Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2163 of 14 August 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel originating in the People's Republic of China

• (260) Subsequently, in the Second Note, the Commission stated that, in order to construct the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, it would use the Global Trade Atlas ¹³⁶ (‘GTA’) database to establish the undistorted cost of most of the factors of production, notably the raw materials. In addition, the Commission stated that it would use information published by the Malaysian Institute of Labour Market Information and Analysis (‘ILMIA’) ¹³⁷ for establishing undistorted costs of labour, by Tenaga Nasional Berhad (‘TNB’) ¹³⁸ for electricity, by the Energy Commission (Suruhanjaya Tenaga) ¹³⁹ for natural gas and steam, and by the National Water Services Commission (‘SPAN’) ¹⁴⁰ for water.

3.2.4.   Undistorted costs and benchmarks

3.2.4.1.   Factors of production

• (261) Considering all the information submitted by the interested parties and collected during the verification visits, the following factors of production and their sources have been identified in order to determine the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation:

Table 1

Factors of production of biodiesel

Factor of Production / Category	Factor of Production / Description	Goods codes of Malaysian customs nomenclature	Source of data	Unit value (CNY)	Unit of measurement
Feedstock	Brown grease, food waste, soap stock, SBEO, fatty acids	3823 19 11 , 3823 19 19 , 3823 19 90	GTA	7,54	kg
Feedstock	POME, palm oil fatty acids	3823 19 20 , 3823 19 30	GTA	7,73	kg
Feedstock	UCO, industrial mixed oil, swill oil, transesterified oil	1518 00 20 , 1518 00 33 , 1518 00 34 , 1518 00 35 , 1518 00 39 , 1518 00 60 , 1518 00 90	GTA	7,83	kg
Other input	Activated white clay	3802 90 10 , 3802 90 20 , 3802 90 90	GTA	2,25	kg
Other input	Coagulant Reducer	3811 90 10 , 3811 90 90	GTA	25,01	kg
Other input	Glycerol	1520 00 10 , 1520 00 90	GTA	2,30	kg
Other input	Hydrogen	Not applicable	Malaysian domestic prices adjusted	3,52	m3
Other input	Methanol	2905 11	GTA	2,45	kg
Other input	Potassium hydroxide	2815 20	GTA	5,11	kg
Other input	Sodium methanol	2905 19	GTA	9,01	kg
By-product	Fatty acids	3823 19 11 , 3823 19 19 , 3823 19 90	GTA	7,54	kg
By-product	Glycerol, crude glycerine	1520 00 10 , 1520 00 90	GTA	2,30	kg
By-product	Heavy biodiesel	3826 00 29	GTA	5,19	kg
Energy	Biopitch	1522 00 10 , 1522 00 90	GTA	2,07	kg
Energy	Coal	2701 11	GTA	1,59	kg
Energy	Electricity	Not applicable	Malaysian domestic prices	0,51 -0,71	kWh
Energy	Fuel oil	2710 19 45 , 2710 19 46 , 2710 19 72 , 2710 19 79	GTA	4,63	kg
Energy	Natural gas	Not applicable	Malaysian domestic prices	1,96 -2,00	m3
Energy	Steam	Not applicable	Malaysian domestic prices	168,47	tonne
Energy	Water	Not applicable	Malaysian domestic prices	3,64	tonne
Labour	Labour	Not applicable	Malaysian domestic labour cost adjusted	75,91	hour

• (262) The Commission included a value for manufacturing overhead costs in order to cover costs not included in the factors of production referred to above. To establish this amount, the Commission used the manufacturing overhead cost incurred by the sampled exporting producers duly adjusted to an undistorted level. The methodology is duly explained in recitals (277) and (278).

3.2.4.1.1.   Inputs and raw materials

• (263) In order to establish the undistorted price of inputs and raw materials as delivered at the gate of a representative country producer, the Commission used as a basis the weighted average import price to the representative country as reported in the GTA database to which import duties and transport costs were added. An import price in the representative country was determined as a weighted average of unit prices of imports from all third countries excluding the PRC and countries which are not members of the WTO, listed in Annex 1 of Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and the Council ¹⁴¹. The Commission decided to exclude imports from the PRC into the representative country as it concluded in section 3.2.1 that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the PRC due to the existence of significant distortions in accordance with Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. Given that there is no evidence showing that the same distortions do not equally affect products intended for export, the Commission considered that the same distortions affected export prices. The remaining volumes were considered by the Commission to be representative. Furthermore, with regard to undistorted cost of POME, palm oil fatty acids, UCO, industrial mixed oil, swill oil, and transesterified oil, the Commission also excluded imports originating in Indonesia. As described in recitals (232) and (238), the Commission found that the prices of the above-mentioned feedstocks were distorted by the application of export tax by Indonesia.

• (264) To determine the applicable import duties per goods code and country of origin, the Commission consulted the Market Access Map. ¹⁴² The import duties were added to the CIF value recorded in the Malaysian import statistics as available in the GTA database.

• (265) The Commission expressed the transport cost incurred by the sampled exporting producers for the supply of raw materials as a percentage of the actual cost of such raw materials and then applied the same percentage to the undistorted cost of the same raw materials in order to obtain the undistorted transport cost. The Commission considered that, in the context of this investigation, the ratio between the exporting producer’s raw material and the reported transport costs could be reasonably used as an indication to estimate the undistorted transport costs of raw materials when delivered to the company’s factory.

• (266) In its comments on the First Note, EcoCeres argued that the import statistics were not a reliable source of benchmark for hydrogen for the following reasons:

• — The import quantity in Malaysia was not representative.

• — Hydrogen used by EcoCeres was produced by a production method different from the those predominantly used worldwide.

• — The internationally traded hydrogen as well as the existing international price indexes allegedly concerned hydrogen of fuel grade. Hydrogen of fuel grade has a higher purity grade, and consequently a higher price, than the one used by the company.

