Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/81 of 13 January 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel plated or coated with tin originating in the People’s Republic of China

• (158) In the Second Note, the Commission stated that to construct the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, it would use GTA 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 in-country sources for establishing undistorted costs of labour and energy ⁵⁸.

• (159) In the Second Note, the Commission informed the interested parties that certain factors of production reported by the sampled exporting producers who provided complete information, had a negligible impact on the total production cost. As a result, these items were grouped together under the category of ‘consumables’.

• (160) The Commission then calculated the percentage of the consumables on the total cost of raw materials and applied this percentage to the recalculated cost of raw materials when using the established undistorted benchmarks in the appropriate representative country.

3.2.6.1.   Factors of production

• (161) 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 to determine the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation:

Table 1

Factors of production of Tinplated products

Factor of Production (FOP)	Commodity code(s)	Source	Price in CNY	Unit of measurement
RAW MATERIALS AND INPUTS	RAW MATERIALS AND INPUTS	RAW MATERIALS AND INPUTS	RAW MATERIALS AND INPUTS	RAW MATERIALS AND INPUTS
Iron ore powder59	26011110 26011190	GTA	447,48	tonne
Iron ore pellets60	26011210 26011290	GTA	5 267,14	tonne
Hot rolled steel	72082711 72082719 72082791 72082799	Fastmarkets	4 362,17	tonne
Cold rolled steel	72091810 72091891 72091899	GTA	6 722,64	tonne
Tin ingots	800110	GTA	193 952,02	tonne
Coke	27040010 27040020 27040030	GTA	2 806,79	tonne
Coking coal	27011210	GTA	1 795,22	tonne
Gas coal	27011290	GTA	3 874,58	tonne
Steam coal	270111	World Bank	1 085,39	tonne
Pulverised coal	270111	Fastmarkets	1 290,12	tonne
Aluminium scrap	7602	GTA	12 837,19	tonne
Ferromolybdenum	720270	Fastmarkets	357 848,05	tonne
Hot briquetted iron	720310	GTA	3 307,83	tonne
Manganese	81110010 81110090	Fastmarkets	14 482,42	tonne
Slag steel	2619	GTA	1 034,69	tonne
Steel scrap	720449	GTA	3 062,40	tonne
LABOUR	Department of Statistics	Department of Statistics	35,42	per labour hour
ENERGY	ENERGY	ENERGY	ENERGY	ENERGY
Electricity	Tenaga Nasional	Tenaga Nasional	0,548	kWh
Coal gas	Calculated from natural gas	Calculated from natural gas	0,3	cubic metre
Coke gas	Calculated from natural gas	Calculated from natural gas	0,3	cubic metre
Natural gas	Energy Commission	Energy Commission	1,74	cubic metre
Steam	Calculated from coal	Calculated from coal	117,15	tonne
Water	SPAN	SPAN	5,48	cubic metre

Raw materials and inputs

• (162) In order to establish the undistorted price of raw materials and inputs 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 GTA at the national tariff level, to which import duties and transport costs were added.

• (163) An import price in the representative country was determined as a weighted average of unit prices of imports from all third countries excluding China 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 ⁶¹.

• (164) The Commission decided to exclude imports from China into the representative country as it concluded that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in China due to the existence of significant distortions in accordance with Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation.

• (165) Given that there is no evidence showing that the same distortions do not equally affect raw materials and inputs intended for export, the Commission considered that the same distortions affected export prices.

• (166) After publication of the Second Note, Baosteel Group requested that the Commission change the source of the following benchmarks, rather than using import data from Malaysia:

• — Iron ore pellets, as they consider the benchmark based on the whole HS code 2601 12 (‘iron ores and concentrates, agglomerated’) ‘non-representative’ and that the source should be replaced by S&P Global Atlantic iron ore Blast furnace pellet CP Premium;

• — Hot rolled steel, as the benchmark is higher than the processed product cold rolled steel and that the source should be replaced by S&P Global Platts – HRC CFR Southeast Asia SAE1006; and

• — Cold rolled steel, as the benchmark includes prices which they consider outliers, and that the source should be replaced by S&P Global Platts – CRC East Asia Import CFR per month.

• (167) The Baosteel Group considered the price of iron ore pellets imported into Malaysia to be too high per tonne, compared to the price of tinplated products per tonne in China and noted the difference in price between the two subcodes for iron ore pellets, namely ‘haematite’ and ‘others’.

• (168) The information provided by the Baosteel Group in its questionnaire reply and collected during the verification visit regarding the purchases of iron ore pellets showed that the classification of iron ore pellets in HS code 2601 12 was done correctly.

• (169) The imports of iron pellets into Malaysia were of significant quantities (over 300 000 tonnes) and therefore the Commission considered the benchmark on the basis of imports into Malaysia to be accurate and representative.

• (170) The Commission therefore rejects the request of the Baosteel Group to benchmark instead to a ‘blast furnace pellet’ as the company did not show that this index would be more appropriate than the import price into Malaysia.

• (171) Following the Baosteel Group’s comment regarding the benchmark for hot rolled steel, the Commission agreed with their assessment that the data from Malaysian imports might be not representative due to the fact that the unit price of hot rolled steel was lower than the unit import price of cold rolled steel. The Commission decided to replace the import price into Malaysia with the use of data from Fastmarkets, being the index ‘Steel hot-rolled coil (Japan, Korea, Taiwan-origin), import, CFR Vietnam’ as an undistorted international benchmark.

