Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/393 of 26 February 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of epoxy resins originating in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand

• (121) The Commission found that, in the absence of any evidence indicating the contrary, substantial imports from China are likely to influence overall import prices. This indeed was demonstrated by price alignment between Chinese and non-Chinese imports into Thailand where the proportion of the former was significant, as explained in recital (114). For this reason, it is in fact the Commission’s practice not to consider countries with a high proportion of imports of key factors of production from China as appropriate representative countries. The Commission therefore decided to disregard imports into Thailand of ECH and caustic soda as undistorted benchmarks to establish the normal value.

• (122) Nevertheless, the complainant disagreed with the Commission’s proposal to use Malaysia as source for undistorted benchmarks for ECH and caustic soda. The complainant argued that Malaysia does not meet the criteria to serve as an undistorted benchmark for two reasons. First, Malaysia does not produce liquid epoxy resin, which relies on ECH among other inputs. Second, Malaysia is not insulated from the market distortions affecting the Asian epoxy resin production chain. For these reasons, the complainant proposed that the Commission used Brazil instead. According to the complainant, Brazil produces a higher amount of epoxy resins, including liquid epoxy resins. Moreover, Brazilian prices of ECH and caustic soda are more aligned to international prices than Malaysian prices. Finally, the complainant argued that Brazilian import prices of ECH and caustic soda are higher than import prices in Malaysia.

• (123) The Commission emphasized that Malaysia was a country with epoxy resin production, albeit allegedly not in liquid forms, and that it imported ECH and caustic soda from undistorted sources in significant volumes. Furthermore, the claim regarding Chinese distortions spreading across Asia was not substantiated. Consequently, the Commission dismissed this comment.

• (124) Regarding the proposed alternative, Brazil, the Commission observed that Chinese ECH imports accounted for 27 % of total ECH imports, compared to 0 % of Chinese imports into Malaysia for the same material during the investigation period. Therefore, the Commission concluded that Malaysia was a more suitable source for determining an undistorted value for ECH than Brazil.

• (125) Finally, in its reply to the First Note, the complainant claimed that SG&A costs and profit of the Thai producer of epoxy resins might be distorted, as it would be benefitting from a distorted market price of ECH. The complainant therefore requested the Commission to use epoxy producers in Brazil, also known to be more vertically integrated than their Thai competitors, to establish undistorted values for profit and SG&A. However, the complainant failed to provide any evidence to support this claim as well as alternative and usable public available financial accounts of Brazilian producers. Therefore, their comment was dismissed as unsubstantiated.

3.1.2.4.5.   Level of social and environmental protection

• (126) Having established that Thailand was the most appropriate representative country for which the relevant data were readily available, based on all of the above elements, there was no need to carry out an assessment of the level of social and environmental protection in accordance with the last sentence of Article 2(6a)(a) first indent of the basic Regulation. Regarding the undistorted data of ECH and caustic soda, Malaysia was found to provide the most appropriate representative data and therefore neither an assessment of the level of social and environmental protection concerning Malaysia was needed.

3.1.2.4.6.   Conclusion

• (127) In view of the above analysis, Thailand (and Malaysia regarding ECH and caustic soda) met the criteria laid down in Article 2(6a)(a), first indent of the basic Regulation in order to be considered as an appropriate representative country.

3.1.2.5.   Sources used to establish undistorted costs

• (128) In the First Note, the Commission listed the factors of production such as materials, energy and labour used in the production of the product under investigation by the exporting producers and invited the interested parties to comment and propose readily available information on undistorted values for each of the factors of production mentioned in that note.

• (129) 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 and lignite. In addition, the Commission stated that it would use data from the Bank of Thailand for establishing undistorted costs of labour ⁶⁵, the Thai Provincial Electricity Authority and Thai Energy Regulatory Commission for electricity ⁶⁶ and the Energy Policy and Planning Office of the Ministry of Energy for the natural gas and consequently steam ⁶⁷.

• (130) Moreover, in the Second Note, the Commission updated the list of factors of production based on the comments of the parties and information submitted by the sampled exporting producers in the questionnaire reply.

• (131) Finally, in the Second Note, the Commission also informed the interested parties that due to the large number of factors of production of the sampled exporting producers that provided complete information and the negligible weight of some of the raw materials in the total cost of production, these negligible items were grouped under ‘consumables’. Further, the Commission informed that it would calculate the percentage of the consumables on the total cost of raw materials and apply this percentage to the recalculated cost of raw materials when using the established undistorted benchmarks in the appropriate representative country.

