Council Regulation (EC) No 713/2005 of 10 May 2005 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain broad spectrum antibiotics originating in India

• (237) With regard to the original countervailing duty in place, it should be noted that the vast majority of imports from India were either subject to a zero duty rate or to a duty rate which still leads to lower average landing prices than the average Omani price levels. Thus, on average Omani imports did not exercise the same degree of price pressure. In addition, import prices from all other third countries as well were on average higher over the period considered than Indian price levels, again clearly identifying India as main source of price pressure. Volume wise, the observation is correct that India was not the only source of significant imports during all the time of the period considered. However, it is recalled that India is the only country subject to measures. This, of course, had an impact on the trade flow of the product concerned. Moreover, despite measures, Indian imports grew strongly since 2001 and India recovered its position as second largest exporter in 2002 to become during the IP even the biggest. Therefore, the small decrease in Indian imports between 2002 and the IP had no effect on the market, which eventually rewarded the Indian pricing policy. Consequently, these arguments cannot be accepted. It was therefore confirmed that imports from third countries could not have caused any injury to the Community industry which would break the causal link between the subsidised imports from India and the injury suffered by the Community industry.

Development of consumption of the Community market

• (238) Consumption of the product under investigation on the Community market increased by 51 % during the period considered. Thus, the injury suffered by the Community industry cannot be attributed to a contraction of demand on the Community market.

Export activity of the Community industry

• (239) The export performance of the Community industry grew by 16 % during the period considered. The Community industry’s export prices were on average 10 to 15 % higher than the sales prices in the Community. Thus, the Community industry’s export activity could not contribute to its injurious situation.

• (240) In this context it was submitted by the GOI and one exporter that the Community industry in their questionnaire replies mentioned stiff competition due to Indian competitors on third country markets resulting for the Community industry in low prices and loss of market share in third countries, which prima facie would contradict above finding. Thus, on the basis of this assessment of the Community industry there would be no injury on the Community market or no causal link with Indian imports.

• (241) In this respect, it is noted that given the worldwide growth of the market for such products, there is no contradiction between any decrease of export prices and loss of market share of the Community industry in third countries and the fact that the volume of such exports had actually increased and that their prices were higher than the Community industry’s prices for sales in the Community. Therefore, although the export performance of the Community industry could have been better without a low priced subsidised Indian exports competition in third countries markets, there is no indication that, because of its export performance, the Community industry was not subject to injurious price competition on the Community market essentially caused by the low priced subsidised imports from India. Thus the argument should be rejected.

Competitiveness of the Community industry

• (242) The Community industry is an important competitor for the product under consideration as demonstrated by its market share and has constantly invested to maintain the state-of-the-art in its production. The drop in productivity per worker on a per kg basis after 2001 can be exclusively attributed to the start-up phase of a new production plant of one Community producer. It is therefore only of a temporary nature. Consequently, no evidence was found that lack of competitiveness could have broken the causal link between imports from India and the injury suffered by the Community industry.

Captive Use

• (243) As stated in recital 226 above, it is considered that the captive use did not contribute to the injurious situation. To the contrary, without a captive market the injurious situation of the Community industry might even have been worse.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY

• (244) In accordance with Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the measures in force would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury.

• (245) As set out under recitals 161 to 243 above, it was established that during the review investigation period and despite the measures in force, the Community industry continued to sustain injury caused by the subsidised imports of the product concerned. The injury elimination level found during the present investigation ranged between 17,3 and 48,1 % and is higher than that established during the original investigation (between 12,6 and 28,9 %), despite the fact that in this review the reasonable profit margin for the Community industry was reduced by one third as compared with the original investigation (see recital 260 below). Furthermore, the investigation established that, despite domestic sales and exports to other countries, there is still significant spare capacity for the products under investigation in India, in particular with exporters which are subject to relatively high duty rates in the Community. It was, therefore, considered reasonable to conclude that subsidised low priced imports from India would further increase and, consequently, injury would be likely to continue in the future, should the measures lapse.

• (246) Since the Community industry continues to suffer material injury due to the subsidised imports despite the existence of measures, it was not necessary to analyse further the likelihood of recurrence of injury.

