Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1724 of 8 August 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People`s Republic of China and India

• (117) With respect to labour costs, the Commission used the statistics published by the Turkish Statistical Institute [^ntr81-L_202501724EN.000101-E0081] to determine the average hourly labour costs in Türkiye using the detailed information on wages in the producing sector for ‘Manufacture of chemicals’ NACE code 20 for year 2022 according to NACE Rev.2 classification. The 2022 average monthly value was duly adjusted for inflation using the hourly labour costs index as published by the Turkish Statistical Institute [^ntr82-L_202501724EN.000101-E0082] to adapt to the Investigation Period (Q4 2023-Q3 2024) and duly adjusted to size class of company in terms of employee count.

• (118) Following the Second Note, Redstar argued that the Commission's proposed hourly labour benchmark, derived from Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) data for 2022, is unrepresentative of the investigation period due to temporal mismatch and high inflation skew. Redstar proposed using OECD earnings data for minimum-wage earners in Türkiye for 2024 instead, as a neutral, industry-relevant benchmark. Additionally, Redstar contested the size-based differentiation of labour costs, stating that it misaligned with chemical production realities, and that the wages under collective agreement were equally not applicable to Redstar. First, in applying Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission does not consider labour cost as incurred by the exporting producers (including considerations such as non-application of size-based criteria or lack of collective agreements) as the barium carbonate sector is affected by the distortions of wage costs as outlined in recital (38). Furthermore, unlike the OECD statistics proposed by Redstar, the labour cost sourced from TurkStat provides for a more precise sector-specific data. Moreover, OECD database only includes minimum wages in Türkiye (as opposed to average wages displayed in TurkStat), further undermining the representativeness and adequacy of its use. Finally, the fact that TurkStat data are available for 2022 and further adjusted for inflation to reflect adequately the depreciation of Turkish lira between 2022 and the investigation period does not render this benchmark less reliable or inappropriate for use. Redstar’s proposed use of OECD statistics was therefore rejected.

Electricity

• (119) The Commission used the electricity tariffs based on electricity bills published by the Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA) [^ntr83-L_202501724EN.000101-E0083] in its regular press releases. The Commission used the data related to the industrial electricity prices in Kuruş/kWh for the industrial sector for Q4 2023 – Q3 2024, i.e. the investigation period.

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

• (120) 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.

• (121) 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.

• (122) For establishing an undistorted and reasonable amount for SG&A costs and profit, the Commission relied on the financial data for 2024 for the companies Sisecam (in chemical segment) and Alkim as extracted from the respective company’s websites [^ntr84-L_202501724EN.000101-E0084] and as disclosed with the Second Note.

• (123) In response to the Second Note, Chutian disputed the use of profit and SG&A costs figures from chromium sulphate producer (Sisecam), arguing that the production processes are not comparable in terms of technical routes, raw materials, and equipment and that using the figures concerning this producer would yield distorted results. First, it is undisputed that chromium sulphate is a chemical product, hence pertaining to the same general category of products as barium carbonate. Second, as outlined also in the complaint and contrary to Chutian’s claim, there are similarities in production of the two products in terms of production steps (e.g. leaching and drying) as well as the primary inputs used (metal-containing raw materials) for both cases. Moreover, Chutian did not explain how the alleged difference in the production method impacted selling and general costs, which are unaffected by the production costs. In any event, the differences described by Chutian are not capable of invalidating the Commission’s conclusion that chromium sulphate is in the same general category of products as barium carbonate. Furthermore, and in any case, neither in its response to the First note nor to the Second Note did Chutian provide details of any representative producer of other alternative products. Chutian’s claim was therefore dismissed.

• (124) Furthermore, Kandelium argued in its reply to the Second Note that Alkim’s financial data was not used for the calculation of SG&A costs. Kandelium claimed that while Alkim’s production process uses naturally occurring minerals and involves minimal or no chemical reactions, Sisecam’s (the other representative producer identified in this case) production process is both significantly more complex and involving multiple chemical reactions. It was noted that both Alkim and Sisecam produce chemical products and more specifically inorganic salts, pertaining to the same general category of products. Complexity of the production process and number of chemical reactions throughout the production is merely one of the aspects ancillary to the Commission’s assessment in determining the similarity of the products and it is not in itself capable of invalidating the Commission’s choice of the representative products and producers in this case. This is more so when SG&A costs that are unaffected by production costs, are involved.

• (125) Moreover, Chutian argued following the Second Note that Sisecam’s profit and SG&A costs figures should be disregarded because they are abnormally high in comparison to Alkim’s figures. Chutian argued with reference to Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation that the fact that another producer (Alkim) has a much lower profit and SG&A costs should lead to the conclusion that the profit and SG&A costs of Sisecam is abnormally high. First, Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation is used in the context of constructing normal value in cases not involving significant distortions and Chutian’s reference is therefore misplaced. Contrary to what is claimed by Chutian, the Commission is not bound to only use the companies’ data that would be in a certain range or ranges. Moreover, it is noted that the SG&A costs level of Sisecam in 2024 was comparable to the levels in 2023 and hence cannot be considered extraordinary or abnormal for that particular company. Chutian’s claim was therefore rejected.

