Imports from India in the investigation period after initiation (cable-km) ³

Origin	Investigation period monthly average	December 2023 – April 2024 monthly average	December 2022 – April 2023 monthly average
India	8 591	4 541	9 731
Source: Surveillance3 database.	Source: Surveillance3 database.	Source: Surveillance3 database.	Source: Surveillance3 database.

1.3.   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 complainants, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the Indian authorities, known importers, users, and traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the investigation 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.

1.4.   Comments on initiation

• (7) The Commission received comments on initiation from the exporting producers Birla Cable Ltd (‘Birla’), HFCL Limited (‘HFCL’), Sterlite Technologies Limited (‘STL’), and the complainant.

• (8) The exporting producers HFCL and STL claimed that no meaningful non-confidential summary of the calculations of the dumping margin, normal value, price undercutting and price underselling had been provided by the complainant and requested to be granted access to the requisite information. HFCL also requested disclosure of a meaningful non-confidential summary of the information provided by the complainant on pricing behaviour of the Indian exporting producers in tender procedures in the EU. HCFL further claimed that the summaries provided relating to tender procedures in several Member States and of the price offer made by an Indian producer on the spot market was not meaningful.

• (9) The Commission assessed the claims but considered, with regard to the calculations of the dumping margin and normal value, that the non-confidential version of the complaint available in the file for inspection by interested parties contained all the essential evidence and non-confidential summaries of the confidential data allowing interested parties to properly exercise their rights of defence. In particular, the non-confidential summary contained information on the sources (export prices of cables containing 24 and 48 fibres – most representative OFC types – based on tenders that took place in three EU Member States) and dumping margins for the two most representative OFC types (plus the average dumping rate for both types). Therefore, these claims were rejected.

• (10) Following the claims of STL and HFCL, the Commission reassessed the summaries of the undercutting and underselling calculations, as well as the aggregate data of the complainant’s figures available in the open file and decided to request the complainants to provide further details to the open version of the complaint. This additional non-confidential information was added to the file.

• (11) With regard to the claim concerning tenders, the Commission decided to reject the claim because of the confidential nature of the information (the sensitive annexes contain specific price offers, negotiations and concrete information on tender submissions – the non-confidential summaries provided by the complainant were deemed appropriate).

• (12) The exporting producer Birla claimed that the complaint relied on outdated figures, as it was lodged only in October 2023, i.e. more than six months after the end of the period of investigation used for the complaint (i.e. 31 March 2023).

• (13) The complaint was delivered to the Commission on 2 October 2023 and, according to Article 5(1) of the basic Regulation was deemed to have been lodged on the first working day following its delivery to the Commission, i.e. 3 October 2023. The basic Regulation does not set any legal obligation that a complaint should not contain data older than six months prior to the submission of the complaint. However, the Commission uses the time mentioned in the basic Regulation, including Article 6(1), as guidance ⁴ to ensure that the complaints’ data is as up to date as possible. Even if Article 6(1) applied at the initiation stage, that article provides for some flexibility as it states that ‘an investigation period shall be selected which in the case of dumping shall, normally, cover a period of no less than six months immediately prior to the initiation of proceedings’. Birla’s claim is without legal basis and was therefore rejected.

• (14) HFCL noted the difference between the data covered by the complaint (i.e. 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023) and the investigation period (i.e. 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2023) and requested the complaint to be updated by the data pertaining to the investigation period. It claimed that not providing such data would prevent interested parties from providing meaningful comments in relation to the injurious situation of the Union industry during the investigation period of the investigation. HFCL pointed in particular to the Commission’s alleged request to interested parties to present their submissions on injury to the Union industry. It claimed that interested parties were therefore denied their legitimate rights of defence and due process.

• (15) Europacable claimed that HFCL did not provide any legal basis in support of this claim. It noted that the period of investigation used for the purpose of the complaint is necessarily different from the one used in the proceeding itself, given the time lapse between the lodging of a complaint and the initiation of an investigation.

• (16) The information provided in the complaint was the basis of which the Commission decided to initiate the present investigation. Therefore, the fact that the period of investigation covered by the complaint differs from the investigation period of the investigation does not prevent interested parties from providing meaningful comments on the complaint and the initiation of the investigation. The complaint was deemed as complete as regards its mandatory requirements, according to Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation. Moreover, the Commission, in its notice of initiation, invited parties to cooperate by filling in a sampling form (point 5.3.1 (a) of the Notice of Initiation), to provide comments on the initiation or the complaint (point 5.2 of the Notice of Initiation), to provide information concerning the assessment of Union interest (point 5.5 of the Notice of Initiation); and provided for the possibility to comment on other parties’ submission. Detailed findings regarding the investigation period of the investigation are disclosed to interested parties at a later stage and they are given the opportunity to comment at that stage of the investigation. These claims were therefore rejected.