3.1.2.6.   Undistorted costs and benchmarks

3.1.2.6.1.   Factors of production

• (132) 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 epoxy resins

Factor of Production	Thailand commodity code73	Undistorted value	Unit of measurement
Raw materials	Raw materials	Raw materials	Raw materials
Bisphenol A	2907 23 00	GTA – Thailand	8,76 CNY/kg
Epichlorohydrin (ECH)	2910 30	GTA – Malaysia	8,89 CNY/Kg
Caustic Soda (Sodium hydroxide) 50 %	281512001020	GTA – Malaysia	1,68 CNY/kg
Caustic Soda (Sodium hydroxide) 32 %	281512001020	GTA – Malaysia	1,68 CNY/kg
Acetone	2914 11 00	GTA – Thailand	6,39 CNY/kg
Benzene (or ‘petrobenzene’ or ‘C6H6’)	2902 20 00	GTA – Thailand	6,95 CNY/kg
Phenol	290711001010	GTA – Thailand	7,35 CNY/kg
Propane	2711 12 00	GTA – Thailand	4,68 CNY/kg
Propylene	2901 22 00	GTA – Thailand	6,97 CNY/kg
Allyl Glycidyl Ether	291090001030	GTA – Thailand	33,50 CNY/kg
Labour	Labour	Labour	Labour
Labour	N/A	Bank of Thailand68 and ILO69	18,55 CNY/hour
Energy	Energy	Energy	Energy
Electricity	N/A	Thai Provincial Electricity Authority70	1,03 CNY/kWh
Natural Gas	N/A	Energy Policy and Planning Office of the Ministry of Energy71	2,83 CNY/m3
Steam	N/A	Energy Policy and Planning Office of the Ministry of Energy72	215,7 CNY/MT
Lignite	2702 10	GTA – Thailand	0,27 CNY/kg

• (133) The Commission included a value for manufacturing overhead costs to cover costs not included in the factors of production referred to above. The methodology is duly explained in recitals (158) to (160).

3.1.2.6.2.   Raw materials

• (134) To establish the undistorted price of 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 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 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 ⁷⁴. The Commission decided to exclude imports from the China into the representative country as it concluded in recital (103) 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. 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 quantities were considered by the Commission to be representative.

• (135) For a number of factors of production, the actual costs incurred by the cooperating exporting producers represented a negligible share of total raw material costs (up to 2,5 %) in the investigation period. As the value used for these had no appreciable impact on the dumping margin calculations, regardless of the source used, the Commission decided to include those costs into consumables as explained in the recital (157).

• (136) 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 in the representative country, or Malaysia for ECH and caustic soda.

• (137) The Commission expressed the transport cost incurred by the cooperating 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.

• (138) Following the Second Note, Jiangsu Sanmu Group raised the point that the Commission applied the same benchmark for two grades of caustic soda (32 % and 50 % concentration) and suggested an adjustment to account for the higher market price typically commanded by the 50 % grade.

• (139) The Commission acknowledged that the market price for caustic soda 50 % grade is indeed higher than that of the 32 % grade. However, the available benchmark price from GTA refers to ‘Sodium Hydroxide (Caustic Soda): In Aqueous Solution (Soda Lye or Liquid Soda)’, which implies this benchmark is an average price for imports of various grades of caustic soda. Given the lack of grade-specific pricing data, the Commission concluded that using this average price from GTA was the most reliable option. Furthermore, the approximation introduced by this method is mitigated by the fact that the epoxy production process also consumes a mix of caustic soda grades. Consequently, the proposed adjustment was rejected.

• (140) Jiangsu Sanmu Group submitted a claim concerning the level of trade at which import data (source: GTA ⁷⁵) are used and opposed the Commission’s decision to rely on duty-paid prices, comprehensive of ocean freight, insurance, port fees, inland transport, and import duties, to represent a benchmark for Chinese cost of raw material. They stressed that these factors are irrelevant to the production process of Chinese producers which mostly supply their raw material domestically and inflate the cost base to determine the normal value. In other words, they claimed that import statistics of a third country do not accurately reflect domestic prices or actual purchase costs in the country concerned, since the level of import prices is subject to distortions by various external factors, including import volumes, geographical distance between the importing and exporting countries, and the availability of such inputs in that country. Jiangsu Sanmu Group therefore requested the Commission to deduct from the import CIF value of the factors of production into the representative country the costs relating to ocean freight, inland transportation, insurance, and customs duties. This would approximate the benchmark prices to prices of domestically purchased inputs.

• (141) The Commission rejected this claim. All the elements cited by Jiangsu Sanmu Group are costs which need to be reflected in the price ultimately charged in the market of the representative country. Additionally, these final prices, which incorporate such elements, are influenced by competitive forces in the importing countries. Therefore, they serve as a reliable source for determining undistorted costs in representative markets.

• (142) Following the First Note, the complainant requested that the Commission distinguish between direct raw materials (such BPA, ECH and caustic soda) used specifically in the epoxy resins production process, and upstream raw materials (like propylene, phenol, acetone, benzene and propane) used in upstream stages by vertically integrated producers.

• (143) The Commission noted that integrated producers use upstream raw materials internally to produce BPA and/or ECH, which are the direct inputs for manufacturing epoxy resins and it applied benchmarks based on each exporting producer’s actual raw materials consumptions, regardless of whether the materials are direct or upstream raw materials.

• (144) The complainant argued that if the Commission includes propylene and benzene as raw materials, it should also include chlorine, glycerol and hydrogen chloride. However, based on the verified replies of the sampled exporting producers, the consumption of these inputs represents an insignificant share of the cost of manufacturing and are therefore treated as consumables.

3.1.2.6.3.   Labour

• (145) To establish the benchmark for labour costs the Commission used the last publicly available data from the Bank of Thailand ⁷⁶ for the average wages in Thailand during the investigation period. These were adjusted to include social charges ⁷⁷. Finally, the total annual labour cost was divided by the number of hours in the year (i.e. 8 hours per day, multiplied by 5 working days a week and by the number of weeks in a year).

