1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 393/98
of 16 February 1998
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof
originating in the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and
Thailand
(OJ L 50, 20.2.1998, p. 1)
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 148, 19.5.1998, p. 48 (393/98)
▼B
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 393/98
of 16 February 1998
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel
fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People's Republic ofChina, India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and
Thailand
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December
1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members
of the EuropeanCommun ity(1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.PROVISIONAL MEASURES
(1)By CommissionRegulation(EC) No 1732/97(2) (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the provisional duty Regulation’) provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed on imports into the Community of
stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof (hereafter called SSFs)
falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 731814 10, 7318 1530,731815 51, 7318 1561, 7318 1570 and 7318 1630 originating inthe People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea,Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand.
B.SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
(2)Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping
measures, certain interested parties submitted comments inwriting.
(3)Those parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be
heard by the Commission.
(4)The Commission continued to seek and verify all information
deemed necessary for its definitive findings.
(5)Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations onthe basis of which it was intended to recommend the impositionof definitive anti-dumping duties and the definitive collection ofamounts secured by way of provisional duties. They were alsogranted a period within which to make representations subsequent
to this disclosure.
(6)The oral and written comments were considered and, where
deemed appropriate, taken into account in the definitive findings.
C.PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(7)For the purposes of its preliminary findings the Commission
considered stainless steel fasteners produced and sold in India,
Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand and thoseexported to the Community from the countries concerned as wellas those produced and sold in the Community by Communityproducers, as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) ofRegulation(EC) No 384/96 (hereafter called ‘the Basic Regula-
tion’) as they have the same basic physical, chemical and
technical characteristics and uses.
(8)It has againbeenclaimed by some exporters (as prior to theimpositionof provision al measures) that n uts imported from the1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. Regulationas amen ded by Regulation(EC) No
2331/96 (OJ L 317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1).
(2) OJ L 243, 4. 9. 1997, p. 17.
▼B
countries concerned should be excluded from the investigation on
the basis that there is little or no production of nuts within theCommunity.
(9)However, as at the provisional stage, this allegation is notconfirmed by the results of the investigation which has shownthat
nuts are manufactured by the Community producers. It was not,
therefore, considered justifiable to exclude nuts from the scope ofthe present proceeding.
(10)One exporting Indian producer claimed that the domestic sales ofa certaintype of high carbonalloy steel screws made by thatcompany should be used to determine the normal value of somestainless steel screws exported to the Community on the groundsthat these types of screws were comparable. However the
investigation has shown that these different types of steel screws
could not be considered as like products since their physicalcharacteristics are different from those of the exported productconcerned. This claim was therefore rejected.
(11)Several exporting producers in Taiwan contested the fact that inthe provisional duty Regulation non-standard SSFs have beenexcluded from the dumping calculations, although the Commis-sion considered these non-standard SSFs as a like product. As
already explained in recital 9 of the provisional duty Regulation,
the Commission considered standard SSFs to be sufficientlyrepresentative, i.e. more than 70 % of total exports of SSFs to theCommunity to serve as a basis for the determination of dumpingof all exports concerned. This approach is confirmed for all
companies with the exception of one. For this company the
analysis revealed that non-standard SSFs represented a largemajority of its export sales to the Community. It was thereforedecided that for this exporter the dumping calculations had to beadjusted in order to include non-standard SSFs.
(12)Since no other comments were received on the definition of the‘like product’ the findings made on the issue, as established inrecital 11 of the provisional duty Regulation, are confirmed.
D.DUMPING
1.Normal value
(a)India
(13)One company claimed that the Commission had wrongly
determined its constructed normal value by using an inaccurateallocationkey inthe calculationof cost of production . This claimwas rejected since the allocation key used by the Communityinstitution more accurately reflected the raw material costs ascompared to the one proposed by the company concerned.
(14)The other two cooperating exporting producers claimed that themethodology used for the determination of normal value set out in
recital 15 of the provisional duty Regulation, i.e. to use, whenever
possible, the weighted average ex-works prices of the cooperatingproducer which had domestic sales, did not allow a propercomparisonwith their export prices.
In this respect, it was eventually found that normal values based
on the ex-works domestic prices of the only cooperating Indian
producer selling SSFs on the domestic market were notcomparable with the export prices of the two exporting producers.This was due to an incorrect classification by this company of thedifferent types of SSFs sold on the domestic market which madethe comparisonin appropriate.
For these two companies, the Commission therefore calculated a
constructed normal value for all types of SSFs exported to theCommunity during the investigation period. This was done on thebasis of manufacturing costs of the exported types plus areasonable amount for sales, general and administrative expenses1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 3
▼B
(hereafter called ‘SG&A’) and profit. The methodology applied
for the determination of the amount for SG&A and profit remainsthe same as at the provisional stage, i.e. it is based on the only
cooperating producer selling the product concerned on the Indian
market. However, since the normal value of this Indian producerhas changed, the amount for SG&A and profit margin has beencorrected accordingly.
(b)Republic of Korea
(15)In the absence of further arguments, the provisional findings are
hereby confirmed.
(c)Malaysia
(16)One Malaysian exporting producer contested the methodology
used in establishing SG&A and profit margin when constructing
normal value. It isrecalled that, in accordance with Article 2(6) of
the Basic Regulation, SG&A were based on the data pertaining tothis company while the profit margin was based on the weightedaverage profit made bythe groupto which the company belonged.
