HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
18.4.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
106/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 325/2012
of 12 April 2012
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People’s Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
1.2. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
(4)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
Union,
impose provisional anti-dumping measures (‘provisional
disclosure’), several interested parties made written
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
submissions making their views known on the
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
provisional findings. The parties who so requested were
from countries not members of the European Community (
granted an opportunity to be heard. In particular, one

1 )
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
exporting producer from India requested and was
afforded a hearing in the presence of the Hearing
Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade.
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the
Advisory Committee,
(5) The
Commission
continued
to
seek
information
it
deemed necessary for its definitive findings.
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
(6) Recital
150
of
the
provisional
Regulation
invited
Chinese
companies which had not yet made themselves known
1.1. PROVISIONAL MEASURES
but considered that an individual duty should be estab
lished for them to come forward within 10 days from
(1) The
Commission,
by
Regulation
(EU)
No
1043/2011
( 2 )
publication. No Chinese company did so.
(‘the provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid originating in
India and the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’). The
provisional anti-dumping duties ranged from 14,6 % to
(7) Subsequently,
all
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
52,2 %.
facts and considerations on the basis of which it was

intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive
anti-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid originating
(2)
The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint
in India and the PRC and the definitive collection of the
lodged on 13 December 2010 by the European Chemical
amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (‘final
Industry Council (CEFIC) on behalf of Oxaquim S.A. (‘the
disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within
complainant’), representing a major proportion, in this
which they could make comments on this final
case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of
disclosure.
oxalic acid.
(3) As
set
out
in
recital
9
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
the (8) The
oral
and
written
comments
submitted
by
the
investigation of dumping and injury covered the period
interested parties were considered and were taken into
from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 (‘investi
account where appropriate.
gation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of the trends
relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period
from 1 January 2007 to the end of the investigation
1.3. PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE PROCEEDING
period (‘period considered’).
(9) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
with
regard
to
the
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
parties concerned by the proceeding, recitals 3 to 8 of
( 2 ) OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 1.
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