• (17) STL, HFCL and Birla claimed that the import data in the complaint were not accurate considering that it relied upon the full CN code 8544 70 00 which is broader than the product under investigation, rather than the TARIC code 8544700010 created in the previous investigation concerning the imports of OFC originating in China ⁵ (‘the China investigation’), which includes only the product concerned. These companies also contested the adjustments made to the import statistics on CN code basis by adding imports of OFC allegedly mis-declared as optical fibres under commodity code 9001 10. These parties claimed that no evidence was provided of misdeclarations. All these parties highlighted that commodity code 9001 10 referred to optical fibre cables, not made of individually sheathed fibres as ruled by Indian Courts, and thus not forming part of the scope of the investigation. STL also claimed that other third country imports of OFC may be mis-declared as optical fibres under commodity code 9001 10 as well, which was not taken into account by the complaint. Therefore, it was claimed that the import data in the complaint were over-estimated.

• (18) The methodology, reasoning, and sources for the adjustments to estimate the import volume of OFC from India were explained in detail in the complaint and considered to be sufficiently supported by evidence within the meaning of Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation. The complaint outlines and provides evidence why the statistics under CN code 8544 70 00 are more meaningful in the specific case of India, and why adjustments to this data were nonetheless required and on which basis such adjustments were made. Specifically, the complainant argues that the use of the TARIC code is preferrable for China, which not only produces and exports to the Union the product concerned but also submarine cables and multi-mode cables, but not for India. The complainant explains that India does not produce any submarine cables and manufactures a marginal quantity of multi-mode cables and provides evidence that nearly all the volume of imports of OFC from India falling under CN code 8544 70 00 consists in the product concerned. The Commission reviewed the evidence presented in the complaint and deemed that the use of CN code 8544 70 00. was appropriate. With regard to the use of commodity code 9001 10, which covers OF only and not OFC, the Commission deemed that the evidence provided by the complainant (correspondence in which Indian producers state that OFC are imported into the EU under HS Code 9001 10, under Indian ‘custom guidelines’ applied also in exports to other exports regions) is also appropriate. The fact that according to Indian Courts CN code 9001 10 00 referred to optical fibre cables, not made of individually sheathed fibres, is irrelevant, given that the product considered is always sheathed, and therefore falls under a different CN code, which is CN code 8544 70 00.

• (19) Furthermore, the exporting producers did not provide any evidence that the estimates made by the complainant were unreasonable or substantially wrong. Finally, there was no indication and there was no evidence available to the complainant that other third country imports were misdeclared under commodity code 9001 10 and that the import statistics of those countries should have been adjusted accordingly. These claims were therefore rejected.

• (20) HFCL claimed that the dumping margin in the complaint could not be considered as representative as it was calculated based on prices for only certain types of OFC (containing 24 and 48 fibres), that did not form a significant part of Indian exports. HFCL argued further that no evidence was provided that the models on which normal value was based are the same than the ones used for the determination of the export price. Finally, they claimed that there are many characteristics that may have an impact on costs and prices and when not taken properly into consideration, these may inflate the dumping margin.

• (21) In accordance with Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation the complaint should include evidence reasonably available to the complainant. Due to the confidential character of costs and prices the complainant could not have access to very detailed information in this regard and was therefore not required to provide such information. It was considered that the evidence provided with regard to the normal value and export price was sufficient and representative enough to justify the initiation of the investigation. The claim was therefore rejected.

• (22) Birla, HFCL and STL claimed that no evidence was provided in the complaint regarding the undercutting and underselling calculations. Birla, in addition, claimed that the prices used were not representative for the Indian producers or for the Union industry, while STL claimed that they did not cover the entire scope of the product under investigation, but only a subset of it. In this regard, the types of OFC considered in the complaint (namely cables containing 24 and 48 fibres for the dumping calculations, and 12, 24, 48 and 72 fibres for undercutting and underselling calculations) represent the most sold OFC on the EU market and the types for which the complainants were able to collect evidence in relation to prices of the Indian imports. Birla claimed that the complainants’ analysis of the import prices is flawed, and imports trends as shown in the complaint did in any event not show the alleged price pressure on the Union market. Birla also claimed that a separate analysis for the tender and spot markets should have been carried out, while STL further claimed that the target profit that was established during the investigation on OFC originating in China should not be taken into consideration to calculate the underselling margins in the current investigation.

• (23) As stated above, in accordance with Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation, the complainant is only required to provide evidence reasonably available to it. Thus, the complaint does not need to include data of all product types, or provide an analysis per market segment, in particular when such data is confidential and/or not publicly available. The Commission considered therefore that the evidence provided with regard to the undercutting and underselling calculations satisfied the threshold of Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation. Finally, the target profit used in the complaint for the calculation of the underselling margin was considered to be reasonable and STL could also not provide any convincing evidence at this stage of the proceeding that would show that its level was substantially erroneous or wrong. All claims with regard to the undercutting and underselling calculations were therefore rejected.

• (24) STL, referring to publicly available annual/interim reports of Prysmian Group, Acome, Hextronic, and Tratos, claimed that the Union industry did not suffer material injury, but was healthy and thriving.

• (25) The evidence in the complaint with regard to injury pertained to the development of injury indicators of the OFC business only and thus is considered more pertinent than publicly available information pertaining to companies at group level. This claim was therefore rejected.

