HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 15/22
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
20.1.2011
COMMISSION DECISION
of 19 January 2011
terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of purified terephthalic acid and its
salts originating in Thailand
(2011/32/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
time limit set out in the Notice of initiation. All
interested parties who so requested and showed that
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
there were particular reasons why they should be heard
Union,
were granted a hearing.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
(5) The Commission sent questionnaires to the
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
complainants, other known producers in the Union,
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
the known exporting producers in Thailand and to the
(the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
known importers and users of the product concerned
and to all other parties that requested a questionnaire
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation.
Whereas:
(6) Questionnaire
replies
were
received
from
the
three
known Thai exporting producers, from three Union
1. PROCEDURE
producers, from one Union importer and from five
Union users.
1.1. Initiation
(7) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
the
information
(1) On
22
December
2009,
the
European
Commission
(the
deemed necessary for the determination of dumping,
‘Commission’) announced by a notice published in the
resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits
Official Journal of the European Union ( 2 ) (Notice of
were carried out at the premises of the following
initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding
companies:
concerning imports into the Union of purified tereph
thalic acid and its salts (PTA) originating in Thailand
(a) Union producers:
(the country concerned).
— BP Aromatics Limited NV, Geel, Belgium
(2) The
anti-dumping
proceeding
was
initiated
following
a
complaint lodged on 13 November 2009 by BP
Aromatics Limited NV and CEPSA Quimica S.A. (the
— CEPSA Química, S.A., Madrid, Spain
complainants) representing a major proportion, in this
case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of
— Lotte Chemical UK Ltd (formerly Artenius),
PTA. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of
Wilton, Redcar, United Kingdom
dumping of the product concerned originating in the
country concerned and of material injury resulting
(b) Union importers:
therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify
the opening of a proceeding.
— Mitsui & Co. Benelux NV, Brussels, Belgium
(3)
On the same day, the Commission announced, by a
(c) Union users:
notice published in the Official Journal of the European
Union ( 3 ), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding
— DSM Powder Coating Resins BV, Zwolle, Holland
with regard to imports into the Union of PTA originating
in Thailand. This investigation has been terminated by
— M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Patrica (Frosinone), Italy
means of Commission Decision 2011/31/EU ( 4 ).
— NOVAPET S.A., Barbastro (Huesca), Spain
1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding
— UAB NEO Group, Klaipeda, Lithuania
(4) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
complainants,
other known producers in the Union, the known
(d) Exporting producers in Thailand:
exporting producers in Thailand, the representatives of
the exporting country concerned and known importers
and users of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested
— TPT Petrochemicals Public Company Ltd,
parties were given the opportunity to make their views
Bangkok, Thailand (hereinafter ‘TPT’)
known in writing and to request a hearing within the
— Indorama Petrochem Ltd, Bangkok, Thailand
(hereinafter ‘Indorama’)
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ C 313, 22.12.2009, p. 17.
( 3 ) OJ C 313, 22.12.2009, p. 22.
— Siam Mitsui PTA Company Ltd, Bangkok,
( 4 ) See page 17 of this Official Journal.
Thailand (hereinafter ‘SMPC’)