---

L 106/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
18.4.2012
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
services consider that they can use part of the original
information, namely data related to export prices, as they
2.1. PRODUCT CONCERNED
were found to be reliable. It follows from the above
considerations that the provisional findings, as set out
(10) The
product
concerned
is
as
described
in
recitals
10
and
in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation, are only
11 of the provisional Regulation, i.e. oxalic acid, whether
partially maintained and findings in respect of this
in dihydrate (CUS number 0028635-1 and CAS number
company are made partially on facts available and
6153-56-6) or anhydrous form (CUS number 0021238-
partially on its own export prices in accordance with
4 and CAS number 144-62-7), and whether or not in
Article 18(1) and (3) of the basic Regulation.
aqueous solution, currently falling within CN code
ex 2917 11 00 and originating in India and the PRC.
3.1.2. NORMAL VALUE
(11) There are two types of oxalic acid: unrefined oxalic acid
(18) No
comments
have
been
submitted
in
respect
of
the
and refined oxalic acid. Refined oxalic acid, which is
methodology to calculate normal value for India. Accord
produced in the PRC but not in India, is manufactured
ingly, the findings in recitals 15 to 18 of the provisional
through a purification process of unrefined oxalic acid,
Regulation are confirmed with regard to the cooperating
the purpose of which is to remove iron, chlorides, metal
company.
traces and other impurities.
(12) Oxalic
acid
is
used
in
a
wide
range
of
applications,
for
(19) With
regard
to
Star
Oxochem,
and
taking
into
account
example as a reducing and bleaching agent, in phar
the findings above (recitals 16-17), the normal value was
maceutical synthesis and in the manufacture of
established on the basis of facts available pursuant to
chemicals.
Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, the
normal value for this company was based on the
2.2. LIKE PRODUCT
weighted average of a representative quantity of
domestic sales by the other cooperating company,
(13) The investigation has shown that oxalic acid produced
Punjab Chemicals.
and sold by the Union industry in the Union, oxalic acid
produced and sold on the domestic market of India and
3.1.3. EXPORT PRICE
the PRC and oxalic acid imported into the Union from
India and the PRC have essentially the same basic
(20) In the absence of any comments, the determination of
physical and chemical characteristics and the same
the export price, as set out in recital 19 of the
basic end uses.
provisional Regulation, is confirmed with regard to
Punjab Chemicals.
(14) In the absence of any comments regarding the product
concerned or like product, recitals 10 to 13 of the
(21) In
view
of
the
conclusions
as
set
out
above
in
recitals
16-
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
17, the export price for Star Oxochem is, pursuant to
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, established on the
3. DUMPING
basis of the prices actually paid or payable by inde
pendent customers for the product concerned when
3.1. INDIA
exported to the Union.
3.1.1. PRELIMINARY REMARK
3.1.4. COMPARISON
(15) In recital 14 of the provisional Regulation, the
Commission found that one Indian exporting producer
(22) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
with
regard
to
the
could not be considered as a cooperating party and
comparison of the normal value and the export prices,
accordingly the findings for that company were made
recitals 20 and 21 of the provisional Regulation are
on facts available as set out in Article 18 of the basic
confirmed as far as the cooperating producer, Punjab
Regulation.
Chemicals, is concerned.
(16) Following
the
disclosure
of
provisional
findings
to
this
(23) With
regard
to
Star
Oxochem,
adjustments
have
been
company, Star Oxochem Pvt. Ltd, it provided additional
made in accordance to Article 2(10) of the Basic Regu
explanations and clarifications in respect of the
lation based on the verified allowances of Punjab
information submitted earlier in the investigation by
Chemicals.
the company. It also requested to be heard by the
Commission and by the Hearing Officer of the Direc
3.1.5. DUMPING MARGIN
torate-General for Trade. The company argued that,
given that it had submitted a questionnaire response
(24) With
regard
to
the
cooperating
producer
no
comments
and bearing in mind that the Commission services had
have been made on the Commission’s provisional
visited the premises of the company and also in light of
findings. Therefore, the dumping margin, as set out in
the additional explanations and clarifications now
recitals 22 and 23 of the provisional Regulation, is
provided, it would not be appropriate if it were to
confirmed.
continue to be treated like exporting producers who
had not cooperated in any way with the investigation.
(25) With
regard
to
STAR
Oxochem
and
taking
into
account
the above considerations, the dumping margin, expressed
(17) In light of the above, in particular the additional expla
as a percentage of the cif Union border price, duty
nations and clarifications provided, the Commission’s
unpaid is 31,5 %.

---

EN
18.4.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
106/3
(26) In
view
of
the
low
cooperation
from
India
(below
80
%)
was constructed on the basis of the manufacturing costs
it was provisionally considered that the highest dumped
for Indian unrefined oxalic acid, adjusted with an uplift
transaction of the cooperating party was the most appro
of 12 % to take into account additional manufacturing
priate method for establishing the country-wide dumping
costs, plus SG&A and profit.
margin. This transaction is not exceptional in terms of
either quantity or price and is therefore considered a
representative sample that leads to a reasonable and
(33) Both
cooperating
producers
from
China
contested
the
proportionate result in relation to the dumping margin
12 % uplift for additional manufacturing costs, claiming
established for the cooperating producer.
that these additional costs have never been verified by
the Commission and appear to be simply a rough esti
mation based on a methodology that has not been
(27) In view of the above the considerations the findings in
disclosed to them at the time of the provisional
recitals 24 and 25 of the provisional Regulation are
disclosure. One of the exporting producers claimed that
confirmed.
it had estimated the additional manufacturing cost at
only 5 % although it did not substantiate this claim
with any supporting evidence.
(28) On
this
basis
the
definitive
dumping
margins
expressed
as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty
unpaid, for India are:
(34) It
is
pointed
out
that
the
uplift
has
been
determined
on