• (26) Birla, HFCL and STL disagreed with the analysis of several injury indicators described in the complaint and claimed that their development did not point to an injurious situation. They also argued that data of the complainants was mixed with data of all Union producers of OFC and thus selectively used. STL and HFCL argued that in particular the data on production, sales, market share, production capacity and capacity utilization showed positive trends and therefore did not show any material injury. STL argued that the complainants had a healthy profitability, and any negative impact was due to drastic increases in investments, capacity, and the accumulation of stocks.

• (27) Overall, the trends of injury indicators in the complaint showed that the Union industry suffered material injury. Market share decreased from 2019 to 2022 and while regaining market share in the investigation period of the complaint, it remained below the levels of 2019. The same is true for the sales prices of the Union industry, i.e. they showed a decreasing trend, except in the investigation period of the complaint, where they increased albeit remaining largely below the sales prices in 2019. While production cost decreased, this was at a slower pace than the sales prices, with a negative effect on the Union industry’s profitability. The fact that other injury indicators such as sales volume and production volume as well as investments showed a positive trend has to be seen in the overall economic context and must also be balanced against the parallel development of the Union consumption that increased more than the Union industry’s sales volume. These positive developments as such do not mean that the Union industry did not suffer material injury. The fact that profitability increased at the end of the investigation period of the complaint does not contradict the significantly negative development since 2019 and the fact that the Union industry was not able to increase its sales prices in line with the increase of its cost. The Commission considered that the complainant provided sufficient evidence that the Union industry suffered material injury. The claims in this regard were therefore rejected.

• (28) With regard to the claim that data on the injury indicators was selectively provided, the Commission notes that the complainant established data for macroeconomic indicators (such as sales volume, production volume and market share) based on information pertaining to all Union producers, while data for microeconomic indicators (such as profitability and sales prices) were provided based on data pertaining to the complainants. This is the same methodology the Commission applies in investigations where sampling is used and was therefore considered legitimate and reasonable. It cannot therefore be argued that such data were selectively used, and this claim was therefore rejected. Moreover, as noted in recital (10) above, the Commission added an open version to the file for inspection by interested parties providing aggregate data of the complainant’s figures.

• (29) Birla, HFCL, and STL claimed that the complaint failed to establish a causal link between the Indian imports and the alleged injury to Union producers. They claimed that the complainant did not establish a correlation between the imports of OFC from India and the material injury and did not sufficiently consider other factors that could have caused the material injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (30) STL claimed that the causation analysis was tainted because it was based on incorrect import volumes. Furthermore, they claimed that import volumes and market share from India could not be looked at in isolation but in the broader context of the dynamics of the whole market. Birla claimed that the increase in imports from India was not to the detriment of Union producers and that the market share of Union producers evolved mostly in accordance with the market share of imports from other countries. Further, they claimed that there was no proven undercutting or underselling, and that import prices were above the prices of the Union industry; therefore, imports from India did not have a negative price effect on the Union industry.

• (31) Birla, HFCL, and STL argued that it was other factors that caused the injury to the Union industry. They claimed that the imports of the same product from China that had lower import prices and higher market shares caused the injury, in particular considering that the absorption practices of OFC exporters from China still had effects during the investigation period of the complaint ⁶.

• (32) STL, HFCL and Birla further invoked a number of other factors that caused the injury to the Union industry that were not addressed in the complaint: (i) the cost increase in raw materials and energy, (ii) the COVID-19 pandemic, and supply chain disruptions; (iii) the substantial increase in investments, production capacity and stocks (self-inflicted injury); (iv) the imports from other third countries; (v) the competition amongst Union producers on the Union market; and (vi) the anti-competitive behaviour of certain complainants.

• (33) Europacable noted that, in contrast, the complaint showed that the Chinese imports did not break the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury suffered by the Union industry. They further highlighted that the Union industry had to maintain its level of investments in line with the market growth to remain competitive and that the investments of the Union industry therefore could not break the causal link between the dumped Indian imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry. Europacable also refuted the argument of anti-competitive behaviour as it was not related to the product under investigation and highlighted that the increase in cost was followed by an increase in sales prices. They finally argued that the Commission during the investigation concerning imports of OFC originating in China had already established that the COVID-19 pandemic only had a very limited and temporary impact on the industry ⁷.

• (34) The Commission considered that the complaint provided sufficient evidence within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the basic Regulation that there was a coincidence in time of a substantial increase of dumped imports of OFC originating in India and the overall decline of the situation of the Union industry. The complaint also showed that import prices were undercutting the Union industry’s sales price on the Union market. In conclusion, the evidence in the complaint pointed to a correlation between the imports from India and the injurious situation of the Union industry and thus a causal link. These arguments were therefore rejected.

• (35) The complaint also analysed other possible causes of injury, i.e. imports from other third countries; imports from China, and the export performance of the Union industry. The claim made by Birla, HFCL, and STL that the imports of the same product from China caused the injury was rejected. Antidumping measures on imports from China were imposed in November 2021 and amended in August 2023 after an anti-absorption investigation ⁸, and countervailing measures in January 2022 ⁹. While the volume of imports from China remains high, the imposition of measures had the effect of decreasing the volume of imports after the first quarter of 2022. The market share of Chinese imports of OFC decreased from 36,6 % in 2022 to 33 % in the investigation period used in the complaint. Moreover, according to TARIC statistics, the volume of imports of OFC from China decreased substantially by 57 % between Q4 2021 (310 249 cable-km) and Q1 2023 (133 164 cable-km), while prices only started increasing in Q3 2022. The absence of a sufficient and long-lasting increase in prices was addressed by the abovementioned anti-absorption investigation.