• (172) For cold rolled steel, the Commission did not find any reasons why the Malaysian import price was not representative. Moreover, the alternatives suggested by the Baosteel Group cover ‘East Asia’ and the Commission was unable to confirm whether or not this index included prices of Chinese origin cold rolled steel and might be distorted by those prices.

• (173) After publication of the Second Note, the Baosteel Group requested that the Commission include both limestone and quicklime as consumables for Baoshan Iron and Steel rather than benchmark the consumption of these factors of production to the benchmark of Malaysian import prices.

• (174) The Commission accepted this request and both limestone and quicklime were considered as consumables.

• (175) As set out in recital (160), the Commission then calculated the percentage of the consumables on the total cost of raw materials and applied this percentage to the recalculated cost of raw materials when using the established undistorted benchmarks in the appropriate representative country.

• (176) Moreover, self-produced factors of production that only had a negligible weight in the total cost of production of the exporting producers as well as on a PCN level, were also grouped under consumables.

• (177) After disclosure of the Second Note, the Commission reconsidered the source of the benchmark for manganese and pulverised coal. Due to the limited imports of manganese into Malaysia, and the fact that the imports of pulverised coal were not given at a granular level in the import data into Malaysia, the Commission decided to replace the import price from Malaysia with an undistorted international benchmark. The Commission found these benchmarks on Fastmarkets. For manganese this was the index ‘Manganese 99,7 % electrolytic manganese flake, in-whs Rotterdam, USD/tonne’ and for pulverised coal this was the index ‘PCI low-vol, fob DBCT, USD/wmt’.

• (178) In order to establish the undistorted price of raw materials, as provided by Article 2(6a)(a), first indent of the basic Regulation, the Commission applied the relevant import duties of the representative country.

• (179) Where transport costs existed, the Commission expressed the transport cost incurred by the cooperating exporting producer 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.

• (180) 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.

Labour

• (181) The Commission used the Department of Statistics Malaysia data on manufacturing wages in the sub-sector ‘24 – manufacture of basic metals’ published in the Monthly Manufacturing Statistics March 2024 ⁶². The Commission then added the employer labour costs for the following programmes:

• — Employee Provident Fund (EPF) ⁶³

• — Social Security Organisation (PERKESO) ⁶⁴

• — Employment Insurance System (EIS)

• — Human Resources Development Fund (HRDF) ⁶⁵

Electricity

• (182) The Commission used the electricity price statistics published by Tenaga Nasional Berhad, specifically the data of the industrial electricity prices in the consumption band ‘Tariff E2 – Medium Voltage Peak/Off-Peak Industrial Tariff’ for peak usage in kWh ⁶⁶.

Natural gas

• (183) The price of natural gas for industrial users in Malaysia is published by the Malaysian Energy Commission (Suruhanjaya Tenaga) until end 2021 ⁶⁷.

• (184) In the Second Note, the Commission stated that it intended to use the natural gas prices from a document listing the 2022 natural gas rates for four gas facilities that are responsible for the industrial piped gas supply in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah on the website of Suruhanjaya Tenaga ⁶⁸.

• (185) This method was taken from a previous case where Malaysia was used as a representative country. However, the Commission noted that in that case finally a different method was used whereby the prices published on the website of Suruhanjaya Tenaga were used and then adjusted for inflation.

• (186) Upon further consideration, the Commission has decided to use the same methodology, using World Bank energy inflation ⁶⁹ to calculate the natural gas price for 2023.

Water

• (187) Water tariffs are published by the National Water Services Commission (SPAN) on their website by state. The Commission used the water tariff charged in Johor applicable for industrial users (‘non-domestic supplies’) in 2024 ⁷⁰.

Coal and coke gas

• (188) The Commission calculated the price of coal and coke gas in Malaysia using the price of natural gas and considering the heat value of the gases concerned.

Steam

• (189) The Commission calculated the price of steam in Malaysia using the methodology suggested by the U.S. Department for Energy ⁷¹ based on the cost of coal required to produce it.

• (190) The Commission used the price of coal as published by the World Bank for this calculation.

By-products and scrap

• (191) In the Second Note the Commission noted that it would use the ratio between the purchase of the ‘virgin’ raw material and the scrap where there was no customs code for the scrap material separate from the original raw material. The Commission has extended this ratio method also to scrap steel as a by-product as requested in the comments of Shougang Jingtang.

• (192) The Commission has therefore used the ratio method to calculate the benchmark for the following FOP:

• — Steel scrap

• — Recycled cold-rolled steel

• — Recycled hot-rolled steel

• — Self-produced electricity

• — Coking electricity

3.2.6.2.   SG&A costs and profit

• (193) 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’.

• (194) For establishing an undistorted and reasonable amount for SG&A costs and for profit the Commission proposed in the Second Note to use the financial data for 2023 for the Malaysian producer Perstima using their published annual accounts.

• (195) The proposed SG&A costs and profit were disclosed in the Second Note. The Commission received comments on the calculation of both these indicators from the Baosteel Group.

• (196) The Commission agreed with the Baosteel Group that the SG&A costs should be composed of only costs associated with sales and general administration. The Commission also agreed that the profit of Perstima was mainly based on ‘other income’ rather than revenue from sales.

• (197) On this basis the Commission concluded that the profit of Perstima could not be considered reasonable, and therefore another source would have to be found in order to establish an undistorted and reasonable amount for administrative, selling, and general costs and for profits.

• (198) Perstima was found to be the sole producer of tinplated products in Malaysia, based on the information contained in its request to the Malaysian authorities for an anti-dumping investigation into imports of tinplated products from China, which was initiated on 14 August 2024 ⁷².