the basis of information provided by the cooperating
Chinese exporting producers themselves. First, it is
noted that the same company which now alleges that
the additional manufacturing cost is only around 5 %
Company
Definitive dumping
margin
had originally explicitly referred to additional costs of
10-15 % in its MET/IT claim form. Second, during the
Punjab Chemicals and Crop Protection
22,8 %
verification visits at the companies’ premises, both
Limited
cooperating producers confirmed that the additional
costs for manufacturing refined oxalic acid as compared
Star Oxochem Pvt. Ltd 31,5
%
to unrefined oxalic acid were in the band of 10-12 %.
Third, this latter level of 10-12 % additional manufac
All other companies 43,6
%
turing cost was also supported by calculations of the
Union industry. In view of the information provided by
the cooperating producers an uplift of 12 % was
3.2. PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
considered appropriate.
3.2.1. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT (MET)/INDIVIDUAL
TREATMENT (IT)
(35) Therefore in the absence of any substantiated
(29) As
set
out
in
the
provisional
Regulation,
one
group
of
information or supporting evidence justifying a lower
Chinese companies requested MET or, failing that, IT,
uplift the findings in recitals 35 to 37 of the provisional
while another group of Chinese companies requested IT
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
only. As set out in recitals 26 to 32 of the provisional
Regulation, the claim for MET was rejected whereas both
groups of companies were provisionally granted IT.
3.2.4. EXPORT PRICE
(36) Both
exporting
producers
from
the
PRC
were
granted
IT,
therefore their export prices were based on the prices
(30) No
comments
have
been
submitted
in
respect
of
these
actually paid or payable by the first independent
provisional finding and recitals 26 to 32 of the
customer in the Union in accordance with Article 2(8)
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
of the basic Regulation.
3.2.2. ANALOGUE COUNTRY
(37) In the absence of comments with regard to the export
price, recital 38 of the provisional Regulation is hereby
(31) No
comments
were
received
on
the
provisional
choice
of
confirmed.
analogue country. Accordingly, recitals 33 to 34 of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
3.2.5. COMPARISON
3.2.3. NORMAL VALUE
(38) One of the cooperating producers claimed that the SG&A
expenses of its related trader and commissions should
(32) It
was
explained
in
the
provisional
Regulation
that
the
not be removed from the export price as an adjustment
Commission established separate normal values for both
under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation. The
unrefined and refined oxalic acid. While the normal value
producer stated that the direct selling costs of their
for unrefined oxalic acid was determined on the basis of
related trader had already been removed from the
the normal value established for India, the normal value
export price in order to arrive at an ex-works price to
for refined oxalic acid, which is not produced in India,
compare with the normal value on the same basis.

---

L 106/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
18.4.2012
(39) The
producer
argued
that
their
related
trader
was
a
(46) It
was
therefore
considered
that
the
trader
was
carrying
wholly owned subsidiary and, in view of the export
out functions similar to those of an agent working on a
profit distribution strategy within the group, did not
commission basis. Accordingly, the claim that no
charge any commission. Furthermore, according to the
adjustments should be made for commission under
company, the remaining SG&A expenses represented the
Article 2(10)(i) is rejected.
combined costs of operating the company and were not
expenses directly related to sales and should therefore not
be removed from the export price.
(47) Also
the
claim
that
SG&A
expenses
should
not
be
taken
into account as they do not include direct selling
expenses cannot be accepted. Such overhead costs have
(40) Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation states that
an impact on the cost structure of the company and
commissions are to be understood to include the
therefore affect the export price. Therefore, a portion of
mark-up received by a trader if the functions of such a
these costs was removed from the export price to allow
trader are similar to those of an agent working on a
for a fair comparison of normal value and export price,
commission basis. It is therefore irrelevant whether a
ex-works. This claim is rejected.
commission was actually paid or not. What is relevant
is whether the trader re-sold the goods with a mark-up
and whether the functions of the trader were similar to
those of an agent.
(48) The commission has been established on the basis of the
profit margin of an unrelated EU importer rather than on
the actual mark-up of the trader, which was significantly
higher. This methodology was deemed more appropriate
(41) Evidence on file, obtained before and during the
as the actual mark-up would have been based on internal
inspection of the trading company, shows that the
transfer prices not reflecting actual market conditions.
trader during the IP sold oxalic acid produced by the
related producer to a customer in the EU. At the same
time the producer was also exporting directly to the same
customer in the EU. The related trader therefore
(49) In
the
absence
of
any
further
comments
with
regard
to
duplicated the effort of the producer with different staff
the comparison of the normal value and the export price,
in a different office in a different city, thereby incurring
recitals 39 to 44 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
its own costs that are reflected in their export price.
confirmed.
(42) It is also clear from evidence on file that the trading
3.2.6. DUMPING MARGINS
company purchased the exported goods from the
related exporting producer and re-sold them, with a
For the cooperating exporting producers
mark-up, in its own name, after having itself concluded
price negotiations with the final independent customer.
(50) One
group
of
exporting
producers
claimed
that
indi
vidual dumping margins should be established separately
for unrefined and refined oxalic acid. They argued that
although dumping margins were established on the basis
(43) Evidence was also collected regarding the trading
of a comparison of the weighted average normal value
company performing the functions of an agent. This
with the weighted average export price of the product
evidence firstly shows that the producer sold significant
concerned type by type, one common dumping margin
volumes of the product concerned directly to the EU as
for both types of oxalic acid was established. They
well as exporting to the EU via their related trading
claimed that it would be more appropriate to establish
company. Only about one third of sales to the EU
a dumping margin for each type of oxalic acid as the
were made via this related company. The trader also
group consists of two producing companies of which
re-sold oxalic acid from other unrelated producers.
one produces refined oxalic acid while the other
Evidence on file shows that over half of the trader’s
produces unrefined oxalic acid.
purchases of oxalic acid were from unrelated suppliers
and less than half of their purchases came from their
related producer.
(51) Unrefined
oxalic
acid
can
be
substituted
by
refined
oxalic
acid. Both types of oxalic acid are included under the
(44) The
trader
could
thus
not
be
considered
as
the
internal
same CN code and the different types cannot easily be
export sales department of the producing exporter
distinguished from each other. The purity of the oxalic
despite its relationship with the exporting producer.
acid is the same, the difference is in the levels of other
products in the remaining ‘waste’ product. As they both
fall within the definition of the product concerned, one
dumping margin has been established in line with usual
(45) It is also clear from evidence submitted and verified that
practice. Given the significant price difference between
the trader only pays for the goods supplied from the
the two types and the difficulties involved in distin
related exporting producer once the customer in the
guishing them from each other individual dumping
EU has paid the trader. The financial risk therefore
margins for refined and unrefined oxalic acid would
remains with the producer and not the trader.
lead to an increased risk of circumvention. The claim