• (146) In their comments to the Second Note, Jiangsu Sanmu Group objected the assumption of a weekly working time of 40 hours as described in recital (145), considering it underestimated the actual working time. Jiangsu Sanmu Group referred to the Thai Ministry of Labour which allow up to 48 hours a week. Moreover, the company commented that the Commission’s calculation does not account for overtime, which is common practice in Thailand. In their comments, Jiangsu Sanmu Group stressed that according to the Thai labour law overtime shall be paid at least 1,5 times the standard wage rate for regular working day and up to 2 times on rest days, public holidays, or annual leave.

• (147) The Commission noted that Jiangsu Sanmu Group did not provide any concrete evidence suggesting that workers in epoxy resins production in Thailand work more than 40 hours. It was recalled that if interested parties wish to dispute the Commission’s complex assessments in the context of constructing the normal value, it is for them to adduce concrete evidence showing that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in the evidence taken into account for the purposes of that calculation. As in the case of CCCME ⁷⁸ Jiangsu Sanmu Group claimed that weekly working hours are in fact higher in Thailand, but did not rely on concrete evidence. In analogous situation in CCCME the General Court found that ‘the applicants have not adduced evidence that the Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment by using the value of 40 hours per working week in Thailand in order to calculate the labour cost associated with the production of the product concerned.’ ⁷⁹ The Commission therefore rejected this claim.

• (148) In its comments to the Second Note, the complainant contested the methodology used by the Commission to establish the labour costs and argued that these should be aligned to previous investigations where Thailand was used as representative country (namely the anti-dumping proceeding against iron or steel fasteners from China ⁸⁰). Additionally, the complainant noted that the estimated unit labour cost was significantly lower than during the investigation of the fastener case (i.e. 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020).

• (149) The Commission clarified that it used the same methodology and sources as in the fasteners case to establish an undistorted value for the labour costs. The claim was therefore rejected.

3.1.2.6.4.   Electricity

• (150) To establish the benchmark price for electricity, the Commission used the quotation of the electricity price for business, industrial and state enterprises available on the website of the Provincial Electricity Authority ⁸¹, 4.2 Time of use tariff (TOU tariff). The Commission used the data on the industrial electricity prices in the corresponding consumption band 4.2.3: Below 12 kV.

• (151) This energy charge has been unchanged since 2018 and is updated on a monthly basis using the instrument called ‘Ft surcharge’. Electricity charges billed for each month are therefore calculated as:

• — an electricity base charge, according to the tariffs described above and which remained constant over the years, PLUS/MINUS,

• — an energy adjustment charge (Ft), which is periodically updated by the Thai Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) ⁸².

• (152) When computing the benchmark, the Commission added the average energy adjusted charge to the electricity base charge, for the investigation period.

• (153) The benchmark was established for each sampled exporting producer based on respective peak and off-peak consumption, when the exporting producer distinguished between peak and off-peak consumption. The resulting usage was allocated to the peak and off-peak rates. If a sampled exporting producer did not distinguish between peak and off-peak consumption, peak rates were applied.

3.1.2.6.5.   Natural gas

• (154) To establish the benchmark for gas, the Commission used the prices of gas for companies (industrial users) in Thailand published by the Energy Policy and Planning Office of the Ministry of Energy ⁸³. The Commission used the corresponding prices from Table 7.2-4: Final Energy Consumption Per Capita. The Commission used as benchmark the most recent data relating to 2023.

3.1.2.6.6.   Steam

• (155) To establish the benchmark for steam expressed in CNY/MT, the Commission started from the price of natural gas expressed in CNY/m³, computed according to the methodology presented in recital (154). Using a generally accepted conversion factor ⁸⁴, the Commission estimated the energy content of gas, expressed in MMBtu/m³. Next, by applying the combustion efficiency factor published by US Department of Energy ⁸⁵, the Commission determined the amount of gas energy that can be transferred to steam, expressed in Btu/m³ of gas. Using the relevant table published by the US Department of Energy, the Commission determined the amount of energy stored in saturated steam at a pressure of 4 MPa, expressed in Btu/kg of steam. By combining these elements (the price of gas in CNY/m³, the energy transferred to steam in Btu/m³ of gas and the energy stored in steam in Btu/kg of steam), the Commission obtained the benchmark price of steam in CNY/MT ⁸⁶.

3.1.2.6.7.   Lignite

• (156) In order to establish the undistorted price of lignite 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 to which import duties and transport costs were added, as explained in recital (134).

3.1.2.6.8.   Consumables

• (157) Due to the large number of factors of production of the sampled exporting producers that provided complete information and the negligible weight of some of the raw materials in the total cost of production, some of the factors of production were considered consumables. The Commission calculated the percentage of the consumables in the total cost of production and applied this percentage to the recalculated cost of production based on benchmarks.

3.1.2.6.9.   Manufacturing overhead costs, SG&A and profits

• (158) 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.

• (159) The manufacturing overheads incurred by the cooperating exporting producers were expressed as a share of the costs of manufacturing actually incurred by the exporting producers. This percentage was applied to the undistorted costs of manufacturing.

• (160) For establishing an undistorted and reasonable amount for SG&A costs and profit, the Commission relied on the financial data for the financial year ending on 31 March 2024 for Aditya Birla Chemicals (Thailand) Co., Ltd. as provided by the company, in non-confidential version. Based on the available data of Aditya Birla Chemicals (Thailand) Co., Ltd., the Commission used 18,0 % as undistorted value for SG&A costs and 9,3 % as undistorted value for profit.

• 3.1.2.6.10. Calculation

• (161) 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.

