HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 43/38
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2013
COMMISSION DECISION
of 13 February 2013
terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of white phosphorus, also called
elemental or yellow phosphorus, originating in the Republic of Kazakhstan
(2013/81/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
were granted a hearing. All oral and written comments
submitted by the interested parties were considered and
taken into account where appropriate.
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European

Union,
(5) In
order
to
allow
the
exporting
producer
in
Kazakhstan
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
known to be concerned to sumbit a claim for market
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
economy treatment (‘MET’) or to request individual
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
treatment (‘IT’), the Commission sent a claim form to
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
this exporting producer. In addition, the Commission
sent a claim form to the authorities of Kazakhstan. The
sole known exporting producer in Kazakhstan made itself
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
known and requested MET.
Whereas:
(6) The
Commission
sent
a
questionnaire
to
the
known
exporting producer in the country concerned and the
A. PROCEDURE
complainant which provided the Commission with
responses.
1. INITIATION
(1) On
17
December
2011,
the
European
Commission
(‘the
Commission’) announced, by a notice published in the
(7) In view of the apparent large number of unrelated
Official Journal of the European Union (
importers which were potentially concerned by this

2 ) (‘notice of initi
ation’), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with
investigation, sampling was envisaged in the notice of
regard to imports into the Union of white phosphorus,
initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic
also called elemental or yellow phosphorus, originating
Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to
in the Republic of Kazakhstan (‘Kazakhstan’ or ‘the
decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so,
country concerned’).
to select a sample, all unrelated importers were asked to
make themselves known to the Commission and to
provide information specified in the notice of initiation.
(2)
The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint
Only seven companies provided the information specified
lodged on 7 November 2011 by Thermphos Inter
in the notice of initiation. They indicated that they were
national BV (‘the complainant’) the only producer of
importers/users of the product concerned. Given the low
white phosphorus in the Union representing therefore
number of importers which made themselves known, it
the total Union production. The complaint contained
was considered that sampling would not be necessary.
prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product
Subsequently, the Commission sent to these parties
and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was
both a questionnaire for importers and a questionnaire
considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a
for users. In addition, over 30 companies made them
proceeding.
selves known as users to which the Commission sent a
users’ questionnaire. As a result, five companies filled in
both questionnaires, one company the importers’ ques
2. PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE PROCEEDING
tionnaire and seven companies the users’ questionnaire. It
(3) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
complainant,
the
should be noted that one user subsequently decided to
sole known exporting producer in the country
withdraw its cooperation.
concerned, the producer in the analogue country,
importers, traders, users known to be concerned, and
the representatives of Kazakhstan of the initiation of
(8) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
the
information
the proceeding. Interested parties were given the oppor
deemed necessary for a provisional determination of
tunity to make their views known in writing and to
dumping, resulting injury and Union interest and
request a hearing within the time limit set in the
carried out verifications at the premises of the
notice of initiation.
following companies:
(4) All
interested
parties
who
so
requested
and
showed
that
(a) Union producer
there were particular reasons why they should be heard
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
Thermphos International BV, Vlissingen, The
( 2 ) OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 19.
Netherlands

---

EN
14.2.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
43/39
(b) Exporting producer in the country concerned
Kazakhstan, currently falling within CN code
ex 2804 70 00 (‘white phosphorus’ or ‘the product
Kazhposphate LLC, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
concerned’).
(c) Importer
(14) White
phosphorus
is
a
chemical
element
derived
from
Ciech SA,Warsaw, Poland
phosphate rock and has a wide variety of applications.
White phosphorus is used as a starting product for non-
(d) User
acid applications mainly for pharmaceuticals and agri
cultural chemicals, for the manufacture of phosphoric
Zaklady Chemiczne Alwernia SA, Alwernia, Poland
acid and its derivatives that are used for food and deter
gents, and for the manufacture of phosphor alloys that
(e) Importers/Users
can be used in metallurgy. The investigation revealed that
there is only one type of the product concerned.
Fosfa akciová spolenost, Breclav, Czech Republic
ICL-IP Bitterfeld GmbH, Bitterfeld, Germany
2. LIKE PRODUCT
(15) The investigation showed that white phosphorus
Italmatch Chemicals Spa, Genoa, Italy
produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry
and the white phosphorus produced in the country
3. INVESTIGATION PERIOD
concerned and exported to the Union had the same
basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics
(9) The
investigation
of
dumping
and
injury
covered
the
and uses. Therefore, these products are provisionally
period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011
considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4)
(‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends
of the basic Regulation. In the light of the determination
relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period
concerning market economy treatment as outlined below
from 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP (‘period
in recitals 14 to 17 and the fact that data of the analogue
considered’).
market producer was not used, no determination was
made with respect of the like product produced and
4. NON-IMPOSITION OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES
sold in the analogue market.
(10) It
was
considered
that
the
imposition
of
provisional
measures would not be appropriate, in particular in
view of the need of a further analysis of certain aspects
C. DUMPING
of causation and Union interest.
1. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT (MET)
(11) All
interested
parties
received
an
information
document
(16) Pursuant
to
Article
2(7)(b)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
in
containing the essential facts and considerations on the
anti-dumping investigations concerning imports orgi
basis of which it was decided not to impose provisional
nating in Kazakhstan, normal value shall be determined
measures (‘information document’). Several interested
in accordance with paragraphs (1) to (6) of the said
parties made written submissions making known their
Article for the exporting producer that was found to
views on the findings spelled out in the information
meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the
document. The parties who so requested were granted
basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only,
the opportunity to be heard.
these criteria are set out in summarised form below:
5. RIGHTS OF PARTIES AND CONFIDENTIALITY
(12) As the Union industry is constituted of only one
Criterion 1 — Business decisions are made in response
producer, sensitive data had to be indexed or given in
to market signals, without significant
a range for reasons of confidentiality. Furthermore, and
State interference, and costs reflect
for the same reasons, as there is only one exporting
market values;
producer and limited number of importers in the
Union market, all figures related to consumption,
import volume from the country concerned and other
countries as well as import prices had to be indexed.
Criterion 2 — Firms have one clear set of independently
Similarly, as far as the users are concerned, in most
audited accounting records;
cases actual data could not be provided because of
their limited number.
Criterion 3 — No distortions are carried over from the
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
non-market economy system;
1. PRODUCT CONCERNED
(13) The
product
concerned
is
white
phosphorus,
also
called
Criterion 4 — Bankruptcy and property laws guarantee
elemental or yellow phosphorus, originating in
stability and legal certainty;

---

L 43/40
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2013
Criterion 5 — Exchange rate conversions are carried out
purchased, evaluated at fair value and correctly accounted
at market rates.
for. The company furthermore paid corporate income
tax, mineral extraction tax as well as other associated
costs at the same level as any other mineral developer
in Kazakhstan. The financial commitment linked to these
(17) The
sole
known
exporting
producer
in
Kazakhstan
(‘the
obligations were part of the company’s total operating
exporting producer’) requested MET and submitted a
costs. On this basis, it was concluded that there was no
claim form. The information provided was verified by
significant State interference and that the costs linked to
the Commission at the premises of the company in
phosphate rocks were not distorted. The claims made by
question.
the complainant in this regard were therefore rejected.
(18) Taking
into
consideration
the
verified
evidence,
it
was
concluded that the company met all requirements laid
(24) The
electricity,
which
represents
a
significant
proportion
down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and
of the total cost of manufacturing, is provided by
could be granted MET.
unrelated suppliers. The investigation showed that the
average electricity price was lower than the average
price for other industrial users in Kazakhstan. However,
the company is one of the biggest energy consumers in
(19) The Commission disclosed the result of the MET findings
the country and such practice was not found to be
to the exporting producer, the authorities of Kazakhstan
against market economy principles. The complainant
and to the complainant and gave them the opporunity to
alleged that the company benefited from preferential
provide comments.
transport cost for electricity when using the State
owned transportation grids. This allegation was
however not confirmed during the investigation. It was
therefore concluded that there was no significant State
(20) The
complainant
alleged
that
there
were
links
between
interference with regard to electricity costs and the claims
the exporting producer and the Kazakh State and that the
made by the complainant in this regard were rejected.
company failed to provide evidence of its ultimate share
holding. The investigation revealed, however, that the
company was a ‘Limited Liability Partnership’ in
accordance with the law of Kazakhstan and that its
direct shareholders were two private companies. It was
(25) Other
major
raw
materials
are
coke,
phosphate
fine
coals,
verified that the State did not hold any shares in the
quartzite, electrodes, cake and silicate ore, which were all
company, directly or indirectly. The investigation
purchased from unrelated suppliers on the international
therefore confirmed that the company was fully
market, mainly China and Russia, or locally sourced. The
privately owned. The claims of the complainant in this
investigation did not reveal any State interference with
regard were therefore rejected.
regard to the purchase or pricing of these materials.
(21) It
was
also
argued
that
the
company
had
a
joint
venture
(26) The complainant further alleged that although the
with a State-owned/funded company which would
relevant legal framework existed in Kazakhstan, labour
provide for privileged access to State financing.
and social rights for employees in Kazakhstan are in
Although the investigation confirmed the existence of a
practice suppressed by the State which had an impact
joint venture, it did not have any activity during the IP
on the company’s wages and labour cost. The investi
and covered sulphuric acid only, which is a distinct
gation had shown that labour is hired and laid off
business sector from white phosphorus. The claims in
freely by the company’s management and subject to
this regard were therefore rejected.
the legal minimum wage. It was found that all relevant
Kazakh legislation was respected and that the company
had individual labour contracts with each one of the
employees. The investigation did therefore not reveal
(22) The
composition
and
functioning
of
the
Executive
and
any State interference and the claims made by the
Supervisory Boards, the main decision-making organs
complainant in this regard were rejected.
within the company, were examined. As a results, the
investigation did not reveal any State interference.
(27) Finally,
the
complainant
argued
that,
since
there
were
no
(23) The
complainant
further
claimed
that
the
company’s
domestic sales of white phosphorus in Kazakhstan, sales
production costs were distorted and did not reflect
restrictions on the domestic market were very likely.
normal market economy conditions, especially in
However, the company’s business licence did not show
relation to the costs of the mining of phosphate rocks,
any sales restriction, neither on the domestic nor on the
one of the major raw materials. The investigation
export market. The lack of domestic sales was due to the
revealed that the company sourced phosphate rock
fact that there is neither demand nor processing capacity
from affiliated mines in Kazakhstan benefitting from
in Kazakhstan for white phosphorus. The allegations of
exclusive exploitation rights. These rights have been
the complainant in this regard were therefore rejected.