---

EN
18.4.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
106/5
to have individual dumping margins for refined and
data from a third Union producer having stopped the
unrefined oxalic acid, is rejected and the dumping
production of OA should be disregarded and not be
margins, as established in recitals 45 and 46 of the
included in some macro indicators (see recitals 72, 74
provisional Regulation, are confirmed.
and 78 of the provisional Regulation). First, it is hereby
confirmed that contrary to what was stated in recitals 50
and 51 of the provisional Regulation, there were in fact
(52) Finally,
the
same
exporting
producer
group
questioned
three producers of the product concerned in the Union
the different dumping margins established for the two
during the period considered constituting the Union
groups of exporting producers from the PRC and
industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the
requested clarification of the calculation methodology
basic Regulation, which thus represent 100 % of the
and the classification of refined and unrefined oxalic
Union production. Second, the claim that figures
acid, given the difference in the dumping margins
pertaining to the non-cooperating producer and the
found between the two groups of exporters.
third Union producer having ceased its operation in
2008 should be disregarded is rejected, as it is correct
to include all known figures related to the period
considered for the purpose of the injury analysis in
(53) The
same
methodology
has
been
used
in
respect
of
both
order to achieved the best informed representation of
groups of exporting producers from the PRC and the
the economic situation of the Union industry as
weighted average export price of the product concerned
prescribed in Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.
includes both refined and unrefined oxalic acid. The
explanation as to the different dumping margins rests
therefore simply on the relative weight of exports of
the respective types, considering that refined oxalic acid
(58) The same exporting producer also argued that the
is normally sold at a higher price than unrefined.
reasons for which this third producer has ceased its