Inthis respect, it is con sidered that the fact that the domestic sales
are not made in representative quantities is not in itself sufficient
to disregard the data pertaining to these sales in the context of
Article 2(6)(c) of the Basic Regulation. In this particular case, asfar as SG&A are concerned, the investigation showed that thiscompany's SG&A proved to be in line with the average amount ofSG&A found for all companies investigated in the proceeding asalready explained in recital 18 of the provisional duty Regulation.
The use of this SG&A was therefore considered to be the most
reasonable method. With regard to profits, as the company'sprofits differed greatly from those found for other producers,which might result from the fact that this company is a fully-owned subsidiary of a foreign group, it was considered that the
domestic sales could not constitute a reasonable basis for this
determination. In these circumstances, the Commission consid-ered that the methodology used inthe provision al duty Regulation(based onthe profit marginfoun d inrespect of the productconcerned for the group to which this company belonged) was themost appropriate means of reflecting the economic reality of this
company for establishing profit realised on sales in Malaysia.
Consequently, the claim was rejected.
(17)The same company objected to the fact that the Commission had
disregarded unprofitable domestic sales when calculating the
profit margin to be used in the constructed normal value. It shouldbe recalled that for certainproduct types domestic sales made at aloss represented more than 20 % of total domestic sales of thistype. Thus, sales made at a loss were not made in the ordinarycourse of trade and could consequently not be taken into
consideration for the determination of the profit margin.
(d)Taiwan
(18)Three exporting producers objected to the methodology used to
determine normal value as set out in recital 20 of the provisionalduty Regulation. They argued that normal value should have been
constructed rather than being based on the prices charged by other
producers inTaiwan .
In accordance with Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation, normal
value is normally based on domestic prices. If an exporter doesnot make sufficient domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade,normal value will be established on the basis of other exporters'
sales prices for the comparable product. Only in the absence of
representative domestic sales by other producers, or if such salesprices are not suitable, will normal value be constructed inaccordance with Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation. Moreover,the exporters in question did not substantiate why the use of theother exporters' prices should not have been suitable. Therefore,1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 4
▼B
normal value was determined, wherever possible, on the basis of
the domestic prices of the other Taiwanese companies.
(19)Two exporting producers estimated that the profit margin used forthe constructed normal values was too high and claimed that theCommission had not provided sufficient information on thecalculationmethod of this profit margin . Inthis respect, it should
be noted that the Commission provided a summary table
regarding the data used for the calculation of the average profitmargin. As these data were taken from other Taiwanesecompanies, no further details could be disclosed since, inaccordance with Article 19(4) of the Basic Regulation, disclosure
must take into account the legitimate interests of the parties
concerned that their business secrets should not be divulged.
(20)As in Malaysia, one exporting producer claimed that unprofitabledomestic sales should be taken into account when calculating the
profit margin to be used in constructed normal value. This request
was rejected on the grounds explained in recital 17 with regard toMalaysia.
(21)Two related exporting producers contested that, in the case ofdomestic sales made through a related reselling company, normalvalue was established onthe basis of the prices at which theproduct was first resold to an independent customer. They arguedthat, although these sales were made to a related company, theywere made at arm's length prices, i.e. they were in the ordinary
course of trade inthe sen se of the third paragraph of Article 2(1)
of the Basic Regulation. Consequently, it was requested that theprices paid by the related reselling company be used in thecalculation of normal value. However, the analysis of prices ofsales by these two related producers to both related and unrelated
customers did not show that the prices to the former were at arm's
length. Under these circumstances, this claim had to be rejected.
(e)Thailand
(22)A Thai company claimed that certain amounts related to export
sales had been included in the SG&A used for constructing the
normal value and that they should consequently be excluded.
After verification the Commission granted this request andamended the calculations of the costs of production accordingly.
(23)It should be noted that this amendment also influenced thedeterminations for the second company as these SG&A were usedto construct its normal value.
(24)The same company claimed that the use of the constructed normalvalue was not appropriate where there were sales of similar typeson the domestic market. This claim could not be accepted sincethe differences between the exported types and the types proposedwere of more than a minor nature. Thus, a comparison on thebasis proposed by this company would have necessitated
adjustments for differences in physical characteristics of such
an extent that the comparison would no longer have beenaccurate.
(25)It should be noted that as far as the third Thai company isconcerned, which had been provisionally subject to an individualduty, it was finally not possible to establish a definitive dumpingmargin as it exported a negligible quantity of stainless steelfasteners which were not produced in Thailand.
(f)People's Republic of China
(i) Analogue country
(26)One cooperating company in Hong Kong which exported SSFs
originating in the People's Republic of China proposed that itsdomestic sales in Hong Kong be used to determine normal valuefor the People's Republic of China instead of data relating toTaiwan, which was selected as an analogue country. In the1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 5
▼B
absence of new arguments to justify the choice of Hong Kong as
an analogue country and since the domestic sales of this companyrepresented less than 5 % of the total Chinese export sales to the
Community, this proposal was rejected.
(ii) Amendment to normal value
(27)For the company referred to in recital 26, it should be noted that
the amendments made to the Taiwanese normal value influencedthe calculations of its own normal value.
(g)Conclusion
(28)The other findings made in recitals 12 to 28 of the provisional
duty Regulation concerning the determination of normal value arehereby confirmed.