• (36) This analysis and the information provided in this regard was considered sufficient to initiate the investigation.

• (37) Birla submitted that the complaint failed to consider the impact of the measures in the overall economic context, taking into consideration also the interests of the importers and the users in the Union.

• (38) In accordance with Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation, the complainant is not required to include in its complaint an analysis of Union interest aspects, but only needs to provide evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link between the allegedly dumped imports and the alleged injury. This argument was therefore rejected.

• (39) STL claimed that the Union industry was not defined in the non-confidential file of the investigation which constituted a breach of its rights of defence. In STL’s view neither the notice of initiation nor the macro-questionnaire response precisely specifies which OFC producers comprise the Union industry. The Commission made available in the non-confidential file the list of the known Union producers of OFC. This claim was therefore rejected.

1.5.   Sampling

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

Sampling of Union producers

• (41) In its Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected a representative sample on the basis of the largest volume of production and sales of the like product in the Union during the investigation period that also ensured a large geographical spread. This sample consisted of three Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for more than 50 % of the estimated total volume of production and more than 75 % of the total estimated sales of the like product in the Union. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received on the provisional sample, and it was confirmed as the final sample.

Sampling of importers

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

• (43) One unrelated importer 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. No comments were received.

Sampling of exporting producers in India

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

• (45) Eleven exporting producers belonging to nine groups 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 three 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 more than 80 % of total exports of optical fibre cables from India to the Union during the investigation period. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers and the authorities of the country concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample.

• (46) No comments on the sample were received.

1.6.   Questionnaire replies and verification visits

• (47) The Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled exporting producers, to the three sampled Union producers, to the importer that replied to the sampling form and to known users. The same questionnaires were made available online ¹⁰ on the day of initiation. The Commission also sent a questionnaire requesting the macro-indicators of the Union industry to the complainant.

• (48) The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

Union producers:

• — Acome S. A. (France)

• — Corning Optical Communications Sp. z o.o. (Poland), and its related companies Corning Pouyet SAS (France), Corning Optical Communication GmbH & Co. KG. (Germany), Corning Optical Communications, S.r.l. (Italy), and Corning Optical Communications, S.L. (Spain).

Exporting producers in India:

MP Birla Group:

• — Birla Cable Ltd, Rewa (‘BCL’)

• — Universal Cables Ltd, Goa (‘UCL’)

• — Vindhya Telelinks Ltd, Rewa (‘VTL’)

HFCL Group:

• — HFCL Ltd, Hyderabad (‘HFCL’)

• — HTL Limited, Chennai (‘HTL’)

STL Group:

• — Sterlite Technologies Ltd, Rakholi (‘STL’)

• — Sterlite Tech Cables Solutions Ltd, Aurangabad (‘STCS’).

• (49) In addition, the Commission carried out a remote cross check of the questionnaire reply provided by the sampled company Prysmian S.p.A., and its related companies (Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Sweden), and of the macro-questionnaire reply provided by the complainant.

1.7.   Investigation period and period considered

• (50) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2023 (‘the investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2020 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

2. PRODUCT UNDER INVESTIGATION, PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

2.1.   Product under investigation

• (51) The product under investigation is single mode optical fibre cables, made up of one or more individually sheathed fibres, with protective casing, whether or not containing electric conductors, whether or not connectorized.

• (52) The following products are excluded:

• (a) cables below 500 meters in length in which all the optical fibres are individually fitted with operational connectors at one or both extremities; and

• (b) cables for submarine use, plastic insulated, containing a copper or aluminium conductor, in which fibres are contained in metal module(s).

• (53) Optical fibre cables are used as an optical transmission medium in telecommunication networks in long haul, metro, and access networks.

2.2.   Product concerned

• (54) The product concerned is the product under investigation originating in India, currently falling under CN code ex 8544 70 00 (TARIC codes 8544700010 and 8544700091) (‘the product concerned’).

2.3.   Like product

• (55) 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 when exported to the Union;

• — the product under investigation produced and sold on the domestic market of India; and

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

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

2.4.   Claims regarding product scope

• (57) The Commission received a request for clarification of the product scope from one exporting producer, namely Aksh Optifibre Limited (‘Aksh’).

• (58) Aksh claimed that in case optical fibre cables are not made up of individually sheathed fibres, they should be excluded from the scope of the investigation, in line with the product definition in the Notice of Initiation. In this regard, the company argued that ‘sheath’ should be understood as ‘any layer that covers or fits closely over something for protection’. Aksh claimed that all fibres which are not individually sheathed within this meaning would fall under HS heading 9001 (‘optical fibre cables other than those of HS heading 8544’) and are not subject to the present investigation. This exporting producer argued that the description of the product scope in the complaint, however, would be ambiguous because it specified that optical fibres are covered by tubes/modules and a single jacket or multiple jackets to protect the fibre, and thus did not refer explicitly to ‘sheathing’. This exporting producer also claimed that optical fibres not individually sheathed are also used in different applications such as long haul and metro networks, while optical fibres with individually sheathed fibres are not used in these applications.

