2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1601/2001
of2August2001
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping
duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech
Republic,Russia,ThailandandTurkey
(OJ L 211, 4.8.2001, p. 1)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
►M1Council Regulation (EC) No 2288/2002 of 19 December 2002 L 348 52 21.12.2002
►M2Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/2003 of 15 July 2003 L 180 23 18.7.2003
▼B
COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1601/2001
of2August2001
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting
the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certainiron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic,
Russia,ThailandandTurkey
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 notmembersof the European Community (
1), and in particular Article 9
thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission, after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.PROCEDURE
1.Provisionalmeasures
(1)By Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 (2) (‘provisional Regulation’),
the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on
importsof certain iron or s teel ropesand cables(‘SWR’) origi-
nating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey andaccepted undertakingsoffered by certain exporting producersinthe Czech Republic and Turkey.
(2)No provisional measures were imposed on imports from the
Republic of Korea (‘Korea’) and Malaysia in view of the de
minimis dumping marginsfound.
2.Subsequentprocedure
(3)Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considera-
tions on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional
anti-dumping measures, several interested parties submittedcomments in writing. The parties who so requested were grantedan opportunity to be heard.
(4)The Commission continued to seek and verify all informationdeemed necessary for the establishment of definitive findings.
(5)All parties were informed of the essential facts and considera-tionson the bas isof which it wasintended to recommend:
(a) the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports
of SWR originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailandand Turkey and the definitive collection of the amountssecured by way of the provisional duty;
(b) the termination of the proceeding concerning importsof
SWR originating in Korea and Malaysia without the imposi-
tion of measures.
(6)They were also granted a period within which to make represen-
tations subsequent to this disclosure.
(7)The oral and written comments submitted by the interestedpartieswere cons idered and, where appropriate, the definitivefindingshave been modified accordingly.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation aslas t amended by Regulation (EC) No
2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).
(2) OJ L 34, 3.2.2001, p. 4.
▼B
B.PRODUCTCONCERNEDANDLIKEPRODUCT
1.Productconcerned
(8)The provisional Regulation described the product concerned as
ropes and cables, including locked coil ropes, of iron or steelbut not stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimen-sion exceeding 3 mm, with attached fittings or not (referred toby the industry as steel wire ropes or ‘SWR’).
(9)Some interested parties repeated their claim that SWR should bedivided in two groups: some of them distinguished between so-called general purpose SWR (GP) and high performance SWR
(HP), while some others distinguished between Standard General
Purpose Ropes and Special Purpose Ropes. It was alleged thatthey cannot be considered a single product if account is takenof their distinct physical and technical characteristics, distinctmethodsof production, abs ence of meaningful interchange-
ability, separate target markets and the lack of significant
competition.
(10)In this respect, it should first be noted that, although SWR are
produced in a wide range of different typeswith a certain degree
of physical and technical differences, all of them have the samebasic physical characteristics (i.e. the steel wires that form thestrand, the strands that are wrapped around the core that formthe ropes, and the core itself) and the same basic technical char-acteristics (all have a number of wires in a strand, a number of
strands in a rope, a certain diameter and a certain construction).
While productsin the bottom end and in the top end of the rangeare not interchangeable, productsin adjoining groupsare. It wastherefore concluded that a certain degree of overlapping andcompetition existed between SWR in different groups. Moreover,
products in the same group may have different applications.
(11)Secondly, the distinction between GP and HP SWR is based on
the uses of the SWR, i.e. a SWR suitable for various uses as
opposed to a SWR that can only be used for specific applica-
tions. It should be noted that interested parties were not able toshow that a clear dividing line existed between either of thesetwo groups. Moreover, such differentiation does not take intoaccount the fact that there are adjoining groupsin which generalpurpose SWR compete directly with specific purpose SWR and
are therefore interchangeable.
(12)Finally, the distinction between standard and special SWR refers
to the fact that they are manufactured according to a standard
(ISO, DIN, etc.) or do not follow the standard (‘special SWR’;
these special SWR are sometimes a modification of the stan-dard), irrespective of the specific use of the SWR. It should benoted that the basic physical and technical characteristics arecommon to both, whether they are standard or special SWR.