• (126) Lastly, Chutian argued that if multiple companies’ financial information is considered appropriate for the construction of normal value, their profit and SG&A costs figures should be given equal weight and the resulting figures should not be based on a weighted average. It is consistent Commission practice to apply weighted average SG&A costs and profit amounts for the representative producers in order to ensure that the size, turnover and hence economic and financial impact of a given producer in representative country is duly reflected by the Commission in establishing the reasonable SG&A costs and profit.

3.1.5.   Normal value calculation

• (127) 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.

• (128) 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 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 3.1.4.1 above.

• (129) Once the undistorted manufacturing cost established, the Commission applied the manufacturing overheads as noted in recital (121), SG&A costs and profit, which in the Commission’s view would lead to amounts that are ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the last sub-paragraph of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.. The SG&A costs and profit were determined on the basis of the financial statements of Sisecam and Alkim as explained as explained in recital (122). SG&A costs expressed as a percentage of the Costs of Goods Sold (‘COGS’), calculated as a weighted average for both companies and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted to 22,5 %. The profit expressed as a percentage of the COGS calculated as a weighted average for both companies and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted to 9,9 %.

• (130) 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.

3.1.6.   Export price

• (131) The sampled exporting producers exported to the Union to independent customers, without having related importers or equivalent entities in the Union, and 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.

3.1.7.   Comparison

• (132) 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.

3.1.7.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

• (133) As explained in recital (127), 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. The Commission also made an adjustment under Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation for the difference in indirect taxes between export sales from China to the Union and the normal value where VAT has been excluded.

3.1.7.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

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

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

3.1.8.   Dumping margins

• (136) 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.

• (137) 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
Guizhou Redstar Developing CO., LTD.	83,9  %
Hubei Jingshan Chutian Barium Salts Co., Ltd.	72,6  %

• (138) 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.

• (139) On this basis, the provisional dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producers outside the sample is 78,2 %.

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

• (141) The level of cooperation in this case is high because the exports of the cooperating exporting producers constituted over 95 % of the total imports during the investigation period. On this basis, the Commission decided to establish the dumping margin for non-cooperating exporting producers at the level of the cooperating sampled individually examined company with the highest dumping margin.

• (142) The provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows for other cooperating companies and all other imports originating in China:

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Guizhou Redstar Developing CO., LTD.	83,9  %
Hubei Jingshan Chutian Barium Salts Co., Ltd.	72,6  %
Other cooperating companies	78,2  %
All other imports originating in China	83,9  %

3.2.   India

3.2.1.   Normal value

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

• (144) 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 producer with representative domestic sales. The Commission established that there was only one product type produced in India and that the product type sold on the domestic marked was comparable to the product type sold for exports to the Union.

• (145) The Commission then defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market 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.

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

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

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

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

• (148) The normal value is the actual domestic price of only the profitable domestic sales of the product 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.

• (149) The analysis of domestic sales showed that less than 80 % of all domestic sales were profitable and that the weighted average sales price was higher than the cost of production. Accordingly, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the profitable sales only.

3.2.2.   Export price

• (150) As the sole exporting producer 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.õ

3.2.3.   Comparison

• (151) 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.

3.2.3.1.   Adjustments made to the normal value

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

• (153) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit costs, packing expenses, commission, and other discounts.

3.2.3.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

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

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

3.2.4.   Dumping margin

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

• (157) On this basis, the provisional weighted average dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, calculated for the exporting producer is 4,6 %.

• (158) The level of cooperation in the case of India is high because the exports of the cooperating exporting producer constituted 100 % of the total imports during the investigation period. On this basis, the Commission decided to establish the dumping margin for non-cooperating exporting producers at the level of the only cooperating company.

• (159) On this basis, the provisional dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is as follows:

Company	Provisional dumping margin
Vishnu Barium Private Limited	4,6  %
All other imports originating in India	4,6  %

4. INJURY

4.1.   Definition of the Union industry and Union production

• (160) The like product was manufactured by one producer in the Union during the investigation period. This producer constitutes the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

• (161) Based on the questionnaire reply by the Union industry, the total Union production during the investigation period was established at 18 000 – 22 000 tonnes.

• (162) As there is only one producer in the Union, the injury indicators and the undercutting and underselling margin calculations, are presented in ranges in order to preserve confidentiality pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.

4.2.   Union consumption

• (163) The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of the questionnaire reply of the Union industry and Eurostat.

• (164) Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 2

Union consumption (tonnes)

	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Total Union consumption	80 000 -85 000	75 000 -80 000	55 000 -60 000	50 000 -55 000
Index	100	96	69	65
Source: Questionnaire reply, Eurostat.	Source: Questionnaire reply, Eurostat.	Source: Questionnaire reply, Eurostat.	Source: Questionnaire reply, Eurostat.	Source: Questionnaire reply, Eurostat.