• (199) Under the provisions of Article 2(6a)(a), final paragraph, the Commission then considered companies in other upper-middle income countries that were producers of the same general category of products as the product under investigation, i.e. steel production.

• (200) The Commission selected a company with readily available public financial statements showing a reasonable amount for SG&A and for profits margins for the steel producing industry, the Malaysian company Alliance Steel (M) Sdn. Bhd ⁷³. The company was profitable during 2023 (which covers three-quarters of the investigation period).

3.2.7.   Calculation

• (201) 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.

• (202) First, the Commission established the undistorted manufacturing costs. The Commission applied the undistorted unit costs to the actual consumption of the individual factors of production of the cooperating exporting producers. These consumption rates provided by the sampled exporting producers were verified during the verification. The Commission multiplied the usage factors by the undistorted costs per unit observed in the representative country.

• (203) For those sampled exporting producers that imported iron ore from countries without allegations of distortions under Article 2(6a), the Commission took the undistorted price paid by the sampled exporting producers rather than the benchmark established above from Malaysian import prices.

• (204) The Commission then applied the SG&A costs and profit of Alliance Steel (M) Sdn. Bhd to the cost of manufacturing. SG&A costs expressed as a percentage of the Costs of Goods Sold (‘COGS’) and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted to 6,6 %. The profit expressed as a percentage of the COGS and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted to 8,1 %.

• (205) 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.

3.3.   Export price

• (206) The sampled exporting producers exported to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related companies acting as an importer or as a trader in a third country.

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

• (208) For the exporting producers that exported the product concerned to the Union through related companies 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.

• (209) In this case, adjustments to the price were made for all costs, which would normally be borne by an importer, incurred by parties associated with the exporter, which were involved in the sales of the product concerned. The relevant costs included SG&A costs of the relevant subsidiaries involved in the sales and a nominal profit normally realised by an importer.

• (210) The Commission took 4,72 % for profits accruing, being the profit of a cooperating unrelated importer of tinplated products in the European Union during the investigation period.

3.4.   Comparison

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

• (212) It is recalled that 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 ex-works level. 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.

3.4.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

• (213) As explained in recital (201), the normal value was established at the ex-works level of trade by using costs of production together with amounts for SG&A costs 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.

• (214) Considering allowances, an adjustment was made to the normal value to take account of the difference in VAT treatment between domestic sales of tinplated products and their export. Exports are charged 13 % on export and this is not refunded through the VAT system, while when a domestic sale is made the producer collects 13 % VAT from the buyer and remits it to the GOC. The Commission found no reasons for making any other allowances to the normal value, nor were such allowances claimed by any of the sampled exporting producers.

3.4.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

• (215) In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level, adjustments were made on the account of transport, insurance, handling and loading, as well as packing.

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

• (217) Shougang Jingtang sold tinplated products to the first independent customer in the Union through their related trading company in Hong Kong. Considering that the trading company was acting as an agent working on commission basis and was remunerated for that in the form of a mark-up, the SG&A of the company in Hong Kong and notional profit of 4,72 % as set in recital (210) for profits accruing were then removed as an adjustment under Article 2(10)(i).

3.5.   Dumping margins

• (218) 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.

• (219) 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 (group)	Provisional dumping margin
Baosteel Group: — Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. — WISCO-Nippon Steel Tinplate Co., Ltd.	14,1 %
Shougang Jingtang United Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.	47,1 %

• (220) 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.

• (221) That margin was established based on the margins of the sampled exporting producers. On this basis, the provisional dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producers outside the sample is 25,3 %.

• (222) For all other exporting producers in China 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.

• (223) The level of cooperation is the quantity 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 investigation period on the basis of Eurostat.

• (224) The Commission considered that the level of cooperation in this case is low because the imports of the cooperating exporting producers constituted around 61 % of the total exports to the Union during the investigation period.

• (225) The Commission recalled that the Notice of Initiation ⁷⁴ had informed interested parties that failure to cooperate, or only partial cooperation, could lead to findings based on facts available under Article 18 of the basic Regulation, potentially resulting in less favourable outcomes for those parties. Given that the interested parties were clearly warned of the consequences of non-cooperation, and that the level of cooperation in this case was particularly low, the Commission deemed it appropriate to determine the residual dumping duty based on a representative volume of sales by Shougang Jingtang to the Union during the investigation period. These sales were considered an appropriate proxy for reflecting the dumping behaviour of companies that chose not to cooperate.

• (226) The residual dumping margin was therefore set at 62,6 %.

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

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Baosteel Group: — Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. — WISCO-Nippon Steel Tinplate Co., Ltd.	14,1 %
Shougang Jingtang United Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.	47,1 %
Other cooperating companies not sampled	25,3 %
All other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China	62,6 %

4. INJURY

4.1.   Definition of the Union industry and Union production

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

• (229) The total Union production during the investigation period was established at around 2,1 million tonnes. The Commission established the figure on the basis of all the available information concerning the Union industry, namely, the verified questionnaire replies from the complainant and the three sampled Union producers. As indicated in recital (28), the three sampled Union producers represented more than 80 % of the total Union production of the like product.

4.2.   Union consumption

• (230) The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of the macro questionnaire reply received from the complainant, cross-checked, where possible, with the verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers, and the imports into the Union of the product concerned from third countries based on Eurostat statistics.

• (231) Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 2

Union consumption (tonne)

	2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Total Union consumption	2 806 455	2 683 420	2 724 757	2 169 276	2 091 389
Index	100	96	97	78	75
Captive market	36 753	38 229	32 774	16 077	15 913
Index	100	104	89	44	43
Free market	2 769 702	2 645 191	2 691 983	2 153 199	2 075 477
Index	100	96	97	78	75
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers and Eurostat.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers and Eurostat.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers and Eurostat.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers and Eurostat.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers and Eurostat.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers and Eurostat.