production of the like product were not properly
examined during the investigation. However, this matter
was examined during the investigation and the company
(54) The definitive dumping margins expressed as a
simply invoked the fact that it had stopped the
percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty
production of the like product for ‘internal reasons’
unpaid, are:
without giving any further explanations. In addition,
one exporting producer concurred with this explanation
and claimed that the decision to stop the production was
not due to the alleged dumping practices from exporting
Company
Definitive dumping
margin
producers in China, thus contradicting the information
which was made available by the complainant in the
Shandong Fengyuan Chemicals Stock
37,7 %
non-confidential version of the complaint, in which it
Co., Ltd and Shandong Fengyuan
is stated that ‘[the company] ceased production, once
Uranus Advanced material Co., Ltd
and for all, closing the factory because of aggressive
dumping from China and India’. However, the
Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co.,
14,6 %
exporting producer did not provide any different
Ltd
information with regard to the alleged production
figures related to this third Union producer. Therefore,
this issue does not devaluate the fact that the data related
For all other non-cooperating exporting producers
to that third EU producer could be used in the current
investigation.
(55) In
the
absence
of
other
comments
with
regard
to
the
dumping margins, recitals 47 to 48 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(59) Another
exporting
producer
argued
that
the
minimum
threshold for the standing at initiation was not
properly disclosed and in fact was not met. As
(56) On this basis the country-wide level of dumping is defi
mentioned in recital 2 of the provisional Regulation,
nitely established at 52,2 % of the CIF Union frontier
the complainant represented more than 25 % of the
price, duty unpaid, and recital 49 of the provisional
total Union production of oxalic acid and no producer
Regulation is hereby confirmed.
expressing opposition has come forward prior to the
initiation of the investigation. An information note was
made available in the non-confidential file summarising
the results of the standing examination at initiation stage.
4. INJURY
Furthermore, the injury analysis made pursuant to
4.1. UNION PRODUCTION AND UNION INDUSTRY
Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation covered a major
proportion of the Union Industry.
(57) An
exporting
producer
submitted
that
the
reference
to
two Union producers constituting the Union industry in
recitals 50 and 51 of the provisional Regulation (the
(60) In
the
absence
of
any
further
comments
concerning
the
complainant and a second non-cooperating producer)
definition of the Union production and the Union
did not properly reflect the situation regarding macro
industry, recitals 50 and 51 of the provisional Regulation
economic indicators. It was also argued that data
are hereby confirmed subject to the clarification in recital
regarding the non-cooperating producer as well as the
57 above.

---

L 106/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
18.4.2012
4.2. DETERMINATION OF THE RELEVANT UNION MARKET
cooperating exporting producers. However, this had no
impact on the proposed definitive measures as indicated
(61) An
exporting
producer
submitted
that
captive
use
of
in recital 87 below.
oxalic acid should not be considered in the determination
of some injury indicators and in any case the same
consistent approach should be applied to all injury indi
(67) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
concerning
the
cators. However, the separation made between the
price of dumped imports and price undercutting, recitals
captive and the free markets was explained in recitals
65 to 68 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
52, 53 and 55 of the provisional Regulation and in
confirmed.
line with the basic Regulation, the focus of the analysis
was primarily on the free market, even though, both the
use in the free and the captive markets were included for
6. ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY
the determination of some injury indicators as indicated
in recital 55. Indeed, some injury indicators can only be
(68) As
mentioned
in
recital
57
above,
an
exporting
producer
examined in regard to the use of the like product in the
submitted that the figures related to a third Union
free market as, given the very nature of captive sales,
producer which ceased the production of oxalic acid in
such indicators can be distorted by the relationship
2008 should not have been included in some macro
between the seller and buyer. Therefore, this claim is
indicators (see recitals 72, 74 and 78 of the provisional
rejected.
Regulation). However there are in fact three producers of
the like product in the Union constituting the Union
industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the
(62) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
concerning
the
basic Regulation, representing 100 % of the Union
determination of the relevant Union market, recitals 52
production throughout the whole period considered,
to 55 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
even though one producer stopped producing oxalic
confirmed.
acid before the IP. The claim that figures pertaining to
the third Union producer having ceased its operation in
2008 should be disregarded is rejected, as it is correct to
4.3. UNION CONSUMPTION
include all production figures related to the period
considered for the purpose of determining the
(63) In the absence of any comments concerning the Union
economic situation of the Union industry.
consumption, recitals 56 to 58 of the provisional Regu
lation are hereby confirmed.
(69) The same exporting producer argued that notwith
standing the alleged error mentioned in recital 66
5. IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED
above, the figures related to the number of employees,
5.1.
total yearly wages and average labour costs per employee
CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF THE
in Table 6 of the provisional Regulation did not tally.
IMPORTS CONCERNED
However, the exporting producer did not refer to the
(64) In the absence of any comments concerning the cumu
correct figure when stating that average wages rose by
lative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned,
21 %, in fact, the right figure is 19 %.
recitals 59 to 62 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.
(70) With regard to the economic crisis recitals 95 to 97 of
the provisional Regulation clearly show that imports
5.2. VOLUME AND MARKET SHARE OF DUMPED IMPORTS
from the countries concerned continued to gain market
FROM THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED
share despite the decline in consumption and had a
negative impact on various injury indicators such as
(65) In the absence of any comments concerning the volume
sales volumes, employment, production capacity and
and the market share of the imports from the countries
market share.
concerned, recitals 63 and 64 of the provisional Regu
lation are hereby confirmed.
(71) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
regarding
recitals
69
to
94 of the provisional Regulation, these recitals are hereby
5.3. PRICE OF DUMPED IMPORTS AND PRICE
confirmed.
UNDERCUTTING
(66) As
mentioned
in
recital
144
of
the
provisional
regu
7. CONCLUSION ON INJURY
lation, in the injury margin calculation, the average
import prices of the cooperating exporting producers in
(72) An
exporting producer argued that contrary to the
the PRC and India have been duly adjusted for
provisional findings, the Union industry did not suffer
importation costs and customs duties. An exporting
material injury. It was claimed that, overall, the
producer argued however that the Commission failed
negative trends regarding the Union industry were due
to include fully an allowance of 6,5 % corresponding to
to the effects of the economic crisis in 2008 and the
the normal customs duty in the injury margin calcu
erroneous inclusion of the information related to the
lation. This claim was found to be warranted and the
third Union producer having ceased its production in
injury margins calculations were corrected accordingly
2008, which contributed to give a vitiated representation
for this exporting producer, as well as for the other
of the injury situation. However, as mentioned above the