• (165) The Union consumption decreased over the period considered, with a sharp decline between 2022 and 2023. Overall, Union consumption decreased by 35 % over the period considered. This decrease was mostly driven by the contraction of the demand in the construction sector, where barium carbonate is largely used (e.g. in manufacturing of clay bricks or frits and glazes for ceramic).

4.3.   Imports from the countries concerned

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

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

• (167) The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from China and India was above the de minimis threshold laid down in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. The volume of imports from each of the countries concerned was not negligible within the meaning of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation. Market shares in the investigation period were 40-55 % for China and 20-35 % for India.

• (168) The conditions of competition between the dumped imports from China and India 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 barium carbonate produced in the Union. The significant level of imports with similar pricing strategy and similar price level shows a joint and simultaneous effect on the Union industry. Exporting producers from the countries concerned sell large volumes of barium carbonate to the Union market as indicated in Table 3. Further to this point, it is noted that barium carbonate is generally a commodity that is comparable regardless of its origin and barium carbonate from the countries concerned fundamentally shares the same characteristics as barium carbonate produced in the EU. 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.

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

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

• (170) The Commission established the volume of imports on the basis of Eurostat data. 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).

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

Table 3

Import quantity (tonnes) and market share

	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
China	China	China	China	China
Volume of imports	41 229	37 293	28 912	26 186
Index	100	90	70	64
Market share (%)	40 -55	40 -55	40 -55	40 -55
Index	100	94	101	98
India	India	India	India	India
Volume of imports	12 343	12 667	12 525	13 033
Index	100	94	101	98
Market share (%)	10 -25	10 -25	15 -30	20 -35
Index	100	106	146	163
All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned
Volume of imports	53 572	49 960	41 437	39 219
Index	100	93	77	73
Market share (%)	55 -70	55 -70	65 -80	65 -80
Index	100	97	111	113
Source: Questionnaire reply of the Union producer and Eurostat.	Source: Questionnaire reply of the Union producer and Eurostat.	Source: Questionnaire reply of the Union producer and Eurostat.	Source: Questionnaire reply of the Union producer and Eurostat.	Source: Questionnaire reply of the Union producer and Eurostat.

• (172) Despite a decline in demand by 35 % in the period considered observed in the Table 2, the import volumes from both China and India cumulatively declined by only 27 % in the same period. This decline was mostly attributable to China, whose import volume fell by 36 % but whose market share remained fairly stable over the period considered. Import volumes from India on the other hand, only fell by 2 %, while its market share increased significantly by 63 % in the period considered. Overall, the market share of China and India increased by 13 % in the period considered.

4.4.   Prices of the imports from the countries concerned, price undercutting and price suppression

• (173) The Commission established the prices of imports on the basis of Eurostat data. The price undercutting of the imports was established on the basis of the questionnaire reply provided by the sampled exporting producers in China, the sole exporting producer in India and the Union producer as well as replies from unrelated importers (for post-importation costs).

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

Table 4

Import prices (EUR/tonne)

	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
China	China	China	China	China
Average price	589	856	522	565
Index	100	145	89	96
India	India	India	India	India
Average price	510	795	522	558
Index	100	156	102	109
All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned	All countries concerned
Average price	571	841	522	563
Index	100	147	91	99
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (175) The average price of the Chinese imports first increased in 2022, reaching 856 EUR/tonne (from 589 EUR/tonne in 2021), then sharply decreased to 522 EUR/tonne in 2023, and then increased to 565 EUR/tonne in the investigation period. The average price of the Indian imports followed a similar pattern. These sharply increased in 2022, reaching 795 EUR/tonne (from 510 EUR/tonne in 2021), then sharply decreased to 522 EUR/tonne in 2023, then increased to 563 EUR/tonne in the investigation period. Overall, the Chinese import prices increased by 9 % while Indian prices slightly decreased by 1 %.

• (176) On average, the unit price of the dumped imports from the countries concerned decreased by 1 % during the period considered. Nevertheless, over the period considered, imports from the countries concerned were consistently priced below the observed Union sales prices, as shown in Table 4 and Table 8.

• (177) Import prices in Table 4 are expressed in CIF terms. However, if the 5 % import duties and the previous residual anti-dumping duties (i.e. 56,4 EUR/tonne) are added to the Chinese prices in 2021 and for the first three quarters of 2022, the resulting average import price would be 678 EUR/tonne for 2021 and 946 EUR/tonne for 2022. When adding the import duties and anti-dumping duties, Chinese landed prices were higher than the Union industry’s sales prices in 2021 and within the range of the Union industry’s sales prices in 2022 (see Table 8).

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

• (1) the weighted average sales prices per product type of the Union producer 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 Chinese and Indian 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.

• (179) The price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts. The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the Union producer’s theoretical turnover during the investigation period. It showed a weighted average undercutting margin of 35-45 % for the Chinese imports and of 30-40 % for the Indian imports. Cumulatively, it showed a weighted average undercutting of 35-45 % for the sampled producers in China and India.