• (162) 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 producer. These consumption rates provided by the applicant were verified during the verification. The Commission multiplied the usage factors by the undistorted costs per unit observed in the representative country, as described in Section 3.1.2.6.2.

• (163) Once the undistorted manufacturing cost are established, the Commission applied the manufacturing overheads, SG&A costs and profit as noted in recitals (158) to (160). They were determined on the basis of the financial statements of company as explained in recital (160).

• (164) Then the Commission added manufacturing overheads, as explained in recital (160) to the undistorted cost of manufacturing in order to arrive at the undistorted costs of production.

• (165) To the costs of production established as described in the previous recital, the Commission applied SG&A and profit of company. SG&A expressed as a percentage of the Costs of Goods Sold (‘COGS’) and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted to 18,0 %. The profit expressed as a percentage of the COGS and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted to 9,3 %.

• (166) 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.

3.1.3.   Export price

• (167) The sampled exporting producers exported to the Union directly to independent customers.

• (168) Therefore, 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.

3.1.4.   Comparison

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

3.1.4.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

• (170) As explained in recital (161), 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.

• (171) 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.

3.1.4.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

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

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

3.1.5.   Dumping margins

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

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

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Jiangsu Sanmu Group Co., Ltd.	24,2 %
Sinochem Group, consisting of — Jiangsu Ruiheng New Material Technology Co., Ltd. — Nantong Xingchen Synthetic Material Co., Ltd. — Jiangsu Kumho Yangnong Chemical Co., Ltd.	40,8 %

• (176) 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.

• (177) On this basis, the provisional dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producers outside the sample is 30,3 %.

• (178) 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.

• (179) 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 investigation period, that were established on the basis of Eurostat.

• (180) The level of cooperation in this case is high because the exports of the Chinese cooperating exporting producers constituted around 85 % of the total imports from China during the investigation period. On this basis, the Commission decided to establish the dumping margin for non-cooperating exporting producers at the level of the group with the highest dumping margin.

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

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Jiangsu Sanmu Group Co., Ltd.	24,2 %
Sinochem Group consisting of — Jiangsu Ruiheng New Material Technology Co., Ltd. — Nantong Xingchen Synthetic Material Co., Ltd. — Jiangsu Kumho Yangnong Chemical Co., Ltd.	40,8 %
Other cooperating companies	30,3 %
All other imports originating in China	40,8 %

3.2.   General methodology for the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand

• (182) The Commission sets out in recitals (183) to (191) below the general methodology it used for the dumping calculations. Where warranted, any country- or company-specific issues relevant for these calculations are addressed in the country-specific sections below.

3.2.1.   Normal value

• (183) The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for each sampled exporting producer was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period.

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

• (185) The Commission then examined whether the domestic sales by each sampled exporting producer on its domestic market for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of a product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the identical or comparable product type to the Union.

• (186) The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each product type during the investigation period in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (191) Normal value was constructed by adding the following to the average cost of production of the like product of each sampled exporting producer during the investigation period:

• (a) the weighted average selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses incurred by each sampled exporting producer on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period; and

• (b) the weighted average profit realised by each sampled exporting producer on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period.

• (192) The complainant claimed that in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation the normal value should be constructed, due to the fact that domestic prices were below the cost of production when adjusted for distorted production costs in Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. Namely, it argued that the Asian epoxy resin market is distorted by Chinese overcapacity, resulting in artificially low prices for epoxy resin and its inputs, including bisphenol-A (‘BPA’) and epichlorohydrin (‘ECH’). According to the claim, Chinese overcapacity for epoxy resin and its inputs, combined with artificially low energy prices in Korea and Taiwan, have distorted production costs and pricing for epoxy resin in Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. This situation allegedly prevented a proper comparison between domestic and export sales, making it impossible to determine whether home market sales were ‘in the ordinary course of trade’.

• (193) The complainant requested that the Commission exercised its broad authority to adjust costs under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation by adjusting the exporters' cost of production to reflect non-distorted prices of ECH and BPA. They argued that this action was necessary to determine whether any home market sales prices were below the cost of production.

• (194) The Commission considered that the complainant did not demonstrate that the conditions to adjust costs under Article 2(5) were present. Moreover, the claims were not substantiated. In particular, the alleged price effects the Chinese overcapacity was causing in the BPA and ECH markets across Asia. For example, the investigation revealed that the ECH purchase price in Korea during the investigation period, despite claims of high imports from China, was higher than the average import price of ECH in Malaysia, where there were no imports from China. This contradicted the complainant’s claim that the Chinese overcapacity resulted in lower prices of raw materials, in particular ECH, in Korea.

• (195) Furthermore, the claim regarding Chinese overcapacity in BPA was not supported by evidence, as GTA ⁸⁷ statistics showed that China’s exports accounted for only 1 % of global BPA exports.

• (196) The claim regarding artificially low energy prices in Korea and Taiwan was also not supported by evidence. The claim relied primarily on the dominant position of state-owned enterprises in the electricity market and comparisons of electricity prices to those in the Union and Japan. However, such price differences alone cannot, in any case, determine the existence of significant distortions in the market of a specific country. The complainant, for example, ignored the sources of energy and the associated costs of its generation, which play a crucial role in shaping electricity prices.

