(1)

In August 2001, by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India. The measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 0 % and 62,6 % imposed on imports from individually named exporting producers, with a residual duty rate of 53,3 % on imports from all other companies.

(2)

In August 2001, the Commission, by Decision 2001/645/EC (3), accepted price undertakings offered by five Indian producers. The acceptance of the undertakings was subsequently withdrawn (4) in March 2006.

(3)

In March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 (5), the Council amended the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001. The anti-dumping duty imposed ranged between 0 % and 18 %, taking into account the findings of the expiry review of the definitive countervailing duties which are detailed in Council Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (6).

(4)

In September 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1424/2006 (7), the Council, following a new exporting producer request, amended Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 in respect of one Indian exporter. The amended Regulation established a dumping margin of 15,5 % for cooperating companies not included in the sample and an anti-dumping duty rate of 3,5 % for the company concerned taking into account the company’s export subsidy margin as ascertained in the anti-subsidy investigation which led to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006. Since the company did not have an individual countervailing duty, the rate established for all other companies was applied.

(5)

In November 2007, by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (8), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. By the same Regulation a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of one Indian exporting producer was terminated.

(6)

Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 also maintained the extension of the measures to Brazil and Israel with certain companies being exempted. The last amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 in this regard was made by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 806/2010 (9).

(7)

In January 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 15/2009 (10), the Council, following a partial interim review initiated by the Commission on its own initiative concerning the subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 and the definitive countervailing duties imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.

(8)

In May 2011, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 469/2011 (11), the Council amended Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 and thus adjusted the anti-dumping duty rates in view of the expiry on 9 March 2011 (12) of the countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.

(9)

The applicant of this interim review — Ester Industries Limited — is currently subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty of 29,3 %.

(10)

In July 2010, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to the examination of dumping, was lodged by Ester Industries Limited, an exporting producer from India (‘Ester’ or ‘the applicant’). In its request, the applicant claimed that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level was no longer necessary to offset injurious dumping.

(11)

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced by a notice published on 29 October 2010 in the Official Journal of the European Union (13) (‘the Notice of Initiation’) the initiation of a partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the applicant.

(12)

The Notice of Initiation mentioned that the partial interim review would also assess the need, depending on the review findings, to amend the rate of duty applicable to imports of the product concerned from exporting producers in the country concerned not individually mentioned in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, i.e. the anti-dumping duty rate as applying to ‘all other companies’ in India.

(13)

The investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘the RIP’).

(14)

The Commission officially informed the applicant, the authorities of the exporting country and the Union industry of the initiation of the partial interim review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.

(15)

In order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.

(16)

The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of the applicant.

(17)

The product concerned by this review is the same as that defined in Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, as last amended, imposing the measures in force, namely polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, originating in India, currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90 .

(18)

As in previous investigations, this investigation has shown that PET film produced in India and exported to the Union and the PET film produced and sold domestically on the Indian market, as well as the PET film produced and sold in the EU by the Union producers, have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same basic uses.

(19)

These products are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(20)

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the applicant’s domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to at least 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Union.

(21)

The Commission subsequently identified those types of the like product sold domestically by the company that were identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Union.

(22)

It was further examined whether the domestic sales of the applicant were representative for each product type, i.e. whether domestic sales of each product type constituted at least 5 % of the sales volume of the same product type to the Union. For the product types sold in representative quantities it was then examined whether such sales were made in the ordinary course of trade, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

(23)

The examination as to whether the domestic sales of each product type, sold domestically in representative quantities, could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade was made by establishing the proportion of the profitable sales to independent customers of the type in question. In all cases where the domestic sales of the particular product type were made in sufficient quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of all the domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.

(24)

For the remaining product types where domestic sales were not representative or not sold in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. Normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs of the exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable percentage for selling, general and administrative expenses and a reasonable margin for profit, on the basis of actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation in accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.

(25)

In the previous interim review leading to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 366/2006, it was determined that price undertakings influenced the past export prices and made them unreliable for the determination of future export behaviour. In that interim review, given that Ester was selling the product concerned in substantial quantities on the world market, it was decided to establish the export price on the basis of prices actually paid or payable to all third countries.

(26)

It is recalled that the acceptance of price undertakings was withdrawn in March 2006, i.e. more than three years before the current RIP. Therefore, Ester’s export prices to the Union in the current RIP were not influenced by any price undertakings. It can be thus concluded that they can be considered reliable for the determination of future export behaviour.