2.Export price
(a)India
(29)As stated in recital 29 of the provisional duty Regulation, the
export prices of the Indian producer which sold the productconcerned for export through a trading company were establishedon the basis of the prices it charged to the trading company. Thiscompany contested the adjustments made to these export prices.However, after verificationan d inthe light of all available
information, it was concluded that the approach taken at the
provisional stage was not appropriate as the price charged to thetrading company was not reliable because of the existence of anassociation or compensatory arrangement between the producerand this company. At the definitive stage export prices were
therefore based on the prices charged to the first independent
customer inthe Commun ity.
(b)Taiwan
(30)As no arguments were received except for those relating to the
changes regarding the product concerned mentioned under recital8, the findings set out in recital 33 of the provisional duty
Regulationare hereby con firmed.
(c)People's Republic of China
(i) Individual treatment
(31)The six cooperating companies which were refused individual
treatment reiterated their claim in this respect. However, only oneof the six companies provided substantial additional evidence in
support of its claim. After a careful examination of this evidence,
it was concluded that this company enjoyed a degree of legal andfactual independence from the influence of the State comparableto that which would prevail in a market economy country.Individual treatment was therefore granted to this company.
(32)The other five cooperating companies did not provide relevantadditional evidence in support of their claim for individual
treatment. It was therefore confirmed that these companies were
not sufficiently independent from the Chinese State in theiroperation s, inparticular inview of the fact that four of them werejoint ventures in which the partner from the People's Republic ofChina was a State-owned enterprise. The remaining company also
failed to show that its operations were sufficiently independent of
the Chinese authorities.
Under these circumstances, the claim for individual treatment
made by these five companies was rejected.1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 6
▼B
(ii) Use of Eurostat as export prices
(33)Some interested parties contested the use of Eurostat by the
Commissioninthe determin ationof the export prices. These
interested parties argued that the Eurostat figures were greatly
overestimated, and that the seven cooperating companies in thePeople's Republic of China and Hong Kong in reality accountedfor the majority of the exports concerned, and were thereforerepresentative.
However, these interested parties failed to show the alleged
inaccuracy of Eurostat figures and to provide more reliablealternative data. Moreover, the Commission investigated theaccuracy of Eurostat data by contacting Eurostat, national custom
authorities, and the European importers concerned. The outcome
of this inquiry confirmed that Eurostat was the most reliablesource of information for the purpose of the current investigation.Therefore, the methodology used in the provisional determinationis confirmed.
(d)Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand
(34)In the absence of new arguments, the provisional findings are
hereby confirmed.
3.Comparison
(a)India
(35)For the two companies mentioned under recital 29, in order to
make a fair comparison between normal value and export pricethe latter had to be adjusted to take account of the activities of thetrading company. Since its function can be considered to be
similar to that of a trader acting on a commission basis, an
adjustment was made on the basis of this company's own SG&Aand a reasonable amount for profit. This adjustment was deductedfrom the prices charged by the trading company to independentcustomers inthe Commun ity.
(36)These companies also alleged that insufficient allowance had
been granted for duty drawback. In this respect it should be noted
that they failed to submit conclusive evidence to substantiate theclaim that all stainless steel used for the production of fasteners,including those sold domestically, contained imported rawmaterials for which duties were paid inaccordan ce with Article
2(10)(b) of the Basic Regulation. Therefore the position set out in
recital 42 of the provisional duty Regulation is hereby confirmed.
(37)Of these two companies, the one which produced and sold theproduct concerned on the domestic market repeated the claim setout in recital 41 of the provisional duty Regulation concerningadjustment for credit costs. As the company concerned did not
supply new supporting evidence, the position set out in recital 41
of the provisional duty Regulation is hereby confirmed.
(38)The same companies also claimed an adjustment for level of tradeon the grounds that domestic sales were made to traders and endusers whereas the sales for export were made to traders only. Thecompanies provided sufficient evidence showing that a part of
domestic sales was made at a level of sale different to export sales
and that this difference affected price comparability. Indeed, therewere consistent and distinct differences in the functions and pricesof the two companies for the different levels of trade.Consequently, the claim was granted and the calculation basedon a comparison of the domestic and export sales to traders only
where they were made in sufficient quantities to be representative.
(b)Malaysia
(39)One Malaysian exporting producer claimed an allowance for
currency conversions on export sales and requested that theexchange rate prevailing on the payment date be used. This claim1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 7
▼B
was rejected on the grounds that, in accordance with Article
2(10)(j) of the Basic Regulation, the relevant exchange rate canbe either that on the date of invoice, the date of contract, the date
of purchase order or the date of order confirmation, but not the
one valid for the date of payment.
(c)Taiwan
(40)The exporting producers mentioned under recital 18 who had
requested that normal value be constructed rather than based on
the prices of other producers claimed that if this request were
rejected, an adjustment for differences in level of trade should bemade since the product concerned was sold to retailers on thedomestic market whereas the export product was sold to traders.This claim was rejected since the prices used were taken fromproducers who had already incomparable circumstan ces been
refused the same kind of level of trade adjustment.
(41)Two related exporting producers claimed an allowance for
currency conversions similar to the one discussed in recital 39.The claim was rejected onthe same groun ds set out inthat recital.
(42)These two related companies claimed an allowance for the creditcost of sales onthe domestic market an d requested that the actualpayment date be used. This claim was rejected on the grounds
already mentioned in recital 41 of the provisional duty
Regulation.
(d)Republic of Korea, Thailand, People's Republic of China
(43)In the absence of new arguments, the provisional methodology is
hereby confirmed.