• (197) The complainant further claimed that the main electricity provider in Korea reported losses on their purchase and sales prices per kWh during certain periods, however, these did not fully cover the investigation period. A similar situation was observed in Taiwan. While this may indicate financial challenges for the energy providers, such claims were insufficient to demonstrate the existence of market distortions, without a comprehensive assessment of the underlying factors, such as energy production methods, government policies, and market dynamics, which were not presented or analysed by the complainant.

• (198) The Commission thus considered that the information provided by the complainant was not sufficient to make an appropriate analysis on the claimed distortions in the Asian epoxy resin market caused by Chinese overcapacity resulting in artificially low prices for epoxy resin and its inputs in Korea, Taiwan and Thailand and that combined with artificially low energy prices in Korea and Taiwan, had distorted production costs and pricing for epoxy resin. The claim was therefore rejected.

3.2.2.   Export price

• (199) The exporting producers exported to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related companies acting as importers.

• (200) When exporting producers 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.

• (201) When the exporting producers 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. In this case, adjustments to the price were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including SG&A costs, and for profits.

3.2.3.   Comparison

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

3.3.   Republic of Korea

• (203) Two exporting producers in Korea were sampled in this investigation, Kukdo Chemical Co., Ltd. and Kumho P&B Chemicals, Inc.

• (204) A wholly owned subsidiary of Kukdo Chemical Co., Ltd., Kukdo Finechem Co., Ltd., also produced and sold the product concerned during the investigation period and cooperated in this investigation. Both exporting producers were considered as part of the Kukdo Group.

• (205) On the domestic market, both exporting producers/groups sold the product concerned to independent customers directly. Likewise, sales to the Union were made either directly to independent customers, or through related companies.

3.3.1.   Normal value

• (206) Normal value for both Korean exporting producers/groups was established in line with the general methodology set out in section 3.2.1 above. As a result, the normal value for the majority of product types exported to the Union was based on actual domestic prices. The normal value for the remaining types was constructed, since no domestic sale for these product types existed at any of the two sampled exporting producers and no other information on the prices of the relevant product types was available to the Commission.

3.3.2.   Export price

• (207) Both Korean exporting producers/groups had sales to the Union either directly, or through related company. The export price was established in line with the general methodology set out in section 3.2.2 above.

• (208) As regards the export sales via the related importer, export prices were determined in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, based on prices at which the goods were first re-sold to an unrelated customer in the Union. In this case, adjustments to the price were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale. Moreover, the SG&A costs of the related companies and profit of [1 % - 5 %], which was obtained from cooperating unrelated importer, were deducted. The data from the other cooperating importer was excluded as it operated at a loss.

3.3.3.   Comparison

• (209) As explained in recital (202), the Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the exporting producers/groups on an ex-works basis.

3.3.3.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

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

• (211) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit costs, duty drawback and packing expenses.

3.3.3.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

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

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

• (214) Regarding the adjustment of the export price for commissions, the Commission found that some of the related traders involved were acting as agents working on a commission basis and were remunerated for the relevant functions with a mark-up. An adjustment for a commission constructed based on the relevant SG&A costs and a nominal profit was therefore warranted.

3.3.4.   Dumping margins

• (215) For the cooperating Korean 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.

• (216) The dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following:

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Kukdo Chemical Co., Ltd., Kukdo Finechem Co., Ltd.	0 %
Kumho P&B Chemicals, Inc	2,4 %

• (217) The Commission examined whether the country-wide level of dumping for Korea was found to be above the de minimis 2 % level as provided in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. It was considered appropriate for this purpose to extrapolate the results of the sample, including the company with no dumping, to estimate the level of dumping of the non-sampled companies. The amount of dumping in the sample, expressed as a percentage of the CIF value of exports of the sample, was below 0 %. Therefore, no overall dumping margin was established for the Republic of Korea.

• (218) In these circumstances, the Commission intends to terminate the current proceeding as regards imports of the product concerned originating in the Republic of Korea, in accordance with Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.

• (219) Given the conclusions above, registration of imports of the like product from Korea will be discontinued.

• (220) Interested parties are invited to comment on the Commission’s intention to terminate the proceeding vis-à-vis the Republic of Korea within 15 days of the publication of this regulation.

3.4.   Taiwan

• (221) There were two exporting producers in Taiwan during the investigation period, Chang Chun Plastics Co. and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation. The two exporting producers cooperated. Sales to the Union by one of the exporting producers were done directly to independent customers. The other exporting producer sold to the Union both directly and indirectly through a related importer in the Union. On the domestic market, both exporting producers sold the product concerned to independent customers directly.

3.4.1.   Normal value

• (222) Normal value for both Taiwanese exporting producers was established in line with the general methodology set out in section 3.2.1 above. As a result, the normal value for the majority of product types exported to the Union was based on actual domestic price. Where there were no domestic sales of a product type of the like product, normal value was constructed because the domestic sales price of other sampled producer for that product type could not be disclosed in a meaningful manner without breaching the confidentiality of that producer.

3.4.2.   Export price

• (223) One Taiwanese exporting producer exported to the Union directly. For those exports the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation as explained in the section 3.2.2 above.

• (224) The other exporting producer exported to the Union directly and through a related importer located in the Union. For those exports via an importer in the Union, the export price was established on the basis of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.

3.4.3.   Comparison

• (225) As explained in recital (202), the Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the exporting producers/groups on an ex-works basis.

3.4.3.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

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

• (227) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit costs and packing costs.

3.4.3.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

• (228) In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of freight, handling loading and ancillary expenses, sea freight, sea insurance, custom broker fee, trade promotion fee, customs duty.

