L 28224 Official Journal of the European Union 28.10.2010 COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 965/2010 of 25 October 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of sodium gluconate originating in the People’s Republic of China THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 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, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission’), after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: (") ¢ O] 0] 1. PROCEDURE 1.1. Provisional measures The Commission by Regulation (EU) No 377/2010 (?) (the ‘provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of dry sodium gluconate originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘country concerned). It is recalled that the proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing 100 % of the total Union production. As set out in recital 13 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (investigation period’ or ‘IP). With respect to the trends relevant for the injury assessment, the Commission analysed data covering the period from 1 January 2005 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’). 1.2. Subsequent procedure Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (‘provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provi- sional findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. To this end verifi- cation visits were carried out at the following companies: L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. L 111, 4.5.2010, p. 5. Producers in the Union: — Roquette GmbH, Germany, — Roquette UK, United Kingdom. All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of dry sodium gluconate originating in China and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (final disclosure’). They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appro- priate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly. 2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT In the absence of any comments concerning the product concerned or the like product, recitals 14 to 17 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 3. DUMPING 3.1. Market economy treatment (MET) The Union industry (Ul) reiterated its reservations on the MET granted to the Chinese exporting producer, Shandong Kaison Biochemical, without providing any new elements to support them. The UI further claimed, without providing any evidence, that the raw materials used to produce dry sodium gluconate in China were exempt from VAT and that the buyer could be reimbursed a ‘virtual VAT of 13 % to 17 % on their purchases. In this regard, it was found that to produce dry sodium gluconate, the raw material (cornstarch) was purchased from several industrial suppliers that process the corn (agricultural product) into cornstarch. Furthermore, the prices of cornstarch in major regions of the world were examined and there were no indications that Chinese users of cornstarch obtained the product at favourable prices. In addition, several purchase invoices for cornstarch were checked and all of them carried VAT. In addition, there was no evidence that ‘virtual VAT was reimbursed on purchases. These claims were therefore rejected.