• (59) HFCL and Birla agreed with Aksh that optical fibres not individually sheathed should be excluded from the scope of this investigation. They relied in support of their interpretation of what constitutes ‘an individual sheath’ on a judgment of 21 November 2017 of the Indian Appellate Tribunal in the case Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai vs Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. ¹¹, which concerned the customs classification of certain OFC imported in India. The Indian authority considered the definition of the term ‘individually sheathed’ and found that a ‘“sheath” is something different from a “coating”’.

• (60) Europacable disagreed with the Indian exporting producers and argued that the protective coating applied to a glass fibre core is generally considered as ‘individually sheathed fibre’, a view which would also be confirmed by the Explanatory Note to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union ¹² concerning CN code 8544 70 00, which sets out that the glass fibre core and the cladding are protected by an ‘inner sheath of soft acrylate coating’ and an ‘outer sheath of hard acrylate coating’. Finally, Europacable reiterated that the scope of the current investigation cover OFC which are used, inter alia, in long haul, metro, and access networks, in contrast to what was claimed by Aksh.

• (61) The Commission considered that the Indian exporting producers’ interpretation of the term ‘individually sheathed fibres’ did not correspond to the understanding in the European Union, as clarified in the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union. Besides what the Commission already recalled above at recital (18), a ruling of a foreign authority, such as the Indian Appellate Tribunal builds on foreign law and therefore cannot have a bearing on the interpretation and application of European Union customs law. Therefore, the claims made by the Indian exporting producers in this regard were rejected.

3. DUMPING

3.1.   Normal value

• (62) The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for each sampled cooperating 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 considered as representative.

• (63) The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union for the exporting producers with representative domestic sales.

• (64) The Commission then examined whether the domestic sales by each sampled exporting producer on its domestic market for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of a product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the identical or comparable product type to the Union. The Commission established that the domestic sales of certain product types were not representative for the sampled exporting producers.

• (65) The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each product type 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (69) The analysis of domestic sales quantity showed that, depending on the product type and the exporting producer, 3 % to 97 % of all domestic sales were profitable and that the weighted average sales price was, as long as more than 5 % of the domestic sales of the respective product type were profitable, higher than the cost of production. Accordingly, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales during the investigation period or a weighted average of the profitable sales only.

• (70) For certain product types for which there were no domestic sales of a product type of the like product, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission established the normal value based on the domestic prices of the other exporting producers, except in cases in which using such prices would lead to the disclosure of confidential business information. In such cases, the Commission constructed the normal value by adding to the cost of production the weighted average selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses and profit of all transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market. Detailed information was provided in the individual disclosures to the exporting producers concerned due to confidentiality reasons.

• (71) For certain product types for which there were no or insufficient sales of a product type of the like product in the ordinary course of trade or where a product type was not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

• (72) For certain product types, normal value was constructed by adding the following to the average cost of production of the like product of the cooperating sampled exporting producers during the investigation period:

• (a) the weighted average SG&A expenses incurred by the cooperating sampled exporting producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the IP; and

• (b) the weighted average profit realised by the cooperating sampled exporting producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the IP.

• (73) For the product types not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the average SG&A expenses and profit of transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market for those types were added. For the product types not sold at all on the domestic market, the weighted average SG&A expenses and profit of all transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market were added.

• (74) During the on-spot verifications, HFCL group and STL group, claimed that the cost of production for OFC should not include the profit transferred between related parties or between business divisions that manufacture the semi-finished products (such as preformed glass and/or optical fibres) used in the production of OFC. These parties explained that for financial, accounting or taxes principles, the transfer price between two business divisions was based on market prices. Therefore, depending on the market price, the transfer price may have been higher compared with the actual costs for producing the semi-finished products. Both parties claimed that the transfer price/value between business divisions/related parties included a certain percentage of profit. The Commission used the costs of production as booked and reported by the company as verified in their accounting system. The Commission considered that those booked costs reflected correctly the costs in relation to those semi-finished products and therefore there was no basis for an adjustment. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

• (75) For one company within the Birla group and one within the STL group, the SG&A expenses included also expenses and income that were not linked to the sales of OFC in the investigation period. Therefore, these expenses and financial income were disregarded in the calculation of the SG&A expenses used in the determination of the normal value. More detailed explanations were provided in the individual disclosure to that exporting producers due to confidentiality reasons.

3.2.   Export price

• (76) The sampled exporting producers exported to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related companies acting as an importer.

• (77) For the exporting producers 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.

• (78) STL group claimed that its related subsidiary located in France was not acting as a related importer but had a limited role in logistic (i.e. acting as a warehouse).

• (79) However, the verification visit in India, revealed that the staff employed by STL France were dealing with the customs clearance operations, with sales of OFC and to develop the French market. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the related subsidiary was acting as a related importer and calculated the export price in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.