---

EN
20.1.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
15/23
(e) Related exporter:
formula based on a PTA pricing index in China. In the
latter case, there was a significant time lag in a number
of instances after which the final index was available. In
— Mitsui Chemicals Inc, Tokyo, Japan (hereinafter
order to implement the formula, an invoicing
‘MCI’) — export sales representative and share
arrangement had to be operated whereby the final
holder of SMPC.
price could be settled some months after the initial provi
sional invoice was issued. Debit/credit notes were issued
(8) Given
that
both
TPT
and
Indorama
are
owned
by
the
to correct the final price agreed in the contract.
same holding company, they will be referred to in this
document as the ‘Indorama group’.
(16) The general methodology set out below has been applied
to all the cooperating exporting producers in Thailand.
1.3. Investigation period and period considered
(9) The
investigation
of
dumping
and
injury
covered
the
period from 1 December 2008 to 30 November 2009
3.2. Normal value
(the ‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of
(17) In
accordance
with
Article
2(2)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the
the Commission first established whether the domestic
period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investi
sales of the Thai producers were sufficiently represen
gation period (the period considered).
tative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales repre
sented at least 5 % of their total volume of export sales
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
of the product concerned to the Union. The domestic
sales of the Thai producers were considered sufficiently
2.1. Product concerned
representative during the investigation period.
(10) The
product
concerned
is
terephthalic
acid
and
its
salts
of
a purity by weight of 99,5 % or more, currently falling
(18) The
Commission subsequently
examined
whether
the
within CN code ex 2917 36 00 (the product concerned).
domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as
being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to
(11) PTA is obtained by the purification of crude terephthalic
Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by
acid, which is a result of making paraxylene (PX) react
establishing for the like product sold on the domestic
with a solvent and a catalyst solution.
market the proportion of profitable domestic sales to
independent customers during the IP.
2.2. Like product
(19) Since the volume of profitable sales of the like product
(12) The product concerned and the PTA produced and sold
represented more than 80 % of the total domestic sales
on the domestic market of Thailand, as well as the PTA
volume of the like product for all 3 producers, normal
produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry
value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated
were found to have the same basic physical and chemical
as a weighted average of all domestic sales.
characteristics and uses. They were therefore considered
to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the
basic Regulation.
3.3. Export price
3. DUMPING
(20) This
investigation
showed
that
one
of
the
cooperating
exporting producers (SMPC) sold to the EU market via
3.1. Preliminary remarks
its largest shareholder (MCI, a company located in Japan),
which then resold to a series of Japanese traders, which
(13) All three Thai exporting producers named in the
ultimately sold to parties on the EU market. It was inves
complaint submitted questionnaires responses. The inves
tigated whether MCI and the largest Japanese trader were
tigation revealed that no other Thai exporting producers
related and if such a relationship had an impact on
of PTA exist and that the responses covered 100 % of
prices.
Thai exports to the EU market.
(14) The
three
companies
requested
dumping
calculations
to
(21) It was found that the most important relationship
be performed on the basis of monthly data on the
concerned common shareholdings at a very low
grounds that costs of the main raw material and
percentage held by Japanese banks on behalf of
consequently prices for the product concerned varied
numerous trustees. It was, therefore, established that
significantly through the IP. For the reasons shown in
the relationship was not of such a nature to impact
recital 26 below, the use of the requested methodology
price levels. Indeed, given (i) the pricing/contractual
was not considered warranted.
arrangements outlined above which are typical for this
industry and (ii) the nature of the relationship between
the companies described above, prices are at arm’s
(15) It
should
be
noted
that
sales
on
the
domestic
and
EU
length. It was therefore determined that the export
markets were based on either spot prices or contracts
price of the product concerned could be established on
based on the PX cost (the main raw material) or a
the basis of MCI’s sales to the Japanese traders.

