(240) In addition, all main injury indicators followed a negative trend: profit, cash flow, return on investment plummeted in the IP. Over the period considered, production volume decreased by 31 %, sales volume dropped by 25 % and market share, employment and productivity also decreased. On the basis of the assessment carried out and described in the provisional Regulation, the Commission concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.
(241) None of the arguments of CNCIA put into question the above conclusion. The Commission therefore confirms its findings in recitals (323) – (337) of the provisional Regulation.
5.
CAUSATION
5.1.
Effects of the dumped imports
(242) Interested parties claimed that it was not possible to make a valid finding on the causal link between the presence of allegedly dumped imports of TiO
2
from China and injury caused to the Union industry because several factors, which do not reflect normal market reality, influenced the investigation period and the period concerned.
(243) Siegwerk argued in that regard that, first, China greatly reduced its overall exports during the Covid-19 pandemic and thus the increase in imports of Chinese TiO
2
observed after the end of the pandemic actually represented a normalisation of trade volumes. Second, demand in the Union was above average during the pandemic. Third, Siegwerk claimed that, as a result of the prior two factors, the Union producers were operating in “near-monopolistic position” and were able to achieve extraordinary profits during the pandemic.
(244) The Commission noted that it analysed these elements in its analysis of the injury indicators and the causal link in the provisional Regulation.
(245) In Section 4.4.1, recital (276) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission observed that during 2021 there was indeed a drop in volumes of imports from China. The Commission concluded that this was due to general disruptions of sea trade from China which was present in that year as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic.
(246) Likewise, the Commission concluded in recital (271) of the provisional Regulation that demand was above average in 2020 and 2021.
(247) The Commission recalled that, precisely because of those two factors together, the Union industry managed to temporarily increase its market share and profitability in 2021, while volumes of Chines imports and market shares both went down in that year. (28)
(248) The Commission thus established in the provisional Regulation, in the context of the overall analysis of all the injury indicators taken together, that these two elements do not invalidate the conclusions on injury and the causal link. The Commission thus rejected the above claims.
(249) CNCIA also noted that the Chinese import prices in 2022 were only 1,5 % lower than the Union industry sales prices, which cannot be considered to represent “
significant price undercutting
.” On the other hand, prices of imports from Mexico were 65 % lower in that year.
(250) At the outset the Commission noted that simple price comparison cannot be considered as undercutting as it fails to account for product types. The Commission noted that, even if 1,5 % lower prices in 2022 could not be considered as significant price undercutting (quod non), the difference in price was much higher in other years: 6,4 % in 2020, and 24,2 % in the investigation period. Significant price difference was therefore present in the period concerned.
5.2.
Feedback