4.Dumping margins
(a)General
(44)In the absence of any other new arguments concerning the
determination of the dumping margin, the methodology set out inrecitals 45 to 47 of the provisional duty Regulation is herebyconfirmed. On this basis, the dumping margins are as follows:
(b)India
(45)Inview of the changes in the calculations mentioned above, it was
found that, for the two exporting producers in India which did notsell the product concerned on the domestic market, there was apattern of export prices which differed significantly amongdifferent time periods and that a calculation based on weighted
average would not reflect the full degree of dumping being
practised. The new weighted average normal value was thereforecompared to prices of all individual export transactions.
(46)The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif price atCommunity frontier are as follows:
—Audler Fasteners, Vasai 11,2 %
—Lakshmi PrecisionScrews Ltd, Rothak 19,8 %
—Kundan Industries Ltd, Vasai/Tata Export Ltd,Mumbai 47,4 %.
(47)The dumping margin definitively established for Indian exportersother than those cooperating in this investigation, expressed as apercentage of the cif price at Community frontier, is 59,4 %.
(c)Republic of Korea
(48)In the absence of any comment from the sole cooperating
exporting producer in Korea, its dumping margin remains1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 8
▼B
unchanged; this margin, expressed as a percentage of the cif price
at Community frontier is as follows:
—Daegil Trading Co. Ltd, Seoul 24,0 %
The definitive dumping margin established for Korean exporting
producers other than those cooperating in this investigation,expressed as a percentage of the cif price at Community frontier
is 26,7 %.
(d)Malaysia
(49)One Malaysian exporting producer contested the existence of a
pattern in its export prices which differed significantly amongdifferent time periods in the sense of Article 2(11) of the BasicRegulation. This exporter pointed out that the steady decrease inits export prices during the period of investigation could be
explained by a parallel decrease in the costs of raw materials.
Should monthly average costs instead of a yearly average costhave been used in the dumping calculation, the pattern mentionedabove would have disappeared. Inview of the eviden ce submittedthe claim was accepted and the dumping margin for this companywas established onanaverage to average basis for the purpose of
definitive determination.
One company in Malaysia offered undertakings on the basis of
Article 8 of the Basic Regulation. However, after consultationwith the Commissionthe compan y withdrew its request.
The definitive dumping margins calculated for the cooperating
Malaysian exporting producers, expressed as a percentage of thecif price at Community frontier, are as follows:
—Tong Heer Fasteners Co., Sdn. Bhd., Penang 7,0 %
—Tigges Stainless Steel Fasteners (M) Sdn. Bhd. 5,7 %.
(50)The definitive dumping margin established for Malaysianexporting producers other than those cooperating in this
investigation, expressed as a percentage of the cif price at
Community frontier is 7,0 %.
(e)Taiwan
(51)Some non-cooperating exporting producers in Taiwan submitted
information to the Commission concerning their export prices inorder to showthat, had these prices beenused inthe calculationofthe residual duty, this duty would have beenmuch lower. Whilstthese companies acknowledged that they should be considered as
non-cooperating parties, they requested that their data never-
theless be taken into consideration as part of the facts available inthe sense of Article 18(1) of the Basic Regulation. This claim isnot acceptable since it would consitute a bonus for non-cooperation and could result in unreliable findings due to
selectively submitted information. Moreover, pursuant to Article
18(3) of the Basic Regulation, the information submitted by aninterested party should not be disregarded provided that, inter
alia, it is appropriately submitted ingood time an d it is verifiable.
However, none of these conditions is fulfilled in the present case.
(52)The same non-cooperating companies contested that, whilst asingle dumping margin had been imposed on two relatedTaiwanese companies, the residual duty was based on the
individual margin found for one of these related companies, this
margin being the highest found in Taiwan. However, the fact thatanaverage dumpin g marginis imposed ona group of relatedcompanies in order to avoid circumvention does not have abearing on the determination of the duty applicable to non-cooperating companies. The claim was therefore rejected.1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 9
▼B
(53)For three exporting producers in Taiwan, the new weighted
average normal value was compared to prices of all individual
export transactions as it was found that there was a pattern ofexport prices which differed significantly among different timeperiods and that a calculation based on weighted average wouldnot have reflected the full degree of dumping being practised.
(54)The definitive dumping margins established for the cooperatingTaiwanese exporting producers, expressed as a percentage of thecif price at Community frontier, are as follows:
—Arrow Fastener Co. Ltd/Level Fastener Co.Ltd, Taipei 5,3 %
—CLC Industrial Co. Ltd, Taiwan 5,4 %
—MinHwei, Kaohsiun g 10,2 %
—Rodex Fasteners Corp., Chung Li 8,8 %
—SenChan g, Tao Yuen 11,1 %
—Tong Hwei, Kaohsiung 10,2 %.
(55)The definitive dumping margin established for the Taiwaneseexporting producers other than those cooperating in thisinvestigation, expressed as a percentage of the cif price at
Community frontier is 23,1 %.
(f)Thailand
(56)In view of the amendments made to the normal value mentioned
above, the definitive dumping margins established for the twocooperating Thai exporting producers, expressed as a percentageof the cif price at Community frontier, are as follows:
—A.B.P. Stainless Steel Fastener Co. Ltd 8,4 %
—Dura Fastener Co. Ltd 2,7 %.
(57)The definitive dumping margin established for the Thai exporting
producers other than those cooperating in this investigation,
expressed as a percentage of the cif price at Community frontieris 8,4 %.