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

• (230) Regarding the adjustment of the export price for commissions, the Commission found that the related trader involved was acting as an agent working on a commission basis and was remunerated for the relevant functions with a mark-up. An adjustment for a commission constructed based on the relevant SG&A costs and a nominal profit was therefore warranted.

3.4.4.   Dumping margins

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

• (232) The level of cooperation is high because the exports of the cooperating exporting producers constituted 100 % of the total Taiwanese imports during the investigation period. On this basis, the Commission decided to establish the country-wide dumping margin at the level of the cooperating company with the highest dumping margin.

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

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Chang Chun Plastics Co., Ltd	10,8 %
Nan Ya Plastics Corporation	11,0 %
All other imports originating in Taiwan	11,0 %

3.5.   Thailand

3.5.1.   Normal value

• (234) Normal value for the sole exporting producer from Thailand, Aditya Birla Chemicals (Thailand), was established in line with the general methodology set out in section 3.2.1 above. As a result, the normal value for the majority of product types exported to the Union was based on the actual domestic prices. The Commission constructed normal value for the remaining types, which were sold in insufficient quantities at the domestic market.

3.5.2.   Export price

• (235) Aditya Birla Chemicals (Thailand) sold to the Union market both directly and indirectly through a related importer in the Union. The related company in the Union imported the product concerned and either (i) resold it or (ii) further processed it before reselling it. In the latter case, the related company processed the product concerned by formulating it on basis of proprietary recipes.

• (236) For direct exports, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation as explained in the section 3.2.2 above.

• (237) For exports via related importer in the Union, the export price was established on the basis of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. For the exports that were processed by the related importer, in addition to the SG&A costs and for a profit as described in recital (214), adjustments were also made for processing costs.

• (238) In case the product type was sold in combination with another products (either products concerned, or products not concerned), and where a single unit price was charged for all the products together, the sales price was allocated to the components on the basis of their respective cost of production or purchase price.

3.5.3.   Comparison

• (239) As explained in recital (202), the Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the exporting producers/groups on an ex-works basis.

3.5.3.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

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

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

3.5.3.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

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

• (243) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: commission, credit costs and bank charges, products sold in kits, conversion costs.

• (244) For the direct export sales to the Union, the related company in the Union was also involved in the selling process as an agent working on the commission basis. Therefore, an adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) was made for sales facilitated by the related company. The adjustment consisted of the SG&A of the respective related company and for profit as described in recital (214).

3.5.4.   Dumping margins

• (245) For the sole exporting producer, 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.

• (246) The level of cooperation was high because the exports of the cooperating exporting producer constituted 100 % of the total Thai imports during the investigation period. On this basis, the Commission decided to establish the country wide dumping margin at the same level as for the sole exporting producer.

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

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Aditya Birla Chemicals (Thailand) Limited	32,8 %
All other imports originating in Thailand	32,8 %

4. INJURY

• (248) In view of the no-dumping countrywide determination for Korea, the Commission assessed material injury regarding the imports from China, Taiwan, and Thailand only.

4.1.   Definition of the Union industry and Union production

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

• (250) The total Union production during the investigation period was established at around 249 000 tonnes. The Commission established the figure on the basis of all available information concerning the Union industry, provided by the complainant, in the questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers, as well as in a publication of the industry specialist IHS Markit/S&P Global (‘S&P Global’) ⁸⁸. As indicated in recital (22), the two sampled Union producers represented around 60 % of the total Union production of the like product.

• (251) For the purposes of the present case, the Commission considered as the Union producers the so-called basic producers of epoxy resins. The basic producers make epoxy resins in a pure, liquid form (‘liquid epoxy’ or ‘base LER’), which involves a complex reaction principally between BPA and ECH. Companies that do not have the capacity to produce the base LER and simply buy base LER to react, blend or formulate it further to downstream products, which are then used captively or further resold, are not considered as forming part of the Union industry. Such approach is in line with the customary industry practice (confirmed by the leading industry consultancy IHS Markit/S&P Global) and consistent with the views of the complainant (and were not contested by other interested parties).

• (252) Furthermore, the total Union production (at least for the complainant producers, given the availability of more detailed data) does not include the base LER used internally for further processing into other, advanced resins (both LER and advanced resins being the product concerned) to avoid double counting. This is also to ensure that specifically the production of the epoxy resins sold in the free market is included in the Commission analysis. In any event, no captive use or captive sales of the epoxy resins for production of products downstream from the product under investigation were identified in this case on part of the Union industry.

• (253) One of the interested parties, Sherwin Williams, identified itself (among others) as a producer (toller-manufacturer) of certain epoxy resin types in the Union and a direct producer of epoxy powder coatings. First, epoxy powder coatings are not covered by the present investigation but a downstream product from the product under investigation. Therefore, epoxy powder coatings producers are not part of the Union industry in this case. Furthermore and importantly, Sherwin Williams is not a producer of basic epoxy as it does not have the capacity to produce the base LER. As outlined in recital (251) above, only the basic producers of epoxy resins were considered as Union producers under Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation in this case. For these reasons, Sherwin Williams cannot be considered a Union producer of epoxy resins in this proceeding.