• (267) The company suggested that the Commission should use the pricing mechanism included in the company’s hydrogen supply contract. Alternatively, the company referred to a domestic price of hydrogen made available by the Malaysian government in November 2023 ¹⁴³ and thus likely based on prices applicable during the investigation period.

• (268) The Commission found that the import quantity of hydrogen to Malaysia was indeed very low (slightly less than 155 m³). Therefore, at this stage, the Commission used the domestic price published by the Malaysian government ¹⁴⁴ as the source of undistorted cost of hydrogen. As the price refers to hydrogen used as energy source, the Commission adjusted the price for the difference between the price of hydrogen for energy and for industrial use based on the statistics collected by the Clean Hydrogen Partnership ¹⁴⁵.

3.2.4.1.2.   Consumables

• (269) For a number of factors of production, the actual costs incurred by certain sampled exporting producers represented a negligible share of total raw material costs in the investigation period. As the value of these factors of production had no appreciable impact on the dumping margin calculations, regardless of the source used, the Commission decided to include those costs into consumables. The actual verified value of consumables was expressed as a share of the actual verified cost of raw materials of the sampled exporting producers. This percentage was used to establish the undistorted value of consumables as described in recital (287).

3.2.4.1.3.   Labour

• (270) The statistical data on the labour cost in Malaysia is published by the Malaysian Institute of Labour Market Information and Analysis (‘ILMIA’) ¹⁴⁶. The Commission used the information on total labour cost of technicians and associate professionals in 2016. The 2016 average monthly value was duly adjusted for inflation using the domestic producer price index as published by the World Bank ¹⁴⁷. To establish the hourly labour cost, the Commission applied the information collected by the ILO Department of Statistics (‘ILOSTAT’) on average weekly hours actually worked per employed person ¹⁴⁸.

3.2.4.1.4.   Electricity

• (271) The price of electricity for companies (industrial users) in Malaysia is published by TNB ¹⁴⁹. The Commission used the data of the industrial electricity prices in the corresponding consumption band in kWh covering the investigation period. Where available, the peak and off-peak tariffs were taken into account.

• (272) The undistorted cost of electricity used for each sampled exporting producer varies depending on the consumption band under which it falls.

3.2.4.1.5.   Natural gas and steam

• (273) The price of natural gas for companies (industrial users) in Malaysia is published by the Energy Commission (Suruhanjaya Tenaga) ¹⁵⁰. The Commission used the data for non-residential gas prices in the corresponding consumption band, which were reported in mmBtu, covering the investigation period.

• (274) The undistorted cost of natural gas used for each sampled exporting producer varies depending on the consumption band under which it falls.

• (275) The Commission determined the undistorted cost of steam based on the undistorted cost of natural gas and following the methodology published by the U.S. Department of Energy ¹⁵¹. Since the methodology calculates only the fuel cost of steam, the Commission adjusted the fuel cost for the SG&A and profit of the Malaysian gas supplying company, Gas Malaysia Energy & Services Sdn. Bhd. (‘GMES’) ¹⁵².

3.2.4.1.6.   Water

• (276) The water tariffs were announced by the National Water Services Commission (‘SPAN’) in Malaysia. The Commission used tariffs applicable for non-domestic users in various regions of Malaysia ¹⁵³.

3.2.4.2.   Manufacturing overhead costs, SG&A, profits and depreciation

• (277) According to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, “the constructed normal value shall include an undistorted and reasonable amount for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits”. In addition, a value for manufacturing overhead costs needs to be established to cover costs not included in the factors of production referred to above.

• (278) The manufacturing overheads incurred by each sampled exporting producer were expressed as a share of the costs of manufacturing actually incurred by the exporting producer. This percentage was used to determine the undistorted value of manufacturing overheads.

• (279) As discussed in the Second Note, for establishing an undistorted and reasonable amount for SG&A and profit, the Commission relied on the financial information for the financial year ending on 31 December 2022 and for the financial year ending on 31 March 2023 from financial statements filed by the following seven companies in the local Malaysian registry:

• — FIMA BIODIESEL SDN BHD,

• — Nexsol (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd,

• — PGEO Bioproducts Sdn. Bhd.,

• — Sime Darby Oils Biodiesel Sdn Bhd,

• — SOP Green Energy Sdn Bhd,

• — Supervitamins Sdn.Bhd.,

• — Vance Bioenergy Sdn Bhd.

• (280) Where the financial statements contained the necessary information, the Commission deducted from the SG&A transport related cost to allow for a calculation of the normal value at ex-works level.

• (281) In addition, the Commission disregarded certain cost that was not related to selling or general administration of the company, such as fair value changes, unrealised foreign exchange differences.

• (282) The Commission, however, further considered that the basket of companies was only limited to producers using the transesterification production process. To reflect potential differences in SG&A and profits amongst the various production processes (see recital (31)), the Commission decided at this stage to include three additional Malaysian producers in the same sector, i.e. organic chemicals ¹⁵⁴, to the basket. Their financial information was available in the Orbis database for the financial year ending on 31 December 2022. The companies were profitable, and the financial information contained all necessary elements (costs of goods sold, various other operating and/or financial cost, profit).

• (283) The following companies were added to the seven biodiesel producers listed in recital (279):

• — IOI ACIDCHEM SDN. BHD.

• — PETRONAS CHEMICALS FERTILISER SABAH SDN. BHD.

• — EASTMAN INTERLAYERS (M) SDN. BHD.

• (284) The undistorted SG&A and profit were determined as a percentage of the costs of goods sold at the level of 5,4 % and 12,7 % respectively. Those levels were considered by the Commission to be reasonable, within the meaning of the last subparagraph of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, for the ex-works level of trade.

3.2.5.   Calculation

• (285) On the basis of the above, the Commission constructed the normal value per product type on an ex-works basis in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

• (286) First, the Commission established the undistorted cost of manufacturing. The Commission multiplied the verified actual consumption quantity of the individual factors of production of the sampled exporting producers by the undistorted unit costs of those factors of production observed in the representative country, as described in section 3.2.4.