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

• (233) The Commission found that a negligible part of the sampled Union producers’ production was destined for captive use. As can be seen from Table 2, volumes of the captive market remained around 1 % of the free market consumption throughout the period considered and showed a decreasing trend. The free-market consumption developed in the same way as the total Union consumption in each year of the period considered.

• (234) The Commission thus concluded that there is no need to make a distinction between captive and free market, as difference in behaviour of the captive market (if any) would not be relevant for the injury analysis, given the negligible share of captive market in the total Union consumption.

• (235) Unlike some other markets, the COVID-19 pandemic did not cause the market of tinplated products to decline during lockdowns in the Union in the period 2020-2021. With people staying at home, demand for canned food was strong, which translated into relatively stable demand for tinplated products in both years.

• (236) Thus, between 2020 and 2022 Union consumption (including free and captive) fluctuated slightly downwards, then decreased sharply by 19 percentage points in 2023 due to destocking and poor vegetable harvest in the Union, and by further 3 percentage points in the IP. Consumption overall decreased by 25 % between 2020 and the IP.

4.3.   Imports from the country concerned

4.3.1.   Quantity and market share of the imports from the country concerned

• (237) The Commission established the quantity of imports on the basis of Eurostat data. The market share of the imports was established by comparing import volumes with Union market consumption.

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

Table 3

Import quantity and market share

	2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Quantity of imports from the country concerned (tonne)	287 599	230 420	396 226	530 028	486 583
Index	100	80	138	184	169
Market share	10,4 %	8,7 %	14,7 %	24,6 %	23,4 %
Index	100	85	142	236	225
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (239) Due to exceptional circumstances of lockdowns in China and disruptions in maritime trade in 2021, the volume of Chinese imports between 2020 and 2021 first decreased by 20 %. With the demand in the Union remaining strong, Chinese imports lost some market share in that year.

• (240) As exceptional circumstances abated in 2022, both volumes and market share of Chinese imports started increasing significantly in 2022 and 2023, with a small drop in the trend from 2023 to the IP. Imports from China overall increased by 69 % over the period considered, while Chinese market share rose from 10,5 % in 2022 to 23,5 % in the IP, showing an overall increase of 125 %.

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

• (241) The Commission established the prices of imports on the basis of Eurostat data. Price undercutting of the imports was established on the basis of verified questionnaire replies of the sampled exporting producers in China and of the sampled Union producers.

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

Table 4

Import prices (EUR/tonne)

	2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
China	788	1 040	1 538	1 217	1 107
Index	100	128	189	149	136
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (243) Import prices from China increased until reaching a peak of an 89 % price increase in 2022 vis-a-vis 2020, then decreased again reaching an overall 36 % increase during the period considered.

• (244) 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 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. Due to existence of safeguards on tinplated products ⁷⁵, the Commission considered an average duty per tonne paid by a cooperating importer in the investigation period as reasonable adjustment for customs duties. Average post-importation costs incurred by the same importer were likewise considered appropriate.

• (245) The price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade 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 [15 - 25] % by the imports from the country concerned on the Union market in the investigation period.

• (246) Chinese prices were below Union industry’s costs of production in 2020, 2023, and the investigation period. 2021 was, additionally, marked by historically high costs of shipping, suggesting that the price of goods not counting ocean freight costs may have been much lower.

• (247) Such prices forced Union producers to sell below their costs of production in all years except 2022. The reason being that most customers negotiate prices for tinplated products on an annual basis with Union producers (as opposed to Chinese imports which are usually made as spot sales), and in Q4 2021 the producers were in a better position to negotiate reasonable prices.

• (248) Namely, unique circumstances of 2021 caused uncertainties in the market: as less tinplated products were available from China and other third markets due to disruptions in international trade that year, while demand for cans remained strong, users were willing to pay a higher price to secure supply from Union producers in 2022. In addition, with cost of production also starting to rise in 2021, the Union producers were able to negotiate high prices for 2022.

• (249) However, as soon as such favourable market conditions ceased to exist and Chinese imports started coming in more significant quantities, the Union producers were no longer able to negotiate sufficiently high prices to cover their cost of production. Instead, they had to decrease them both in 2023 and the IP, despite costs of production still going up in 2023.

• (250) On that basis the Commission concluded there was price suppression in 2020, 2023 and the IP, and price depression in 2023 and the IP. The Commission did therefore not find it necessary to further examine, in light of extraordinarily high maritime shipping costs in 2021, whether or not there was price suppression in 2021 also.

4.4.   Economic situation of the Union industry

4.4.1.   General remarks

• (251) 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.

• (252) 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.

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

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

4.4.2.   Macroeconomic indicators

4.4.2.1.   Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

• (255) 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	2023	Investigation period
Production quantity (tonne)	3 168 396	3 203 136	2 959 547	2 142 812	2 104 114
Index	100	101	93	68	66
Production capacity (tonne)	3 736 867	3 729 583	3 707 149	3 704 686	3 694 388
Index	100	100	99	99	99
Capacity utilisation	85 %	86 %	80 %	58 %	57 %
Index	100	101	94	68	67
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (256) While the Union industry`s production volumes somewhat increased between 2020 and 2021, they showed a steadily decreasing trend in the remainder of the period considered. Production quantity decreased by 8 percentage points from 2021 to 2022, dropped by further 15 percentage points in 2023, and declined by another 2 percentage points in the IP. Production quantity overall decreased by 34 % between 2020 and the IP due to decline in sales.