---

EN
14.2.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
43/41
(28) The
company
had
one
set
of
basic
accounting
records
(35) Following
disclosure
of
the
information
document,
the
yearly audited by independent audit firms in line with
exporting producer claimed that in accordance with
IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) and
Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation costs should have
applied for all purposes.
been established on the basis of the records kept by
the party under investigation. Since depreciation costs
of the mining rights were only reflected in the
accounts of the exporting producer’s mother company,
(29) The
company’s
financial
accounts
revealed
that
it
granted
located outside Kazakhstan, and since the latter company
free loans, which were however fully repaid during the IP.
would not be covered by the investigation, the deter
Interest free loans between related or even unrelated
mination of costs of the exporting producer should not
companies as such are not against international
have been based on information recorded in the accounts
accounting standards, but allowed under certain
of this company.
conditions such as the respect of the reporting
requirement and their disclosure in the financial
accounts. The investigation did not reveal any irregu
larities in this respect and all accounting requirements
(36) It is recalled that since the phosphate rock mine is
were fulfilled.
located in Kazakhstan and that the exporting producer
was mining phosphate rock for the purpose of the
production of white phosphorus, the costs recorded in
the accounts of the exporting producer should indeed
(30) The company was found to be subject to the relevant
bankruptcy and property laws, the application of which
have included the depreciation cost of the mining
is designed to guarantee legal certainty and stability for
rights. Therefore, in accordance with Article 2(5) of the
the operation of firms. There were no indications that
basic Regulation, the records of the exporting producer
these laws would not be applicable and implemented for
did not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the
the company.
production and sale of the product under investigation. It

was therefore warranted to correct the reported costs
accordingly.
(31) The investigation has not revealed any restrictions
concerning the use and conversion of foreign currency.
The company’s foreign exchange transactions were
(37) The accounts of the mother company were consolidated
conducted according to market rates and it was able to
accounts for the whole group, i.e. they also contained
freely dispose of the usage of its own funds.
data of the activities of the exporting producer in
Kazakhstan. The mining rights recorded related to the
overall mining activities, including the one of exporting
producer in relation to the production of white phos
2. NORMAL VALUE
phorus. It was therefore considered justified to correct
the reported cost of manufacturing on this basis.
(32) As
a
result
of
the
findings
laid
out
above
in
recital
14
with regard to the company’s claim for MET, normal
value was established on the basis of Article 2(1) to (6)
of the basic Regulation.
(38) The exporting producer further argued that the
depreciation cost recorded represented the total
depreciation cost of all mining rights of the company
(33) The
company
did
not
sell
white
phosphorus
on
the
group relating to the production of various products
domestic market during the IP, nor were there other
including white phosphorus. The amount for
sellers or producers of white phosphorus in Kazakhstan.
depreciation costs added to the reported manufacturing
Normal value could therefore not be determined on the
costs of white phosphorus should, however, only relate
basis of the domestic sales prices in accordance with
to the deprectiation cost directly linked to the production
Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation. Consequently,
of white phosphorus. This claim was accepted and the
normal value was constructed in accordance with
manufacturing cost corrected accordingly, by allocating
Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the
the total depreciation costs to the activity related to the
costs of manufacturing of the product concerned by
production of white phosphorus only.
adding a reasonable amount for selling, general and
administrative (‘SG&A’) costs and for profit.
(39) The
determination
of
SG&A
and
profit
was
based
on
the
actual amounts incurred for production and sales on the
(34) The
investigation revealed that the reported cost of
domestic market of the same general category of
manufacturing did not contain any depreciation costs
products in accordance with Article 2(6)(b) of the basic
of mining rights which had therefore to be added. In
Regulation since no other producers of white phosphorus
this regard the amount of the yearly depreciation of
were present on the Kazakh domestic market. In this
the mining rights related to the product concerned,
regard, mainly chemical products such as fertilisers and
evaluated on the basis of ‘fair value’ was considererd as
other derivatives from white phosphorus were taken into
appropriate.
consideration.

---

L 43/42
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2013
(40) Following
the
disclosure
of
the
information
document,
4. COMPARISON
the exporting producer claimed that the amounts taken
into consideration for the determination of profits
(44) The
constructed
normal
value
and
export
price
were
relating to ‘other products’ are not adequate. In
compared on an ex-works basis.
particular, it was claimed that the production process
of some of these products and the commercial terms
when selling them were significantly different from
those of white phosphorus and higher profit margins
(45) For
the
purpose
of
ensuring
a
fair
comparison
between
were therefore generated when selling these products. It
the ex-works normal value and the export price, due
was claimed that as far as the determination of the profit
allowance in the form of adjustment was made for
margin for the purpose of constructing normal value is
differences affecting prices and price comparability in
concerned, the amounts for profits should be determined
accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
on the basis of Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation, i.e.
Adjustments were made in respect of freight in the
by any other reasonable method. In this regard, it was
country concerned and in the Union, handling and
argued that the profit of white phosphorus realised on
ancillary costs, and credit costs in all cases where they
export sales to the Union or other third countries should
were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by
be taken into account, or alternatively an average of these
verified evidence.
profit margins. Finally, it was argued that should none of
the above be acceptable, the average profit margin of the
mother company relating to the production and sales of
all products during the IP should be taken into consider
5. DUMPING MARGINS
ation.
(46) Pursuant
to
Article
2(11)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
the
dumping margin for the exporting producer in
Kazakhstan was established on the basis of a comparison
of the weighted average normal value with a weighted
(41) The information concerning different production
average export price.
processes for producing ‘other products’ as well as
different commercial terms when selling them were
provided at a very late stage of the investigation and
was not accompanied by any supporting evidence. It
(47) Considering
that
the
level
of
cooperation
was
maximal
as
was also not shown whether and to what extent these
the only cooperating exporter producer represented
alleged differences had an impact on sales prices and
100 % of the export sales of the product concerned,
consequently on the profit margins. Finally, the
the countrywide duty was set at the same level as the
exporting producer did not show that any of the above
one for the cooperating exporter producer.
suggested methodologies under the application of
Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation would indeed
lead to more accurate results than the methodology
based on Article 2(6)(b) of the basic Regulation. In
(48) On the basis of the above methodology, the dumping
particular, it was not explained in how far export sales
margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union
would have comparable sales conditions to sales on the
frontier price, duty unpaid, are the following:
domestic market and would therefore consitute an
appropriate proxi for sales on the domestic market.
These claims had therefore to be rejected.
Company Dumping
margin
Kazphosphate LLC 10,5
%
3. EXPORT PRICE
All other companies 10,5
%
(42) All
export
sales
to
the
Union
were
made
directly
to
independent customers in the Union, and therefore the
export price was based on the prices actually paid or
D. INJURY
payable for the product concerned in the IP in
1. UNION PRODUCTION AND UNION INDUSTRY
accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
(49) The
complaint
was
lodged
by
Thermphos
International
BV (‘the complainant’), the only producer of white phos
phorus in the Union, representing the total Union
production.
(43) Following
the
disclosure
of
the
information
document,
the exporting producer argued that the export price
used was incorrect. It is noted that the determination
of the export price was based on the verified information
(50) The
complainant
therefore
constitutes
the
Union
industry
submitted by the exporting producer during the investi
within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the
gation and that there was therefore no basis to correct
basic Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as the
these figures. This claim had therefore to be rejected.
‘Union industry’.