• (287) The portion of the undistorted cost of manufacturing reflecting the undistorted value of consumables was established by multiplying the undistorted value of raw materials determined as described in recital (286) by the percentage of consumables determined as described in recital (269).

• (288) Second, the Commission established the undistorted value of manufacturing overheads by multiplying the undistorted value of cost of manufacturing by the percentage of manufacturing overheads determined as described in recital (278).

• (289) By adding the undistorted value of the manufacturing overheads to the undistorted value of the cost of manufacturing, the Commission established the undistorted cost of production.

• (290) Finally, the Commission established the undistorted amounts for SG&A and for profit by multiplying the undistorted value of cost of production by the rates of S&GA and of profit determined as explained in recitals (279) to (284). The undistorted amounts for SG&A and for profit, which were considered by the Commission to be reasonable for the ex-works level of trade, were added to the undistorted cost of production.

• (291) On that basis, the Commission constructed the normal value per product type on an ex-works basis in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

3.2.6.   Export price

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

• (293) 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.

• (294) For the exporting producer that exported the product concerned to the Union through a related company acting as an importer, the export price was established on the basis of the price at which the imported product was first resold to independent customers in the Union, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. In this case, adjustments to the price were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including SG&A expenses, and for profits accruing. Considering the lack of information on profit from cooperating independent importers, the Commission relied on the profit at the level of 5 % considered reasonable in a previous investigation concerning imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia ¹⁵⁵.

3.2.7.   Comparison

• (295) 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 of trade; and (ii) make allowances for differences in factors which were claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability.

3.2.7.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

• (296) As explained in recital (291), the normal value was established at the ex-works level of trade by using costs of production together with amounts for SG&A and for profit, which were considered to be reasonable for that level of trade. Therefore, no adjustments were necessary to net the normal value back to the ex-works level.

• (297) The Commission found no reasons for making any allowances to the normal value, nor were such allowances claimed by any of the sampled exporting producers.

3.2.7.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

• (298) In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of: customs duty, other import charges, freight, insurance, handling loading and ancillary expenses.

• (299) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit cost, bank charges and commissions.

3.2.8.   Dumping margins

• (300) For the sampled 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.

• (301) 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.

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

• (303) The level of cooperation in this case is high because the exports reported by the cooperating exporting producers exceeded the total imports during the IP. This apparent discrepancy can be ascribed to the specific nature of the biodiesel supply chain. The Chinese producers rarely supply the Union customers directly. The exports are carried out via traders (often located in third countries), i.e. in some cases, the producers were only able to estimate the Union as the destination based on the trader’s request for a sustainability certificate; alternatively, biodiesel originally aimed for the Union market could have been redirected to a non-EU country. Considering the high level of cooperation, the Commission considered it appropriate to establish the dumping margin for non-cooperating exporting producers at the level of the sampled company with the highest dumping margin.

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

Company	Provisional dumping margin
EcoCeres Group: — ECO Biochemical Technology (Zhangjiagang) Co. Ltd. — EcoCeres Limited	12,8  %
Jiaao Group: — Zhejiang EastRiver Energy S&T Co., Ltd. — Zhejiang Jiaao Enproenergy Co., Ltd. — Jiaao International Trading (SINGAPORE) PTE. Ltd.	36,4  %
Zhuoyue Group: — Longyan Zhuoyue New Energy Co. Ltd. — Xiamen Zhuoyue Biomass Energy Co., Ltd.	25,4  %
Other cooperating companies	23,7  %
All other companies	36,4  %

4. INJURY

4.1.   Definition of the Union industry and Union production

• (305) During the investigation period, the like product was manufactured by 43 producers in the Union that were members of the EBB plus an estimated 20 other non-EBB members. All these producers constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

• (306) In a submission dated 11 January 2024 ¹⁵⁶, EcoCeres put into question the completeness of the open file as to standing forms. It also asked for the reasons for discrepancies between the data in the complaint as to actual complainants and supporters and the data in the Commission’s note for the file on standing and wondered about the specific position of the Union producer Neste. The Commission confirmed that: a) all the open versions of the standing forms received were put in the open file in due time; b) that the relevant thresholds to trigger a complaint as set out in the basic Regulation were met; and c) that the open file reflected the individual positions of companies when they expressed it. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the companies participating in the standing exercise were not the same companies that contributed with data for the purpose of establishing the complaint, which resulted in some discrepancies between figures in the complaint versus figures in the Commission’s note for the file on standing.

• (307) At initiation stage, total Union production during the investigation period was established at around 12 million tonnes. The Commission established the figure on the basis of data from the complainant, from individual companies and relevant associations. For CCCMC, this figure was in conflict with the USDA's GAIN Report of 14 August 2023 that the complainant’s relied upon. EcoCeres also pointed at a misrepresentation of HVO volumes.

• (308) The complainant revised upwards total Union production in its response to the macro questionnaire. The complainant’s revised figure was based on an external market intelligence provider called Stratas. The Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties with regard to the total Union production data as reported in the macro questionnaire reply. At provisional stage, total Union production during the investigation period was therefore established at 14 775 455 tonnes, which is the figure reported by the complainant, minus an estimate for SAF made by the Commission, as explained in section 4.5.2.1.

• (309) Further to what was indicated in recital (15), in light of the revised Union production figure in the recital above, the four sampled Union producers represented 12 % of the total Union production of the like product.

4.2.   General remark

• (310) Should HVO not be excluded from the scope of this investigation, CCCMC submitted that HVO and FAME should be examined separately in the Commission's injury analysis, as was done in the Solar Modules and Cells investigation ¹⁵⁷.