(27)

Since all export sales of the applicant to the Union were made directly to independent customers, the export price was established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(28)

The comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price was made on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and the export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which affected prices and price comparability. For this purpose, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made, where applicable and justified, for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, commissions, financial costs and packing costs paid by the applicant.

(29)

The applicant claimed that, compared to the previous interim review investigation, it is offering its customers a wider variation of chemical coatings and this aspect should be taken into account when classifying the product concerned into different product types. However, the company did not demonstrate that the different types of chemical coatings affected price comparability and, in particular, that the customers consistently paid different prices on the domestic market and on the EU export market depending on the type of chemical coating. Therefore, the product classification applied in the previous investigations should be maintained and the claim must be rejected.

(30)

The applicant also claimed an adjustment on the export price, based on the benefits received upon exportation under the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB) on a post-export basis. In this respect, it was found that under this scheme, the credits received when exporting the product concerned could be used to offset customs duties due on imports of any goods or could be freely sold to other companies. In addition, there is no constraint that the imported goods should only be used in the production of the exported product concerned. Ester did not demonstrate that the benefit under the DEPB scheme affected price comparability and, in particular, that the customers consistently paid different prices on the domestic market because of the DEPB scheme benefits. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(31)

The applicant further claimed an adjustment on the export price, based on the benefits received under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG) and under ‘Export Credits’ Scheme. In this regard it has to be noted that, similarly as with the other schemes mentioned above, there is no constraint that the imported goods under the EPCG Scheme should only be used in the production of the exported product concerned. Secondly, the applicant did not submit any evidence of an explicit link between pricing of the exported goods and the benefits received under the EPCG and ‘Export Credits’ Schemes. Finally, the applicant did not demonstrate that the benefits under these two schemes affected price comparability and, in particular, that the customers consistently paid different prices on the domestic market because of the EPCG and ‘Export Credits’ Schemes benefits. Therefore, the claim has to be rejected.

(32)

As provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. Following the comments on disclosure set out in recitals 44 and 45 below, the dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 8,3 %.

(33)

In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was also examined whether the changed circumstances could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.

(34)

In this regard the investigation showed that Ester indeed has taken a number of measures for cost reduction and efficiency improvements. Notably, the company modernised and built a new production line. Further, as a result of significant increase in production, the overhead costs substantially declined. The company also started sourcing its raw materials more efficiently (from a closer location) and managed thereby to considerably reduce freight costs. This cost reduction has a direct impact on the dumping margin. This change in circumstances can therefore be considered to be of a lasting nature.

(35)

As regards export price, the investigation showed a certain stability in Ester’s pricing policies over a long period, between 2006 (the year when the undertaking was repealed) and 2010 (almost the end of the RIP). Given that change in the methodology for the determination of Ester’s export price to the Union as described in recitals 24 and 25 above and the above-mentioned stability in prices, the newly calculated dumping margin is likely to be of a lasting nature.

(36)

It was therefore considered that the circumstances that led to the initiation of this interim review are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future in a manner that would affect the findings of the interim review. Therefore it was concluded that the changed circumstances are of a lasting nature and that the application of the measure at its current level is no longer justified.

(37)

One exporting producer argued that the average dumping margin of the sample should be recalculated, in case the current interim review resulted in a lower dumping margin for Ester (which was one of the companies in the sample) than previously established. It should be recalled that the scope of the current partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation is explicitly limited to the review of the margin of dumping of the applicant, an individual exporter, namely Ester. Therefore, the investigation was limited to the specific circumstances of the applicant, taking into account all relevant and duly documented evidence (14). The conclusions reached on this basis are not pertinent for the other companies in the sample or any other exporting producer in the country concerned.

(38)

It is considered that the determination of a new sample average margin of dumping pursuant to Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation in such circumstances is neither legally possible nor economically appropriate for the following reasons. Indeed, it should be recalled that the calculation of a sample average margin of dumping will only resorted to when, in the context of one given investigation, it is considered that the number of exporters is so large that individually investigating all cooperating exporters would unduly burden the Institutions and jeopardise the completion of the investigation within the mandatory deadline laid out in the basic Regulation. It is then assumed that the computation of a weighted average margin on the basis of the margins of dumping of the sampled exporters is representative of the dumping margin of the non-sampled cooperating exporters. This can only be the case if such calculation is made on the basis of margins of dumping relating to the same period of time. None of the above circumstances are present in the context of a partial interim review limited to one company originally in the sample such as the current investigation. As a consequence, it is concluded that the factual circumstances of the current partial interim review are such that the disciplines of Article 9(6) clearly do not apply.