(g)People's Republic of China
(58)With regard to the company in the People's Republic of China
which was granted individual treatment only at the definitivestage, the weighted average normal value fob Taiwan national
frontier was compared with its own weighted average export
prices fob China national frontier at the same level of trade.
Four cooperating companies in China which were not granted
individual treatment requested an undertaking on the basis ofArticle 8 of the Basic Regulation. However, undertakings are notnormally accepted from companies operating in non-marketeconomy countries. Moreover, in this case the risk of circumven-tion is high and it should be noted that these companies were
refused individual treatment because it was considered that they
were not operating under normal market economy conditions.Under these circumstances the proposed undertakings could notbe accepted.
The definitive dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the
cif price at Community frontier, is as follows.
—Ningbo Shyechang Metal Products 24,2 %.
With regard to the company which was already granted individual
treatment in the provisional duty Regulation, the definitivedumping margin based on the amended Taiwanese normal value1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 10
▼B
expressed as a percentage of the cif price at Community frontier
is as follows:
—Power VanIn dustrial Co. Ltd 13,6 %.
(59)For the Chinese exporting producers other than those mentionedabove, the definitive dumping margin based on the amendedTaiwanese normal value expressed as a percentage of the cif priceat Community frontier is 78,0 %.
E.INJURY
1.Cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped
imports
(60)Representatives of certain Indian exporters have claimed thatimports from India should not be cumulated with imports of theproduct concerned from the People's Republic of China,Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand andshould be excluded from the scope of the proceeding. This claim
was made on the basis that the increase in the volume and market
share of imports from India was not comparable to that of theother third countries concerned and that the volume of importsfrom India during the investigation period was lower than in 1995(by 1,5 %). Inaddition , it was alleged that the market share held
by India during the investigation period (2,9 %) was negligible ‘in
the overall trade of the product concerned’.
(61)Inthis respect, the in vestigationhas shownthat the volume ofimports from India during the investigation period was signifi-cant, as were the volume of imports from the other countriesconcerned. Moreover, when the volume of imports from Indiaduring the investigation period (11 months) is extrapolated for a
12-month period and compared to 1995 levels the volume
actually increased. Furthermore, pursuant to Articles 5(7) and9(3) of the Basic Regulation a market share of 2,9 % cannot beconsidered as negligible.
(62)Inthe light of the above, it is con cluded that imports of theproduct concerned from India should be examined cumulativelywith the imports from the other countries concerned.
2.Prices of the dumped imports on the Community market
(63)Indian exporters have claimed that the imports of the product
concerned originating in India have not caused injury to the
Community industry given that their average prices have beenstable for much of the period considered and, between 1994 and1996, have increased by 19 %.
(64)The investigation has shown that the weighted average prices ofthe Indian imports remained relatively stable between 1992 and1994, but at a very low price level and significantly below the
level of the Community producers' prices, even when account is
taken of the subsequent increase in prices. It should also beremembered that substantial levels of undercutting were estab-lished during the investigation period.
(65)Similar allegations have been made by the Taiwanese exporters,i.e. that the prices of the imports from Taiwanwere stable overthe period considered.
Again, the prices of the Taiwanese imports show some stability
but at a relatively low price level. SSFs from Taiwanwereimported in large quantities and undercut the Communityproducer's prices substantially during the investigation period.
3.Price undercutting
(66)The basis of calculation of price undercutting is set out in recital
65 of the provisional duty Regulation.1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 11
▼B
(67)However, new information on export sales and prices was
supplied by three exporters (two Indian and one Taiwanese).
Revised undercutting margins were established on the basis ofthis new data.
(68)As a consequence of individual treatment being granted to asecond cooperating exporter in China an individual undercuttingmargin was calculated for the exporter concerned and a revisedundercutting margin calculated for the remaining five cooperatingexporters inChin a.
(69)Inadditionto the above, the adjustmen ts to the cif export pricegranted to all exporters (to take account of post-importationexpenses incurred) were recalculated and resulted in minor
changes to the margins of undercutting provisionally established.
(70)The revised margins of undercutting are expressed, as in the
provisional duty Regulation, as a percentage of the Community
industry's prices (at ex-works level). The undercutting margins
established are as follows:
Country Undercutting margin
People's Republic of China from 39,4 to 39,8 %
Malaysia from 21,8 to 42,5 %
Taiwanfrom 17,8 to 60,9 %India from 23,6 to 36,6 %
Korea 22,7 %
Thailand from 25 to 33,5 %
(71)
An overall weighted average price undercutting from all countries
concerned of 28,7 % was found for the investigation period.
4.Situation of the Community industry
4.1.Production, capacity, capacity utilisation rates and market
shares
(72)Chinese exporters have alleged that any injury suffered by theCommunity industry is due to the increase in production andproduction capacity by the producers concerned over the periodconsidered, most noticeably in 1994.
(73)However, the investigation has shown that consumption of theproduct concerned increased by 75 % between 1992 and 1996.Even though capacity increased by 91 % (mainly due toacquisition by a complaining Community producer of a non-
complaining producer's production facilities), production by the
Community industry increased by only 48 %. In addition,capacity utilisationrates decreased by 18 %. The market shareof the Community producers decreased by 7 % over the periodconsidered while that of the exporters concerned increased by16,5 %. The investigation has shownthat the Community industry
was unable to take full advantage of the increase in consumption
due to the high volume and low prices of the dumped imports.
4.2.Stocks
(74)Chinese exporters have claimed that the increase in the stocks of
the Community producers is due to an increase in production ofSSFs during a period when there was ‘no increase in consumptionto absorb these extra SSFs’.