• (311) EcoCeres submitted that, should the Commission decide to keep HVO and SAF in the scope of the investigation, the Commission should carry out a segmented injury analysis of FAME, HVO and SAF, to account for the differences between these three products. According to the party, FAME, HVO and SAF are entirely different in terms of physical and chemical characteristics, production processes, end uses, and environmental impact and are deemed different products in the market, as well as by authorities and agencies worldwide. Unlike FAME, HVO and SAF would not be "biodiesel" and imports of one product type would not be capable of causing injury to producers of the other product types. EcoCeres stated that FAME is cheaper than HVO and SAF and thus does not compete with them.

• (312) The Commission noted that a segmented injury analysis may be needed when: a) the products in question are not “sufficiently interchangeable”; b) “there is a particular situation characterised by a high concentration of domestic sales and dumped imports in separate segments and by price differences which are very significant between those segments”; and c) imports are “overwhelmingly concentrated in one of the market segments”. ¹⁵⁸ Given that SAF has been at this stage excluded from the product scope, the analysis below covers FAME and HVO.

• (313) First, the Commission found the product types in question sufficiently interchangeable as explained under the section 2.4 above. There is no market segmentation in this case, even if there might be price differences between FAME and HVO. Second, the spread of the prices for both FAME and HVO can vary significantly depending on the biodiesel market circumstances, namely the regulatory environment, the supply volumes and the feedstocks situation.

• (314) In its submission dated 6 February 2024 ¹⁵⁹, EcoCeres quoted HVO prices over 1 100 USD/tonne higher than the price of FAME. The spread between HVO and FAME was however significantly lower (i.e. around 258 USD/tonne) early 2024 ¹⁶⁰.

• (315) However, a similar significant spread exists amongst FAME product types themselves. For instance, on 20 September 2023 market intelligence quoted a price of 1 455 USD/tonne for FAME from UCO (FOB Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ports) “ARA”), a price of 1 190 USD/tonne for FAME 0 (FOB ARA) and a price of 1 382 USD/tonne for FAME from rapeseed oil (FOB ARA) ¹⁶¹. The same source referred to a spread between West-EU prices of FAME 0 (FOB ARA) versus FAME from UCO (FOB ARA) amounting to around 400 USD/tonne on several instances during the IP ¹⁶². Consequently, the statement that the price difference between HVO and FAME is significant is taken out of context and misleading.

• (316) Finally, Chinese sales into the Union mirror Chinese capacities and EU demand, both mainly FAME historically but growing for HVO. ¹⁶³ In this respect, the investigation showed that FAME represented around two thirds of the sampled export volumes, whereas the HVO biodiesel represented around one third ¹⁶⁴ Thus, even if there were two distinct segments for FAME and HVO, quod non, imports are not overwhelmingly concentrated in any of the product types sold in the market.

• (317) Thus, there is no reason why a segmented injury analysis would be warranted in this case. The Commission therefore dismissed the requests for a segmented injury analysis of FAME and HVO.

4.3.   Union consumption

• (318) The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of the sales volumes in the Union by the Union industry as submitted by the complainant and verified at the premises of EBB and Comext for import data.

• (319) Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 2

Union consumption (tonnes)

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Total Union consumption	17 204 712	17 625 434	18 120 258	18 436 765
Index (2020 = 100)	100	102	105	107
Source: EBB, Comext, GTA	Source: EBB, Comext, GTA	Source: EBB, Comext, GTA	Source: EBB, Comext, GTA	Source: EBB, Comext, GTA

• (320) Union consumption developed positively over the period considered, in line with the increasing mandates for biodiesel usage and blending in the Union.

4.4.   Imports from the country concerned

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

• (321) In a submission dated 26 January 2024 ¹⁶⁵, the CCCMC requested the Commission to make publicly available the monitoring import data concerning the entire investigation period and disregard the complainant's assessment of the evolution of biodiesel imports from China presented in the complaint on the grounds that it was based on mere assumptions and speculation. The Commission noted that it used data from Comext for establishing import volumes, as detailed below.

• (322) The Commission established the volume of imports on the basis of import statistics from Comext and GTA. The market share of the imports was established on the basis of the Union biodiesel consumption in table 2, data on sales by Union producers as submitted by the complainant, Comext and GTA. As noted in recital (57), SAF was excluded from the scope of this investigation and therefore the respective volumes were excluded on the basis of the Commission’s information thereof obtained during the investigation.

• (323) Imports into the Union from the country concerned developed as follows:

Table 3

Import volume (tonnes) and market share

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Volume of imports from the country concerned (tonnes)	926 695	494 931	973 288	1 480 855
Index (2020 = 100)	100	53	105	160
Market share	5,4  %	2,8  %	5,4  %	8,0  %
Index (2020 = 100)	100	52	100	149
Source: EBB, Comext	Source: EBB, Comext	Source: EBB, Comext	Source: EBB, Comext	Source: EBB, Comext

• (324) Imports from China fluctuated but overall increased sharply over the period considered (+ 60 % overall). Their market share went up by 49 %, from 5,4 % in 2020 to 8 % in the investigation period.

• (325) Those data contradict CCCMC’s statement, based on complaint data, that the surge in Chinese imports did not constitute a "substantial" increase in terms relative to production and consumption.

4.4.2.   Prices of the imports from the country concerned and price undercutting

• (326) The Commission established the prices of imports on the basis of Comext. Price undercutting of the imports was established on the basis of verified questionnaire replies.

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

Table 4

Import prices (EUR/tonne)

	2020	2021	2022	IP
China	995	1 258	1 574	1 526
Index (2020 = 100)	100	126	158	153
Source: Comext	Source: Comext	Source: Comext	Source: Comext	Source: Comext

• (328) The price of imports from China increased to a significant extent during the period considered (+53 % overall).

• (329) CCCMC submitted that the fact that Chinese import prices were higher that the sales prices of the Union industry during most of the period considered undermined the allegations in the complaint. The Commission noted that the difference between the two sets of prices, which are EUR/tonne averages of Chinese and Union industry EU sales, derives from the different product mix. Chinese imports are of biodiesel product types using feedstocks which can under the RED directives be counted twice towards EU renewable energy targets and thus attract typically higher prices on the market than crop and feed-based FAME. A major share of the sales by Union producers however was crop and feed-based FAME without such a double-counting premium.