• (257) The decrease in production quantity negatively affected the capacity utilisation, which fell in step, from 85 % in 2020 to 57 % in the IP, a decrease of 33 %.

4.4.2.2.   Sales quantity and market share

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

Table 6

Sales quantity and market share

	2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Total Sales quantity on the Union market (tonne)	2 186 606	2 225 828	2 082 400	1 441 895	1 395 352
Index	100	102	95	66	64
Market share	78 %	83 %	76 %	66 %	67 %
Index	100	106	98	85	86
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (259) Union industry sales remained fairly constant between 2020 and 2021 then steadily decreased throughout the period considered, overall decreasing by 36 %.

• (260) The market share of the Union industry increased by 5 percentage points between 2020 and 2021, from 78 % to 83 %, and then showed a steadily decreasing trend in the remainder of the period considered, falling to 67 % market share in the IP.

4.4.2.3.   Growth

• (261) Over the period considered, consumption, production and sales of the product concerned on the Union market decreased. In the same period imports from China increased which led to the market share of Chinese imports more than doubling in the Union market.

• (262) As shown in Table 2 above, consumption in the Union was steadily decreasing in 2021 and 2022, before dropping significantly in 2023 and decreasing further in the IP. Consumption decreased overall 25 % during the period considered, indicating a shrinking market.

• (263) As shown in the Tables 5 and 6 above, Union production and sales volumes also show a generally decreasing trend, falling by 34 % and 36 %, respectively, between 2020 and the investigation period. This decrease was much more pronounced than the 25 % decrease in Union consumption over the same period. The Union industry’s market share also fell from 78 % to 66 % over the period considered.

• (264) At the same time, imports from China showed a generally increasing trend in terms of volumes and market shares over the period considered. Imports from China increased by 69 percentage points and their market share rose from 10,4 % to 23,4 % from 2020 to the IP.

• (265) The above trends were temporarily reversed only in 2021. Due to exceptional circumstances of lockdowns in China and disruptions in maritime trade, imports from China decreased by 15 % and their market share fell from 10,4 % to 8,7 % between 2020 and 2021. At the same time, Union industry’s production and sales volume increased, and Union industry increased their market share by 5 percentage points.

• (266) As soon as international trade started normalising in 2022, however, Chinese imports and market share both increased significantly, rising above the 2020 levels, and continued increasing in 2023, with slight slowdown in the investigation period.

• (267) At the same time, in 2022 Union industry’s production volume, sales volumes, and market share all fell to levels below those in 2020 and continued to decrease in 2023. Due to a somewhat shrinking market in the investigation period, the market share is the only of those three indicators that remained relatively stable between 2023 and the investigation period, while production and sales volumes both decreased in the investigation period also.

4.4.2.4.   Employment and productivity

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

Table 7

Employment and productivity

	2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Number of employees	6 313	5 949	6 130	4 949	4 883
Index	100	94	97	78	77
Productivity (tonne/FTE)	502	538	483	433	431
Index	100	107	96	86	86
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (269) The number of employees also consistently decreased over the period considered, with a slight fluctuation upwards in 2022 only. The number of employees fell by 6 percentage points in 2021 before increasing by 3 percentage points in 2022. It then dropped again significantly by 9 percentage points in 2023 and continued to decrease in the investigation period. Overall, the number of employees decreased by 23 %.

• (270) Productivity developed in line with the changes in production and employment, moderately increasing between 2020 and 2021, and then decreasing until the IP, reaching 86 % of the productivity of 2020. Productivity rose in 2021, consistently with production and sales volumes of the Union industry being the highest in that year out the total period considered.

• (271) Decreasing productivity in the remaining years can equally be explained by production quantity decreasing more than the number of employees between 2022 and the investigation period.

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

• (272) All dumping margins were significantly above the de minimis level. The impact of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping on the Union industry was substantial, given the quantity and prices of imports from the country concerned.

• (273) This is the first anti-dumping investigation regarding the product concerned. Therefore, no data were available to assess the effects of possible past dumping.

4.4.3.   Microeconomic indicators

4.4.3.1.   Prices and factors affecting prices

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

Table 8

Sales prices in the Union

	2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Average unit sales price in the Union on the total market (EUR/ tonne)	832	897	1 541	1 419	1 363
Index	100	108	185	171	164
Unit cost of production (EUR/ tonne)	914	1 049	1 522	1 576	1 502
Index	100	115	167	172	164
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (275) Union cost of production started increasing in 2021, due to the rise in raw material costs such as iron ore and coking coal. Increase in energy prices and further increase in raw materials’ costs increased the cost of production significantly, by 67 percentage points in 2022 and by another 5 percentage points in 2023, decreasing by 8 percentage points in the investigation period only. Cost of production overall increased by 64 % from 2020 to the investigation period.

• (276) The average Union sales price increased between 2020 and 2022 and began decreasing in 2023 and the investigation period. Overall sales prices grew by 64 % between 2020 and the investigation period.

• (277) Union industry’s average sales prices remained below the average costs of production in all years except 2022. As already explained in recitals (246) to (250) above, Chinese dumped imports were suppressing Union industry prices in 2020, and causing price suppression and depression 2023 and the investigation period, making Union industry sell at a loss.

• (278) As also already explained in recitals (247) and (248), since the customers usually negotiate prices with the Union industry on annual basis, and due to market uncertainties in 2021, Union producers were able to negotiate high prices in 2022, allowing them to sell at a profit.

• (279) As soon as international trade flow normalised, however, Union producers had to reduce their prices again.

