Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2211 of 5 September 2024 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

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 11(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 325/2012 (2), the Council imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of oxalic acid, originating in India and the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) (‘the original measures’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2) Following the judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2015 (3), the measures were annulled in so far as they concerned the Chinese exporting producer Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd (‘Yuanping’). Following the implementation of that judgment, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) re-imposed anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned by Yuanping with effect from 30 November 2016 (4).

(3) By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/931 (5), the Commission extended for another five years the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review (the ‘previous expiry review’).

(4) The anti-dumping duties currently in force are between 22,8 % to 43,6 % and 14,6 % and 52,2 % on imports from India and the People’s Republic of China (‘countries concerned’) respectively.

(5) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry of the anti-dumping measures in force (6), the Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(6) The request for review was submitted on 30 March 2023 by Oxaquim SA (‘Oxaquim’ or ‘the applicant’), with the support of WeylChem Lamotte S.A.S., which together constitute the Union industry of oxalic acid in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The request for review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation of dumping and continuation and/or recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(7) Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 30 June 2023, the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of oxalic acid originating in the countries concerned on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (7) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(8) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 (‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2020 to the end of the RIP (‘the period considered’).

(9) In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, other known Union producers, the known producers in India and the PRC and the authorities of India and the PRC, known unrelated importers and users about the initiation of the expiry review and invited them to participate.

(10) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the expiry review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. No interested party requested a hearing.

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

(15) One exporting producer in India provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of that, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary. One additional exporting producer in India came forward afterwards, therefore, as sampling was deemed not necessary, the Commission invited also the second exporting producer to fill in the questionnaire.

(16) No company from the PRC came forward. The Commission informed the Chinese authorities by means of a Note Verbale on 25 October 2023 that it had not received any cooperation from exporting producers in the PRC. It therefore intended to base its findings for the exporting producers in the PRC on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. No comments were received.

(17) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in the PRC within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the PRC (‘GOC’).

(18) The Commission sent questionnaires to the two known Union producers, to all known unrelated importers and to two exporting producers in India. The same questionnaires had also been made available online (8) on the day of initiation.

(19) Questionnaire replies were received from two Union producers, one user and two exporting producers in India. One Union producer, WeylChem Lamotte S.A.S. (‘WeylChem’), submitted an incomplete questionnaire reply. The Commission sent a deficiency letter requesting additional information. WeylChem informed the Commission that it was unable to reply to the deficiency letter and host a verification visit.

(21) On 5 June 2024, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to propose the extension of anti-dumping measures on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People’s Republic of China.

(22) Comments were received from the applicant, Oxaquim, and from the Indian exporting producer, Star Oxochem Pvt Ltd.

(23) Following a claim concerning an adjustment, an additional disclosure was made to Star Oxochem Pvt Ltd on 19 June 2024. The company provided no further comments.

(24) The product under review is the same as in the original investigation and previous expiry review, namely oxalic acid, whether in dihydrate (CUS number 0028635-1 and CAS number 6153-56-6) or anhydrous form (CUS number 0021238-4 and CAS number 144-62-7) and whether or not in aqueous solution, currently falling under CN code ex 2917 11 00 (TARIC code 2917 11 00 91) (‘the product under review’).

(25) Oxalic acid is used in a wide range of applications, for example as a bleaching agent in the textile and wood industries, reducing agent in the production of pharmaceutical products and as a material used in the extraction and purification of rare earth metals and elements.

(26) In the original investigation, it was found that there are two types of oxalic acid: unrefined oxalic acid and refined oxalic acid. Refined oxalic acid, which was produced in the PRC but not in India, is manufactured through a purification process of unrefined oxalic acid, the purpose of which is to remove iron, chlorides, metal traces and other impurities. In the absence of cooperation from the PRC it was assumed for the current review investigation that exporting producers in the PRC manufactured and exported refined oxalic acid as in the original investigation.

(27) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in India and the PRC.

(29) These products are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(30) During the review investigation period, imports of oxalic acid from PRC and India continued albeit at lower volumes than in the investigation period of the original investigation (from 1 January to 31 December 2010) and at similar level as in the previous expiry review period (from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017). According to Eurostat, imports of oxalic acid from PRC and India accounted for about 17 % of the Union market in the review investigation period compared to 16 % during the previous expiry review. In absolute terms imports decreased from 7 969 tonnes during the original investigation period to 1 658 tonnes in the last expiry review and further to 1 565 tonnes in the current RIP.

(31) There are four known producers of oxalic acid in India, of which two provided a reply to the questionnaire. On the basis of the information at its disposal (9), the Commission estimated total production in India at around 40 000 tonnes. Total exports from India are estimated at around 5 700 metric tonnes, based on data provided in review request, cross checked with data available in Global Trade Atlas (GTA).