• (330) CCCMC asked the Commission not to focus its undercutting analysis on a single year when carrying out its price effects analysis, while questioning the undercutting calculations in the complaint. The Commission dismissed the claim, which was not substantiated, and established price undercutting for the investigation period.

• (331) The Commission determined the price undercutting during the investigation period by comparing:

• — the weighted average prices per product type of the imports from the sampled cooperating Chinese producers to the first independent customer on the Union market, established on a Cost, insurance, freight (CIF) basis, with appropriate adjustments for customs duties and post-importation costs; and

• — the corresponding 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.

• (332) 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. It showed a weighted average undercutting margin of between 5,3 % and 13,8 % by the imports from the country concerned on the Union market. Undercutting was found for 100 % of the imported volumes of the sampled companies.

4.5.   Economic situation of the Union industry

4.5.1.   General remarks

• (333) 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.

• (334) As mentioned in recitals (8)-(18), sampling was used for the determination of possible injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (335) 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 macro questionnaire response submitted by the complainant. 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 Both sets of data were found to be representative of the economic situation of the Union industry.

• (336) 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.

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

4.5.2.   Macroeconomic indicators

4.5.2.1.   Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

• (338) 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	IP
Production volume (tonnes)	14 768 456	15 301 256	15 211 729	14 775 455
Index (2020 = 100)	100	104	103	100
Production capacity (tonnes)	21 360 776	21 406 110	21 686 443	21 574 276
Index (2020 = 100)	100	100	102	101
Capacity utilisation	69 %	71 %	70 %	68 %
Index (2020 = 100)	100	103	101	99
Source: EBB/Stratas for 2020-2023, complainant() ()	Source: EBB/Stratas for 2020-2023, complainant() ()	Source: EBB/Stratas for 2020-2023, complainant() ()	Source: EBB/Stratas for 2020-2023, complainant() ()	Source: EBB/Stratas for 2020-2023, complainant() ()

• (339) Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation were at relatively similar levels in the investigation period as compared to 2020. However, the production volumes declined significantly in the investigation period as compared to 2022.

4.5.2.2.   Sales volume and market share

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

Table 6

Sales volume and market share

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Sales volume on the Union market (tonnes)	12 775 581	13 178 121	12 236 045	11 951 917
Index (2020 = 100)	100	103	96	94
Market share	74,3  %	74,8  %	67,5  %	64,8  %
Index (2020 = 100)	100	101	91	87
Source: EBB	Source: EBB	Source: EBB	Source: EBB	Source: EBB

• (341) Over the period considered, the Union industry’s market share dropped significantly by almost 10 percentage points to reach a market share of 64,8 % in the investigation period. From 2022, when Chinese import volumes started to increase exponentially, the Union industry’s sales volumes and corresponding market share started to fall rapidly.

4.5.2.3.   Growth

• (342) The Union industry experienced no growth in terms of production during the period considered despite the positive development of the consumption of biodiesel in that period. In fact, the sales volume and market share of the Union industry actually decreased during the reference period.

4.5.2.4.   Employment and productivity

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

Table 7

Employment and productivity

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Number of employees	5 307	5 801	6 066	5 897
Index (2020 = 100)	100	109	114	111
Productivity (tonnes/employee)	2 783	2 638	2 520	2 531
Index (2020 = 100)	100	95	91	91
Source: EBB	Source: EBB	Source: EBB	Source: EBB	Source: EBB

• (344) The Commission noted that not all Union producers reported employment data to EBB with the same approach and that some estimates were needed for non-reporting companies, creating some shortcomings in the data available to the Commission regarding employment. In any event, the estimated number of employees presented in table 7 was considered to be reasonably accurate and adequate for the purposes of this investigation.

• (345) CCCMC argued that an increase of employment is a clear sign of a healthy industry. It also argued that the declining productivity is due to increased employment coupled with a decrease of demand (and resulting production and sales). The Commission noted, however, that the increase in employment mostly took place in 2021, when the Union industry could take advantage of the drop in Chinese imports and increase its sales volumes. In the investigation period, when Chinese imports soared, employment fell significantly. Consequently, the claim was rejected.

4.5.2.5.   Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping/countervailable practices

• (346) The dumping margins of all the sampled exporting producers were significantly above the de minimis level. The impact of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping on the Union industry was not negligible, given the volume and prices of imports from the country concerned and the nature of the product, i.e. a commodity product.

• (347) The product under investigation has already been subject to several anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations. Existing anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures against the USA (extended to consignments from Canada, with some exemptions ¹⁶⁸) were renewed during the period considered. There is no indication that those measures have not been effective.

• (348) In 2020 the Union industry clearly showed signs of recovery following the imposition in 2019 of definitive countervailing measures against imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina ¹⁶⁹ and in Indonesia ¹⁷⁰. As to the rest of the period considered, recovery was on-going as shown amongst other factors, by low profitability levels (as demonstrated below), but came to a stop in 2022 when Chinese imports started to soar.

4.5.3.   Microeconomic indicators

4.5.3.1.   Prices and factors affecting prices

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

Table 8

Sales prices in the Union

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Average unit sales price in the Union on the total market (EUR/tonne)	799	1 068	1 518	1 355
Index (2020 = 100)	100	134	190	169
Unit cost of production (EUR/ tonne)	784	1 057	1 492	1 353
Index (2020 = 100)	100	135	190	172
Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers

• (350) From 2020 to 2022, sales prices followed trends in costs, going both up by 90% up to 2022. In the investigation period, the Union industry could not reflect the costs increase in its sales prices and was forced to sell almost at cost.

• (351) A major share of the sales by Union producers was crop and feed-based FAME without a double-counting premium. At the end of the period considered the gap between the unit cost of production and the unit sales price dropped and became barely 2 EUR.