4.4.3.2.   Labour costs

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

Table 9

Average labour costs per employee

	2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Average labour costs per employee (EUR)	76 383	89 506	97 455	85 645	90 710
Index	100	117	128	112	119
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (281) Average labour cost per full time employee increased by 17 percentage points in 2021 and further 11 in 2022, then fell by 16 in 2023 and increased by another 7 in the investigation period. Overall, labour costs increased by 19 % over the period considered.

4.4.3.3.   Inventories

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

Table 10

Inventories

	2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Closing stocks (tonne)	203 112	205 936	220 537	171 931	205 236
Index	100	101	109	85	101
Closing stocks as a percentage of production	8,9 %	8,9 %	10,3 %	10,5 %	12,3 %
Index	100	100	116	118	138
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (283) Despite falling production levels in the period considered, absolute stock levels stayed relatively stable throughout the period considered with reaching a low point of 85 % of the quantity of the 2020 closing stocks in 2023.

• (284) Relative stock as a percentage of the production, after an initial stagnation between 2020 and 2021, steadily increased throughout the remainder of the period considered reaching a 38 % increase by the investigation period.

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

• (285) 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	2023	Investigation period
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)	–4,6 %	–12,6 %	5,4 %	–7,2 %	–7,6 %
Index	- 100	- 275	119	- 157	- 166
Cash flow (EUR)	- 134 313 543	- 197 622 960	224 032 699	53 451 405	59 362 944
Index	- 100	- 147	167	40	44
Investments (EUR)	33 628 078	30 358 412	69 942 444	94 221 877	93 276 789
Index	100	90	208	280	277
Return on investments	–23,0 %	–58,7 %	68,4 %	–16,9 %	–19,8 %
Index	- 100	- 255	297	-73	-86
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.	Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers.

• (286) 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. Profitability was negative throughout the period considered except for 2022, where profit reached 5,4 %.

• (287) The Union industry’s losses in 2021 were due to specific market circumstances in that year. In fact, as set out in recital (247) and (301), prices between Union producers of tinplated products and their customers are typically fixed for one calendar year with little room for price adjustment. The prices of Union producers for 2021 were fixed on the basis of 2020 costs, whereas the cost of production increased considerably in 2021. Therefore, the Union industry was obliged to sell its products below its cost of production while maintaining and even slightly increasing sales volumes which led to considerable losses in that year.

• (288) Following the losses incurred due to low prices and rising costs of production in 2021, the Union industry negotiated 70 % higher prices in 2022 in order to reflect the considerable rise in production costs. As was already explained in recitals (247) to (249), and (277) and (278) above, 2022 was the only year that the Union industry managed to sell tinplated products above their costs of production, due to the favourable position it found itself in when negotiating prices for that year at the end of 2021. This naturally resulted in positive profitability.

• (289) The trend in net cash flow broadly followed the evolution in profit, remaining however positive in 2023 and the investigation period on account of export sales and inventory valuation movements in those years.

• (290) Investments, even though they decreased in 2021, more than doubled in 2022, and rose by additional 72 percentage points in 2023, before decreasing slightly in the investigation period.

• (291) The largest share of this investment is, however, attributable to a large maintenance investment undertaken by just one Union producer for regular maintenance of one of its blast furnaces. This project could not reasonably be postponed as such major overhaul has to be made at regular intervals to ensure functionality of a blast furnace and is thus necessary to maintain operations of the entire company. Additionally, several environmental compliance investments were undertaken during this period, which further increased investment figures.

• (292) The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. Return on investment remained negative and stable throughout the period with a notable negative and positive exception in 2021 and 2022 respectively, broadly following the trends in profitability of sales.

4.4.4.   Conclusion on injury

• (293) The main injury indicators showed a negative trend over the period considered. In terms of sales, profitability, cash flow, and return on investment, the situation of the Union industry temporarily improved in 2022 but declined again from 2023 on. Profitability remained negative throughout the period considered except for the temporary increase to 5,4 % in 2022, due to exceptional circumstances in the market after the COVID-19 pandemic. As explained in recitals (287) and (301), the drop in profitability in 2021 was due to specific circumstances, namely to unexpected rise in several elements of production costs, while the Union producers were not able to increase their prices sufficiently due to the nature of the contracts they have with their customers.

• (294) Investments were seemingly the only indicator which showed positive trends. However, rather than increasing investment being a sign of a healthy state of the Union industry, as mentioned above, these investments were due to necessary maintenance and environmental compliance.

• (295) All the other injury indicators showed decreasing trends. Production volumes of the Union industry decreased by 34 %, in line with Union sales which decreased by 36 % between 2020 and the investigation period. This decrease was more significant than the decrease of the Union consumption, which decreased by 25 % during the same period. Consequently, the market share of the Union industry dropped from 78 % in 2020 to 66 % in the IP.

• (296) Meanwhile, Chinese imports increased by 69 % during the period considered. The largest surge in imports happened in 2023, at the time when demand shrunk the most, resulting in an increase in the Chinese market share from 10,4 % in 2020 to 23,4 % in the investigation period.

• (297) Some loss of sales volumes might have been expected in the context of a shrinking market. However, the drop in Union industry’s sales was much more pronounced than the drop in Union demand while volumes of imports from China were increasing even as demand was falling. Consequently, market share evolution trends were almost perfectly inversed between Union industry’s sales and Chinese, showing clear volume injury.

• (298) The Union industry was faced with a significant increase in the cost of production, which rose by 65 % over the period considered. The increase in cost was driven mainly by higher costs of the principal raw materials and energy. The Union industry increased their sales prices sufficiently to offset this major cost increase (increase of 64 % between 2020 and the investigation period).