• (180) The pressure exerted by the dumped imports also caused significant price suppression as evidenced by the fact that the Union industry was unable to raise prices at the same rate as its costs increased., especially after 2022. Indeed, as shown in Table 8, the Union industry’s cost of production increased by 89 % during the period considered, whereas the Union industry’s sales prices increased by 64 %. This insufficient price increase resulted in significant loss of sales volumes and market share and a steep drop in profitability..

4.5.   Economic situation of the Union industry

4.5.1.   General remarks

• (181) 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.

• (182) As mentioned in recital (8), no sampling was used for the determination of possible injury suffered by the Union industry. Consequently, for the injury determination, the Commission did not distinguish between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators because there is only one known Union producer.

4.5.1.1.   Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

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

Table 5

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Production quantity (tonnes)	25 000 -29 000	34 000 -38 000	16 000 -20 000	18 000 -22 000
Index	100	136	67	76
Production capacity (tonnes)	50 000 -70 000	50 000 -70 000	50 000 -70 000	50 000 -70 000
Index	100	100	100	100
Capacity utilisation (%)	40 -50	50 -60	25 -35	25 -35
Index	100	136	67	76
Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.

• (184) While capacity remained steady throughout the period considered, production experienced a sharp increase in 2022 (36 %) followed by a dramatic decrease in 2023 (51 %) and a slight increase in the investigation period (9 %). This trend shows that production dropped after the EU anti-dumping measures on imports of barium carbonate from China expired on 29 September 2022. Indeed, between 2011 and 2022, when measures were in place, the production of the Union producer increased by 36 %, although the EU consumption fell by 4 % in the same period. From 2022 to the investigation period, in a context of decreasing demand (by 35 %), the EU production declined by 44 %, in line with sales volumes that also decreased during the same period, as shown in Table 6 below.

• (185) As a result of stable capacity and a decrease of production, the capacity utilisation decreased by 24 % over the period considered. Production capacity is not a factor mentioned in Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, but it is a necessary parameter for the determination of capacity utilisation.

4.5.1.2.   Sales quantity and market share

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

Table 6

Sales quantity and market share

	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Total sales quantity on the Union market (tonnes)	25 000 -30 000	25 000 -30 000	12 000 -22 000	10 000 -20 000
Index	100	103	54	49
Market share (%)	30 -40	30 -40	20 -30	20 -30
Index	100	106	79	76
Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.

• (187) The total sales quantity sold by the Union producer to unrelated customers in the EU increased by 3 % between 2021 and 2022. This slight increase, as explained in recital (184) occurred in a context of consumption decrease in the same year (4 %) and while anti-dumping measures against China were in place until September 2022. After 2022 the sales volumes of the Union producer in the Union market dropped dramatically by 47 % in 2023 and by a further 9 % in the investigation period. Overall, the total sales of the Union producer in the EU fell by 51 % during the period considered.

• (188) This trend is reflected in the evolution of the Union producer’s market share, which increased by 6 % between 2021 and 2022 and fell by 30 % between 2022 and the investigation period.

4.5.1.3.   Employment and productivity

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

Table 7

Employment and productivity

	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Number of employees	40 -50	60 -70	50 -60	50 -60
Index	100	141	122	116
Productivity (unit/employee)	500 -600	500 -600	250 -350	300 -400
Index	100	96	55	66
Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.

• (190) The employment increased by 41 % between 2021 and 2022, followed by a decline of 14 % in 2023 and another 5 % in the investigation period. Overall, the employment increased by 16 % in the period considered. The initial increase of the number of staff was driven by a specific corporate circumstance following the separation of Kandelium from the Solvay Group in 2021. Because of this corporate change, Kandelium needed to hire its own employees for administrative and horizontal tasks of the business, something previously accomplished by Solvay’s employees across its businesses. The small decline in employment in 2023 and in the investigation period was related to the worsening market situation for, and performance of, the Union producer.

• (191) The productivity fell slightly between 2021 and 2022 by 4 % since the sharp increase of staff (41 %) was partially compensated by the increase of production (36 %). In the following period, between 2022 and the investigation period, productivity decreased by 30 %.

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

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

• (193) Barium carbonate had already been subject to anti-dumping investigations. In 2005 anti-dumping duties were imposed on import of barium carbonate from China. These duties were last extended in September 2017 for another five years following an expiry review [^ntr85-L_202501724EN.000101-E0085]. As no expiry review request was submitted after, the measures expired on 29 September 2022.

• (194) The Union industry’s situation was affected by the anti-dumping duties in force on imports from China in 2021 and 2022. Therefore, in the first year and in most of the second year of the period considered, the Union industry was protected against dumped imports from China.

4.5.1.5.   Prices and factors affecting prices

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

Table 8

Sales prices in the Union

	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Average unit sales price in the Union on the total market (EUR/ tonne)	550 -650	900 -1 000	1 000 -1 100	1 000 -1 100
Index	100	154	177	164
Unit cost of production (EUR/ tonne)	600 -700	900 -1 000	1 000 -1 100	1 200 -1 300
Index	100	143	168	189
Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.