---

L 15/24
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
20.1.2011
(22) A
letter
was
sent
to
MCI
informing
it
of
the
conse
Dumping Margin
quences of non-cooperation because during the verifi
cation in Tokyo the case handlers involved were not
Indorama group 3,7
%
granted full access to accounting information relating
SMPC No
dumping
to certain allowances.
(29) The
three
exporting
producers
(the
two
of
the
Indorama
(23) It
was
therefore
decided
to
calculate
the
allowances
on
group and SMPC) represent the entirety of exports orig
the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 18
inating in Thailand when compared to the Eurostat data.
of the basic Regulation. As a result the following
In order to assess whether, on a countrywide basis, the
methodology was used. For freight costs the allowance
dumping margin was below de minimis, a weighted
was adjusted upwards on the basis of information
average countrywide dumping margin was established.
gathered on spot. For the remaining allowances the
It was found that this margin was below de minimis,
amounts reported as well as the net sales prices were
i.e. 1,8 %.
also checked by reference to other independent sources,
in this case information established for the other two
Thai exporting producers and were found to be in line
(30) In
view
of
the
countrywide de minimis dumping margin,
for the same type of sales. An alternative method of
provisional measures on imports of PTA originating in
using Eurostat prices as a substitute was considered but
Thailand should not be imposed.
not used because for this product the value in Eurostat
was the cif price at the date of importation and not the
adjusted final price established in accordance with the
sales contract and the invoicing systems outlined above.
4. INJURY, CAUSATION AND UNION INTEREST
This approach was exceptionally appropriate given the
structure of the market as explained in recital 15
(31) In
view
of
the
above
findings
with
respect
to
dumping
it
above. Note that the vast majority of allowances had
is not considered necessary to present any analysis on
already been verified in Thailand.
injury, causation and Union interest.
3.4. Comparison
5. TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING
(24) The
comparison
between
normal
value
and
export
price
(32) The
proceeding
should
therefore
be
terminated
as
the
was made on an ex-works basis.
dumping margin determined for Thailand is less than
2 %. Interested parties were informed accordingly and
were given the opportunity to comment.
(25) For
the
purpose
of
ensuring
a
fair
comparison
between
the normal value and the export price, due allowance in
the form of adjustments was made for differences
(33) As
to
dumping
issues,
comments
were
received
from
one
affecting prices and price comparability in accordance
of the complainants which considered that the
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this
Commission should have imputed to SMPC the
basis, adjustments for differences in transport, insurance,
dumping margin established for the other two
packing, credit, handling and commission costs were
exporting producers (3,7 %) as a consequence of facts
made where applicable and justified.
available. In such a case it was argued that there would
have been a de minimis dumping margin. This had to be
rejected. The Commission did apply facts available with
(26) The
comparison
between
export
price
and
normal
value
respect to the Japanese related company by using the
was made on an annual basis. The request of the
company’s available data, adjusting it upwards and
exporting producers to make comparisons on a
comparing it to other verifiable sources. To impute in
monthly basis was considered but not pursued since it
these circumstances the dumping margin of the other
was obvious that it would not have changed the overall
exporters would not have been in line with the
conclusion with respect to dumping, i.e. the countrywide
provisions of Article 18.
de minimis dumping.
3.5. Dumping margin
(34) The same complainant also argued that other
governments take a different view on investigations
(27) Pursuant
to
Article
2(11)
and
(12)
of
the
basic
Regu
concerning PTA for a similar IP. This had to be
lation, the dumping margin for the cooperating
rejected. In this respect it is noted that the evidence
exporting producers in Thailand were established on
provided by the party refers to an anti-dumping duty
the basis of a comparison of a weighted average
imposed by the People’s Republic of China on imports
normal value with a weighted average export price as
of PTA from Korea and Thailand. The information
established above.
provided cannot corroborate the party’s claim since no
evidence exists on how normal value and export price
were established in this Chinese anti-dumping investi
(28) On the basis of the above methodology the dumping
gation. Furthermore, in the investigation by the Chinese
margins, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union
authorities, the IP runs from 1 October 2007 to
frontier price, duty unpaid, were set as follows:
30 September 2008, while the IP used in the current

---

EN
20.1.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
15/25
EU investigation runs from 1 December 2008 to
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
30 November 2009. Therefore the periods taken into
consideration in the EU and the Chinese investigations
were very different.
Sole Article

The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tereph
(35) As
far
as
injury
aspects
are
concerned
no
representations
thalic acid and its salts of a purity by weight of 99,5 % or
were submitted by any interested party.
more, currently falling within CN code ex 2917 36 00, orig
inating in Thailand, is hereby terminated.
(36) In
conclusion,
no
comments
from
any
interested
party
undermine the finding that protective measures are
unnecessary.
Done at Brussels, 19 January 2011.
(37) In
light
of
all
the
above,
the
Commission
therefore
concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning
For the Commission
imports into the Union of purified terephthalic acid and
its salts originating in Thailand should be terminated
The President
without the imposition of anti-dumping measures,
José Manuel BARROSO

---