---

EN
14.2.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
43/43
(51) Subsequent to the disclosure of the information
return on investment, as it was not possible to
document, Thermphos International BV had to file bank
distinguish between the investments made in respect of
ruptcy and later the Breda District Court ordered liqui
the product sold on the free market and that sold on the
dation of the company on 21 November 2012. As a
captive market, return on investment was assessed at the
consequence, the Union industry stopped its production
level of the total market. Consumption, sales volume,
of white phosphorus. In a press release issued by the
sales prices and market shares in the Union market
Union industry, the latter indicated, however, that the
were also analysed and evaluated in relation to the
remaining stocks of white phosphorus are sufficient to
situation prevailing on the free market where transactions
continue supplying their subsidiaries, manufacturing
were made under normal market conditions implying
downstream products, for some months. Meanwhile,
free choice of supplier. The evolution of these indicators
the Union industry has been implementing a supervised
in the captive market was however also taken into
deactivation of their production plants of white phos
account and compared to data for the free market in
phorus. In parallel negotiations are ongoing for a
order to determine whether the situation of the captive
potential takeover with the perspective of possibly rest
market was likely to change the findings based on the
arting the production of white phosphorus in the short
analysis of the free market alone.
term.
(52) Several
interested
parties
claimed
that
given
the
above
(56) However, it was found that the following economic indi
development the investigation should be terminated
cators related to the Union industry should be examined
forthwith on the grounds that the Union industry has
by referring to the total activity (including the captive use
ceased to exist. In reply to these claims, it is noted that
of the Union industry): production, production capacity,
the Union industry was producing white phosphorus
capacity utilisation, growth, investments, stocks,
during the entire IP and that, as long as the bankruptcy
employment, productivity, wages, ability to raise capital
proceedings and the negotiations for a possible takeover
and magnitude of the dumping margin. This is because
were still ongoing, it is unclear whether the production
those indicators can be affected by the dumped imports
of white phosphorus will indeed cease on a permanent
regardless of whether the product is transferred down
basis or whether the production stop is only of a
stream within the company or the company group for
temporary character. Therefore, it is premature to
further processing or whether it is sold on the free
conclude that the Union industry has ceased to exist.
market. Hereinafter the captive and the free market
Consequently, the claims to terminate the proceeding
together are referred to as ‘total market’.
on these grounds were rejected.
2. DETERMINATION OF THE RELEVANT UNION MARKET
(57) One
interested
party
claimed
that
the
analysis
of
the
(53) The Union industry is vertically integrated and a
injury indicators should be based on the total market,
substantial part of its own production went to captive
as an analysis based on the free market only would
use. Indeed, it was found that the sole Union producer
not allow a reliable assessement of the situation, given
used a considerable part of the white phosphorus
the particular status of the Union industry, having shifted
production as a raw material for the manufacture of
mainly to captive use and thus alledgedly not being
various downstream products used mainly in phar
perceived as a genuine supplier of white phosphorus in
maceutical, agricultural, food and chemicals sectors.
the free market.
This captive use did not enter the free market and did
not enter into direct competition with imports of the
product concerned. By contrast, production destined for
the free market sales was found to be in direct
competition with the imports of the product concerned.
(58) As
mentioned
above
in
recital
55,
only
for
profitability
and cash flow the analysis focused on the free market.
This was due to the fact that prices in the captive market
did not reflect market prices which had an impact on
(54) Therefore,
for
the
purpose
of
establishing
whether
the
those indicators. Moreover, the investigation focused
Union industry had suffered material injury, it was
primarily on the free market because sales on the
considered appropriate to distinguish between sales of
captive market did not compete with products sold on
the Union industry to the free market and those to the
the free market including the dumped imports. The
captive market for the analysis of certain injury indi
interested party did not explain why an analysis
cators, wherever possible.
including the captive market would none the less be
more meaningful. For all other indicators, where appro
priate, the analysis focused on the activities in the total
market on the one hand and separately on the free and
(55) As regards profitability and cash flow the analysis
captive market, on the other hand. Therefore, the
focused at the level of the free market since prices in
activities of the Union industry in all markets was suffi
the captive market were not reflecting market prices
ciently taken into consideration where appropriate and
which had an impact on those indicators. As regard
this claim was rejected.

---

L 43/44
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2013
(59) Moreover,
the
same
interested
party
claimed
that
the
market by 17 %, with some fluctuations during the
Commission when examining the evolution of the
period considered, while consumption in the free
injury indicators compared the situation at the end-
market decreased by 2 % between 2008 and the IP.
points of the period considered rather than considering
the precise trends throughout the whole period
considered. It is indeed the Commission’s practice to
assess the injury indicators over the period considered
4. IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRY CONCERNED
and describe, where appropriate, possible fluctuations in
4.1. Volume and market share
the developments of injury indicators, if applicable. This
has also be done in the present investigation. Therefore,
(65) The
evolution
of
imports
from
the
country
concerned,
in
this claim was rejected.
volume and market share, was as follows:
3. UNION CONSUMPTION
Table 2
(60) The
Union
consumption
in
the
total
market
was
estab
Imports from Kazakhstan
lished by adding the total import volume of white phos
phorus from all sources based on Eurostat and the
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
verified data provided by the exporting producer as
well as the cooperating importers/users to the total
Import volumes 100 57 108 132
sales volume of the Union industry on the Union
from Kazakhstan
market, as well as the production of Union industry
destined for captive use. The consumption in the free
Market share in
100 107 120 136
market was established by substracting the production
free market
of Union industry that was destined for captive use.
Source: Eurostat and information obtained from interested parties
through the questionnaire responses.
(61) Some
interested
parties
claimed
that
the
CN
code
covered
also imports of red phosphorus. The investigation
(66) Over the period considered, imports to the Union from
showed, however, that no imports of red phosphorus
the country concerned increased by 32 %. This led to a
were made from the country concerned over the period
market share increase in free market by 36 % during the
considered. In addition, limited evidence was forth
same period. The market share of the cooperating
coming in relation to imports of red phosphorus from
exporting producer in the free market was very
other third countries. This limited evidence, suggested
significant during the IP.
that imports of red phosphorus, if any, were minimal.
(62) The
information
document
disclosed
to
the
interested
(67) Several
interested
parties
claimed
that
import
volumes
of
parties erroneously included imports of the Union
the product concerned decreased considerably after the IP
industry from Kazakhstan in the captive use which was
and that this development should be taken into account
deducted accordingly in Table 1 below. This did not
in the injury analysis. This allegation was unfounded as
affected the trends in Union consumption in the free
the information available has shown that imports after
market.
the IP remained in the same range as during the IP.
Moreover, according to Article 6(1) of the basic Regu
lation, information relating to a period subsequent to the
investigation period shall normally not be taken into
(63) On
this
basis,
the
Union
consumption
was
found
to
have
account in the findings. As a result, this claim was
developed as follows:
rejected.
Table 1
4.2. Prices of imports and price undercutting
Consumption in the Union
(68) Average prices of the imports from the country
Index 2008 = 100 2008 2009 2010 IP
concerned in the free market developed as follows:
Total market 100 74 96 103
Captive market 100 119 109 117
Table 3
Price of imports from Kazakhstan
Free market 100 54 91 98
Source: Eurostat and information obtained from interested parties
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
through the questionnaire responses.
Import prices 100 84 75 81
(64) In
the
period
considered
consumption
in
the
total
Union
Source: Eurostat and information obtained from exporting producer
through the questionnaire responses.
market increased by 3 %, while it increased in the captive

---

EN
14.2.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
43/45
(69) While
seeing
a
price
increase
in
the
IP
as
compared
to
5.1.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation
2010, the overall average imports price from the country
concerned decreased by 19 % between 2008 and the IP.
(74) The
table
below
shows
the
evolution
of
production,
production capacity and capacity utilisation of the
Union industry in the total market:
(70) For the purpose of analysing price undercutting, a
comparison of the average prices of the Union industry
charged on the free market and average import prices
Table 4
from the country concerned was made. The relevant
sales prices of the Union industry were adjusted where
Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation
necessary to an ex-works level, i.e. excluding freight costs
in the Union and after deduction of discounts and
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
rebates. The import prices of the cooperating exporting
Production 100 55 68 75
producer, net of discounts, were adjusted where
necessary to CIF Union frontier price duly adjusted for
Production
100 100 100 100
customs clearance costs and post-importation costs.
capacity
Capacity utili
100 55 68 75
sation
(71) The
comparison
showed
that
during
the
IP,
imports
of
Source: verified questionnaire reply.
the product concerned from the exporting producer were
sold in the Union at prices which undercut the Union
industry’s prices. The average level of undercutting, when
(75) As shown in the table above, during the period
expressed as a percentage of the Union industry’s prices,
considered, the Union production decreased by 25 %.
was in the range of 30-40 %, based on the verified data
While between 2008 and 2009, production decreased
submitted by the cooperating exporting producer. This
by 45 %, the situation improved after 2009 until the
level of undercutting was combined with a negative price
IP; however, production did not reach in the IP the
development and a substantial price depression on the
levels of 2008. Given that the production capacity
Union market.
remained stable, the decrease in production led to
significant decrease in capacity utilisation by 25 %
between 2008 and the IP.
5. ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY
5.1. General
5.1.2. Sales volumes and market share
(72) Pursuant
to
Article
3(5)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
the
examination of the impact of dumped imports on the
(76) The
figures
below
present
the
sales
volume
and
market
Union industry included an evaluation of all economic
share of the Union industry split between the total,
factors and indices relating to the state of the Union
captive and free market.
industry from 2008 to the end of the IP.
Table 5
(73) Several
interested
parties
claimed
that
the
year
2008
was
Sales volumes and market share
inappropriate as a reference point since it was an excep
tionally successful year for the Union industry. Following
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
the information document, some interested parties
claimed that 2007 should have been used as the
Sales volume 100 84 83 83
starting point for the examination of injury trends
total market
relevant for the assessment of injury. It should be
noted that 2008 was a profitable year for the entire
Market share of
100 114 86 80
phosphate sector and not only for the Union industry.
Union industry
Additionally, the year 2009 was also exceptional due to
total market (%)
the economic crisis and in 2007 the exporting producer
in Kazakhstan and the Union industry were related, i.e.
Sales volume 100 119 109 117
these years would not have been necessarily more appro
captive market
priate as a starting point for the injury analysis. In any
event, exceptional circumstances during the period
Market share of
100 100 100 100
considered are factored in the relevant parts of the
Union industry
captive market
causation analysis, if appropriate. These claims were
(%)
therefore rejected.