• (254) Additionally, CTP Advanced Material GmbH (‘CTP’), German subsidiary of the Thai exporting producer, submitted that CTP’s production should be included in the Union production, given that it is involved in the production of a specialised category of epoxy resins. As outlined in recital (251), CTP cannot be treated as a Union producer, as it did not demonstrate to have the capacity and capability to produce the base LER in the Union. Furthermore, as provided by Article 4(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission concluded that CTP should not be considered a Union producer because it was related to the Thai exporting producer.

4.2.   Union consumption

• (255) The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of the questionnaire replies of the sampled Union producers, reply to the macro questionnaire by the complainant, S&P Global intelligence, and Eurostat.

• (256) Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 2

Union consumption (tonnes)

	2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Total Union consumption	383 695	424 393	365 702	339 427	340 664
Index	100	111	95	88	89
Source: sampled Union producers, macro questionnaire reply by the complainant, S&P Global intelligence and Eurostat.	Source: sampled Union producers, macro questionnaire reply by the complainant, S&P Global intelligence and Eurostat.	Source: sampled Union producers, macro questionnaire reply by the complainant, S&P Global intelligence and Eurostat.	Source: sampled Union producers, macro questionnaire reply by the complainant, S&P Global intelligence and Eurostat.	Source: sampled Union producers, macro questionnaire reply by the complainant, S&P Global intelligence and Eurostat.	Source: sampled Union producers, macro questionnaire reply by the complainant, S&P Global intelligence and Eurostat.

• (257) Union consumption increased by 11 % from 2020 to 2021. Epoxy resins are an important raw material needed to produce paint and coatings, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, paint consumption in the Union rose rapidly as consumers benefitted from a ‘stay-at-home’ lifestyle during lockdowns.

• (258) However, the demand for epoxy dropped below 2020 levels in 2022 to decrease even further in 2023 and the investigation period. The contraction in demand resulted from numerous factors, such as return of the market to normality following the COVID-19 rebound in the epoxy resins sector, leading to destocking of existing inventories by the customers.

4.3.   Imports from the countries concerned

4.3.1.   Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from the countries concerned

• (259) The Commission examined whether imports of epoxy resins originating in the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.

• (260) The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from China, Taiwan, and Thailand was above the de minimis threshold laid down in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. Moreover, the volume of imports from each of the countries concerned was not negligible within the meaning of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation and market shares in the investigation period were 3,3 % for Taiwan, 4,5 % for Thailand and 9 % for China, respectively.

• (261) Furthermore, the conditions of competition between the dumped imports from China, Taiwan, and Thailand and between the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the Union like product were similar. More specifically, the imported products competed with each other and with the epoxy resins produced in the Union because they share largely the same characteristics and are sold to similar categories of customers. Exporting producers from the countries concerned invariably sell in large volumes the base epoxy on the Union market. Further to this point, it is noted that save for some specialty resins, epoxy resins are generally commodity products that are comparable regardless of their origin. Moreover, imports from the countries concerned were all undercutting the Union industry sales prices at a significant rate and followed largely similar price patterns over the entirety of the period considered.

• (262) Therefore, all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met and imports from China, Taiwan, and Thailand were examined cumulatively for the purposes of the injury determination.

• (263) Aditya Birla objected the cumulative assessment with respect to Thailand and argued that Thai exports to the Union were at the de minimis level. Aditya Birla referred to the Swiss imports into the Union, which were much higher than the Thai imports over the period considered. Moreover, according to the Thai exporter, imports from countries other than the countries concerned were much higher than those by countries concerned in the period concerned and the investigation period.

• (264) Akzo Nobel also claimed that there was a material difference between the behaviour of Chinese epoxy resin exporters on the one hand and exporters from the other countries concerned on the other hand and that in contrast with the Chinese epoxy resin imports, Taiwanese and Thai imports have been stable or much lower. According to Akzo Nobel, cumulative assessment of imports was therefore not appropriate in light of different conditions of competition.

• (265) First, situation of the Taiwanese and Thai exporters is similar to that of the Chinese exporters – they were all dumping their epoxy resins on the Union market and undercutting significantly the Union sales prices, while selling similar products and competing among themselves as well as against the Union products. Second, as set out in recitals (260) to (262), the conditions for cumulating Thai, Taiwanese and Chinese imports have been met in this case and therefore imports were assessed on an aggregated level. Third, the situation of imports from third country is irrelevant to the assessment conducted under Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. The Commission assessed import from third countries (including Switzerland) in Section 5.2.1, relating to causation. In conclusion, Aditya Birla’s and Akzo Nobel’s arguments were provisionally rejected.

4.3.2.   Volume and market share of the imports from the countries concerned

• (266) The Commission established the volume of imports on the basis of the Eurostat database. The market share of the imports from the countries concerned was established by comparing import volumes with the Union market consumption (see Table 2 above).

• (267) For the purposes of the injury assessment in this case, the Commission used Eurostat import statistics solely for CN code 3907 30 00 (epoxide resins). While in the period considered, there may have been very limited epoxy imports under the CN codes 2910 90 00 , 3824 99 92 and 3824 99 93 . These are ‘basket’ commodity codes also including products other than epoxy resins. Furthermore, it was concluded on the basis of the information from the complainant and one of the sampled Union producers, that operators have not been using CN code 2910 90 00 to import epoxy resins into the Union in the period considered and imports under CN codes 3824 99 92 and 3824 99 93 would only be theoretical, as they relate to the so-called curing agents (not product under investigation). Considering imports under these basket codes as epoxy resin imports would therefore be inappropriate as it would heavily distort the injury picture, including in particular the import trends, market share and Union consumption figures over the period considered. Consequently, in the absence of other, more precise method for determining the import volume and price levels in this case, the Eurostat statistics for imports under CN codes 2910 90 00 , 3824 99 92 and 3824 99 93 were disregarded for the injury assessment. Subsequently only the Eurostat statistics for CN code 3907 30 00 , covering solely epoxy resins, were used. This approach was used in the Complaint and was uncontested by the interested parties. ⁸⁹ The import statistics used for the present case are also consistent with the S&P Global intelligence.