• (80) Accordingly, 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 this case, adjustments to the price were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including SG&A expenses, and for profits accruing. In absence of cooperation from an unrelated importer, the Commission relied on the profit established in the China investigation for an unrelated importer of the same product as the product concerned in the present investigation and that was disclosed in ranges, i.e. 15 %–25 % ¹³. On this basis the Commission decided to use as a profit of 20 %.

• (81) Moreover, STL group also sold OFC to a second related company at provisional stage, but the Commission was not able to establish processing cost, SG&A expenses and a reasonable profit margin on the basis of which the export prices for these transactions should be constructed within the meaning of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, these sales were not taken into account for the purpose of establishing the export price at provisional stage. The Commission will however further investigate this issue and establish these elements at definitive stage of this investigation.

3.3.   Comparison

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

• (83) Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation requires the Commission to make a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price at the same level of trade and to make allowances for differences in factors which affect prices and price comparability. In the case at hand the Commission chose to compare the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers at the ex-works level of trade. As further explained below, where appropriate, the normal value and the export price were adjusted in order to: (i) net them back to the ex-works level; and (ii) make allowances for differences in factors which were claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability.

3.3.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

• (84) In order to net the normal value back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of transport, warehousing costs insurance, handling and loading and packing expenses.

• (85) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: commission, credit costs and bank charges.

3.3.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

• (86) In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of transport, warehousing costs, insurance, handling and loading expenses and packing expenses.

• (87) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: commission, credit costs and bank charges.

• (88) All sampled companies claimed adjustments to the export price for duty drawback and Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products (RODTEP). The Commission noted that under Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation an adjustment for such schemes shall be made to the normal value, not to the export price. In addition, under the schemes the sampled exporters received export refunds worth a certain percentage of the export invoice value or a certain amount per unit of product exported, irrespective of whether any duties or taxes were actually paid for the raw materials used in the exported OFC and in what amount. Finally, the claimed adjustments could not be linked to the amounts corresponding to any import charges or indirect taxes borne by the like product and by materials physically incorporated therein, as provided in Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation. For the above reasons, the claim was rejected.

3.4.   Dumping margins

• (89) For the sampled cooperating exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

• (90) On this basis, the provisional weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Provisional dumping margin
MP Birla Group	6,9 %
Sterlite Technologies Limited	11,4  %
HFCL Limited	0 %

• (91) 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. Therefore, that margin was established on the basis of the margins of the sampled exporting producers, disregarding the exporting found not to be dumping.

• (92) On this basis, the provisional dumping margin of the non-sampled cooperating exporting producers is 9,0 %.

• (93) For all other exporting producers in India, 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.

• (94) The level of cooperation in this case was considered high because the exports of the cooperating exporting producers covered the totality of imports during the investigation period. On this basis, the Commission decided to establish the dumping margin for non-cooperating exporting producers at the level of the sampled company with the highest dumping margin.

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

Company	Provisional dumping margin
MP Birla Group	6,9 %
Sterlite Technologies Limited Group	11,4  %
HFCL Group	0 %
Other cooperating companies	9,0 %
All other companies	11,4 %

4. INJURY

4.1.   Unit of measurement

• (96) Although the official import statistics are reported in kilograms, the Commission considered that this unit was not suitable for a proper measurement of the volumes concerned. The investigation showed that the industry commonly does not use weight but length as a main volume indicator. This could measure either the length of the cable (cable-km), or the total length of the fibres contained therein (fibre-km). During the investigation on imports of optical fibre cables originating in China ¹⁴ the Commission considered that cable-km was the most appropriate unit of measurement. The same approach was used in this case.

4.2.   Definition of the Union industry and Union production

• (97) The like product was manufactured by 14 producers or 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.

• (98) The total Union production during the investigation period was established at around 1,7 million cable-km. The Commission established this figure on the basis of all the available information concerning the Union industry, such as direct information from the three sampled Union producers, five other Union producers supporting the complaint and market intelligence for the remaining producers. As indicated in recital (41), the three sampled Union producers represented more than 50 % of the estimated total volume of production of the like product.

4.3.   Captive use

• (99) To establish whether the Union industry suffered injury as a result of dumping 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 (captive use) had to be taken into account in the analysis.

• (100) The Commission found that between 9 % and 13 % of the sampled Union producers’ production was destined for captive use during the period considered. The cables were in that case delivered within departments of the same company or to groups of companies for further downstream processing, in particular for the production of cables fitted with connectors.

• (101) 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, products destined for free market sale are in direct competition with imports of the product concerned.

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

• (103) 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.

• (104) However, other economic indicators could meaningfully be examined only by referring to the whole activity, including the captive use of the Union industry ¹⁵. 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.

4.4.   Union consumption

• (105) The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of the sales made by the Union industry on the Union market as determined by the complainant plus import data from India established in line with the methodology described in Section 4.6.1.

• (106) Imports from other third countries were established on the basis of Eurostat data. Since Eurostat identifies imports of the product concerned in kg, imports were converted into cable-km in line with recital (96) using the same conversion factor that was applied for Indian exporting producers.