---

L 43/46
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2013
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
considered the total productivity per employee
decreased by 19 %. This followed the decrease in
Sales volume free
100 37 47 36
production, as explained in recitals 74 and 75 above.
market
Market share of
100 69 52 37
Union industry
5.1.5. Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping
free market (%)
(81) The
dumping
margins
as
specified
above
in
recital
48
Source: verified questionnaire reply.
were above the de minimis level. Furthermore, given the
volumes and the prices of the dumped imports, the
impact of the actual margins of dumping cannot be
(77) Sales in the total market decreased by 17 % in the period
considered as negligible.
considered. This drop was even steeper in the free market
where it fell by 64 % between 2008 and the IP. The
captive market followed the opposite trend and sales
5.1.6. Stocks
volume increased by 17 % in the same period. The
drop in sales volume was reflected in market share that
(82) The figures below represent the evolution of the stocks
saw a 20 % decrease for the total market and 63 %
of the Union industry in the total market during the
decrease in the free market between 2008 and the IP.
period considered:
As the captive market is comprised of white phosphorus
from the sole Union producer, the market share
remained unchanged and in these circumstances is not
Table 7
a relevant indicator.
Stocks
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
5.1.3. Growth
Stocks 100 26 17 48
(78) During
the
period
considered
it
emerged
that
Union
consumption decreased only slightly in the free market
Source: verified questionnaire reply.
by 2 % while sales and market share of the Union
industry decreased significantly, respectively by 64 %
and by 63 % during the same period. The captive
(83) Stocks represented around 12
% of the production
market followed the opposite trend and sales volume
volume in the IP. Stocks decreased by 52 % over the
increased by 17 % in the same period. At the same
period considered. However, this indicator is not to be
time, imports from the Republic of Kazakhstan
considered as relevant in this sector, as it is based mainly
increased by 32 % over the period considered. As a
on orders and, accordingly, producers tend to hold
consequence, the market share of the Union industry
limited stocks. The decrease in stocks in the IP should
decreased significantly over the same period.
be seen in light of the lower level of activity following
the downsizing of the Union industry.
5.1.4. Employment, productivity and wages
5.1.7. Sales prices
(79) The
table
below
shows
the
evolution
of
employment,
productivity and wages of the Union industry in the
(84) The
following
table
represents
the
Union
industry’s
price
total market:
evolution split between the captive and the free market.


Table 8
Table 6
Sales prices
Employment, productivity and wages
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
Average unit 100 90 67 78
Number of
100 101 98 93
selling price on
employees
captive market
Total Productivity
100 55 69 81
Average unit 100 86 75 83
(MT/employee)
selling price on
free market
Yearly wages 100 95 103 106
Source: verified questionnaire reply.
Source: verified questionnaire reply.
(85) Sales
prices
fell
in
both
markets,
even
if
the
decrease
was
(80) Employment
slightly
decreased
between
2008
and
the
IP,
sharper in the captive market (– 22 %) than in the free
while wages slightly increased. During the period
market (– 17 %).

---

EN
14.2.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
43/47
5.1.8. Profitability, cash flow, ability to raise capital,
effect of the Union industry’s activities in the captive
investments and return on investment
market has been factored in the relevant parts of the
causality analysis, and more specifically in recitals from
Table 9
135 to 136 below. Therefore this argument was rejected.
Profitability and cash flow
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
(92) The
figures
below
represent
the
evolution
of
investments
of the Union industry in relation to the total market
Profitability on 100 85 73 75
free market
during the period considered:
Cash flow on free
100 56 54 52
market
Table 10
Source: verified questionnaire reply.
Investments and return on investment
(86) Profitability for the like product on the free market was
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
established by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the
Investments 100 98 79 69
sales of the like product by the Union industry on the
Union free market, as the percentage of the turnover of
Return on
100 20 19 15
such sales.
investment on
total market
Source: verified questionnaire reply.
(87) The
profitability
on
the
free
market
decreased
sharply
and turned to losses over the period considered. Profit
ability was showing a decreasing trend between 2008
(93) The
table
above
demonstrates
that
the
Union
industry
and the IP. Although slighlty increasing during the IP
decreased its investments by 31 % in the like product.
compared to 2010, profitability remained negative.
This was linked to the downsizing of the industry. The
investments made were mainly linked to the need to
comply with regulatory requirements as well as
improving and maintaining production technology and
process in order to improve efficiency.
(88) Cash
flow
also
followed
a
progressively
negative
trend
between 2008 and the IP, decreasing by 48 % during
the period considered.
(94) The
return
on
investments
of
white
phosphorus
also
followed a negative trend between 2008 and the IP.
(89) The ability to raise capital was analysed in relation to the
total market and it has been found that there is a
constant deterioration of the ability of the Union
5.1.9. Conclusion on injury
industry to generate cash and consequently, a
weakening of the financial situation of the Union
(95) The analysis of the situation of the Union industry
industry.
showed a clear downward trend of all the main injury
indicators. Against a relatively stable consumption on the
free market, overall production fell by 25 % in the period
considered. During the same period, the Union industry
(90) Following
the
disclosure
of
the
information
document,
lost 20 % of the overall market share and 63 % of the
one interested party claimed that profitability, cash flow
free market. Capacity utilisation decreased by 25 %.
should be examined at the level of the total market and
not only at the level of the free market, as an assessment
of the injury at the level of the free market only would
(96) Over
the
period
considered,
the
overall
Union
industry’s
not be complete, given the Union industry’s specific
sales volume decreased by 17 %. A stronger downward
situation where most of its sales are destined for
trend in sales volumes could be observed in the free
captive use.
market which saw a 64 % decrease over the period
considered.
(91) As
mentioned
above
in
recitals
55
and
58,
it
should
be
noted that as the prices in the captive market are merely
(97) The
decrease
in
sales
volumes
of
Union
industry
was
transfer prices, an analysis at the level of the captive
accompanied by a decrease in sales price by 17 %. The
market would not have been meaningful for the
situation was similar in the captive market where prices
purpose of the injury analysis, as it would not reflect
decreased by 22 % during the period considered. The loss
prices of the free market where the competition with
of sales volume along with the decrease in prices had an
the imports from Kazakhstan took place. Moreover, the
effect on profit levels and led to losses.

---

L 43/48
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2013
(98) Several
interested
parties
claimed
that
Union
industry
undercut the prices of the Union industry. The prices of
was performing well after its recovery from the
the dumped imports decreased by 19 % during the
economic downturn in 2009. In specific, it was
period considered and led to an increase of undercutting.
claimed that the evolution of certain injury indicators,
Against this price pressure, the Union industry was not
namely the Union domestic and export sales volume
able to increase its prices. As a consequence, they were
and prices, cost of goods and investments but also
not able to cover the increase in costs as shown in below
production and capacity utilisation would not show
table. Moreover, the profitability of the Union industry’s
material injury. These allegations were not confirmed
sales in the Union market decreased dramatically.
by the results of the present investigation which has
shown clear downward trends maybe not in all but in
the main injury indicators even after 2009.
Table 11
(99) Some
parties
claimed
that
there
was
a
decreasing
trend
Cost of production (Union industry)
both in volume and market share of imports from the
country concerned during the period considered and that
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
the capacity of the Kazakh phosphorus industry was
overestimated. Likewise, these allegations were not
Cost of
100 105 103 112
confirmed by the findings of the present investigation
production
(euro/MT)
which showed a constant increase in volume and
market share of imports from Kazakhstan. Likewise,
Source: verified questionnaire reply.
production capacity of the exporting producer in
Kazakhstan was determined on the basis of the verified
data submitted by this company.
(104) Several interested parties claimed that imports from
Kazakhstan merely followed the development in the
consumption and did thus not influence the market
(100) In view of the above, the investigation confirmed that
situation of white phosphorus. However, neither the
should dumped imports continue to enter the Union
import figures nor the consumption figures determined
market, the losses of the Union industry would be
during the investigation confirmed these claims, which
likely to lead to the permanent discontinuation of any
on the contrary showed that, while consumption in the
sizeable Union production of white phosphorus. This
free market slightly decreased during the period
seems to be confirmed by the developments after the
considered, imports from Kazakhstan increased, i.e.
IP, i.e the Union industry has filed for bankruptcy and
followed an opposite trend during the same period.
is under liquidation process.
This increase in imports from Kazakhstan coincided
with the deterioration of the Union industry. These
claims were therefore rejected.
(101) Due to the circumstances presented above, it was
concluded that the Union industry suffered material
injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic
Regulation.
(105) Based on the above, it is concluded that the increase of
the dumped imports from Kazakhstan at prices
constantly undercutting those of the Union industry
have had a determining role in the material injury
E. CAUSATION
suffered by the Union industry.
1. INTRODUCTION
(102) In accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic
Regulation it was examined whether the material injury
3. EFFECT OF OTHER FACTORS
suffered by the Union industry was caused by the
dumped imports from the country concerned.
3.1. Imports from other third countries
Furthermore, known factors other than dumped
imports, which might have injured the Union industry,
(106) The following table shows the developments of imports
were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those
from other third countries.
factors was not attributed to dumped imports.
2. EFFECT OF DUMPED IMPORTS
Table 12
(103) The investigation showed that dumped imports from
Imports and market shares from other third countries
Kazakhstan increased dramatically over the period
considered, increasing their market share in the free
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
market by 36 %. There was a clear coincidence in time
between the increase of dumped imports and the loss of
Import Volume
100 58 118 89
People’s Republic
market share of the Union industry. The investigation
of China
also established that the dumped imports continuously