• (268) Imports into the Union from the countries concerned developed as follows:

Table 3

Import volume (tonnes) and market share

	2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
China	China	China	China	China	China
Volume of imports	2 025	13 354	21 064	30 500	30 799
Index	100	659	1 040	1 506	1 521
Market share	0,5 %	3,1 %	5,8 %	9,0 %	9,0 %
Index	100	596	1 091	1 703	1 713
Thailand	Thailand	Thailand	Thailand	Thailand	Thailand
Volume of imports	4 944	6 078	4 878	13 721	15 398
Index	100	123	99	278	311
Market share	1,3 %	1,4 %	1,3 %	4,0 %	4,5 %
Index	100	111	104	314	351
Taiwan	Taiwan	Taiwan	Taiwan	Taiwan	Taiwan
Volume of imports	6 557	16 063	16 873	12 346	11 352
Index	100	245	257	188	173
Market share	1,7 %	3,8 %	4,6 %	3,6 %	3,3 %
Index	100	221	270	213	195
All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned
Volume of imports from the countries concerned	13 526	35 495	42 814	56 567	57 549
Index	100	262	317	418	425
Market share	3,5 %	8,4 %	11,7 %	16,7 %	16,9 %
Index	100	237	332	473	479
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (269) In absolute terms the imports from the countries concerned increased during the period considered by over 44 000 tonnes, which is almost 13 % of the total Union consumption in the investigation period. The total market share of the imports of the countries concerned increased from 3,5 % in 2020 to 16,9 % in the investigation period. Overall, imports from the countries concerned were more than four times higher in the investigation period compared to 2020. Chinese imports increased by 28 774 tonnes during the period considered and reached a market share of 9 % (up from 0,5 % in 2020). Thai imports increased by 10 454 tonnes during the period considered and reached a market share of 4,5 % (up from 1,3 % in 2020). Taiwanese imports increased by 4 795 tonnes during the period considered and reached a market share of 3,3 % (up from 1,7 % in 2020). While based on Eurostat statistics, the Taiwanese imports dropped from 4,6 % in 2022 to 3,3 % in the investigation period, the Commission notes that import volumes for Taiwan are underestimated in particular during the investigation period due to mistakes made in the import declarations (use of the wrong CN code). The verified data from the two known Taiwanese producers suggested that the Taiwanese imports in the investigation period were higher than showed in the import statistics. Consequently, Taiwanese imports market share would be in fact higher.

4.3.3.   Prices of the imports from the countries concerned and price undercutting

• (270) The Commission established the prices of imports on the basis of Eurostat data. Price undercutting of the imports was established on the basis of the questionnaire replies provided by the sampled exporting producers and sampled Union producers as well as replies from unrelated importers (for post-importation costs).

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

Table 4

Import prices (EUR/ tonne)

	2020	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
China	China	China	China	China	China
Average price	3 601	4 292	3 985	2 312	2 173
Index	100	119	111	64	60
Thailand	Thailand	Thailand	Thailand	Thailand	Thailand
Average price	2 440	3 618	4 761	2 914	2 632
Index	100	148	195	119	108
Taiwan	Taiwan	Taiwan	Taiwan	Taiwan	Taiwan
Average price	2 333	3 946	4 045	2 638	2 489
Index	100	169	173	113	107
All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned
Weighted average price	2 562	4 020	4 097	2 529	2 358
Index	100	157	160	99	92
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (272) The average price of the Chinese imports first increased in 2021, reaching 4 292 EUR/tonne (from 3 601 EUR/tonne in 2020), then decreased to 3 985 EUR/tonne in 2022, and then dramatically decreased to 2 312 EUR/tonne in 2023 and 2 173 EUR/tonne in the investigation period. The average price of the Thai and Taiwanese imports sharply increased in 2021 to 2022, reaching 3 618 EUR/tonne and 4 761 EUR/tonne respectively for Thai imports (from 2 440 EUR/tonne in 2020) and 3 946 EUR/tonne and 4 045 EUR/tonne respectively for Taiwanese imports (from 2 333 EUR/tonne in 2020) followed by a dramatic drop to 2 914 EUR/tonne (Thailand) and 2 638 EUR/tonne (Taiwan) respectively in 2023 and 2 632 EUR/tonne (Thailand) and 2 489 EUR/tonne (Taiwan) respectively in the investigation period.

• (273) During the period considered, the average unit price of the dumped imports from the countries concerned decreased by 8 %. In 2020, imports from the countries concerned were priced above or around the observed Union sales prices of the sampled Union producers, as shown in Table 4 and Table 8. However, starting from 2021 and uninterruptedly until the end of the period considered, the import prices from the countries concerned were consistently below those of the Union producers, often by a large margin (for example in the investigation period, the Chinese prices were 40 %, Thai prices 27 % and Taiwanese prices 31 % below the Union sales prices).

• (274) 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, Thai and Taiwanese 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.