• (196) The average unit sales price in the Union increased sharply between 2021 and 2022 (54 %), it continued to increase between 2022 and 2023 (14 %) and fell between 2023 and the investigation period (– 7 %). This trend was a result of opposing forces. On the one hand, the general increase in cost of raw materials between 2021 and the investigation period, including energy significantly impacted the production costs. Indeed, in 2022 the Chinese and Indian prices were also particularly high, as shown in Table 2. On the other hand, there was a pressure to lower the prices due price pressure by cheap imports from China and India in a shrinking market. The situation deteriorated even more in the investigation period, when the Union producer was unable to absorb the rising production costs. This resulted in a situation of depressed sales prices of the Union producer in the investigation period which were below its cost of production.

• (197) The cost of production rose steadily over the period considered (89 %) and in particular between 2021 and 2022 (43 %), Both raw material costs and energy costs increased in the period considered, particularly after 2022. Moreover, following the demerger of Kandelium from the Solvay group in 2021 mentioned in recital (190), the Union producer undertook a number of investments and hired new administrative and horizontal staff which further increased its cost of production over these years.

• (198) Over the period considered sales prices increased by 64 %, while this increase was outpaced by the rise in costs of production (89 %) during the same period.

4.5.1.6.   Labour costs

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

Table 9

Average labour costs per employee

	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Average labour costs per employee (EUR)	80 000 -85 000	87 000 -92 000	90 000 -95 000	100 000 -105 000
Index	100	109	114	123
Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.

• (200) The unit labour costs increased steadily over the period considered. The observed increase in labour costs was due to inflation in the same period (an average of 5 % a year) and to the fact that the Union producer had to hire new administrative and horizontal staff after its separation from the Solvay group in 2021 as mentioned above. The wages of these employees were higher than the average wage of employees involved directly in production.

4.5.1.7.   Inventories

• (201) Stock levels of the Union producer developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 10

Stocks

	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Closing stock (tonnes)	4 000 -5 000	5 000 -6 000	3 000 -4 000	9 000 -10 000
Index	100	124	85	198
Closing stock as a percentage of production	17	16	22	44
Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.

• (202) Stock levels almost doubled over the period considered and in particular in the investigation period, when they reached 44 % of the production volume. Stock levels remained relatively stable between 2021 and 2023, with an increase in 2022 and a subsequent decrease in 2023. However, during the investigation period, stock levels increased significantly, indicating an abnormally high accumulation. This increase is primarily due to the impact of dumped imports after late 2022, which led to a drop in sales volumes, loss of market share and consequently, to higher stock levels. In addition, after the change of ownership of the Union producer, the company changed its reporting systems leading to a re-evaluation of the stocks.

• (203) Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital

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

Table 11

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments

	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)	(–)5 - 5	0 - 10	(–)20 - (–)30	(–)25 - (–)35
Cash flow (EUR)	3 500 000 -4 000 000	500 000 -1 000 000	(–)4 500 000 -(–)5 000 000	(–)12 000 000 - (–)12 500 000
Index	100	17	- 119	- 304
Investments (EUR)	150 000 -200 000	250 000 -300 000	650 000 -700 000	1 450 000 -1 500 000
Index	100	144	353	762
Return on investments (%)	(–)5 - 5	20 - 30	(–)60 - (–)70	(–)60 - (–)70
Index	- 100	4 096	-10 552	-9 782
Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.

• (205) The Commission established the profitability of the Union producer by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. The Union producer was in a position of break even in 2021 and was profitable in 2022, when the anti-dumping measures against dumped imports of barium carbonate from China were still in force. After the expiration of these measures in September 2022, the Union producer experienced important losses in 2023 and the investigation period. These were due to the increase of the cost of production over the period, and to the decrease of prices from India and China. As a result, the Union producer was unable to fully recover the rising costs by increasing its prices.

• (206) The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producer to self-finance their activities. The cash flow shrank in 2021 and 2022 and became negative in 2023 and the investigation period. This was mostly influenced by the trend of profitability described in recital (204) and of the closing stocks shown in recital (201). The cash flow evolution was also influenced by some adjustments in the audited accounts of the Union producer, related to some stock revaluation and cost reallocation after the Union producer changed the reporting system during the investigation period. The cash flow steadily and rapidly declined from 2021 and 2023, mostly due to declining profitability.

• (207) Contrary to all the other observed indicators, the investments rose steadily over the period. The rationale for this increase does not reflect any positive performance over the period. Indeed, this was uniquely due to an overdue one-off investment linked to Health, Safety, Environmental Measures (HSE) which were put on hold during the years before demerger of the Union producer from the Solvay group. These investments were essential and independent from the general business evolution of the Union producer.

• (208) The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. Due to the spiking investment over the period, and the shrinking profitability, the return on investment decreased significantly over the period.