---

EN
14.2.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
43/49
(Index 2008 = 100) 2008 2009 2010 IP
available data do not confirm this allegation as import
volumes from People’s Republic of China decreased
Average Unit 100 62 54 68
between 2008 and the IP (with a peak in 2010) and
price
import prices from the People’s Republic of China were
People’s Republic
at approximately the same levels than the Union
of China
industry’s sales prices throughout the whole period
considered, or even higher. It can be further observed
Import volume
100 671 363 470
Socialist Republic
that the market share of imports of the People’s
of Vietnam
Republic of China remained relatively stable between
2008 and the IP (with a peak in 2010), unlike the
Average Unit 100 92 73 74
Kazakh’s market share which increased constantly, by
price Socialist
36 % in total between 2008 and the IP. Therefore, this
Republic of
claim was rejected.
Vietnam
Market share of
100 96 150 102
imports from the
People’s Republic
3.2. Development of the Union industry’s cost of
of China in total
production
market
(111) Following the disclosure of the information document,
Market share of
100 1
120 459 540
the same party claimed that the increase in the unit
imports from the
cost of production of the Union industry should be
Socialist Republic
recognised as a separate cause of injury. It was argued
of Vietnam in
that while the price of the main raw material decreased
total market
overall, unit costs increased. The investigation showed
that the main reason for the increase of Union industry’s
Source: Eurostat and information obtained from interested parties
through the questionnaire responses.
unit cost was in fact the loss of the economies of scale
due to the decreased sales on the free market as a result
of the dumped imports from Kazakhstan and the
(107) The market of white phosphorus is highly concentrated,
subsequent decrease of production volume. Therefore,
since there are only few producers in the world.
the increase in unit costs cannot be considered as a
Information gathered during the investigation has
separate cause of injury, but as a consequence of the
shown that the People’s Republic of China is the
dumped imports. Therefore, this claim was rejected.
leading producer of white phosphorus. At the
beginning of the period considered in 2008, the
People’s Republic of China introduced an export duty
rate of 100 % on white phosphorus in addition to the
3.3. Preferential agreement with exporting producer
then existing export duty rate applicable of 20 %. As a
result, imports from the People’s Republic of China
(112) Some interested parties claimed that any injury suffered
dropped sharply and the import volumes remained low
by the Union industry was caused by the end of the
throughout the period considered, although the export
relationship between the Union industry and the
duty rate decreased to 20 % in the IP.
cooperating exporting producer and the consequent
loss of the preferential supply agreement, which meant
that the Union industry had to face the competition of
direct imports from the exporting producer. According
to these parties, the preferential agreement compensated
(108) Imports from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
for the lack of direct access by the Union industry to the
(‘Vietnam’) represented a relatively small import volume
main raw material, phosphate rock.
during the period considered.
(113) Other parties argued that given the end of the prefer
ential agreement, alleged past investments of the Union
(109) It should be noted that the average unit import prices
industry in the former related company contributed to
from the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam are in
the injury suffered, because the end of the preferential
the same range as the average unit price of the Union
agreement did not allow the Union industry to benefit
industry.
from these investments.
(114) Indeed, the investigation showed that between 2003 and
(110) Following the disclosure of the information document,
2007 the Union industry and the cooperating exporting
one interested party claimed that the price pressure on
producer were owned by the same shareholder and after
the Union market was caused by imports of white phos
that a preferential sales agreement continued to exist
phorus from People’s Republic of China. However, the
between the two parties until 2008.

---

L 43/50
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2013
(115) The parties concerned did no provide any supporting
(121) In summary, the investigation showed that even if the
evidence showing the level of any alleged investments
cost advantage of the cooperating exporting producer
of the Union industry in the activities of the exporting
was to be taken into account, this would not explain
producer in Kazakhstan. The investigation did,
the injurious situation of the Union industry and that
furthermore, not reveal any direct link between any
therefore the cost difference in sourcing phosphate rock
possible past investments of the Union industry and
could only have had a partial impact on the injurious
the material injury suffered during the IP. Indeed, the
situation of the Union industry. This finding was
information available did not show to what extent the
supported by the fact that significantly better profitability
alleged investments could have contributed to the current
figures were recorded for derivatives products manu
situation of the Union industry, if they contributed at all.
factured by the Union industry that incorporate white
Therefore, this claim was rejected as unfounded.
phosphorus.
(116) As to the loss of the common ownership, this cannot be
considered as a factor which as such is causing injury.
(122) On these grounds, it was concluded that the access to the
Indeed, the loss of the common ownership merely meant
raw material and its impact on costs although
that the exporting producer in Kazakhstan could export
contributing to some extent to the injurious situation
the product concerned directly to independent customers
of the Union industry was not such as to break the
in the European Union. It did not mean however that
causal link established between the dumped imports
such exports should be made at injurious dumping
from Kazakhstan and the material injury suffered by
prices. It is the latter that are causing injury to the
the Union industry.
Union industry.
3.4. Access to the main raw material
3.5. Production achievements of the Union industry
and imports by the Union industry of the
(117) Several interested parties claimed that the material injury
product concerned
suffered by the Union industry was linked to a lack of
competitiveness in terms of costs, as it had no direct
(123) Several interested parties claimed that according to the
access to phosphate rock, one of the main raw
annual report of 2010 the Union industry faced severe
materials to produce white phosphorus, while the
technical problems in 2010 and in the first half of 2011
cooperating exporting producer in Kazakhstan is
and that these problems had an adverse effect on its
located next to phosphate rock mines and enjoys
production levels which led it to import the product
exclusive exploitation rights. It has been argued that
concerned from Kazakhstan. They also argued that any
transport costs of phosphate rocks and costs for the
injury suffered was also the result of these imports and
disposal of sludge (waste in the white phosphorus
was therefore self-inflicted. The investigation showed that
production) are significant since there are no natural
the technical problems that the Union industry faced in
storages for sludge available.
2010 and in the first half of 2011 did not significantly
affect its situation, as it led neither to a stop in
production, nor to a situation where it could not meet
demands of supply from clients in the free market for
(118) While the investigation showed that the cost of
phosphate rock is indeed significant, this factor alone
white phosphorus, from its own production.
could not explain the injurious situation of the Union
Furthermore, it was found that the Union industry
industry. Indeed, even if the cost difference of phosphate
imported from Kazakhstan and that those imports were
rock between the Union industry and the cooperating
complementary in nature and exceptional as well as
exporting producer is taken into account in assessing
limited in terms of volume when compared to the
the injury suffered by the Union industry, injury would
total Union production. Moreover, the investigation
still remain significant.
found no evidence that the Union industry sold any of

the imports in the free market. Furthermore, it should be
noted that the director’s report of 2010 was attached to
the consolidated annual accounts of the Union industry
(119) The investigation showed that while the transport cost
for the whole activities of the company and did not only
for phosphate rock is significant for the Union industry,
therefore relate to the white phosphorus production.
it is not so as to render the production in the Union of
white phosphorus uncompetitive as such. Even taking
into account the transport costs of phosphate rock in
the cost of production of the Union industry, the
injury margin would still remain substantial.
(124) On these grounds, it was found that the impact of the
technical difficulties faced by the Union industry during
part of the period considered and the limited imports of
the product concerned, did not have a significant impact,
(120) Regarding the claim of the lack of natural storage of
if any at all, on the situation of the Union industry with
sludge, the investigation confirms that no evidence was
regard to white phoshorous destined for the free market
found that this generated a disadvantage to the Union
and was not such as to break the causal link. The
industry, as it was able to recycle sludge by bringing it
arguments raised by the interested parties in this regard
back into the production process of white phosphorus.
were rejected.