---

EN
18.4.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
106/7
inclusion of the third producer was considered to be
9. UNION INTEREST
correct and market share of the countries concerned
continued to increase despite the crisis.
(78) Two
importers
argued
that
the
measures
could
lead
to
shortages of oxalic acid in the EU. Allegedly, the Union
industry cannot meet the demand in the EU for oxalic
acid.
(73) Therefore, recitals 94 to 98 of the provisional Regulation
concluding that the Union industry suffered material
injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(79) The investigation revealed that during the IP, the
complainant had spare capacities. Furthermore, the
complainant stated that currently it is increasing its
8.
production, even though, as the production of the
CAUSATION
product concerned is based on chemical reactions,
(74) One
exporting
producer
stated
that
the
inclusion
of
data
increasing capacity utilisation requires some time.
related to a third Union producer having ceased its
However, based on the EU consumption data and the
production of oxalic acid in 2008 was distorting the
total EU capacity, it can be considered that the
provisional conclusions regarding the causal link
complainant is capable of meeting total Union demand
analysis, which should be based on current producers
for unrefined oxalic acid once it is producing close to full
only. Similarly to the injury analysis above, it was
capacity. With regard to refined oxalic acid it is recalled
found that conversely, not to include this third
that most of the refined oxalic acid is used in the
producer would distort the conclusions in relation to
production of products that are subsequently exported,
the like product. However, as mentioned in recital 57
the users could operate under the inward processing
above, relevant data for this company should also be
regime. In addition, the main Chinese exporter of
included in the analysis of the situation of the Union
refined oxalic acid is the one with the lowest proposed
industry and this claim is therefore rejected.
duty (14,6 %).
(75) One exporting producer
argued that as the import
(80) In
addition,
the
complainant
argued
that
the
global
oxalic
volume of the dumped imports increased at the same
market (unrefined) is dominated by the Chinese
time as the profitability situation of the Union industry
producers which are setting the price level for this
has improved, the dumped imports could not be the
product. Currently the Chinese producers are more
main cause of injury. However, this minor improvement
preoccupied with their domestic market and it cannot
regarding profitability does not devalue the conclusion
be excluded that in the absence of measures and the
that the overall profitability remained very low and
probable disappearance of the only remaining EU
under the normal profit of 8 %. Furthermore, despite
producer of unrefined oxalic acid, users in the EU
the fact that consumption increased substantially in
would face security of supply problems potentially with
2008 and again during the IP the Union industry lost
chronic shortages and oligopolistic prices.
9 % market share against the Chinese imports during the
period considered.
(81) Another
importer/user
operating
in
a
different
down
stream market segment than the previous one alleged
(76) Another
exporting
producer
argued
that
based
on
the
that the existence of provisional measures had a
information available, the Union industry achieved in
negative impact on the profitability of its own products
the IP, a profit which was very close to the target
for which oxalic acid is the main raw material, without
profit of 8 %. As the information regarding profits
however, providing any further details. The company was
relates to only one Union producer, the precise profit
invited to attend a hearing to further develop these
levels cannot be published. However, as stated in recital
concerns and provide evidence, but did not react.
88 of the provisional regulation, the complainant made a
Therefore, these allegations could not be verified.
small profit in the IP, after having made a loss in 2009.
The assumptions that the exporting producer used to
conclude that the profit in the IP was allegedly close to
the target profit were in fact not correct as they did not
(82) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
concerning
the
include the relevant financial and production data of the
Union interest, recitals 123 to 139 of the provisional
complainant, which for confidential reasons could not be
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
disclosed. The profit level of the complainant has been
thoroughly verified, including during an on-spot verifi
cation visit and therefore, allegations that the profit
achieved in the IP was very close to the target profit
10. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
were found to be incorrect.
10.1. INJURY ELIMINATION LEVEL
(83) As
mentioned
above
in
recital
66
an
exporting
producer
(77) In the absence of any other comments concerning
argued that the Commission failed to include an
causation, recitals 99 to 122 of the provisional Regu
allowance of 6,5
% corresponding to the normal
lation are hereby confirmed.
customs duty in the injury margin calculation. This