(39)

It is to be recalled that the statement in the Notice of Initiation according to which ‘if it is determined that measures should be removed or amended for the applicant, it may be necessary to amend the rate of duty currently applicable to imports of the products concerned from other companies in India’ means that, as result of the review, the residual duty may go up in order to avoid circumvention (15). Since the applicant’s duty is revised downwards, the abovementioned provision of the Notice of Initiation is not relevant.

(40)

In light of the reasons described in recitals 37 to 39, the claim that the average dumping margin of the sample should be recalculated has to be rejected.

(41)

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose to amend the duty rate applicable to the applicant and were given the opportunity to comment.

(42)

The applicant reiterated its claims concerning the product classification referred to in recital 29 as well as its claims concerning duty drawback adjustment on the export price due to the DEPB, EPCG and ‘Export Credits’ benefits as described in recitals 30 and 31. However, since no new elements have been provided that could alter the Commission’s findings, the claims had to be rejected.

(43)

The applicant further contested the method of calculating the cif value of those transactions which have been made on FOB basis. When establishing the unit cif value the Commission related the total freight cost paid by the company to all export transactions including the FOB transactions. The company claimed that the total freight cost should have been related to the cif transactions only. This claim has been accepted.

(44)

The applicant finally claimed that not all sample sales have been excluded from the determination of the dumping margin. This claim has also been accepted.

(45)

Following the review investigation, the proposed revised dumping margin and anti-dumping duty rate that would be applicable to imports of the product concerned manufactured by Ester Industries Limited amounts to 8,3 %,

(1)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 (2) (‘the original Regulation’), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 64,3 % on imports of certain molybdenum wires as defined in Article 1(1) of the said Regulation (‘the product concerned’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘country concerned’). These measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the measures in force’ and the investigation that led to the measures imposed by the original Regulation will be hereinafter referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2)

On 4 April 2011, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation to investigate the alleged circumvention of the measures in force. The request was submitted by the European Association of Metals (Eurometaux) on behalf of a Union producer of certain molybdenum wires (‘the applicant’).

(3)

The request alleged that following the imposition of the measures in force, there had been a significant change in the pattern of trade between PRC, Malaysia and Switzerland on the one hand and the Union on the other. The applicant claimed that this change was due to transhipment of molybdenum wires via Malaysia or Switzerland.

(4)

The request concluded that there was insufficient due cause or economic justification for the transhipment other than the existence of the measures in force.

(5)

Finally, the applicant alleged that the remedial effects of the measures in force were being undermined both in terms of quantities and prices and that the prices of molybdenum wires from Malaysia and Switzerland were dumped when related to the normal value established in the original investigation.

(6)

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated an investigation by Regulation (EU) No 477/2011 (3) (‘the initiating Regulation’). Pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by the initiating Regulation, also directed the customs authorities to register imports of the product concerned consigned from Malaysia or Switzerland, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or Switzerland or not, as of 19 May 2011.

(7)

The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, Malaysia and Switzerland, the exporting producers and traders in those countries, the importers in the Union known to be concerned as well as the Union producers of the initiation of the investigation.

(8)

Questionnaires were sent to the producers/exporters in Malaysia, Switzerland and the PRC as well as to Union importers known to be concerned and/or mentioned in the request. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. All parties were informed that non-cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation and to findings being based on the facts available.

(9)

One Union importer contacted the Commission, declaring that it had never purchased any molybdenum wires from outside the Union.

(10)

Two Malaysian companies submitted that during the IP referred to in recital (14) they neither manufactured nor exported to the Union any molybdenum wires.

(11)

One Swiss company declared that they were not involved in producing or selling the molybdenum wires over the past three years.

(12)

One PRC producer replied to the questionnaire indicating that, from 2009 onwards, they exported molybdenum wires neither to the Union nor to Malaysia or Switzerland.

(13)

The Commission received no comments from the PRC, Malaysian or Swiss authorities.

(14)

The investigation period covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (‘the IP’). Data was collected for the period from 2007 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’) to investigate the alleged change in the pattern of trade.

(15)

As mentioned in recital (10), only two companies in Malaysia cooperated but they did not export the product concerned to the Union during the IP. As mentioned in recital (11), only one Swiss company submitted information according to which they were not involved in producing or selling the product concerned over the past three years. Consequently, findings in the present investigation had to be based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(16)

In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of possible circumvention practices was made by analyzing successively: (1) whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between PRC, Malaysia and Switzerland on the one hand and the Union on the other; (2) if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty; (3) if there was evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product; and (4) whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product, if necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.

