(163) However, the Union industry remained vulnerable, which was demonstrated by the decrease in production, production capacity and, despite the latter, a decreasing capacity utilisation.
(164) Furthermore, despite the measures in force, the Chinese exporters continued to export the product concerned in increasing volumes, by 24 %, at dumped prices during the period considered and to expand their market share, which went up from 4 % to 6 %. Prices of these imports increased, but remained far below the level of the prices of other imports and even further below the level of the prices of the Union industry, thus undercutting the latter by 51 %.
(165) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry did not suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation during the review investigation period.
5.
LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY
(166) The Commission concluded in recital (165) that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the review investigation period. Therefore, the Commission assessed, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury caused by the dumped imports from the PRC if the measures were allowed to lapse.
(167) The Union market, structurally attractive, is an open market. In case the AD measures would lapse, and taking into account that the existing safeguard measures in place are temporary, the result would likely be a significant increase of import of SSSPT from the PRC.
(168) The investigation showed, that the Union industry was vulnerable. The investigation also revealed that the Union industry was in a process of restructuring, which was, amongst others, reflected in the decrease in production capacity over the period considered, to achieve a better price premium, given the expected continued low market demand.
(169) For comparison purposes, the Commission determined the following prices:
— Average Union industry sales price: 12 166 EUR/tonne (see recital (148))
— Chinese average export price: 5 894 EUR/tonne (see recital (120))
— World (except China average export price: 9 864 EUR (see recital (128))
— Indian average export price: 8 255 EUR/tonne (see recital (128))
— Ukrainian average export price: 12 267 EUR/tonne (see recital (128))
(170) The above clearly showed that the Chinese exporting producers were able to export at prices far below those of the Union industry, and also below the Indian and Ukrainian average export prices.
(171) The Commission thus concluded that, should measures be allowed to lapse, the Chinese exporters would be able to exercise significant price pressure on the Union industry.
(172) In this regard, the following elements were further analysed by the Commission: the spare capacity in the PRC, the attractiveness of the Union market, the post review investigation period developments and the impact of imports from the PRC if the measures were allowed to lapse.