(75)The investigation has shown that this is not the case as can beseen from the development of consumption as outlined in thepreceding recital. Indeed, the increase in consumption (75 %) wassignificantly greater than that of production (48 %) and sales(27 %) of the Community industry.1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 12
▼B
4.3.Prices
(76)Chinese exporters have further claimed that (contrary to the
above) although consumption increased between 1992 and 1996,
the Commission failed to take account of the increase in
production capacity by the Community producers and that inthe circumstances any drastic increase in prices would not havebeenexpected.
(77)This argument does not appear to be particularly pertinent andfails to take account of the fact that, despite an increase in
production capacity, and an overall negligible increase in prices
by the Community industry, the increase in sales did not keeppace with the increase in consumption and the Communityindustry's lost market share over the period considered.
4.4.Profitability
(78)It has been claimed that the negative situation of the Community
industry was overstated in the provisional duty Regulation andseparate information has been provided by exporters' representa-tives on the overall financial strength of each of the fivecomplaining producers.
(79)Information supplied related to all five companies for the periods
prior and up to the investigation period. However, information in
relation to profitability during the period of investigation wasprovided for only one of the complaining producers and wastherefore incomplete. For this producer the information confirmsthe facts as established during the investigation, i.e. that there wasa sharp and significant decrease in profitability during the
investigation period. In addition, the investigation has shown
that this decline was clearly evident for each of the othercomplaining producers during the investigation period. This claimis therefore rejected.
4.5.Employment
(80)It has been alleged that despite heavy investment in automated
production machinery the number of employees in the Commu-nity industry increased by 16 % over the period considered (from325 to 378) and that this increase in employment is an indicationthat the Community industry is not suffering material injury.
(81)The investigation has shown that, despite heavy investment in
production machinery (which necessitated additional employ-
ment) and an increase in productivity of 10 % between 1992 andthe investigation period, the Community industry experienced aloss of market share and a serious deterioration in its financialsituation.
5.Conclusion on injury
(82)It should be remembered, inaccordan ce with Article 3(5) of the
Basic Regulation, that any one of the above injury factors cannotnecessarily give decisive guidance as to the impact of the dumpedimports on the situation of the Community industry.
(83)In this respect it is to be noted that, while production and sales by
the Community industry increased, this development cannot lead
to the conclusion that the Community industry has not beeninjured as consumption on the Community market shows a muchgreater increase. Furthermore, the market share held by thedumped imports increased by 17 % (to 50,1 %) during a period
when the Community industry's market share decreased by 7 %
(to 19 %) and its profitability suffered and significant decline.
(84)In the light of the above and in the absence of other arguments, itis confirmed that, as was established in recitals 66 to 73 of theprovisional duty Regulation, the Community industry has sufferedmaterial injury within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the BasicRegulation.1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 13
▼B
F.CAUSATION
1.Effect of the dumped imports
(85)Indian exporters have referred to the fact that the financial
situation of the Community producers was negative in 1992 at a
time when the imports from India were ‘nearly non-existent’.
(86)In this respect it is noted, in the first instance, that the impact of
the Indian imports on the situation of the Community industryshould, as previously stated, be examined cumulatively with theimports from the other countries concerned. Cumulatively, the
volume of imports from the countries concerned represented
57,5 % of total imports in1992 (33,5 % of Commun ityconsumption). In addition, even if considered separately, theIndian imports were seen to increase at the same time as themarket share and profits of the Community industry decreased.
2.Effect of other factors
(87)The Commission had provisionally examined the extent to which
the material injury suffered by the Community industry was
caused by the impact of the dumped imports originating in the
People's Republic of China, India, Malaysia, the Republic ofKorea, Taiwan and Thailand and whether other factors had causedor contributed to that injury in order to ensure that any injurycaused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped
imports concerned. Such other factors included the evolution of
consumption, the effect of imports from other third countries,fluctuations in the price of raw materials and any possible anti-competitive practices by the Community industry.
(88)In spite of this detailed analysis on the causation of injury it has
been alleged that there was no causal link between the material
injury suffered by the Community industry and the dumpedimports, or alternatively, that any material injury suffered wascaused by factors other thanthe dumped imports.
(89)Inparticular, it has beenalleged that the scope of the an ti-
dumping proceeding is clearly discriminatory as imports of
stainless steel fasteners originating in South Africa have beenomitted from the investigation even though they have beenimported in large quantities and at very low prices. It is furtheralleged that the only explanation given by the Commission in the
provisional duty Regulation for the exclusion of these imports
from the scope of the investigation is that, in this particularinstance, Eurostat data was found to be unreliable.
(90)Inthis respect it is n oted that as far as Eurostat data areconcerned, imports alleged to originate in South Africa are
considered unreliable as available evidence suggests that there is
no production of the product concerned in South Africa. Nosubmissionhas beenreceived to support the con trary.
(91)It has also been alleged that imports originating in the Philippinesmay have contributed to the injury suffered by the Community
industry and it was stated that the price of the product concerned
originating in the Philippines decreased by 18,3 % between 1995and 1996.
(92)The Council confirms that the price of SSFs originating in the
Philippines decreased between 1995 and 1996. However, the
investigation has shown that, having decreased, prices were stillsignificantly (and consistently) higher than those of the countriesconcerned by the present investigation. Furthermore, theCommission has no evidence that the prices of the productconcerned originating in the Philippines were being dumped.