• (107) Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 2

Union consumption (cable-km)

	2020	2021	2022	Investigation period
Total Union consumption (free and captive)	2 388 549	2 744 968	2 578 597	2 480 978
Index	100	116	108	104
Captive market	139 500	141 971	212 803	205 264
Index	100	88	145	145
Free market	2 249 049	2 602 997	2 365 795	2 275 714
Index	100	116	105	101
Source: Cooperating exporting producers, Eurostat, complainant.	Source: Cooperating exporting producers, Eurostat, complainant.	Source: Cooperating exporting producers, Eurostat, complainant.	Source: Cooperating exporting producers, Eurostat, complainant.	Source: Cooperating exporting producers, Eurostat, complainant.

• (108) The total Union consumption, including free and captive, increased by 16 % between 2020 and 2021 from about 2,4 million cable-km in 2020 to about 2,7 million cable-km in 2021. Between 2022 and the investigation period, it decreased by about 4 % to about 2,5 million cable-km. The increase in consumption in 2021 can be explained by a catch-up effect following the disruptions linked to the COVID-19 pandemic.

• (109) The captive market is constituted by the use of OFC in connectivity solutions offered by the companies, including cables fitted with connectors. The volumes were 9 % of the total Union consumption during the investigation period. Captive sales showed an increase of 45 % throughout the period considered.

• (110) The free-market consumption developed in line with the total Union consumption. It increased in 2021 by 15 %, followed by a decrease of 9,5 % in 2022 and an increase in the investigation period by 5,7 %. There was an increase of 1 % from 2020 to the investigation period.

4.5.   Imports from the country concerned

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

• (111) The Commission established the volume of imports from India on the basis of the verified questionnaire replies of the sampled exporting producers and the information provided by the cooperating non-sampled exporting producers. As mentioned in recital (96), the unit of measurement used was cable-km. On this basis, the volume of imports from India in the investigation period constituted 113 % of the total Indian imports reported by Eurostat for the same period.

• (112) Europacable requested the Commission to include in the determination of import volumes from India also imports declared under commodity code 9001 10, claiming that the Indian exporting producers would wrongly declare imports of OFC under this code. The fact that import volumes declared by the Indian exporting producers exceeded the volumes recorded under CN code 8544 70 00 and TARIC codes 8544700010 and 8544700091 could be an indication of such misdeclarations. However, given the high cooperation received from the exporting producers in India, the import quantities from India were identified with a high level of accuracy, irrespective of the CN codes under which they were declared. This claim was therefore rejected.

• (113) The market share of the total imports from India was established on the basis of the import volume as compared to the volume of total free market consumption shown in Table 2.

• (114) As described in recital (90) significant dumping was found for two of the sampled exporting producers. The Commission therefore distinguished between dumped and non-dumped Indian imports in the further analysis. Thus, the effect of the dumped imports on the situation of the Union industry is addressed below, while the effect of the non-dumped imports is examined under causation aspects in recitals (182) and (183). Non-dumped imports are thus presented and discussed in Table 12 below.

• (115) The volume of non-dumped imports from the HFCL group amounted to [25–35 %] of total imports from India in the investigation period. To establish whether the findings with regard to this company could be extended to all non-sampled imports, the Commission compared the prices of HFCL to prices from the non-sampled cooperating exporting producers. Based on the information submitted in the sampling forms and in the questionnaire reply, HFCL’s average export price was [5–15 %] higher than the average export price of the 5 non-sampled Indian exporters that submitted sampling replies. The total export volume of those companies accounted for 15 % of all imports from India into the Union. Therefore, the Commission considered that it could not extend the findings of absence of dumping regarding HFCL group to the non-sampled exporting producers.

• (116) Dumped imports into the Union from the country concerned developed as follows:

Table 3

Dumped import volume and market share

	2020	2021	2022	Investigation period
Volume of dumped imports from the country concerned (cable-km)	[48 300 –58 500 ]	[76 300 –92 400 ]	[136 700 –165 500 ]	[136 700 –165 400 ]
Index	100	158	283	283
Market share (%)	[2 –3 ]	[2 –4 ]	[5 –7 ]	[6 –8 ]
Index	100	136	269	279
Source: Sampled and non-sampled cooperating exporting producers, Eurostat.	Source: Sampled and non-sampled cooperating exporting producers, Eurostat.	Source: Sampled and non-sampled cooperating exporting producers, Eurostat.	Source: Sampled and non-sampled cooperating exporting producers, Eurostat.	Source: Sampled and non-sampled cooperating exporting producers, Eurostat.

• (117) Dumped imports from India showed a strong increase over the period considered from [48 300–58 500] cable-km in 2020 to [136 700–165 400] cable-km in the investigation period. This increase of 183 % exceeds by far the development on consumption and shows the magnitude of the market penetration by Indian imports.

• (118) As a result, the market share of the dumped imports increased from [2–3] % to [6–8] % over the period considered, a sharp increase of 181 %. It should be noted that the volumes of Indian dumped imports increased in particular in the period of 2020-2022.