COMMUNITY INTERESTIntroduction

• (247) It was examined whether compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Community interest to continue applying measures in this particular case. For this purpose, and pursuant to Article 31(1) of the basic Regulation, the likely impact of measures for all parties concerned in the investigation was considered. In order to assess whether it is in the interest of the Community that measures be continued, questionnaires were sent to users and importers of the product concerned and to upstream suppliers of raw materials used in producing the like product.

Interest of the Community Industry

• (248) As has been shown above, the Community industry producing the like product has been continuously increasing its production. This was possible thanks to the constant growth of investments made by the Community industry in order to keep its ability to compete, as it belongs to the main competitors for the product under investigation. It is recalled that during the review investigation period, the Community industry expanded its production facilities, set up one new factory within the Community and prepared plans for setting up of a further new facility in the Community. This process of continuing investments by the Community industry is being undermined in particular by the unsatisfactory development of its profitability, caused by the continuous price pressure exerted by the Indian imports of the product concerned on the Community market.

• It is considered that without measures in place to correct the effects of the subsidised imports, the Community industry will continue to face price undercutting and thus price depression with its negative impact on profitability, return on investments and cash flow. Eventually, this could even put the viability of the Community industry at risk. Consequently, it was considered, that a lapse of the measures would not be in the interest of the Community industry.

Interest of the importers/traders

• (249) Questionnaires were sent to all known importers/traders of the product concerned but only one out of nineteen replied. However, the cooperating importer did not comment on the likely impact of the continuation of measures on its business. On the basis of the information received, it appears that importers/traders in the Community purchase the product under investigation from a variety of sources. Since there are no fundamental quality differences between the product imported from India and the one obtained from any other sources, it is considered that the importers/traders in the Community would, if measures are to continue, have no difficulty obtaining the product from a variety of other sources. Furthermore, the cooperating importer is actively involved in trading a big variety of other products and is therefore not vitally depending on the product concerned. Although its sales of the product concerned over the period considered increased strongly (seven times in volume), these sales only represent a small part of its total turnover (ca. 1,4 % in the review investigation period). Finally, the importer did not indicate that the continuation of measures would have any impact on employment, since import activities are not labour intensive.

• (250) Although importers/traders may not be in favour of measures, it can be concluded on the basis of the information available, that such possible interest in allowing measures to expire does not outweigh the actual interest of the Community industry to continue redressing unfair and injurious Indian trading practices as summarised in recital 248.

Interest of up-stream suppliers

• (251) In order to assess the likely effect that the continuation of countervailing measures could have on the up-stream suppliers of the Community industry, questionnaires were sent to all such known suppliers. In total six questionnaires were sent out and two replies were received. These up-stream suppliers, which provide in particular glucose and dextrose to the Community industry, are in favour of the continuation of measures. Although the Community industry does not belong to the most important customers of these up-stream suppliers, this business still contributes to the employment and profitability of the up-stream suppliers. If the Community industry would curb or even stop production of the like product, such beneficial business-relation would be at risk.

• (252) Therefore, and in the absence of any information to the contrary, it is concluded that the continuation of measures would comply with interests of up-stream suppliers.

Interest of users

• (253) Questionnaires were also sent to five known Community users of the product concerned, i.e. pharmaceutical companies. The Commission requested, amongst other information, their comments on whether the maintenance of the measures in force would be in the interest of the Community and how these measures would continue to affect them. However, no questionnaire replies were received and thus no comments were made known. Taking into consideration that users could obtain the product under investigation not only from India but from other sources as well, and given the lack of any information on the economic impact of measures on the user’s businesses (e.g. employment, profitability, investment policy), it was not possible to establish any user’s interest of tantamount importance.

• (254) Although, despite their silence, users might not be in favour of measures, on the basis of the information available by cooperating interested parties, no substantiated user interest in discontinuing measures could overweight the actual interest of the Community industry to continue redressing unfair and injurious Indian trading practices as summarized in recital 248.

• (255) One exporter claimed that Community consumers’ interests have not been properly taken into account and that therefore the Community interests analysis would not be fully in accordance with Article 31 of the basic Regulation. It is argued that consumers’ interests could be negatively affected, if producers of formulations passed through any alleged price increase due to increased costs in producing final dosage forms.

• (256) In response to this submission it should be recalled that no consumer organisation has made any comments in the course of this investigation. In addition, Community consumers are in general medically insured. No substantiated evidence is at hand, if medical insurance fees could be adversely affected to any significant extent by an alleged increase in the costs of certain antibiotics formulations. Furthermore, it is unclear to which extend manufactures of certain antibiotics formulations, i.e. users, are in the position to pass through an increase of costs. Under such circumstances, it is not possible to establish any adverse Community consumers’ interests of tantamount importance.

