Therefore, the Commission erred when it accepted the evidence on export price submitted in the complaint.Īt the stage of the complaint it is sufficient to present dumping and undercutting margins on the basis of the information reasonably available to the complainant and for the product as a whole. the Korean Trade Statistics Service – the export price should have been within 13% to 18% higher than the one submitted by the complainant. According to the source used in the complaint for the calculation of the export price – i.e. LG Chem further claimed that the export price provided in the Complaint was incorrectly computed. In this regard, LG Chem mostly reiterated the comments already provided on the product scope addressed in Section 2.3. LG Chem claimed that the complainant, by considering SAP a homogeneous product, artificially inflated the dumping and undercutting margins presented in the complaint. Complaint inflated dumping and undercutting margin In this regard, the Commission examined the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided and determined that there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of the present investigation, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the basic Regulation.ġ.2.2. Therefore the complaint was not deficient in this aspect. The complainant is not required under those provisions to conduct a Union interest analysis in the complaint. The Commission recalls that in accordance with Articles 5(2) and 5(9) of the basic Regulation, the initiation of a proceeding is justified when sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link between the allegedly dumped imports and the alleged injury is provided in the complaint. Similar claims were advanced by the cooperating exporting producer, LG Chem Ltd. Examination of Union interest in the complaintĪfter the initiation, the Coalition of users ( 3) claimed that the complaint ignored the interests of importers and users to conclude that it is in the interest of the Union to open an anti-dumping investigation on imports of SAP originating in the Republic of Korea, in breach of Article 21 of the basic Regulation. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of resulting material injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.ġ.2.1.
The complaint was made on behalf of two Union producers, which together account for 65% of the total Union production of superabsorbent polymer, in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged by the European Superabsorbent Polymer Coalition, hereafter ‘ESPC’ (‘the complainant’).
It published a Notice of initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union ( 2) (‘the Notice of initiation’).
On 18 February 2021, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of superabsorbent polymers (‘SAP’ or ‘the product under investigation’) originating in the Republic of Korea (‘the country concerned’) on the basis of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the basic Regulation’). Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union ( 1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of superabsorbent polymers originating in the Republic of Korea COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/547
0 kommentar(er)