---

EN
14.2.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
43/51
3.6. New production process of the Union industry
(131) The present investigation, as mentioned in recitals above,
showed that the decrease of Union consumption on the
(125) Some interested parties claimed that the Union industry
free market was only 2 % during the period considered.
invested significant amounts in new production tech
Therefore, the impact of the economic crisis in terms of a
nologies resulting in technical difficulties and environ
decrease in consumption could not have been an
mental problems which caused the material injury
important factor in the steep decrease in sales volume
suffered by the Union industry.
as shown in recitals 76 et seq. In terms of prices, the
market saw a drop between 2008 and 2010, but the
depression of sales prices suffered by the Union
industry continued and even increased after 2009 in an
attempt to follow the low prices of the dumped imports
(126) The investigation confirmed that the Union industry
from Kazakhstan. The claim was therefore rejected.
invested in the development of a new production
process substituting phosphate rock by phosphate
extracted from waste streams. However, as mentioned
in recital 92, in Table 10 above, the investigation has
also shown that the investments regarding white phos
(132) On these grounds, it was found that the overall impact of
phorus decreased over the period considered. The
the financial and economic crisis and contraction in
investments in new technology could thus not have
demand was not such as to break the causal link estab
played a significant part in the deterioration of the
lished between the material injury suffered by the Union
situation of the Union industry. Furthermore, the inves
industry and the dumped imports.
tigation did not reveal any evidence that the new tech
nologies resulted in technical difficulties and environ
mental problems, as claimed, and the interested parties
concerned did not support their allegations with any
factual data. The arguments of the parties in this
3.9. Customer choice of suppliers
respect were therefore rejected.
(133) It was claimed that the injury suffered by Union industry
was caused by the customers’ choice to change supplier
due to, inter alia, the alleged non-compliance with envi
ronmental and safety issues. No evidence was however
3.7. Export performance of the Union industry
provided and the investigation did not bring into light

any factual circumstances confirming these allegations.
(127) Some interested parties claimed that the Union industry’s
To the contrary, the investigation showed that the
export sales have dropped significantly during the period
market is mainly price driven and other considerations
considered and that this has caused the material injury
do not play any decisive role.
suffered by the Union industry.
(134) On these grounds, these claims were rejected.
(128) The investigation showed that exports sales accounted for
a small percentage of the total Union industry’s
production and could only have had a very limited
impact on the overall situation of the Union industry.
3.10. Impact of the sales in the captive market
(135) Following the disclosure of the information document,
one interested party claimed that since the Union
industry has shifted its main focus to the captive
(129) On these grounds, it was found that the impact of the
market, its resources and cash are mainly destined to
Union industry’s export performance was not such as to
the activities in this market. It was therefore alleged
break the causal link between the dumped imports and
that the losses suffered in the free market and the
the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
injury stemming therefrom were a consequence of this
Therefore, the parties’ arguments in this respect had to
situation rather than the dumped imports.
be rejected.
(136) The investigation did not support the above allegations
3.8. Impact of the financial and economic crisis
as for example investments were declining in both
markets and no evidence was found that a transfer of
(130) One interested party claimed that any injury caused to
cash or other resources from the free to the captive
Union industry is due to the economic crisis and the
market occurred during the period considered. This
contraction of demand in the Union.
claim had therefore to be rejected.

---

L 43/52
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2013
3.11. Compliance with environmental standards
industry’s holding company which do not relate to the
phosphorus activities only. Furthermore, the conclusions
(137) It was claimed that the material injury was caused by the
drawn by the interested parties concerned were based on
Union industry’s legal obligations to comply with the
assumptions not necessarily reflecting an objective
strict EU environmental standards. Moreover, following
assessment of the situation in 2009. The investigation
the disclosure of the information document, some parties
has not revealed that the management decisions taken
claimed that the impact of the non-compliance with
in 2009 were unusual or imprudent as the same
environmental requirements should also be investigated,
accounts show for example that the retained earnings
i.e. the impact of allegedly significant fines that the
of the company were high during the same period,
Union industry was obliged to pay to the Dutch auth
despite the overall difficult market situation. It can
orities during the period considered.
therefore not be concluded that the decisions taken at
that time had a significant negative impact on the
financial strength of the company, as alleged by these
parties, and furthermore an impact on the injurious
situation of the Union industry in relation to its activities
(138) The investigation showed that Union industry made
related to white phosphorus during the IP. On these
investments in order to comply with environmental
grounds, these claims were rejected.
standards and reduce the emissions of dioxin throughout
the entire period considered. However, as showed in
Table 10, the overall investments were decreasing over
the period considered. Moreover, it was found that these
investments were depreciated over a number of years and
had as a result only minor impact on the yearly financial
3.13. Conclusion on causation
results. It should be noted that while in 2008 the
investments were substantially higher than in the IP,
(143) The investigation has revealed a causal link between the
the Union industry was profitable that year. The
injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped
negative injury picture of the Union industry could
imports from Kazakhstan. Other possible causes of
therefore not be attributed to the investments made in
injury, such as imports from other countries, devel
compliance with environmental standards.
opments of the Union industry’s cost of production,

production achievements, new production process,
export performance of the Union industry, imports by
the Union industry, impact of financial and economic
crisis, customer choice of suppliers, impact of the sales
(139) As far as the alleged fines for non-compliance with envi
in the captive market, compliance with environmental
ronmental requirements are concerned, the investigation
standards and management decisions were analysed and
revealed that although the Union industry was indeed
none of them was found to be such as to break the
fined in one specific case by the Dutch authorities, the
causal link established between the dumped imports
amount of this fine was not significant as alleged by the
from Kazakhstan and the material injury suffered by
parties concerned and the payment was due only after
the Union industry. Nevetheless, the investigation has
the IP, which therefore, could in any event not have had
shown that although some of the other factors, i.e. the
an impact on the injurious situation of the Union
access to the main raw material, have contributed to
industry during the IP.
some extent to the injurious situation of the Union
industry, the imports from Kazakhstan still had a
material impact on the injury suffered by the Union
industry. As already mentioned above, they could
therefore not break the causal link between these
(140) In the light of the above, the claims in this regard were
imports and the material injury suffered by the Union
rejected.
industry.
3.12. Management decisions in 2009
(144) Several interested parties claimed that the fact the the
(141) Following the disclosure of the information document, it
Union industry filed bankruptcy even though only a
was claimed that the material injury suffered by the
limited amount of sales is in competition with the
Union industry was caused by a management decision
imports from Kazakhstan, confirms that those imports
in 2009 to distribute dividends to shareholders which
could not have been the cause of the material injury
would have led to the alleged requirement by the
suffered by the Union industry. However, all possible
banks to repay long term debts which in turn had a
other factors were analysed and as described above in
significant negative impact of the financial strength of
recitals 106 to 142, none of these factors could break
the Union industry.
the causal link between the dumped imports and the
injury suffered by the Union industry. It should also be
noted that as the Union industry is vertically integrated
and that therefore the price pressure from the dumped
imports had also a detrimental effect in the Union
(142) These allegations were based on information contained in
industry’s derivatives market. Therefore, this claim was
the 2009 consolidated annual accounts of the Union
rejected.

