10.8.2011 Official Journal of the European Union L 205/35 COMMISSION DECISION of 9 August 2011 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tris(2-chloro-1-methyl- ethyl)phosphate originating in the People’s Republic of China (2011/498/EU) THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (') (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: () ) 0] 0] A. PROCEDURE 1. Initiation On 23 July 2010, the European Commission (the Commission) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (%) (the notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation with regard to imports into the Union of tris(2-chloro-1- methylethyl)phosphate  (TCPP)  originating in  the People’s Republic of China (the ‘country concerned’ or ‘the PRC). The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 9 June 2010 by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of TCPP. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of TCPP from the PRC and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. 2. Parties concerned by the proceeding The Commission officially advised the complainant, other known Union producers, the exporting producers, importers and users known to be concerned as well as their associations, and the representatives of the exporting country, of the initiation of the proceeding. L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. C 201, 23.7.2010, p. 5. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing. In view of the apparent high number of exporting producers and importers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers and importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the investigation period (1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010). After examination of the information submitted, and given the high number of importers which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was necessary with regard to unrelated importers. Whereas, given the limited number of exporting producers that indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was not necessary with regard to exporting producers. Six unrelated importers, accounting for 25 % of imports to the Union, agreed to be included in the sample. Two importers, accounting for around 20 % of imports from the PRC and over 80 % of imports of the importers that agreed to be included in the sample, were included in the sample. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned were given the oppor- tunity to comment on the selection of the sample. No objection was raised with regards to the selection of the sample. The Commission sent questionnaires to the exporting producers, sampled importers, the Union producers, to all known users in the Union, and to known analogue country producers in the United States of America (USA). Questionnaire replies were received from four exporting producers in the PRC, one analogue country producer, three Union producers, two sampled importers and 35 users in the EU. However, one of the four Chinese exporting producers supplied a highly deficient ques- tionnaire reply, and was subsequently considered as non-cooperating.