17.11.2010 Official Journal of the European Union L 299/7 COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1042/2010 of 16 November 2010 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People’s Republic of China 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 7 thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: () ) 0] 0] 1. PROCEDURE 1.1. Initiation On 18 February 2010, the European Commission (the ‘Commission’) announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (%) (Notice of initiation), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of coated fine paper originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC' or the ‘country concerned). The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 4 January 2010 by CEPIFINE, the European association of fine paper manufacturers, (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the total Union production of coated fine paper. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. 1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding The Commission officially advised the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in the PRC and an association of producers (a paper association), the representatives of the country concerned, known importers and known users of the initiation of the proceeding. The Commission also advised producers in the United States of America L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. C 41, 18.2.2010, p. 6. (USA) and an association of producers (a paper association) and, at a later stage, a producer in Thailand of the initiation of the proceedings, as the USA and Thailand were each envisaged as a possible analogue country. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out 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, Union producers and unrelated importers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation 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 samples, all known exporting producers and their known paper association, all known Union producers and unrelated 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 (as defined in Section 2.1 below) during the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009. The authorities of the PRC were also consulted. As explained in recital 28 below, two Chinese exporting producer groups provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample. On the basis of the above it was decided that sampling was not necessary for exporting producers in the PRC. In order to allow the known exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the exporting producers known to be concerned and to the authorities of the PRC. As explained in recitals 33 and 53 below, one group of exporting producers in the PRC requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation or IT should the investigation establish that it did not meet the conditions for MET, while the other group of exporting producers in the PRC requested IT. As explained in recital 29 below, it was decided that sampling was not necessary for Union producers. As explained in recital 30 below, it was decided that sampling was not necessary for unrelated importers.