(17)

The product concerned is as defined in the original investigation, i.e. molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00 .

(18)

The product under investigation is the same as that defined in recital (17) but consigned from Malaysia or Switzerland, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or Switzerland or not.

(19)

As far as imports declared as originating in Switzerland are concerned, it was established, on the basis of data from Surveillance II database, that there were no imports of the product concerned to the Union during the IP.

(20)

As far as imports declared as originating in Malaysia are concerned, in the absence of cooperation, the comparison of molybdenum wires exported to the Union from PRC against molybdenum wires consigned from Malaysia to the Union was based on information available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, including information provided in the request. No information obtained during the present investigation suggested that molybdenum wires exported to the Union from the PRC and molybdenum wires consigned from Malaysia to the Union would not have the same basic physical characteristics and the same uses. Therefore, they are considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. No submissions to the contrary were made during the investigation.

(21)

Due to lack of cooperation from the PRC exporting producers, in order to assess the level of imports for the year 2010 and the IP different statistical sources have been compared. Those included both publicly available sources like Eurostat as well as other sources like the database pursuant to Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation and Surveillance II database.

(22)

As stated in recital (27) of the original Regulation, imports from the PRC amounted to 87 tonnes in 2007, 100 tonnes in 2008 and 97 tonnes in the original IP (1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009).

(23)

The imports of the product concerned from the PRC dropped significantly after the imposition of the measures (from 97 tonnes in the original IP to below 10 tonnes in the IP). On the other hand Malaysian imports increased from none in 2009 to around 6 tonnes in the IP.

(24)

According to the Eurostat data, i.e. data at the CN code level, the imports from Switzerland increased from virtually none in 2009 and preceding years to 5 tonnes in both 2010 and 2011. However, the investigation established that no imports of the product concerned from Switzerland, declared as originating in Switzerland, into the Union were made during the IP. Furthermore, no such imports were made in the whole year 2010 while original provisional measures were in force since December 2009.

(25)

The PRC statistical sources indicate that exports of the product concerned to Malaysia started in 2010, while only negligible quantities were exported in 2009 and 2008.

(26)

The Swiss statistical sources show that imports from the PRC into Switzerland started in 2010 and continued in 2011 although negligible quantities were imported in 2009 and 2008. However, this import data relates at the level of CN code and hence has a scope broader than the definition of the product concerned in the present investigation. As noted above it was established that there were no exports of the product concerned from Switzerland, declared as originating in Switzerland, to the Union. Consequently, the investigation could not establish any transhipment practices of molybdenum wires originating in the PRC via Switzerland.

(27)

The overall decrease of exports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union as from 2010 and the parallel increase of exports from Malaysia and of exports from the PRC to Malaysia after the imposition of the original measures constituted a change in the pattern of trade between the above mentioned countries on the one hand and the Union on the other hand.

(28)

As far as Switzerland is concerned, no change in the pattern of trade between the PRC, Switzerland and the Union could be established with regard to imports of the product concerned. Consequently, the investigation of possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures by imports of molybdenum wires consigned from Switzerland should be terminated.

(29)

Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation requires that the change in the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or work includes, inter alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures via third countries.

(30)

The comparison of trade flows between the PRC and Malaysia on the one hand and Malaysia and the Union on the other hand indicates the existence of transhipment practices. The allegation in the request has not been contested by any operator; neither those from the PRC or Malaysia nor from the Union. It is recalled that no producers of molybdenum wires from Malaysia cooperated with this investigation.

(31)

The investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the transshipment than the avoidance of the measures in force. No elements were found, other than the avoidance of the payment of the duty, which could be considered as a compensation for the costs of transshipment of the product concerned from the PRC via Malaysia.

(32)

This conclusion is further corroborated by the fact that no producer of molybdenum wires from Malaysia came forward during the present investigation.

(33)

In addition, it is noted that imports from Malaysia had discontinued around the time of the publication of the initiating Regulation.

(34)

It is therefore concluded that, in the absence of any other sufficient due cause or economic justification within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the change in the pattern of trade between the PRC and Malaysia on the one hand and the Union on the other hand was due to the imposition of the measures in force.

(35)

To assess whether the imported products from Malaysia had, in terms of quantities and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force, data from available statistical sources as described in recital (21) were used as the best data available concerning quantities and prices of exports from Malaysia.