4.5.3.2.   Labour costs

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

Table 9

Average labour costs per employee

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Average labour costs per employee (EUR)	78 088	83 914	85 898	89 613
Index (2020 = 100)	100	107	110	115
Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers

• (353) On average, labour cost of the sampled Union producers increased by 15% over the period considered. As labour cost represent less than 3% of the cost of manufacturing of biodiesel, the increase in labour costs - which is not at odds with the average overall 12% labour cost increase in the Union in the period 2020-2023 according to Eurostat ¹⁷¹ - has a negligible impact on the state of the Union industry.

4.5.3.3.   Inventories

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

Table 10

Inventories

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Closing stocks (tonnes)	170 541	140 162	184 957	230 610
Index (2020 = 100)	100	82	108	135
Closing stocks as a percentage of production	1,2  %	0,9  %	1,2  %	1,6  %
Index (2020 = 100)	100	75	100	133
Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers

• (355) The CCCMC submitted that this factor is not relevant in the context of the present investigation on the grounds that the Commission had previously stated that the level of stocks is a less meaningful indicator for this type of industry ¹⁷². The Commission confirmed that the industry endeavoured to keep stocks low but this is not always the case when Chinese imports arrived at very low prices. It also noted that, given that the product under investigation is sold in bulk, a single delivery can comprise a significant volume of more than 10 000 tonnes which can have a significant impact on the stock level, depending on the precise transaction date.

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

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

Table 11

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)	2 %	1 %	1,8  %	0,1  %
Index (2020 = 100)	100	50	90	5
Cash flow (EUR)	90 293 613	-26 971 004	-70 149 695	-41 725 753
Index (2020 = 100)	100	-30	-78	-46
Investments (EUR)	92 568 706	43 686 329	62 751 636	105 304 643
Index (2020 = 100)	100	47	68	114
Return on investments	8,4  %	5,8  %	10,5  %	1,3  %
Index (2020 = 100)	100	69	126	15
Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers	Source: Questionnaire replies of sampled union producers

• (357) 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 at very low levels during the period considered and it dropped to break-even in the investigation period. The largest drop in profitability was between 2022 and the investigation period, when Chinese imports increased by 45 % and the profit of the Union industry dropped by 1,7 percentage points to almost break-even as compared to 2022.

• (358) The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. The trend in net cash flow deteriorated strongly during the period considered and was highly negative as from 2021.

• (359) The investments in the sampled companies fluctuated during the period considered. In general, investments are approved years before their implementation. Investments in the last part of the period considered were projects foreseen since long and concerned only two companies.

• (360) The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. It developed negatively, in line with profitability, and was very low during the whole period considered and at a mere 1,3 % in the investigation period due in particular to the very low level of profitability.

4.5.4.   Conclusion on injury

• (361) The above assessment of economic macro- and micro-indicators shows that the Union industry was suffering material injury in the investigation period, as it lost significant market share and its sales prices increase was insufficient to pass on the strong increase in its costs of production, resulting in the decline of its profitability, which negatively affected return on investments and cash flow. The fact that a few indicators (production capacity, number of employees) did not deteriorate does not undermine the finding of injury.

• (362) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded at this stage that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

5. CAUSATION

• (363) In accordance with Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports from the country concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. In accordance with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined whether other known factors could at the same time have injured the Union industry. The Commission ensured that any possible injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports from the country concerned was not attributed to the dumped imports. These factors are: imports from third countries, the export performance of the Union industry and the increases in cost of production.

5.1.   Effects of the dumped imports

• (364) The import volumes from the PRC increased by 60 %, as shown in Table 3, whereas consumption grew by around 7 % (Table 2). This resulted in a market share increase of imports from the PRC by 2,6 percentage points from 5,4 % to 8 %, whereas the market share of the Union industry went down by almost 10 percentage points to reach 64,8 % in the investigation period.

• (365) Prices of Chinese imports undercut Union industry prices in the investigation period by 5,3 % to 13,8 %. Such low prices resulted in price suppression on the Union market, as a result of which the Union industry was not able to make healthy profits. In the investigation period, sales prices of the Union industry were only marginally above its cost of production.

• (366) The Union industry, which was just starting to recover from past injurious subsidisation of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, immediately felt the negative impact of the increasing volume of biodiesel imports from the PRC at low prices. Those imports had a clearly negative impact on the Union industry’s financial situation.

• (367) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the imports from China caused material injury to the Union industry. Such injury had both volume and price effects.

5.2.   Effects of other factors

5.2.1.   Imports from third countries

• (368) The volume of imports from other third countries developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 12

