L 243[40 Official Journal of the European Union 16.9.2010 COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 812/2010 of 15 September 2010 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products 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: (") ¢ O] 0] A. PROCEDURE 1. Initiation On 17 December 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (?), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC or the ‘country concerned). The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 3 November 2009 by APFE - European Glass Fiber Producers Association (the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain continuous filament glass fibre products. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product 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 and the representatives of the PRC, importers, suppliers and users known to be concerned, as well as their associations, of the initiation of the proceeding. 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. L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. C 307, 17.12.2009, p. 39. S 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, importers and Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the deter- mination 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, importers and Union producers 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 October 2008 - 30 September 2009). Eight Chinese exporting producers or groups of exporting producers and seven Union producers or groups of producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. After exam- ination of the information submitted, and given the high number of exporting producers and Union producers which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was necessary with regard to these producers (see recitals (12) and (13) below). With regard to unrelated importers, at the sampling stage of the investigation, only three importers provided the requested information within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. It was therefore decided not to apply sampling and to send questionnaires to all importers that had come forward. In order to allow the sampled 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 sampled exporting producers. All sampled (groups of) companies requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation or IT should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET. The Commission officially disclosed the results of the MET findings to the exporting producers concerned in the PRC, the authorities of the PRC and the complainant. They were also given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing if there were particular reasons to be heard.