Conclusion on injury

• (209) Between 2021 and the investigation period, in a context of significantly shrinking demand (– 35 %), the volume imports from India and China also decreased, however, to a lesser extent (– 27 %), leading to an increase of their cumulative market share in the EU by 13 % over the period considered, at the detriment of the Union industry which lost 24 % of the EU market. These imports entered the EU at prices which remained stable (for China) or only slightly increased (for India), in a context of significantly increasing production costs and high inflation. As a result, dumped imports from both China and India undercut Union prices over the period considered.

• (210) The only indicators which showed a positive trend were employment, employment costs and investment over the period considered. Nevertheless, the evolution of these indicators was due to the demerger of the Union producer from the Solvay group in 2021.

• (211) All the remaining indicators clearly show a negative trend over the period considered, in particular from September 2022, when previous anti-dumping measures on imports of barium carbonate from China expired. Indeed, the overall sales of the Union industry fell over the period at a higher rate than the drop in consumption. This trend was also reflected in the drop in production volumes and higher stocks. In parallel, due to the increase of raw material and energy costs after 2022, the cost of production sharply increased. At the same time, the price pressure from dumped imports from China and India did not allow the Union industry to adapt their pricing to even cover their production costs, leading to severe losses in 2023 and the investigation period. The deteriorating profitability was also reflected in a negative cash flow and return on investment over the period. These negative developments affected the ability of the Union industry to raise capital, thus impeding its growth.

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

5. CAUSATION

• (213) In accordance with Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports from the countries 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 countries concerned was not attributed to the dumped imports. These factors are imports from other third countries, export performance of the Union producer and decline in the Union consumption.

5.1.   Effects of the dumped imports

• (214) Although the volume of imports from the countries concerned decreased during the period considered, in a context of a sharp drop in Union consumption, this lead to an increase of 13 % in the combined market share of imports from the countries concerned. At the same time, the market share of the Union industry decreased by 24 %.

• (215) In the first two years of the period considered (in 2021 and 2022) the Union industry appeared to be recovering from previous dumping. In these years the COVID-19 pandemic lead to a global supply chain crisis which also affected the market of barium carbonate. In this period, the production of the Union industry increased by 36 %, in a context of 4 % decrease in demand. In 2022, the Union industry increased its market share by 6 % while the market share of the countries concerned decreased by 3 %. In this period, despite a considerable increase in production costs, the Union industry managed to achieve a modest profit. This favourable situation changed after the anti-dumping measures on imports of barium carbonate from China expired in September 2022 and imports from China and India entered the EU at prices which were considerably below the further increasing cost of production of the Union industry. The Union industry became unable to adjust upwards its sales prices to cover the increasing cost of raw materials and energy. To mitigate losses in production volumes and market share, the Union producer was forced to reduce prices at the expense of its profitability in the investigation period. Therefore, the low-priced imports from the countries concerned significantly depressed the prices of the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(3) of the basic Regulation.

• (216) Kimpe argued that the evolution of Chinese and Indian prices in the period considered was highly influenced by the political instability in the Red Sea area, which resulted in increased prices in 2022 and less in 2023 and the investigation period, with consequent reduction of the prices. Kimpe claims that it was the return to normal freight prices which resulted in lower import prices for barium carbonate from China and not the expiry of the anti-dumping measures on barium carbonate from China.

• (217) While the Commission considers that the freight prices variation could have had an impact on the Chinese and Indian import prices, these prices still remained very low and considerably lower than the production costs of the Union industry in every year of the period considered. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the imports from the countries concerned depressed the prices of the Union industry to a significant degree and prevented price increases which would otherwise have occurred to cover the increase in raw materials and energy costs.

• (218) In view of the above considerations, the Commission provisionally established that the material injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports from the countries concerned within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation. Such injury had both volume and price effects.

5.2.   Effects of other factors

5.2.1.   Imports from third countries

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

Table 12

Imports from third countries

Country		2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Third countries	Quantity (tonnes)	43	19	2	6
Third countries	Index	100	45	5	15
Third countries	Market share (%)	0	0	0	0
Third countries	Average price	1 565	9 442	12 965	5 322
Third countries	Index	100	603	829	340
Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.	Source: Eurostat.

• (220) Imports from third countries were negligible during the period considered and represented almost a 0 % market share between 2021 and the investigation period. The Commission does not consider that the evolution of imports from third countries would in any way affect the causation assessment in this case.

5.2.2.   Export performance of the Union industry

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

Table 13

Export performance of the Union producer

	2021	2022	2023	Investigation period
Export volume (tonnes)	5 500 -6 000	6 000 -6 500	4 000 -4 500	4 500 -5 000
Index	100	107	78	90
Average price (EUR/tonne)	600 -700	1 000 -1 100	1 000 -1 100	1 100 -1 200
Index	100	156	159	179
Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.	Source: Questionnaire reply.

• (222) The Union industry performance on the third market showed a more positive trend than on the Union market. Its exports increased by 7 % between 2021 and 2022, decreased by 27 % in 2023 and finally increased again by 16 % in the investigation period. Overall, the volume of sales to third countries decreased by 10 % over the period considered, which was a much milder decrease than its dramatic drop in sales on the EU market.