(32) The imports from India to the Union in the RIP amounted to around 400 tonnes, based on Eurostat data.

(33) Imports from India are also subject to the 6,5 % CCT duty (10).

(34) The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for each of the two cooperating Indian companies 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 under review to the Union during the review investigation period. On this basis, the total sales of the two cooperating exporting producers of the like product on the domestic market were found representative.

(35) The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union.

(36) The Commission then examined whether the domestic sales by each cooperating exporting producer 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 review 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 sales of the two cooperating exporting producers were representative.

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

(39) In respect of the two cooperating Indian companies in this investigation, it was established that both fulfilled the criteria above. Therefore, the normal value was based on the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type during the review investigation period.

(40) The two exporting producers exported the product under review directly to independent customers in the Union. Therefore, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product under review when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(41) The Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the two exporting producers on an ex-works basis as established above.

(42) Where justified by the need to ensure a fair comparison, the Commission adjusted the normal value and/or the export price for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made for transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing, discounts, credit costs, bank charges and commissions paid by the cooperating exporting producer. Each of the two Indian cooperating exporting producers received the detailed calculations of the adjustments made in the specific disclosure.

(43) Following final disclosure, Star Oxochem Pvt Ltd, claimed that one adjustment for a transport allowance should not have been deducted from the export price.

(44) The Commission assessed the claim and revised the dumping calculation, which was disclosed to the exporter in question. No further comments were received.

(45) In the context of Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation, one cooperating producer indicated that they had benefitted from the Indian Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (‘MEIS’) (11). The MEIS is a scheme of the government of India that provides an incentive in the form of a duty credit scrip to exporters to compensate for losses on the payment of duties. The incentive is paid as a percentage of the realized free on board (‘FOB’) value (in free foreign exchange) for specific goods going to specific markets. This export incentive is not a permissible adjustment for price comparison. It does not qualify as a duty drawback scheme for which an adjustment under Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation could be considered, because Article 2(10)(b) only allows for adjustments to the normal value and not to the export price. In addition, the value of the scrip is not calculated in relation to the amount of import duties that would be incorporated in exports of downstream products, but, instead, is determined as a percentage of the FOB value of the exported merchandise. Additionally, irrespective of the calculation of the value of the incentive, the operation of the system does not lead to a situation where import charges borne by materials physically incorporated in the domestic sales of the like product are refunded or not collected upon exportation of the same production to the Union. For all the above reasons, no adjustment to the normal value or export price could be accepted. In any event, regardless of this or any other adjustment being made, there would be dumping above de minimis.

(46) For the two cooperating exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product under review, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

(47) On this basis, since the cooperating exporting producers account for the bulk of the Indian exports during the RIP, the weighted average dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, was [5 %-10 %] countrywide. It was therefore concluded that dumping continued during the review investigation period.

(48) As mentioned in recital (17), none of the exporters/producers from PRC cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, the Commission informed the authorities of PRC that the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings with regard to the PRC. The Commission did not receive any comments or requests for an intervention of the Hearing Officer in this regard.

(49) Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping were based on facts available, in particular publicly available information such as official company websites, available statistics, in particular Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’) databases, information in the request for review, and information obtained from cooperating parties in the course of the review investigation (namely, the applicant and the sampled Union producers).

(50) Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation tending to show, with regard to the PRC, the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated the investigation on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(51) In order to obtain information it deemed necessary for its investigation with regard to the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC. In addition, in point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited all interested parties to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence regarding the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation within 37 days of the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union. No questionnaire reply was received from the GOC and no submission on the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was received within the deadline. Subsequently, the Commission informed the GOC that it would use facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation for the determination of the existence of the significant distortions in the PRC.

(52) In point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also specified that, in view of the evidence available, it might need to select an appropriate representative country pursuant to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation for the purpose of determining the normal value based on undistorted prices or benchmarks. The Commission further stated that it would examine other possibly appropriate countries in accordance with the criteria set out in first indent of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(53) On 1 March 2024, the Commission informed interested parties by a note on the relevant sources (‘the Note’) it intended to use for the determination of the normal value. In that note, the Commission provided a list of all factors of production such as raw materials, labour and energy used in the production of oxalic acid. In the absence of cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers, the Commission identified the main factors of production based on the information contained in the request and provided by one Union producer. In addition, the Commission informed interested parties that it had selected a representative country, namely Colombia, as an appropriate representative country. It also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG & A’) and profits based on available information for the company Sucroal SA, a producer of the product in the same sector as oxalic acid, namely citric acid in Colombia.

(54) The Commission received comments only from one Union producer. These comments were addressed in recital (214).

(55) According to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation, ‘the normal value shall normally be based on the prices paid or payable, in the ordinary course of trade, by independent customers in the exporting country’.