4.5.2.   Prices of the dumped imports from the country concerned, price undercutting and price suppression

• (119) The Commission established the prices of dumped imports on the basis of the verified questionnaire replies of the sampled exporting producers and the information provided by the cooperating non-sampled exporting producers. Price undercutting of the imports was established on the basis of CIF prices for the sampled exporting producers and the verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (120) The weighted average price of dumped imports into the Union from the country concerned developed as follows:

Table 4

Import prices (EUR/cable-km)

	2020	2021	2022	Investigation period
India	1 015	593	574	548
Index	100	58	57	54
Source: Sampled and non-sampled cooperating exporting producers.	Source: Sampled and non-sampled cooperating exporting producers.	Source: Sampled and non-sampled cooperating exporting producers.	Source: Sampled and non-sampled cooperating exporting producers.	Source: Sampled and non-sampled cooperating exporting producers.

• (121) Prices of dumped imports from India decreased from 1 015 to 548 EUR/cable-km over the period considered, a fall of 46 %. Except for 2020; Indian prices were consistently below the price of the Union industry during the period considered (see Table 8).

• (122) Against this backdrop, the Commission determined the price undercutting during the investigation period by comparing:

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

• (2) the corresponding weighted average prices per product type of the imports from the sampled cooperating Indian producers to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a Cost, insurance, freight (CIF) basis, with appropriate adjustments for post-importation costs.

• (123) Where the export price was adjusted pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation for the dumping calculation, for the calculation of undercutting and injury margin, the export price (‘constructed CIF’) was calculated on the basis of the invoice value to the first independent customer, from which importation related allowances to the CIF point, as well as the SG&A and profit of the related importer were deducted, applying Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation by analogy, as allowed by the case law ¹⁶.

• (124) 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’ theoretical turnover during the investigation period. For the two sampled exporting producers which were found to be dumping, it showed an undercutting margin of 37 % and 46 %, respectively.

• (125) In any event, regardless of the findings of undercutting, the Commission found that the dumped imports significantly depressed the prices of the Union, which decreased during the period considered whilst cost of production constantly increased. The Union industry could not increase their prices to the necessary levels to make reasonable profits, as shown by the underselling levels found during the IP.

4.6.   Economic situation of the Union industry

4.6.1.   General remarks

• (126) In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

• (127) For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the questionnaire reply submitted by the complainant covering 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.

• (128) 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.

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

4.6.2.   Macroeconomic indicators

4.6.2.1.   Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

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

Table 5

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

	2020	2021	2022	Investigation period
Production volume (cable-km)	1 441 476	1 694 627	1 755 090	1 730 822
Index	100	118	122	120
Production capacity (cable-km)	2 475 938	2 605 845	2 678 345	2 796 286
Index	100	105	108	113
Capacity utilisation (%)	58	65	66	62
Index	100	112	113	106
Source: Verified macro-questionnaire.	Source: Verified macro-questionnaire.	Source: Verified macro-questionnaire.	Source: Verified macro-questionnaire.	Source: Verified macro-questionnaire.

• (131) Throughout the period considered, the production volume of the Union industry increased from roughly 1,4 million cable-km to approximately 1,7 million cable-km, i.e. overall by 20 %. A more detailed analysis showed that the increase in production volume occurred mainly from 2020 to 2021 where it grew by 18 %, it further increased slightly by 4 % in 2022, while it fell again by 1 % in the investigation period.

• (132) During the period considered, production capacity increased by 13 % which reflects the investments made by some of the Union producers. Despite the increase, investment levels remained overall at very low levels and were at the minimum necessary to maintain market presence of the Union industry.

• (133) Capacity utilization increased by 13 % over the period of 2020 to 2022, followed by a decrease of 4 percentage points in the investigation period, which is due to the decrease in production during the same period.

4.6.2.2.   Sales volume and market share

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

Table 6

Sales volume and market share

	2020	2021	2022	Investigation period
Total sales volume on the Union market (free and captive) (cable-km)	1 023 831	1 185 920	1 212 812	1 244 041
Index	100	116	118	122
Captive market sales (cable-km)	139 500	141 971	212 803	205 264
Index	100	102	153	147
Market share of captive market sales as % of the free market (%)	6,4	5,6	9,3	9,3
Index	100	88	146	146
Free market sales (cable-km)	884 331	1 043 949	1 000 009	1 038 777
Index	100	118	113	117
Market share of free market sales (%)	40,4	41,3	43,7	47,2
Index	100	102	108	117
Source: Verified macro-questionnaire.	Source: Verified macro-questionnaire.	Source: Verified macro-questionnaire.	Source: Verified macro-questionnaire.	Source: Verified macro-questionnaire.

• (135) Throughout the period considered, the total Union sales volume of the Union industry on the free and captive market increased from roughly 1 million cable-km in 2020 to over 1,2 million cable-km in the investigation period, i.e. by 22 %.

• (136) Union sales volume on the free market increased from around 880 000 cable-km in 2020 to around 1 040 000 cable-km in the investigation period, i.e. by 17 % over the period considered. This translated in an increase of market share from 40,4 % in 2020 to 47,2 % in the investigation period.