• (299) The Union industry was lossmaking for almost the entire period concerned, with the sole exception of 2022. However, its overall profitability decreased over the period considered from –4,6 % in 2020 to –7,6 % in the investigation period with an exceptional drop in 2021 followed by an exceptional increase in 2022 as set out in recitals (287) to (288).

• (300) These declining trends were temporarily reversed in 2021 and 2022, as the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the market. With people staying at home, demand for canned food was strong in 2021, which translated into stable demand for tinplated products. At the same time, imports from China fell by 20 % in 2021, likely due to ocean freight disruptions and strict lockdowns in China, prompting users to turn more to Union suppliers. Union industry’s sales volumes thus slightly increased and their market share rose by 5 percentage points in that year.

• (301) As explained above, since prices with Union producers are usually negotiated on an annual basis at the end of the year before, the Union industry could thus not profit to a sufficient extent from such increase in sales volumes in 2021, as they were locked into prices negotiated in 2020.

• (302) Conversely, given the market above-described market uncertainties that arose in 2021, at the negotiations for 2022 contracts, the users were willing to pay higher prices to secure a steady supply. With cost of production also starting to rise in 2021, the Union producers were able to negotiate high prices for 2022. The Union industry was thus able to achieve high cashflow and positive profitability in that year.

• (303) As soon as international trade flows began normalising, however, all those indicators started declining again, as the Union industry began losing market share and had to reduce its prices in both 2023 and the investigation period, despite rising costs of production.

• (304) 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.

• (305) The Commission did not find it necessary, therefore, to examine the claims on the threat of injury at this stage.

5. CAUSATION

• (306) 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: declining consumption, imports from third countries, and export performance of the Union industry.

5.1.   Effects of the dumped imports

• (307) As shown in Table 1 above, consumption in the Union was steadily decreasing in 2021 and 2022, before dropping significantly in 2023 and decreasing further in the investigation period. Consumption decreased overall 25 % during the period considered, indicating a shrinking market.

• (308) As shown in the Tables 5 and 6 above, Union production and sales volumes also show a generally decreasing trend, falling by 34 % and 36 %, respectively, between 2020 and the investigation period. This decrease was much more pronounced than the 25 % decrease in Union consumption over the same period. The Union industry’s market share also fell from 78 % to 66 % over the period considered.

• (309) At the same time, imports from China showed a generally increasing trend in terms of volumes and market shares over the period considered. The volume of imports from China thus increased by 69 % in absolute terms and their market share rose from 10,4 % to 23,4 % (that is by 125 %) from 2020 to the investigation period.

• (310) The above trends were temporarily reversed only in 2021. Due to exceptional circumstances of lockdowns in China and disruptions in maritime trade, imports from China decreased by 15 % and their market share fell from 10,4 % to 8,7 % between 2020 and 2021. At the same time, Union industry’s production and sales volume increased, and Union industry increased their market share by 5 percentage points. However, as explained in recital (287), due to the low annual sales prices set for 2021 and due to the increase in production costs, the Union industry was obliged to sell below their cost of production and therefore incurred significant losses in that year.

• (311) As soon as international trade started normalising in 2022, however, Chinese imports and market share both increased significantly, rising above the 2020 levels, and continued increasing in 2023, with slight slowdown in the investigation period.

• (312) At the same time, Union industry’s production volume, sales volumes, and market share all fell to levels below those in 2020 and continued to decrease in 2023 and the investigation period. Due to somewhat shrinking market, market share of the Union industry is the only of those three indicators that remained relatively stable between 2023 and the investigation period.

• (313) CISA and Steelforce claimed that any injury could not have been caused by the dumped imports from China. CISA claimed that Chinese import volumes have no correlation with the evolution of the injury indicators, while Steelforce claimed that, even if they were gaining market share, they did so at the expense of other countries’ market shares.

• (314) Furthermore, CISA claimed that Chinese prices could not have caused injury since they moved in line with market trends. Steelforce added that Union industry prices were below the Chinese in 2021 and virtually the same in 2022, indicating that Union producers were able to pursue their own pricing policy. In addition, Steelforce claimed that if it was indeed economically more sensible, Union producers could have moved from yearly contracts to spot sales, ensuring that they would be able to sell products at a profit.

• (315) As summarised in recitals (307) to (312) above, the trends of volumes and market shares of Chinese imports and the Union industry’s sales and market shares are almost perfectly inverse. Contrary to CISA’s claims, this shows clear correlation with the evolution of sales volumes and the injury indicators.

• (316) As concerns prices, while prices of Chinese imports were indeed higher than Union prices in 2021 and about the same in 2022, this was due to aforementioned exceptional circumstances, and the fact that Union producers are locked into annual agreements with most of their customers.

• (317) As explained in, among others, recitals (239), (246), (265) and (310) above, due to disruptions in maritime trade and strict lockdowns in China, the volume of imports to the Union in 2021 decreased, and landed prices seemingly increased above the Union producers’ sales prices. However, with Union producers being locked into prices fixed by long term contracts negotiated at the end of 2020, they could not sufficiently profit from such favourable conditions to increase their sales prices. At the same time the cost of production began rising significantly in 2021, worsening Union industry’s losses in that year.

• (318) As explained in recital (288), disruptions in the market in 2021 and annually negotiated contracts, on the other hand, put Union producers in a favourable position towards its customers when negotiating prices for 2022 – due to uncertainties of 2021, the users were keen to secure sufficient supply in 2022. This allowed the Union industry to raise prices and be profitable in 2022 for the only time in the period concerned.