Conclusion

• (257) Having examined the various interests involved, it is considered that from an overall Community interest perspective, no interest overweighs the Community industry’s interest to uphold measures. The effects of the continuation of the measures can be expected to afford the Community industry the opportunity to improve its profitability to a reasonable level and carry on its investment program within the Community with the resulting positive effects on employment and market competitiveness. On the other hand, on the basis of the information available, no opposing interests of other Community parties concerned (i.e. importers/traders, upstream suppliers, users and consumers) of tantamount importance were found.

COUNTERVAILING MEASURES

• (258) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to continued subsidisation, injury and Community interest, it is considered appropriate to maintain countervailing measures on imports of the product concerned from India. For the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the subsidy rates found during the review investigation period and of the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Community industry.

Injury elimination level

• (259) The necessary price increase to eliminate injury was determined on a per-company basis by comparing the weighted average import price of the product concerned with the non-injurious price of the like product sold by the Community industry on the Community market. The price difference was expressed as a percentage of the CIF import value.

• (260) The non-injurious price has been obtained by taking the weighted average cost of production of the Community industry together with a profit margin of 10 %. This profit margin, which is one-third less than that taken in the original investigation (see recital 205 above), reflects the achievable profit margin for similar product groups of the Community industry not subject to unfair competition. In view of increased competition, it was considered an appropriate and reasonable minimum instead of the 15 % profit margin established in the original investigation. This profit would allow the Community industry to further invest in research and development in order to remain competitive.

Form and level of measures

• (261) In the absence of particular circumstances, the imposition of the standard duty type, i.e. ad valorem, was considered appropriate.

• (262) With regard to the level of duty, in the case of four of the cooperating exporters the subsidy rate was higher than the injury elimination level. Thus in accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, the lesser duty reflecting the injury elimination level was considered adequate to remove such injury to the Community industry insofar as imports from these four exporters are concerned. The rates of duty applicable to imports from these exporters should range from 17,3 to 30,3 %. As far as the other three exporters are concerned, the injury elimination levels were higher than the subsidy rates established, so that measures in respect of those companies should be based on the latter. The rates of duty applicable to imports from these exporters should range from 25,3 to 32 %. Given the fact that the level of cooperation of Indian exporters was high (over 80 %), the level of duty for all other companies should be set at the level of the company with the highest individual duty rate, i.e. 32 %.

• (263) The individual company countervailing duty rates specified in this Regulation reflect the situation found during the review with respect to the cooperating exporters. Thus, they are solely applicable to imports of the product concerned produced by these companies. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

• (264) Any claim requesting the application of these individual countervailing duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission ([^E0010]) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for instance, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, and after consultation of the Advisory Committee, the Regulation will be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

• —17,3 % for KDL Biotech Ltd, Mumbai (TARIC additional code: A580),

• —28,1 % for Nectar Lifesciences Ltd, Chandigarh (TARIC additional code: A581),

• —25,3 % for Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd, New Delhi (TARIC additional code: A582),

• —11,9 % for Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, New Delhi (TARIC additional code: 8221),

• —28,1 % for Torrent Gujarat Biotech Ltd, Ahmedabad (TARIC additional code: A583),

• —28,1 % for Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Chandigarh (TARIC additional code: A584),

• —32 % for all other companies (TARIC additional code: 8900).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

[^E0001]: OJ L 288, 21.10.97, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

[^E0002]: OJ L 273, 9.10.1998, p. 1.

[^E0003]: OJ C 8, 14.1.2003, p. 2.

[^E0004]: OJ C 241, 8.10.2003, p. 7.

[^E0005]: OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 17, recital 9.

[^E0006]: Notification No 1/2002-07 of 31.3.2002 of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the GOI.

[^E0007]: Council Regulation (EC) No 1628/2004 (OJ L 295, 18.9.2004, p. 4 (recital 13)).

[^E0008]: The Indian Finance Act 1999 prolonged the application from 2000 to 2005.

[^E0009]: Article 143(1)(e)(h) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1). Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 (OJ L 343, 31.12.2003, p. 1).

[^E0010]: European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate B J-79 5/17, Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, B-1049 Brussels.