6.3.
Conclusion on likelihood of a continuation and/or recurrence of injury
(274) On this basis, and noting the past and current injurious situation of the Union industry, the absence of measures would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of subsidized imports from India of the product concerned at injurious prices, leading to even higher losses for the Union producers. Therefore, the Commission concluded that, should the measures be allowed to lapse, this would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of subsidised imports from India at injurious prices and material injury would be likely to continue.
7.
UNION INTEREST
(275) In accordance with Article 31 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-subsidy measures would be against the interest of the Union as whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, users and the public policy interests with respect to the product concerned as embodied in the Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (36) (‘EcoDesign Directive’) and its product-specific Regulations. In line with the third sentence of Article 31(1) of the basic Regulation, special consideration was given to the need to protect the industry from the negative effects of injurious subsidization.
(276) All interested parties were given the opportunity to make their view known pursuant to Article 31(2) of the basic Regulation.
7.1.
Interest of the Union industry
(277) The Union industry is located in three Member States (France, Germany and Spain), and employs directly over 2 200 employees in relation to the product concerned.
(278) The anti-subsidy measures in force did not prevent subsidised imports from India from entering the Union market and the Union industry suffered material injury during the review investigation period.
(279) On the basis of the above, the Commission established that there is a strong likelihood of continuation of injury caused by imports from this country should the measures expire. The influx of substantial volumes of subsidized imports from India would cause further injury to the Union industry.
(280) Following final disclosure, Tata Metaliks Limited claimed the Union industry has been protected for over six years while having a market share of 85 %. Thus, it is unlikely for the Union industry to be impacted if the existing measures are repealed. In the event the Union it is, it may request the Commission to start a new investigation.
(281) Contrary to the claim made by the interested party, the Commission established that the Union industry is still suffering from material injury caused by the subsidised imports from India, based on the analysis of all relevant injury indicators including the development of Union Industry’s market share. The Commission concluded that the injury is likely to continue and deteriorate should the measures be allowed to lapse. Consequently, the claim was rejected.
(282) The Commission thus concluded that the maintenance of the anti-subsidy measures against India is in the interest of the Union industry.
7.2.
Feedback