• (319) Furthermore, as explained in recitals (244) and (245) above, significant price undercutting was established on a type-by-type basis. In addition, the evolution and effect of Chinese prices was described in recitals (246) to (250) above, and the Commission concluded that Chinese import prices caused price suppression in 2020, 2023 and the investigation period, and price depression in 2023 and the investigation period.

• (320) This is not invalidated even if, as CISA claims, Chinese prices evolved similarly to prices from other third markets or the Union industry’s prices. Chinese prices were lower than almost all other third countries’ import prices in almost all the years of the period considered, with the exception of India (see Table 12 below). In addition, Chinese imports held by far the largest market share of all the imports, with the next five biggest importing countries individually holding between 0,7 % and 3,2 % of the market share in any year of the period considered. Chinese imports thus clearly exerted the biggest influence on price behaviour in the market.

• (321) Finally, the Commission pointed out that, as Steelforce claimed, if the Union producers were able to pursue their own pricing policy and/or move to spot sales which would yield profitability in all years, they undoubtedly would. No evidence was presented as to why the Union industry would deliberately cause injury to itself.

• (322) Instead, as the complainant explained, the annually negotiated prices for tinplated products are a market standard, forced from the bottom of the supply chain. Major retailers demand annually negotiated prices from their canned food suppliers, which, in turn, demand the same from their can suppliers. Can producers, as the main users of tinplated products, thus demand the same from the Union industry to guarantee a stable source of supply.

5.2.   Effects of other factors

5.2.1.   Consumption

• (323) Demand of tinplated products was influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic in a particular way. During lockdowns of 2020 and 2021, people consumed and stockpiled more canned food. The demand for cans, and consequently tinplated products, thus, remained fairly stable in those years and in 2022, fluctuating slightly downwards.

• (324) At the end of that period, consumption in the Union decreased sharply by 19 percentage points in 2023, and further 3 in the investigation period. The sharp drop in 2023 can be attributed to destocking from previous years and a poor vegetable harvest in Europe in 2022. Consumption overall decreased by 25 % between 2020 and the investigation period.

• (325) CISA and Steelforce claimed that the injury was primarily caused by such market contraction.

• (326) The Commission noted, however, that, while demand in the Union did decrease, this cannot account for the loss of sales volumes and declining profitability of the Union industry in 2023 and the investigation period.

• (327) As already explained above, Union industry sales volumes decreased by 36 %, almost 50 % more than the shrinkage in consumption, while Chinese import volumes kept increasing, even as the market was shrinking.

• (328) Furthermore, such imports were coming into the Union at prices which undercut, suppressed, and depressed the prices of the Union industry.

• (329) The Commission thus concluded that, even in the shrinking market where the Union industry would have lost some sales volumes, Chinese imports remained the main factor causing injury.

5.2.2.   Imports from third countries

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

Table 12

Imports from third countries

Country		2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Serbia	Quantity (tonne)	88 422	75 247	78 718	64 317	58 249
	Index	100	85	89	73	66
	Market share	3,2 %	2,8 %	2,9 %	3,0 %	2,8 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	817	965	1 546	1 411	1 352
	Index	100	118	189	173	166
Türkiye	Quantity (tonne)	61 939	46 406	52 808	25 485	40 630
	Index	100	75	85	41	66
	Market share	2,2 %	1,8 %	2,0 %	1,2 %	2,0 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	848	1 067	1 571	1 297	1 130
	Index	100	126	185	153	133
India	Quantity (tonne)	34 794	35 139	31 805	36 028	38 686
	Index	100	101	91	104	111
	Market share	1,3 %	1,3 %	1,2 %	1,7 %	1,9 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	763	1 106	1 471	1 121	1 048
	Index	100	145	193	147	137
South Korea	Quantity (tonne)	30 433	20 503	32 073	26 823	28 658
	Index	100	67	105	88	94
	Market share	1,1 %	0,8 %	1,2 %	1,2 %	1,4 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	844	906	1 618	1 336	1 185
	Index	100	107	192	158	141
United Kingdom	Quantity (tonne)	63 964	25 997	19 508	16 261	18 045
	Index	100	41	30	25	28
	Market share	2,3 %	1,0 %	0,7 %	0,8 %	0,9 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	1 154	1 031	1 401	1 589	1 544
	Index	100	89	121	138	134
Taiwan	Quantity (tonne)	23 665	4 600	14 688	18 357	16 457
	Index	100	19	62	78	70
	Market share	0,9 %	0,2 %	0,5 %	0,9 %	0,8 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	815	994	1 658	1 142	1 095
	Index	100	122	203	140	134
Other third countries (except China)	Quantity (tonne)	29 034	19 281	16 532	10 083	8 728
	Index	100	66	57	35	30
	Market share	1,0 %	0,7 %	0,6 %	0,5 %	0,4 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	803	1 000	1 558	1 320	1 319
	Index	100	125	194	164	164
Total of all third countries except the country concerned	Quantity (tonne)	332 251	227 173	246 132	197 354	209 453
	Index	100	68	74	59	63
	Market share	12,0 %	8,6 %	9,1 %	9,2 %	10,1 %
	Average price (EUR/tonne)	803	1 000	1 558	1 320	1 319
	Index	100	125	194	164	164
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (331) As Table 12 above shows, imports from other third countries (excluding China) have historically been low. In total, those imports held 12 % of the market share in 2020, which fell to 10 % in the investigation period, as their import volumes decreased by 37 % during that period. China is by far the biggest importer into the Union, while the next five biggest importers individually held between 0,7 % and 3,2 % of the market share over the period considered.