Imports from third countries

Country		2020	2021	2022	IP
Argentina	Volume (tonnes)	874 199	1 292 775	997 210	490 644
Argentina	Index (2020 = 100)	100	148	114	56
Argentina	Market share	5,1  %	7,3  %	5,5  %	2,7  %
Argentina	Average price (EUR/tonne)	732	1 076	1 419	1 425
Argentina	Index (2020 = 100)	100	147	194	195
United Kingdom	Volume (tonnes)	608 155	990 082	1 032 790	1 100 392
United Kingdom	Index (2020 = 100)	100	163	170	181
United Kingdom	Market share	3,5  %	5,6  %	5,7  %	6,0  %
United Kingdom	Average price (EUR/tonne)	1 027	1 361	1 615	1 297
United Kingdom	Index (2020 = 100)	100	132	157	126
Singapore	Volume (tonnes)	468 998	279 098	689 578	868 513
Singapore	Index (2020 = 100)	100	60	147	185
Singapore	Market share	2,7  %	1,6  %	3,8  %	4,7  %
Singapore	Average price (EUR/tonne)	1 202	1 922	1 388	1 495
Singapore	Index (2020 = 100)	100	160	116	124
Other third countries	Volume (tonnes)	1 551 084	1 390 427	2 191 348	2 544 445
Other third countries	Index (2020 = 100)	100	90	141	164
Other third countries	Market share	9,0  %	7,9  %	12,1  %	13,8  %
Other third countries	Average price (EUR/tonne)	858	1 169	1 736	1 468
Other third countries	Index (2020 = 100)	100	136	202	171
Total of all third countries except the country concerned	Volume (tonnes)	3 502 436	3 952 382	4 910 926	5 003 994
Total of all third countries except the country concerned	Index (2020 = 100)	100	113	140	143
Total of all third countries except the country concerned	Market share	20,4  %	22,4  %	27,0  %	27,1  %
Total of all third countries except the country concerned	Average price (EUR/tonne)	817	1 165	1 473	1 299
Total of all third countries except the country concerned	Index (2020 = 100)	100	143	180	59
Source: Comext (volume () & average price () ) except for 2020 United Kingdom for which, absent of conclusive data in Comext, estimations of volumes and prices were made on the basis of GTA prices	Source: Comext (volume () & average price () ) except for 2020 United Kingdom for which, absent of conclusive data in Comext, estimations of volumes and prices were made on the basis of GTA prices	Source: Comext (volume () & average price () ) except for 2020 United Kingdom for which, absent of conclusive data in Comext, estimations of volumes and prices were made on the basis of GTA prices	Source: Comext (volume () & average price () ) except for 2020 United Kingdom for which, absent of conclusive data in Comext, estimations of volumes and prices were made on the basis of GTA prices	Source: Comext (volume () & average price () ) except for 2020 United Kingdom for which, absent of conclusive data in Comext, estimations of volumes and prices were made on the basis of GTA prices	Source: Comext (volume () & average price () ) except for 2020 United Kingdom for which, absent of conclusive data in Comext, estimations of volumes and prices were made on the basis of GTA prices

• (369) During the investigation period, the average import price from all other imports was lower than the import price from China. However, prices of imports are not directly comparable.

• (370) Notably, Chinese biodiesel uses a different feedstock than other import sources and Chinese imports are of a type of biodiesel which attracts a double-counting premium under the RED Directives as explained above, and consequently a higher price on the EU market. Therefore, even though the prices of imports from countries other than China are sometimes lower than those from China, this does not entail they have the same negative impact on the Union industry.

• (371) CCCMC highlighted that the Union biodiesel industry lost market share to third country imports. Indeed, in particular the United Kingdom and Singapore also increased their sales volumes and market share during the period considered. However, no conclusion can be drawn on the injurious effects of such imports. First, imports from the UK remained rather stable since 2021, increasing only by 0,4 percentage points in the investigation period in comparison with 2021. Market share of imports from Singapore increased by two percentage points, which is lower than the market share increase of Chinese imports but still significant. However, the Commission found that Chinese imports are of biodiesel product types which attract a (double-counting) premium and therefore, even if made at higher average import prices than the Union industry’s average biodiesel sales price, they can be injurious and undercut. No such conclusion could be drawn with regard to imports from other countries, absent of information on feedstocks of such imports and the relevant sales channels.

• (372) In light of the above, the Commission provisionally concluded that imports from other third countries may have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry but at most to a limited extent, therefore, they did not attenuate the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the Chinese dumped imports.

5.2.2.   Export performance of the Union industry

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

Table 13

Export performance of the (sampled) Union producers

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Export volume (tonnes)	1 651 575	907 836	841 622	1 388 748
Index (2020 = 100)	100	55	51	84
Average price (EUR/tonne)	923	1 274	1 718	1 556
Index (2020 = 100)	100	138	186	169
Source: EBB (export volume and price based on CN code 3826 00 ), Eurostat data	Source: EBB (export volume and price based on CN code 3826 00 ), Eurostat data	Source: EBB (export volume and price based on CN code 3826 00 ), Eurostat data	Source: EBB (export volume and price based on CN code 3826 00 ), Eurostat data	Source: EBB (export volume and price based on CN code 3826 00 ), Eurostat data

• (374) The Union industry’s export sales volumes amounted to 11 % of the Union production in 2020, 6 % of the Union production in 2021 and in 2022, and 9 % of the Union production in the investigation period. Overall, they therefore represented a relatively small part of the Union industry’s turnover and had, compared to the Union sales, a limited effect on the performance of the industry as a whole.

• (375) The sampled parties’ export sales were overall low and strongly fluctuating in an inconsistent manner, whilst the sampled producers manufactured different product types. Therefore, the Commission could not establish representative average export sales prices from the sample. Instead, it established export prices of the Union industry on the same basis as the complainant had done for volumes using GTA, that is, by taking export sales under CN code 3826 00 only. On that basis, export sales prices of the Union industry during the period considered developed slightly more positive than its sales prices on the Union market and with higher price levels.

• (376) CCCMC pointed at a poor export performance by the Union industry as source of injury, namely as regards its capacity utilisation. The Commission noted however that the Union industry boosted its export sales in the investigation period which limited the drop in capacity utilisation, as it was confronted with a continuing significant loss of market share on the Union market. Export sales representing around 10% of Union industry sales throughout the period considered, the Commission concluded, on that basis, that the export performance of Union producers could have contributed to the injury to a limited extent at most, if at all. CCCMC claim was rejected.

5.2.3.   Increases in costs/cost of production

• (377) CCCMC submitted that the increase of cost of production was a potential cause of injury to the Union industry. As reported in Table 8 above, the cost of production increased by 72% over the period considered which is more than the increase in sales prices, by 69%, over the same period. To that argument, the Commission noted, first, that at the starting year of the period considered, 2020, the Union industry was already at very low profits as it was just starting to recover from the injury caused by the imports from Argentina and Indonesia, on which countervailing duties were imposed in 2019. The Commission further noted that in a level playing field, the industry is able to reflect (raw material) cost increases fully in their sales prices. However, in this case, the Union producers were unable to fully translate the increase in cost of production in their sales prices, in particular in the investigation period, let alone to increase their sales prices to more sustainable levels, due to the price pressure exerted by the dumped Chinese imports. Therefore, the increase in overall production costs cannot be considered a cause of injury to the industry.