(36)

The increase of imports from Malaysia was considered to be significant in terms of quantities. The level of imports from Malaysia in the IP amounts to around 6 % of the level of imports of the product originating in the PRC to the Union before the imposition of measures.

(37)

The comparison of the injury elimination level as established in the original Regulation and the weighted average export price showed significant underselling. It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being undermined both in terms of quantities and prices.

(38)

In the absence of cooperation from any exporting producer, export prices were based on facts available pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The prices available from statistical sources as described in recital (21) were considered to be the most reliable.

(39)

In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, it was considered appropriate that the normal value to be used in an anti-circumvention investigation is the normal value established during the original investigation. In the absence of cooperation and pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, for the purpose of comparing the export price and normal value, it was considered appropriate to assume that the product mix of the goods observed during the present investigation was the same as in the original investigation.

(40)

In the original investigation, the USA was considered to be an appropriate market economy analogue country. Since the analogue country producer made only marginal sales on the domestic US market, it was found unreasonable to use US domestic sales data for the purposes of determining or constructing normal value. Consequently, the normal value for the PRC was established on the basis of export prices from the USA to other third countries, including the Union.

(41)

In accordance with Article 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as established in the original Regulation and the weighted average export prices established during this investigation’s IP, expressed as a percentage of the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before customs duty.

(42)

The comparison of the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export prices showed dumping.

(43)

In view of the findings above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of molybdenum wires originating in the PRC was circumvented by transhipment via Malaysia.

(44)

In accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the existing anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC, should be extended to imports of the same product consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not.

(45)

The measures to be extended should be the ones established in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010, which are a definitive anti-dumping duty of 64,3 % applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before customs duty.

(46)

In accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of molybdenum wires consigned from Malaysia.

(47)

In view of the findings regarding Switzerland, the investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures by imports of the product concerned consigned from Switzerland should be terminated and the registration of imports of molybdenum wires consigned from Switzerland, introduced by the initiating Regulation, should be discontinued.

(48)

It is recalled that during the present investigation no producer/exporter of molybdenum wires to the Union made itself known or was found to exist in Malaysia. Nevertheless, any producer from Malaysia which did not export the product under investigation to the Union during the IP and which considers lodging a request for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to determine whether an exemption may be warranted. Such exemption may be granted after the assessment of the market situation of the product concerned, production capacity and capacity utilisation, procurement and sales and the likelihood of continuation of practices for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification and the evidence of dumping. The Commission would normally also carry out an on-the-spot verification visit. The request should be addressed to the Commission forthwith, with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to the production and sales.

(49)

Where an exemption is warranted, the Commission will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, propose the amendment of the extended measures in force accordingly. Subsequently, any exemption granted will be monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions set therein.

(50)

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were given the opportunity to comment and to be heard,

(1)

On 22 October 2010, the Commission received a complaint pursuant to Article 5 of the Basic Regulation, concerning alleged injurious dumping by imports of vinyl acetate (hereinafter ‘the product concerned’) origination in the United States of America (USA).

(2)

The complaint was lodged by Ineos Oxide Ltd (the complainant) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the total Union industry production of the product concerned.

(3)

On 4 December 2010, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of vinyl acetate originating in the USA.

(4)

The Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 821/2011 (3) (the provisional Regulation), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of vinyl acetate currently falling within CN code 2915 32 00 and originating in the USA.

(5)

By a letter of 4 November 2011 to the Commission, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint.

(6)

In accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.

(7)

The Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Union interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. No comments were received indicating that such termination would not be in the Union interest.

(8)

Following disclosure, one party argued that it should not have been excluded from the definition of the Union industry or that, alternatively, the provisional Regulation should be amended so as to include the party in that definition. In this respect, it should be pointed out that the findings of the provisional Regulation, on the basis of information obtained in the course of the investigation, were only provisional, as stated in recital 31 of the provisional Regulation itself. As the anti-dumping proceedings are terminated without the imposition of definitive measures, following the withdrawal of the complaint, it is not appropriate, in a terminating decision, neither to provide definitive determinations nor to amend a provisional Regulation.

(9)

It is recalled that the findings at hand were provisional in nature. It follows that any future case relating to the product or the parties concerned by this proceeding will be assessed on its own merits.

(10)

The Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of the product concerned originating in the USA should be terminated without the imposition of anti-dumping measures.

(11)

Any duties provisionally secured on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 821/2011 should be released,