---

EN
14.2.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
43/53
(145) Based on the above analysis, which has properly distin
(149) It is expected that the imposition of anti-dumping duties
guished and separated the effects of all known factors on
will redress the unfair trade practice found and allow the
the situation of the Union industry from the injurious
Union industry to improve its prospects for viability.
effects of the dumped imports, it was therefore defini
Moreover, the imposition of measures would enable the
tively concluded that there was a causal link between the
Union industry to improve economies of scale by selling
dumped imports from Kazakhstan and the material
increased volumes and regaining at least part of the
injury suffered by the Union industry during the IP.
market share lost during the period considered, with a
positive impact on its prospects. In this respect, it should
be recalled that the Union industry has been producing
and selling white phosphorus since the 1970s, despite
having faced competition from third country imports
that also had natural advantages in terms of access to
raw material. Several interested parties claimed that the
F. UNION INTEREST
Union industry cannot be considered as a valuable
supplier, given its current situation (bankruptcy) and
1. PRELIMINARY REMARK
given that, in any event, the Union industry acts as a
competitor to its customers of white phosphorus in the
(146) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it
derivatives market. In reply to this claim, it should be
was examined whether, despite the conclusion on
noted that the current situation of the Union industry
injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for
does not necessarily imply a permanent prodution stop
concluding that it was not in the Union interest to
as negotiations for a takeover aiming at resuming
adopt anti-dumping measures in this particular case.
production of white phosphorus are still ongoing.
The analysis of the Union interest was based on an
Moreover, the investigation established that the Union
appreciation of all the various interests involved in this
industry depends on sales in the free market in order
proceeding, including those of the Union industry and
to improve its economies of scale and stay viable. For
users of the product concerned. The consequences of not
all these reasons it was concluded that the Union
taking measures were also considered on the basis of the
industry can be a valuable supplier of white phosphorus
evidence submitted.
to the Union’s free market.
2. INTEREST OF THE UNION INDUSTRY
(150) In addition, the Union industry has sought to develop
(147) The above analysis showed that the Union industry
alternative raw material sources and made some
suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports
investments in a new technology, the so-called ‘cradle-
from Kazakhstan which significantly undercut its prices
to-cradle-approach’ to recycle white phosphorus. While
on the Union market. The majority of the injury indi
this method is still in its formative stages, it could be one
cators showed a negative trend during the period
important element in ensuring the Union industry’s
considered. The Union industry lost significant market
viability in the long term. If successful this would allow
share and injury indicators relating to the financial
the Union industry to benefit from a new secondary raw
performance of the Union industry, such as cash flow,
material source within the Union market and to reduce
return on investments and profitability, were seriously
possible over-dependence on imports of phosphate rocks.
affected. After the IP, the downward trend continued
and led the Union industry to file for bankrutcy. Negoti
ations are ongoing for a potential takeover aiming at
resuming production in the short term.
(151) Following the disclosure of the information document,
several interested parties questioned the relevance of
the development of new technology in the Union
interest analysis. These parties questioned the
(148) White phosphorus is an important raw material
disappearance of the Union industry should anti-
worldwide used in numerous applications such as phar
dumping measures not be imposed and argued that
maceuticals and agricultural chemicals, manufacture of
therefore investments in this technology would likely
phosphoric acid and its derivatives that are used for
continue. They also claimed that the cradle-to-cradle
food and detergents, and manufacture of phosphor
initatitive is not unique and several other companies in
alloys that can be used in metallurgy. Given that white
the Union are investing in alternative recycling tech
phosphorus is produced by a limited number of
nologies for phosphate which are allegedly economically
producers in other third countries and that it is a raw
more viable. Finally, it was alleged that the cradle-to-
material for many downstream products produced in the
cradle technology would mainly serve the Union
Union, it was therefore considered that it is in the Union
industry’s captive market and therefore users would not
interest to have production capacity within the Union.
benefit therefrom.

---

L 43/54
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2013
(152) It should be noted that the developments after the IP
(158) Eleven companies classified themselves as users and filled
(bankruptcy) does not seem to support the above alle
in questionnaires. These companies accounted for the
gations. It should be noted further that the cradle-to-
vast majority of the imports of the product concerned
cradle approach even if not unique, remains an
during the IP and for a significant percentage of total
important element to reduce the Union’s dependency
Union consumption. These users represented almost the
on imports of primary raw material and indirectly of
complete range of downstream products. Therefore, they
imports of white phosphorus from third countries, to
constitute a representative group upon which the impact
the benefit of all users, if successful. There is finally no
of measures imposed on imports of the product
evidence in the file from which it could have been
concerned could be assessed in relation to their
concluded that the cradle-to-cradle approach would be
business of finished products incorporating the product
economically not feasible.
concerned.
(153) On the other hand, should measures not be imposed, the
viability prospects of the Union industry in the free
(159) The remaining companies were users either directly using
market would become much more challenging and it
the product concerned or using downstream products in
would very likely be forced to close down production
which the product concerned is an important
permanently. The likely consequence would be the
component. As users are mainly producing commodity
discontinuation of the Union industry’s production for
or intermediate products using the product concerned
the free market. This would entail that the Union
that is then further transformed into finished down
would become entirely dependent on third country
stream products by other users, it was considered appro
imports from a limited number of producers of white
priate to give all companies which made themselves
phosphorus, which is the basis for numerous down
known the opportunity to present their views and
stream applications produced in the Union.
submit information, even if they were not direct users.
(154) The effect of the dumped imports on the captive market
of the Union industry was also considered. The investi
3.2. Impact on users
gation indicated that the imposition of measures would
redress the competitive disadvantage caused by the
3.2.1. General
dumped imports in the downstream market.
(160) Essentially, the users of the product concerned can be
divided into two segments: acid derivatives (notably the
(155) On the other hand, if no measures were imposed and the
production of phosphoric acid) and non-acid derivatives
Union industry had to cease production permanently, the
(such as phosphorus pentasulfide, phosphorus trichloride,
Union industry is expected to face difficulties in respect
red phosphorus, flame retardants). In addition the down
of procuring the large amount of white phosphorus
stream users were also considered.
needed for the production of its downstream products.
Several interested parties claimed that the analysis of the
interest for the Union industry should only relate to the
sales in the free market. In reply to this claim it should
3.2.2. Acid derivatives segment
be noted that as described in recital 53 the Union
(161) The acid derivatives segment deals mainly with the
industry is vertically integrated and a substantial part of
production of thermal phosphoric acid and its derivatives
its production is indeed used in its own captive use.
in food additives. The share of the product concerned in
However, the proportion of the sales in free and
the finished products of this segment is high in relation
captive use is not a stable parameter and the recent
to overall turnover. In addition, the cost of the product
developments have proven that the captive use may
concerned in relation to the cost of the finished products
not be sustained by itself without the free sales of
was found to be significant. This is due to the fact that
white phosphorus.
the production process of these users requires limited
additional input apart from the main raw material,
(156) In view of the above considerations, it was concluded
which is white phosphorus.
that the imposition of anti-dumping measures on
imports of the product concerned originating in
Kazakhstan would be in the interest of the Union
(162) Considering the above, it could be expected that the
industry.
imposition of measures would have a substantial
impact on the users in this segment. Although the inves
3. INTEREST OF USERS
tigation has shown that users in this segment enjoyed
high level profits during the IP, their profitability varied
3.1. General
considerably between 2008 and the IP, reaching much
lower levels in years prior to the IP. Furthermore, it was
(157) Following the notice of initiation, over thirty parties
claimed that any duty cannot be passed on to their
made themselves known and declared their interest in
customers. In view of the above, it is expected that an
the proceeding. The investigation revealed that the
anti-dumping duty could indeed have a significant effect
parties who made themselves known were mainly
on the profitability of users in the acid derivate segment
users; some of them importing the product concerned
which could turn even into losses and ultimately threaten
themselves.
their existence.

---

EN
14.2.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
43/55
(163) Following the disclosure of the information document,
turnover of the overall business was also low. It follows
one user claimed that the product produced by the
that in such cases the impact of the imposition of
Union industry is of a higher purity than the product
measures was expected to be limited, though not
normally used in the acid derivatives segment. The
negligible assuming that users in this segment would
product concerned imported from Kazakhstan was of a
not be able to pass any price increase on to their down
lesser purity and more apt for the use in the acid
stream customers and that Kazakhstan will be their sole
derivatives segment. Therefore, the Union industry was
supplier.
not considered as an alternative supplier in this segment.
3.2.4. Downstream users
(164) This argument was only put forward at a very late stage
(169) The impact of the duty on the downstream users will be
of the proceeding. The party concerned did not support
further diluted as it only has a marginal impact on the
the above allegations with any evidence. Furthermore,
cost of production. The investigation has also shown that
they did not contest that, as concluded above in
cooperating downstream users had profit margins up to
recitals 13 to 17, white phosphorus produced and sold
over 15 %. Furthermore, given that the direct users have
in the Union by the Union industry and the white phos
claimed that they will not be able to pass on any price
phorus produced in the country concerned and exported
increase to their downstream customers, it is uncertain
to the Union had the same basic physical, chemical and
whether there will be an impact at all.
technical characteristics and uses. Therefore, this
argument was rejected.
(170) Following the disclosure of the information document,
one downstream user claimed that, in contrast to the
conclusions in recital 169 above, the imposition of
3.2.3. Non-acid derivatives segment
anti-dumping duties would effect them as their
suppliers would pass on the cost increase to them.
(165) The non-acid derivatives segment deals with a wider
However, this company did not provide any data
range of products varying in applications such as flame
which could have confirmed this allegation and
retardants, water treatment, automotive lubricant
therefore this claim was rejected.
additives, pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals.
The cost of the product concerned in relation to the
total cost of the finished product varies considerably
between those users depending on the downstream
(171) On this basis, it was concluded that anti-dumping duties
product manufactured.
would only have a very limited impact, if any at all, on
the profitability of downstream users.
(166) After the disclosure of the information document, some
3.2.5. Competition in the derivatives market
users provided a more detailed breakdown of their costs
and in particular the cost of the product concerned in
(172) A number of users claimed that should measures be
their overall costs. The figures provided in the ques
imposed, they would lose competitiveness with regard
tionnaire were reported on an aggregated basis and
to imports of derivatives from the People’s Republic of
showed that white phosphorus represented from under
China. However, no concrete evidence was provided in
5 % to approximately 30 % of the cost of the finished
this regard.
products. However, the information provided after
disclosure indicated that for some specific product
types these costs could be considerably higher.
(173) In this respect, it is noted that an anti-dumping duty
aims to restore the level playing field in the white phos
phorus market in the Union. No supporting evidence was
available that imports of white phosphorus derivatives
(167) Users in this segment had a larger variety of suppliers
from the People’s Republic of China had increased
and were not exclusively sourcing white phosphorus
considerably over the past years or would increase in
from Kazakhstan.
the near future. In addition, there was no evidence in
the file to which conditions such imports would be
made or at which price levels. On this basis, this
argument was rejected.
(168) Users in this segment also produced a more varied range
of products and the importance of finished products
incorporating white phosphorus in the overall business
3.2.6. Employment
varied therefore between below 5 % and over 75 %. The
profitability of the finished product incorporating white
(174) Certain interested parties claimed that the number of
phosphorus varied and reached up to over 10 %. It is
workers employed in the user industry as a whole
generally observed that for the companies where the
outweighs that of the Union industry and that
profit levels were lower the importance of the products
therefore the imposition of anti-dumping measures
incorporating white phosphorus in relation to the total
would be against the overall Union interest.

