20.1.2011 Official Journal of the European Union L 15/17 COMMISSION DECISION of 19 January 2011 terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of purified terephthalic acid and its salts originating in Thailand (2011/31/EV) THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (') (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 14 thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: 1. PROCEDURE 1.1. Initiation (1) On 22 December 2009, the European Commission (the ‘Commission’) announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3 (Notice of initiation’), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Union of purified tereph- thalic acid and its salts (PTA’) originating in Thailand (‘the country concerned). (2)  The anti-subsidy proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 13 November 2009 by BP Aromatics Limited NV and CEPSA Quimica S.A. (the complainants’) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of PTA. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of subsidisation of the product concerned originating in the country concerned and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the opening of a proceeding. (3) On the same day, 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 into the Union of PTA originating in Thailand. This investigation has been terminated by means of Commission Decision 2011/32/EU (. (4  Prior to the initiation of the proceeding and in accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the Government of Thailand that it had received a properly documented complaint alleging that subsidised imports of PTA originating in Thailand were causing material injury to the Union industry. The Government of Thailand was invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the contents of the complaint and arriving at a OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. OJ C 313, 22.12.2009, p. 22. OJ C 313, 22.12.2009, p. 17. (10) mutually agreed solution. The Government of Thailand accepted the offer of consultations and consultations were subsequently held. During the consultations, no mutually agreed solution could be arrived at. However, due note was taken of comments made by the authorities of Thailand in regard to the allegations contained in the complaint regarding the lack of countervailability of the schemes. During the consultations, submissions were received from the Government of Thailand. 1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding The Commission officially advised the complainants, other known producers in the Union, the known exporting producers in Thailand, the representatives of the exporting country concerned and known importers and users of the initiation of the proceeding. 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. The Commission sent questionnaires to the authorities of the exporting country, the complainants, other known producers in the Union, the known exporting producers in Thailand and to the known importers and users of product concerned and to all other parties that requested a questionnaire within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation. Questionnaire replies were received from the authorities of Thailand, from the three known Thai exporting producers, from three Union producers, from one Union importer, and from five Union users. The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation, resulting injury and Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following State authorities: Office of Board of Investment, Bangkok, Thailand. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies: (a) Union producers: — BP Aromatics Limited NV, Geel, Belgium, — CEPSA Quimica, S.A., Madrid, Spain, — Lotte Chemical UK Ltd (formerly Artenius), Wilton, Redcar, United Kingdom;