(93)It has been alleged that the decrease in apparent Communityconsumption in 1996, following three years in which consumptionincreased, had an effect on the situation of the Communityindustry as the industry concerned was expecting a continuousincrease in consumption, had invested heavily in machinery and1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 14
▼B
had increased production in the light of this expectation. Attention
was drawnto Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulationwhich statesthat a ‘contraction of demand’ is one of a number of elements
which may be considered when assessing whether factors other
than the dumped imports have caused injury to the Communityindustry.
(94)The investigation has shown that, between 1992 and 1995,Community consumption increased from 47187 tonnes to 86472tonnes (an increase of 83 %) while it shows a slight decrease in1996 to 82352 tonnes (a decrease of 4,7 %). This small decreasein consumption can not by itself explain the substantialdeterioration of the economic situation of the Community
industry during the investigation period, in particular in terms
of the decrease inthe market share of this in dustry.
(95)It has also been alleged that any injury suffered is partly due to a
‘frivolous’ pricing policy adopted by the Community producers. It
was alleged that between 1992 and 1994 the Community industryreduced its sales prices by 10 %, but incompen sationitsproduction increased by 48 %, its volume of sales by 44 % and itsprofitability improved by 7,7 %. It was thenalleged that in1995the Community industry radically changed its policy and
in creased its prices which resulted ina decrease insales volume
and loss of market share.
(96)This allegationshould be seeninthe con text of the overall results
of the investigation. Essentially, the investigation has shown that
while the weighted average prices of the Community industrydecreased between 1992 and 1994 and increased in 1995, pricesdecreased again substantially during the investigation period.Over the entire period considered prices only show an increase of1% .
(97)Specifically, between 1994 and 1995, the prices and profits of theCommunity industry increased (at a time when, under pressurefrom the imports concerned, the Community industry maintained
profits at the expense of market share). However, after 1995, the
cumulated effect of the dumped imports led to anoversupply onthe Community market forcing the Community industry to lowerprices and profits in the investigation period, while losing furthermarket share. This shows that inspite of fluctuation s inprices,aimed at dealing with the pressure from the dumped imports
concerned, the Community industry was unable to either retain
market share or sustain reasonable levels of profit during theperiod considered.
(98)It was furthermore alleged that the Community industry adoptedanti-competitive behaviour and that there was collusion betweenthe complaining Community producers concerned.
(99)No evidence has been provided or found in support of these
allegations. This submission could not, therefore, be accepted.
3.Conclusion on causation
(100)Based on the findings as explained above, and in accordance with
recitals 74 to 82 of the provisional duty Regulation, it isconfirmed that the combined low-priced dumped imports
originating in the People's Republic of China, India, Malaysia,
the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, taken in isolation,have caused material injury to the Community industry.
G.COMMUNITY INTEREST
1.Impact of the measures
(101)In the provisional duty Regulation the Commission indicated why
the Community interest calls for intervention and why no
compelling reasons existed for not imposing measures.
(102)Inparticular, the Commissioncon cluded that measures canbeexpected to afford the Community industry the opportunity to1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 15
▼B
regain lost market share and restore profitability, with consequent
beneficial effects on competitive conditions on the Communitymarket.
(103)Inspite of the detailed an alysis giveninrecitals 84 to 98 of theprovisional duty Regulation it has been alleged that it is not in theCommunity interest to impose anti-dumping measures in the
present proceeding. In particular, it was claimed that far more
people are employed by importers/traders inthe productconcerned than by the Community producers, that importers/traders would be forced to buy at artificially high prices byCommunity producers as a result of a foreseen reduction in the
volume of imports and that importers/traders would be forced to
cut back onemploymen t.
(104)In addition, it was alleged that the downstream industry would beaffected if definitive measures were imposed, because it would
suffer significant price increases and that the user industry would
be deprived of certainproducts (i.e. n uts).
(105)The investigation has shown that the Community industry is
unable to cater for demand on the Community market and that
there is a continuing need for imported products. Based on theresults of the analysis and taking into account the past behaviourof the Community industry, it appears reasonable to conclude thatthe prices of SSFs will inall likelihood in crease as a result ofmeasures. However, giventhat the importers/traders have man y
options as regards sources of supply (including being supplied by
the Community industry as seen during the investigation period)and that the margins of importers/traders have been goodthroughout the period, it is considered that the effect of measurescould be minimised by a combination of a small reduction in
profit margins and slight price increases to the user industry.
Given the continued need for imported product and given thatboth imported and Community produced product is sold to usersthrough a well established network of traders it is considered thatemployment of importers/traders will not be adversely affected bythe impositionof measures.
(106)As regards the users of the product concerned, it is considered, asstated inrecitals 95 to 97 of the provision al duty Regulation , thatthe extent to whicht SSFs have an impact on the cost of finished
product is negligible and that, therefore, any increase in these
costs is unlikely to have a significant effect on users' costs. It isfurther noted that the imposition of an anti-dumping duty will stillpermit traders to import the product concerned (i.e. includingnuts).
(107)In the absence of further arguments with regard to the interests ofraw material suppliers the conclusions as stated in recitals 86 and87 of the provisional duty Regulation are confirmed.
2.Conclusion on Community interest
(108)In summary, after an appreciation of all the various interests, and
for the reasons given in recitals 84 to 98 of the provisional dutyRegulation it is concluded that, on balance, it is in the Communityinterest to impose definitive measures.
H.ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
1.Injury elimination level
(109)Based on the above conclusions on dumping, injury, causal link
and Community interest, it was then considered what level andform the anti-dumping measures should take in order to removethe trade-distorting effects of injurious dumping and to restoreeffective competitive conditions on the Community market.