• (223) The average price of exports to unrelated customers outside the EU increased every year over the period considered from 2021 to the investigation period. Moreover, with the exception of 2023, the export price was higher than the domestic prices and they were higher than the cost of production in all years except in the investigation period. However, even in the investigation period, the export prices were 16 % higher than the domestic prices, and therefore the export sales contributed to a lesser extent to the losses of the Union producer.

• (224) In view of the above considerations, the export performance was not capable of attenuating the causal link between the dumped imports originating in the countries concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

5.2.3.   Decline of EU consumption

• (225) As outlined in recital (165), the Union consumption decreased steadily between 2021 to the investigation period (an overall fall of 35 %) as a result of declining demand for barium carbonate. The Commission notes that despite the downward trend in demand, the Union industry was still able to break even in 2021 and enjoy a weak although positive profitability in 2022 while maintaining its market share. However, as of 2023, the Union industry started losing market share on the Union market (its market share decreased by 24 % over the period considered) while the market share of the Chinese and Indian imports increased by 13 % over the period considered. In a declining market, where consumption gradually decreased over the period considered, Chinese and Indian exporting producers managed to increase their market share due to their low, unfair prices while at the same time the Union industry lost market share. This means that Chinese and Indian exporting producers gained clients, which would have, under normal conditions of competition, likely sourced barium carbonate from the Union industry.

• (226) Moreover, shrinking demand, together with the price pressure from Chinese and Indian imports described in recital (180) prevented the Union industry from increasing their prices to cover their increasing costs of production. The costs increase (89 % over the period considered) was due, among others, to the raise of energy costs in the same period. The Commission therefore concluded that the decline in consumption in the EU market was not capable of attenuating the causal link between the dumped imports originating in the countries concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

5.2.4.   Cost of production and investment

• (227) During the period considered, the cost of production of the Union industry increased by 89 % due to a considerable rise in raw material costs (baryte and pet coke) and a significant hike in energy prices in 2022 as a result of the war in Ukraine. In addition, a decrease in production over the period considered resulted in an increase in fixed costs per tonne of production.

• (228) In this respect, the Commission noted that the increase in production costs and, in particular, in raw materials should have affected other market players to a similar extent in view of the fact that the Union industry sources the majority of its most important raw material, baryte, from outside the Union. Consequently, such an increase in costs was not an element that should have been unique to the Union industry only, even if this cost increase was reflected in the price of imports from China and India only in 2022, but not in 2023 and the IP when import prices decreased considerably.

• (229) In fact, in 2022, despite the rising production costs and the energy prices reaching their highest levels, the Union industry was able to increase its sales prices to absorb its rising unit cost of production and achieved its highest profitability over the period considered at the same time when the prices of Chinese and Indian imports were the highest over the period considered.

• (230) However, in 2023 and in the IP, when the price of Chinese and Indian imports dropped by around 50 %, the Union industry was not able to increase its prices to reflect its increasing costs and even had to decrease its prices in the IP. At the same time, the Union industry could sell its products for higher prices on export markets than in the Union (except in 2023) which also points to a higher price pressure on the Union market. This shows that it was due to the low priced dumped imports from China and India that the Union industry was not in position to adjust its prices to cover its growing costs. In fact, the Union industry was forced to decrease its prices due to the price suppression by the dumped imports resulting in further losses, decrease in sales quantities and increase in stocks.

• (231) As explained in recitals (207), the Union industry’s increased investments during the period considered were overdue, they were required to comply with health, safety and environmental standards and they were necessary in order to maintain existing production.

• (232) The Commission thus concluded that the rising cost of production did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry in the investigation period. Similarly, investments required by law or necessary to maintain safe production cannot be considered to have contributed to the injury of the Union industry.

5.3.   Conclusion on causation

• (233) A causal link was established between the dumped imports from the countries concerned on one hand and the injury suffered by the Union industry on the other hand. There was a coincidence in time between the increase of market share of the dumped imports and the worsening of the Union industry’s performance, visible in particular from 2022 onwards. Indeed, in a context of demand contraction, the increased market share of dumped imports impeded the Union industry’s ability to set prices that would absorb the increasing costs of production. This situation resulted in a lossmaking situation of the Union producer in 2023 and during the investigation period.

• (234) The Commission examined other possible factors that may have had an impact on the situation of the Union industry. The Commission distinguished and separated the effects of these factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports.

• (235) The export performance of the Union industry did not attenuate the causal link. The export sales volumes decreased significantly less than the Union sales and their prices were substantially higher than the domestic prices over the period considered. In conclusion, the relatively better performance of the Union industry in the export markets, compared to the domestic EU market, did not break the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

• (236) It is undisputable that the Union industry was faced with numerous challenges over the period considered in particular decreasing demand and increasing production costs. However, had it not been for the price pressure from the dumped imports, the Union industry would have been able to pass on the cost increases and adequately respond to the changing market conditions. Indeed, over all the period considered the average import prices from India and China were below the cost of production of the Union industry. As noted above, dumped imports prevented Union producer from increasing prices in order to pass on cost increases.