---

L 43/56
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2013
(175) It is noted that the Union interest analysis is not limited
considered. On the contrary, the market share of the
to a simple comparison of the number of employees of
exporting producer in the free market increased substan
the Union industry on the one hand and the users
tially which is currently by far the largest supplier in the
industry on the other hand. Therefore, the fact that
Union market.
users have a higher number of employment on its own
is not sufficient to conclude that measures would be
against the overall Union industry. Rather, the impact
of the imposition or non-imposition of measures on
(181) Furthermore, the undercutting levels calculated in this
the business activities and profitability of the users
investigation (71) were higher than the level of
concerned on the one hand and the Union industry on
dumping found, (recital 48 above) which indicated that
the other hand is investigated. Therefore, this argument
even with the imposition of anti-dumping measures, by
was rejected.
applying the lesser duty rule, the price levels of the
imports from Kazakhstan are likely to remain below
the sales prices of the Union industry. It is therefore
3.2.7. Conclusion
not likely that imports would cease as a consequence

of the measures.
(176) The above analysis has shown that the imposition of
measures would affect users in both segments, however
to a lesser extent in the non-acid derivatives segment. In
particular, white phosphorus constitutes a major part of
(182) It is also recalled that white phosphorus from the
the production cost of the acid derivatives segment and
People’s Republic of China and Vietnam was imported
therefore any duty would have a significant effect on
into the Union market throughout the period considered,
their costs and profitability. The investigation has also
despite the export restrictions in place in the People’s
shown that the existence of the users in this segment
Republic of China, and will likely continue.
would be at stake should measures be imposed.
(183) Following the disclosure of the information document,
4. THE EUROPEAN UNION’S RAW MATERIAL INITIATIVE
several interested parties claimed that the imposition of
duties would increase the cost of the users while the
(177) Certain interested parties claimed that the imposition of
Union industry in the derivatives market (captive use)
measures would be in contradiction to the European
would not be affected to the same extent by the duty.
Union’s ‘raw materials initiative’ ( 1 ) put in place to
This would create a competitive advantage for the Union
promote amongst others the sustainable supply of raw
industry in the derivatives market and likely, lead to a
materials as well as resource efficiency. The raw materials
dominant position of the Union industry in the down
initiative is, however, not a bar to the imposition of anti-
stream market. However, as it was already described
dumping measures that aim at restoring a level playing
above in recital 181, the undercutting levels calculated
field and thus addresses unfair competition caused by
in this investigation were higher than the level of
dumping practices.
dumping found, which indicated that even with the
imposition of anti-dumping measures, by applying the
lesser duty rule, the price levels of the imports from
(178) In any event, it would appear that in a market which is
Kazakhstan are likely to remain below the sales prices
characterised by few producers worldwide, maintaining
of the Union industry in free and captive market. As a
the existence of Union production of an important raw
result, the claim that the imposition of measures would
material would be fully in line with the objective to
lead to the abuse of a dominant position by the Union
ensure sustainable supply of raw materials to the
industry in the derivatives market, has to be rejected.
Union market.
5. COMPETITION ISSUES
(184) Given the above considerations, it could therefore be
concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping
(179) Certain interested parties claimed that the imposition of
measures would not have a distorting effect on the
measures would lead to the abuse of a dominant position
Union market.
by the Union industry since the Union market would be
closed to supply from other sources. This claim was
supported by the allegation that in the past the Union
industry had used the introduction of the Chinese export
6. TRADE BALANCE BETWEEN KAZAKHSTAN AND THE
restrictions to raise their prices in the Union market. No
UNION
factual evidence of abuse of dominant position was,
however, provided.
(185) The cooperating exporting producer claimed to be a
major importer of equipment and machinery for the
production of the product concerned from the Union.
In this regard, it was argued that if anti-dumping
(180) From recital above, it is recalled that the Union industry’s
measures were imposed, this would affect the trade
market share decreased considerably over the period
balance between the Union and Kazakhstan as the
cooperating exporting producer would stop importing
( 1 ) COM(2008) 699 final.
such equipment from the Union.

---

EN
14.2.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
43/57
(186) The object of imposing trade defence measures is to
(193) It should be noted that the cooperating users providing
redress unfair trade practices and has no relation with
the necessary information in this proceeding, represented
the purchase of machinery and equipment for the manu
almost the totality of imports from the country
facturing of the product concerned. This argument must
concerned and a very high proportion of the
therefore be considered irrelevant in the context of this
consumption of white phosphorus in the free market.
anti-dumping investigation.
They were strongly against the imposition of any anti-
dumping duties because of the impact on their costs
which they showed could not or could not fully be
7. GENERALISED SCHEME OF PREFERENCES
reflected in their selling prices and which would
therefore lead to a downward trend of their economic
(187) Following the disclosure of the information document,
and financial situation with possible closures of
several interested parties claimed that the impact on
production.
users will be further enhanced as the imports of the
product concerned, in addition to a possible anti-
dumping duty, will also be subject to the normal
custom duty as from 1 January 2014.
(194) This is mainly due to the fact that white phosphorus is a
resource which is, for almost all the users that came
forward, regarded as a highly important raw material in
(188) It is noted that indeed, under the new Generalised
their production process, representing a considerable part
Scheme of Preferences of the European Union (GSP)
of their total production cost as mentioned above in
which is expected to enter into force on 1 January
recitals 161 and 166. Any anti-dumping duty has
2014, Kazakhstan will no longer be listed as a bene
therefore a direct and important impact on their costs,
ficiary country. Therefore, as of 1 January 2014, and
while costs increases cannot be passed on to the down
until that situation persists, imports of Kazakhstan of
stream industries.
white phosphorus will be subject to the normal duty
rate of 5,5 %.
(195) As mentioned above in recital 190, the benefit to the
(189) However, future developments cannot be taken into
Union industry of the imposition of an anti-dumping
consideration in the analysis as their precise impact on
duty remains questionable. This is due to the currently
import prices and quantities and the effect of such devel
transitional situation of the Union industry and the
opments on the Union market cannot be evaluated a
uncertainty of its future development as well as the
priori. Therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on
fact that import prices from Kazakhstan may very
this basis. Thus, this claim was rejected.
likely remain significantly below the Union industry’s
sales prices even if anti-dumping measures will be
imposed. Under these circumstances, it was considered
8. CONCLUSION ON UNION INTEREST
that the likely negative effect of any anti-dumping duty
(190) Should measures not be imposed, there is a strong like
on the downstream industries outweighs the expected
lihood that production of white phosphorus within the
positive effects of the duty on the Union industry.
Union and the production of derivatives by the Union
industry will not resume. On the other hand, as also
claimed by some interested parties, the imposition of
(196) On the basis of the above, on balance, it was concluded
measures may not provide sufficient relief to the Union
that the negative impact of measures on the users is
industry, as imports from Kazakhstan, even when subject
more significant than the overall benefit to the Union
to duties, would remain more competitive in terms of
industry. Therefore, in this case, it is considered that
prices than the Union industry sales and would therefore
despite the conclusions on injurious dumping, it can be
not guarantee that the Union industry could overcome its
clearly concluded that it is not in the Union interest to
current fragile situation.
adopt anti-dumping measures.
(191) In contrast, it was found that users in the acid derivatives
segment would be severely affected by the measures, and
G. PROPOSAL FOR TERMINATION OF THE
in some cases even their viability might be at stake, as
PROCEEDING
they could not absorb the cost increase and continue to
be competitive in the downstream market. This might
(197) In view of the conclusions reached above with regard to
lead to the closure of donwstream producers in this
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, in
segment
accordance with Article 9 and Article 21 of the basic
Regulation, the proceeding should be terminated
without the imposition of measures.
(192) Moreover, while the investigation found that the impact
of measures in the non-acid derivatives segment was
expected to be overall less pronounced compared to
the acid derivatives segment, some specific users in this
(198) All parties concerned were informed of the final findings
segment might be more significantly affected depending
and the intention to terminate the procceding and were
on the specific downstream product produced by them.
given the opportunity to comment. Their comments
Overall, the impact of the duty in this segment could not
were considered but they have not altered the
be regarded as negligible.
conclusions reached above,

---

L 43/58
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2013
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of white phosphorus, also called elemental or yellow
phosphorus originating in the Republic of Kazakhstan is hereby terminated.
Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Union.
Done at Brussels, 13 February 2013.
For the Commission
The President
José Manuel BARROSO

---

Document Outline

• �

---