(110)After publication of the provisional duty Regulation, newinformation (as previously stated) on export sales and priceswassupplied by representatives of three exporters (two Indian and1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 16
▼B
one Taiwanese). Revised injury elimination levels were estab-
lished onthe basis of this n ew data.
(111)In addition, as a consequence of individual treatment beinggranted to a second cooperating exporter in China an individualinjury elimination level was calculated for the exporter concernedand a revised injury elimination margin calculated for the otherfive exporters inChin a.
(112)Furthermore, adjustments to the cif export price granted to allexporters (to take account of post-importation expenses incurred)were recalculated and resulted in changes to the marginsprovisionally established. Otherwise, the basis of calculation ofthe injury elimination level is as set out in recital 99 of the
provisional duty Regulation.
(113)The revised injury elimination levels are expressed, as in the
provisional duty Regulation, as a percentage of the weightedaverage free-at-Community-frontier price of the imported
product.
(114)The injury elimination levels established were greater or equal to
the following:
The People's Republic of China 74,7 %
India:
cooperating producers 41,3 %non-cooperating producers 54,0 %Malaysia 37,7 %Republic of Korea 38,6 %Taiwan34,1 %Thailand 48,3 %.
2.Duty
(115)The injury elimination margin established for non-cooperating
producers in India and for companies in the People's Republic of
China which were not granted individual treatment were, in each
case, less than the dumping margins established. The duty should,therefore, be based on the injury margins, in accordance with theprovisions of Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.
(116)Since the injury elimination levels established were, in all othercases, in excess of the dumping margins the duty should be basedon the dumping margins pursuant to Article 9(4) of the BasicRegulation.
(117)The definitive anti-dumping duties, applicable to the net, free-at-
Community-frontier price, before duty should therefore be as
follows:
Country CompanyRate of
duty
China Ningbo Shyechang Metal
Products24,2 %
Power VanIn dustrial Co. Ltd 13,6 %
All other companies 74,7 %
India Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd 19,8 %
Kundan Industries Ltd/Tata
Export Ltd, Mumbai47,4 %
Audler Fasteners 11,2 %
All other companies 54,0 %1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 17
▼B
Country CompanyRate of
duty
Malaysia Tigges Stainless Fasteners (M)
Sdn. Bhd.5,7 %
Tong Heer Fasteners Co. Sdn.
Bhd.7,0 %
All other companies 7,0 %
Republic of Korea Daegil Trading Co. Ltd 24,0 %
All other companies 26,7 %
Taiwan ►C1Arrow Fastener Co. Ltd/
Level Fastener Co. Ltd,
Taipei◄5,3 %
Sen Chang Industrial Co. Ltd 11,1 %
Tong Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd 10,2 %Rodex Fasteners Corp. 8,8 %
CLC Industrial Co. Ltd 5,4 %
MinHwei En terprise Co. Ltd 10,2 %
All other companies 23,1 %
Thailand A.B.P. Stainless Fastener Co.
Ltd8,4 %
Dura Fasteners Co. Ltd 2,7 %
All other companies 8,4 %
I.COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY
(118)
In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the
exporting producers and in the light of the seriousness of theinjury caused to the Community industry, it is considered
necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-
dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1732/97 bedefinitively collected. Amounts secured by way of provisionalanti-dumping duty shall be definitively collected at the rate ofduty definitively imposed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports into
the Community of stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof fallingwithinCN codes 7318 1210, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 1551,7318 15 61, 7318 15 70 and 7318 1630 originating in the People'sRepublic of China, India, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and
Thailand.
2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net
free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, shall be as follows:
Country CompanyRate of
dutyTaric
additional
code
China Ningbo Shyechang Metal
Products24,2 % 8757
Power VanIn dustrial Co. Ltd 13,6 % 8333
All other companies 74,7 % 89001998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 18
▼B
Country CompanyRate of
dutyTaric
additional
code
India Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd 19,8 % 8415
Kundan Industries Ltd/Tata
Export Ltd, Mumbai47,4 % 8416
Audler Fasteners 11,2 % 8417
All other companies 54,0 % 8900
Malaysia Tigges Stainless Fasteners (M)
Sdn. Bhd.5,7 % 8334
Tong Heer Fasteners Co. Sdn.
Bhd.7,0 % 8335
All other companies 7,0 % 8900
Republic of Korea Daegil Trading Co. Ltd 24,0 % 8418
All other companies 26,7 % 8900
Taiwan ►C1Arrow Fastener Co. Ltd/
Level Fastener Co. Ltd,
Taipei◄5,3 % 8336
Sen Chang Industrial Co. Ltd 11,1 % 8337
Tong Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd 10,2 % 8338
Rodex Fasteners Corp. 8,8 % 8408
CLC Industrial Co. Ltd 5,4 % 8409
MinHwei En terprise Co. Ltd 10,2 % 8414
All other companies 23,1 % 8900
Thailand A.B.P. Stainless Fastener Co.
Ltd8,4 % 8419
Dura Fasteners Co. Ltd 2,7 % 8420
All other companies 8,4 % 8900
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duty shall apply.
Article 2
1. The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1732/97 shall be definitively collected
at the rate of the duty definitively imposed.
2. Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping
duty shall be released.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
publicationinthe Official Journal of the European Communities .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States.1998R0393 — EN — 21.02.1998 — 000.001 — 19