---

L 106/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
18.4.2012
claim was found to be partially correct as for some
(85) In the absence of comments on the injury elimination
imports that were delivered to the EU customer on a
level, recitals 145 to 148 of the provisional Regulation
duty paid basis, the duty had been underestimated.
are confirmed.
Therefore the injury margins were corrected accordingly,
without however having, any significant impact on the
10.2. FORM AND LEVEL OF THE DUTIES
proposed definitive measures (see recital 87 below).
(86) In the light of the foregoing and in accordance with
Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-
dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the
dumping margins found, since for all the exporting
(84) In
view
of
the
conclusions
reached
with
regard
to
Star
producers concerned the injury margins were found to
Oxochem, an injury margin was also established for this
be higher than the dumping margins.
exporting producer on the basis of the same calculation
methodology as laid down in recitals 142 to 144 of the
(87) On the basis of the above, the dumping and injury
provisional Regulation.
margins established are as follows:
Company/group name Injury
margin
(%) Dumping
margin
(%) Provisional duty (%) Proposed
duty
(%)
India
Punjab Chemicals and Crop Protection
38,9 22,8 22,8 22,8
Limited (PCCPL)
Star Oxochem Pvt. Ltd 32,3 31,5 43,6 31,5
All other companies 47,9 43,6 43,6 43,6
PRC
Shandong Fengyuan Chemicals Stock Co.,
53,3 37,7 37,7 37,7
Ltd and Shandong Fengyuan Uranus
Advanced Material Co., Ltd
Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co., Ltd 18,7 14,6 14,6 14,6
All other companies 63,5 52,2 52,2 52,2
(88) The individual company’s anti-dumping duty rates
information, in particular any modification in the
specified in this Regulation were established on the
company’s activities linked to production, domestic and
basis of the findings of the present investigation.
export sales associated with, for example, that name
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that
change or that change in the production and sales
investigation with respect to these companies. These
entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be
duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty
amended accordingly by updating the list of companies
applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively
benefiting from individual duty rates.
applicable to imports of products originating in India and
the PRC and produced by the companies and thus by the
specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products
produced by any other company not specifically
(90) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
its name and address, including entities related to those
recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping
specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates
duty on imports of oxalic acid originating in the PRC and
and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all
India. They were also granted a period of time within
other companies’.
which they could make representations subsequent to the

final disclosure.
(89) Any
claim
requesting
the
application
of
these
individual
anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the
name of the entity or following the setting up of new
(91) The
comments
submitted
by
the
interested
parties
were
production or sales entities) should be addressed to
duly considered. None of the comments was such as to
the Commission ( 1 ) forthwith with all the relevant
alter the findings of the investigation.
( 1 ) European Commission,
Directorate-General for Trade,
(92) In
order
to
ensure
a
proper
enforcement
of
the
anti-
Directorate H, Office: N105 04/092,
1049 Bruxelles/Brussel,
dumping duty, the residual duty level should not only
BELGIQUE/BELGI
apply to the non-cooperating exporters, but also to those

