(108) With regard to the effect of the tariff rate quota, it should be noted that the quoted news article merely stated that the monthly export volumes in August 2018 reached a level that was the lowest since October 2015. Indeed, the export statistics of US ITC showed zero export volumes in August 2018 – a situation that last occurred in October 2015. However, the news article does not provide any information about export trends save for this comparison between August 2018 and October 2015. In fact, the US exports to Brazil resumed in September 2018 and in total increased in 2018 in comparison to the previous year.
(109) In addition, the Commission considered that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence about the structure and functioning of the Brazilian bioethanol industry, nor was the Commission able to retrieve such evidence. Contrary to the claims of the applicant, the export statistics by US ITC showed that US exports of fuel ethanol to Brazil had been continuously increasing in the period considered and grew also in 2018. Therefore, the applicant's claims concerning the attractiveness of the Brazilian market for US producers and/or exporters must be rejected.
(110) Following the disclosure, the applicant claimed that the Commission artificially reduced the likely impact on the Union market of the Peruvian measures by viewing potential trade diversion from China and Peru in isolation.
(111) Taking into account the specifics of the Union market, i.e. the maximum allowed water content of the product under review and the RED sustainability certification that is
de facto
necessary to sell on the Union market as explained in recital 100, the Commission considered it unlikely that the US exports to Peru and China would be redirected to the Union market to their full extent. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide any evidence that would support its assertion. Therefore, this claim must be rejected.
3.3.3.
Conclusion on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping
(112) In light of the above assessment on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping should measures be allowed to lapse, the Commission concluded it unlikely that US bioethanol producers would export significant quantities of bioethanol to the Union at dumped prices, should the measures be allowed to lapse.
(113) Following the disclosure, the applicant claimed that the Commission should have followed its past practice to conclude that the non-cooperation of the US producers constitutes additional – and important – evidence that ‘
[e]xporting producers were not willing or able to show that no dumping would take place if measures were allowed to lapse
’ (24).
Feedback