5.3.   Conclusion on causation

• (378) The above analysis shows that there was a major increase in the volume and market share of the imports originating in China during the second half of the period considered. The low prices of dumped Chinese imports prevented the Union industry from increasing its prices to sustainable levels necessary to achieve reasonable profit margins, resulting in a situation close to break-even in the investigation period. The Union industry also lost significant market share. The Commission established thus a causal link between the dumped imports from China and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (379) The Commission distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports. Imports from third countries gained significant market share, but the Commission could not establish price injury caused by these imports. The export sales by the Union industry were relatively stable throughout the period considered and above Union sales prices. In view of their low share in total sales, the small decline in export sales volumes over the period considered only contributed to the injury to a limited extent at most. Other possible causes of injury were also analysed but found to have contributed to the injury to a limited extent at most, if at all.

• (380) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded at this stage that the dumped imports from the country concerned caused material injury to the Union industry and that the other factors, considered individually or collectively, did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury. The injury is clear, in particular as regards sales volume in the Union market, market share, profitability, cash flow and return on investments.

6. LEVEL OF MEASURES

• (381) To determine the level of the measures, the Commission examined whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove the injury caused by dumped imports to the Union industry.

6.1.   Injury margin

• (382) The injury would be removed if the Union Industry were able to obtain a target profit by selling at a target price in the sense of Articles 7(2c) and 7(2d) of the basic regulation.

• (383) In accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, for establishing the target profit, the Commission took into account the following factors: the level of profitability before the increase of imports from the country under investigation, the level of profitability needed to cover full costs and investments, research and development (R&D) and innovation, and the level of profitability to be expected under normal conditions of competition. Such profit margin should not be lower than 6 %.

• (384) The Commission could not establish a profit margin on the basis of the years prior to the increase of imports from China, as the Union industry suffered from an influx of dumped/subsidised imports from other origins for years, as noted in section 4.5.2.5, and therefore no period of years or any year could qualify as a period/year with a normal competitive situation in the Union market. Consequently, the Commission resorted to the profit established for this kind of industry in previous investigations. The basic profit was established at 11%. ¹⁷⁵

• (385) Sampled Union producers made no substantiated claim that its level of investments, research and development (R&D) and innovation during the period considered would have been higher under normal conditions of competition.

• (386) In accordance with article 7(2d) of the basic Regulation, as a final step, the Commission assessed the future costs resulting from Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and protocols thereunder, to which the Union is a party, and of ILO Conventions listed in Annex Ia that the Union industry will incur during the period of the application of the measure pursuant to Article 11(2). Based on the evidence available, which was supported by the companies’ reporting tools and forecasts, the Commission established an additional cost of between [1-8] and [15-20] EUR/tonne, depending on the producer. This difference was added to the non-injurious price mentioned in recital (387).

• (387) On this basis, the Commission calculated a non-injurious price of 2 209 EUR/tonne in average for the like product of the Union industry by applying the above-mentioned target profit margin to the cost of production of the sampled Union producers during the investigation period and then adding the adjustments under Article 7(2d) on a type-by-type basis.

• (388) The Commission then determined the injury margin level on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the sampled cooperating exporting producers in China, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the weighted average non-injurious price of the like product sold by the sampled Union producers on the Union market during the investigation period. Any difference resulting from this comparison was expressed as a percentage of the weighted average import CIF value.

• (389) The injury elimination level for ‘other cooperating companies’ and for ‘all other companies’ is defined in the same manner as the dumping margin for these companies (see recitals (302)-(303)).

Company	Dumping margin (%)	Injury margin (%)
EcoCeres Group: — ECO Biochemical Technology (Zhangjiagang) Co. Ltd. — EcoCeres Limited	12,8	16,4
Jiaao Group: — Zhejiang EastRiver Energy S&T Co., Ltd. — Zhejiang Jiaao Enproenergy Co., Ltd. — Jiaao International Trading (SINGAPORE) PTE. Ltd.	36,4	37,1
Zhuoyue Group: — Longyan Zhuoyue New Energy Co. Ltd. — Xiamen Zhuoyue Biomass Energy Co., Ltd.	25,4	44,3
Other cooperating companies	23,7	32,6
All other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China	36,4	44,3

6.2.   Conclusion on the level of measures

• (390) Following the above assessment, provisional anti-dumping duties should be set as below in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation:

Company	Provisional anti-dumping duty (%)
EcoCeres Group: — ECO Biochemical Technology (Zhangjiagang) Co. Ltd. — EcoCeres Limited	12,8
Jiaao Group: — Zhejiang EastRiver Energy S&T Co., Ltd. — Zhejiang Jiaao Enproenergy Co., Ltd. — Jiaao International Trading (SINGAPORE) PTE. Ltd.	36,4
Zhuoyue Group: — Longyan Zhuoyue New Energy Co. Ltd. — Xiamen Zhuoyue Biomass Energy Co., Ltd.	25,4
Other cooperating companies	23,7
All other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China	36,4

7. UNION INTEREST

• (391) Having decided to apply Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether it could clearly conclude that it was not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this case, despite the determination of injurious dumping, in accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, traders and users.

8. INTEREST OF THE UNION INDUSTRY

• (392) The Union industry is composed of more than 60 producers across the Union and provides direct employment to close to 6 000 people. No producer opposed the investigation.

• (393) The Commission determined that, if measures were not imposed, the Union industry, which operated at break-even in the investigation period, would become loss-making and face insolvencies, due to the unfair competition from Chinese biodiesel producers which would further compromise the Union industry’s viability. On the contrary, the imposition of measures would enable the Union industry to re-start its recovery process and eventually achieve sustainable profitability levels.