---

EN
18.4.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
106/9
companies which did not have any exports during the IP.
the Commission was not satisfied that an undertaking
However, the latter companies are invited, when they
from this company could be effectively monitored.
fulfil the requirements of Article 11(4) of the basic Regu
lation, second paragraph, to present a request for a
(96) Moreover,
in
relation
to
the
exporting
producers
in
the
review pursuant to that Article in order to have their
PRC, the investigation established that there are different
situation examined individually.
types of the product concerned which are not easily
distinguishable and have considerable differences in
10.3. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES
prices. The single MIP for all product types offered by
one of the Chinese exporting producers would therefore
(93) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found
not eliminate the injurious effect of dumping.
and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the
Furthermore, both exporting producers concerned in
Union industry, it is considered necessary that the
the PRC are producers of different types of other
amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-
chemical products and may sell these products to
dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation
common customers in the European Union via related
should be definitively collected to the extent of the
trading companies. This would create a serious risk of
amount of the definitive duties imposed. Where the
cross-compensation and would render extremely difficult
definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties,
to monitor effectively the undertaking. The different MIPs
the amount provisionally secured in excess of the
proposed by the other Chinese exporting producer would
definitive rate of anti-dumping duties should be released.
also render the monitoring impracticable due to the
complexity of distinction between the various product
types. On the basis of the above, it was concluded that
11. UNDERTAKINGS
the undertaking offers cannot be accepted,
(94) One
exporting
producer
in
India
and
two
exporting
producers in the People’s Republic of China offered
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
price undertakings in accordance with Article 8(1) of
the basic Regulation.
Article 1
(95) The
product
concerned
has
shown
in
the
last
years
a
1. A
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on
considerable volatility in prices and therefore it is not
imports of oxalic acid, whether in dihydrate (CUS number
suitable for a fixed price undertaking. In order to
0028635-1 and CAS number 6153-56-6) or anhydrous form
overcome this problem, the Indian exporting producer
(CUS number 0021238-4 and CAS number 144-62-7) and
offered an indexation clause without, however, deter
whether or not in aqueous solution, currently falling within
mining the respective minimum price (MIP). In this
CN code ex 2917 11 00 (TARIC code 2917 11 00 91) and orig
respect it is noted that no direct link between the fluc
inating in India and the People’s Republic of China.
tuation of prices and that of the main raw material could
be established and, thus, indexation is not considered
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
to
appropriate. In addition, the level of cooperation of this
the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product
company throughout the investigation and the accuracy
described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies
of the data it had provided was not ideal. Accordingly,
below, shall be as follows:
Country Company
Anti-dumping duty
rate %
TARIC additional code
India Punjab
Chemicals
and
Crop
Protection
22,8 B230
Limited
Star Oxochem Pvt. Ltd 31,5 B270
All other companies 43,6 B999
PRC Shandong
Fengyuan
Chemicals
Stock
37,7 B231
Co., Ltd; Shandong Fengyuan Uranus
Advanced Material Co., Ltd
Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co.,
14,6 B232
Ltd
All other companies 52,2 B999
3. The application of the individual duty rate specified for the companies listed in paragraph 2 of this
Article shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authority of the Member States of a valid
commercial invoice, which shall conform with the requirements set out in the Annex. If no such invoice is
presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.

---

L 106/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
18.4.2012
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Commission Regulation
(EU) No 1043/2011 shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the amount of the
definitive anti-dumping duties shall be released.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 April 2012.
For the Council
The President
N. WAMMEN
ANNEX
A declaration signed by an official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice, in the following format, must appear on
the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3):
(1) The name and function of the official of the entity which has issued the commercial invoice.
(2) The
following
declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of oxalic acid sold for export to the European Union covered by this
invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) in (country concerned). I declare
that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’
Date and signature

---

Document Outline

• �

---