• (237) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded at this stage that the dumped imports from the countries concerned caused material injury to the Union industry and that the other factors, considered individually or collectively, did not attenuate or break the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury. The injury consists namely of reduced market share, production, production capacity utilisation, profitability, closing stocks and cash flow. Furthermore, as explained above in recital (205), the Union industry suffered severe losses caused by price pressure by dumped imports from the countries concerned.

6. LEVEL OF MEASURES

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

• (239) In the present case, the complainant claimed the existence of raw material distortions within the meaning of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation with regard to China. Thus, in order to conduct the assessment on the appropriate level of measures, the Commission first established the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury suffered by the Union industry in the absence of distortions under Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation. Then it examined whether the dumping margin of sampled exporting producers from China would be higher than their injury margin (see recitals (247) and (248) below).

6.1.   Injury margin

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

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

• (242) The profit of the Union producer was close to zero or negative over all the period considered, with the exception of 2022, when prices worldwide significantly rose for just one year. Taking into account the profitability of the years preceding the period considered, the Commission established the target profit to determine the non-injurious price at 6 %, in accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the Union producer did not make a substantiated claim for investments foregone or R&D and innovation costs. In view of those facts, the Commission resorted to the use of the minimum 6 % target profit which was added to the Union industry’s actual cost of production to establish the non-injurious price.

• (243) In accordance with Article 7(2d) of the basic Regulation, as a final step, the Commission assessed the future costs resulting from Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and protocols thereunder, to which the Union is a party, and of ILO Conventions that the Union industry will incur during the period of the application of the measure pursuant to Article 11(2). Based on the evidence available, the Commission established an additional cost of 20-100 EUR/t which was added on the non-injurious price.

• (244) On this basis, the Commission calculated a non-injurious price of [1 200-1 500] per unit of measurement for the like product of the Union industry by applying the above-mentioned target profit margin (see recital (242)) to the cost of production of the sole Union producer during the investigation period and then adding the adjustments under Article 7(2d) (see recital (243)) on a type-by-type basis.

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

• (246) The injury elimination level for ‘other cooperating companies’ and for ‘all other imports’ originating in the respective country concerned is defined in the same manner as the dumping margin for these companies and imports.

Country	Company	Dumping margin (%)	Injury margin (%)
People`s Republic of China	Guizhou Redstar Developing Co.,Ltd.	83,9	133,5
People`s Republic of China	Hubei Jingshan Chutian Barium Salt Corp. Ltd	72,6	130,8
India	Vishnu Barium Private Limited	4,6	114,7

6.2.   Examination of the margin adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry for China

• (247) As explained in the Notice of Initiation, the complainant provided the Commission sufficient evidence that there are raw material distortions in China regarding the product under investigation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation, this investigation examined the alleged distortions to assess whether, if relevant, a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove injury.

• (248) However, as the margins adequate to remove injury are higher than the dumping margins, the Commission considered that, at this stage, it was not necessary to address this aspect.

6.3.   Conclusion on the level of measures

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

Country	Company	Provisional anti-dumping duty
People`s Republic of China	Guizhou Redstar Developing Co.,Ltd.	83,9  %
People`s Republic of China	Hubei Jingshan Chutian Barium Salt Corp. Ltd	72,6  %
India	Vishnu Barium Private Limited	4,6  %
People`s Republic of China	Other cooperating companies	78,2  %
People`s Republic of China	All other imports originating in country concerned	83,9  %
India	All other imports originating in country concerned	4,6  %

7. UNION INTEREST

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

7.1.   Interest of the Union industry

• (251) As explained in recital (8), the Union industry consist of one producer manufacturing the product under investigation during the investigation period.

• (252) The EU barium carbonate production is fundamental to the Union’s industrial base. Barium carbonate is a key ingredient to produce a wide range of special purpose glasses, such as pharmaceutical, optical, reflective, borosilicate and crystal glass. Moreover, it is an essential ingredient for glazes and frits in the ceramic industry as well as for the manufacturing of clay bricks. Barium Carbonate is also a key raw material to produce low energy permanent magnets.

• (253) Overall, the imposition of measures would likely lead to a higher volume of sales by the Union producer but also to the possibility for the producer to set prices allowing to fully cover its the cost of production and achieve healthy profit. Therefore, the measures would contribute to a better capacity utilization and a recovery in operating margins and profit. The improved performance would in turn lead to sustained levels of investment and employment and promotion of continued innovation.

• (254) Without measures, the future of barium carbonate manufacturing in the Union would be jeopardized. Falling capacity utilisation rates would lead to unsustainably high fixedcosts and to a reduction in investments resulting in potential job losses, which in turn would make the Union producer even less able to compete with dumped imports from the countries concerned.

• (255) Eventually, without imposition of measures, the EU may likely face the cessation of production of this important material. This would lead to a dependency on imports of barium carbonate for the Union downstream industry and to very limited sources of supply.

• (256) The Commission thus concluded that it would be in the interest of the Union industry to impose anti-dumping duties.

7.2.   Interest of unrelated importers