Furthermore, there are adjoining groupsin which a s tandard
SWR competes with a special SWR, since they can be used forthe same purposes and are, therefore, interchangeable.
(13)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals9 to 13 of the provis ional Regulation are confirmed.
2.Likeproduct
(14)In the provisional Regulation it was concluded that the SWR
produced and sold by the Community industry on the Commu-
nity market were alike to the SWR exported to the Communityfrom the countries concerned and those produced and sold on thedomestic markets of the countries concerned. Similarly, theSWR produced and sold on the domestic market in Korea werealike to the SWR originating in Russia and exported to the
Community.
(15)Some interested parties argued that the SWR sold by the
Community industry in the Community were not alike to those2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 3
▼B
imported from the countriesconcerned. In particular it was
argued that the SWR imported from the countriesconcernedwere mainly GP SWR whereas those sold by the Community
industry were mostly HP SWR; therefore the proceeding should
be limited to GP SWR, if at all. It was also requested thatproject SWR be excluded from the scope of measures as theCommunity industry is virtually the exclusive supplier in theCommunity market.
(16)It should be noted that in anti-dumping proceedings the product
concerned and the like product are defined by reference to the
basic physical, technical and/or chemical characteristics and thebasic use. Once the product concerned is defined, i.e. the productproduced in the countriesconcerned and exported to theCommunity, it hasto be examined whether the product producedand sold domestically in the countries concerned and the product
produced and sold by the Community industry in the Community
are alike to the product concerned. In thisres pect, the fact that acertain product type isnot produced in the Community isirrele-vant.
(17)Regarding, in particular, project SWR, which are designedaccording to customer requirements and are manufactured after
the conclusion of contracts often awarded following a tender, it
should be noted that they also share the same basic physical andtechnical characteristics as the other SWR. In any event, even ifthe Community industry has a clear advantage in terms of proxi-mity, it should be noted that exporting producers are notprevented from participating in tenders.
(18)It was therefore concluded that the basic physical and technical
characteristics and the basic use of the SWR imported from the
countries concerned and those produced and sold by theCommunity industry in the Community are alike.
(19)In view of all the above, the findingsin recitals14 to 16 of theprovisional Regulation are confirmed.
C.DUMPING
1.General methodology
(a)Normal value
(20)Some cooperating exporting producerscontes ted the metho-
dology used to establish the amounts for profit added to thecost of manufacturing and to the selling, general and administra-
tive expenses (‘SG&A expenses’) in case of recourse to
constructed normal values. For the Russian and Thai cooperatingexporting producers, by determining the total net profits only onthe basis of the sales made in the ordinary course of trade andnot on the total turnover of all domestic sales of the product
concerned, the Commission would unreasonably inflate the profit
margin. For the Czech cooperating exporting producer, theCommission should have excluded domestic sales of SWR typeswhose volume represented less than 5 % of the volume of thesame type exported to the Community. As prices of such salesare usually not considered for determining the normal value due
to their lack of representativeness, they should also be disre-
garded for the determination of the profit margin.
(21)Pursuant to the chapeau of Article 2(6) of Regulation (EC) No384/96 (the ‘basic Regulation’), the amount for profits has to bebased on data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinarycourse of trade, of the like product in the domestic market of the
exporting country where s uch data isavailable. There iscons e-
quently no reason to express the reasonable profit margin on aset of data including sales which have to be disregarded forbeing outside the ordinary course of trade. It also follows thatonce it is established that the domestic sales of the like productare representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 4
▼B
Regulation, it is proper to then consider all sales made in the
ordinary course of trade. Furthermore, the profit used for theconstruction of the normal value is established at company and
like product level. Domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade
of a given model may yield erratic results when these sales weremade in unrepresentative quantities vis-à-vis the exportedvolume. Prices of these sales are thus disregarded as not repre-sentative for the purpose of establishing the normal value for a
comparable model exported. The influence of any potentially
non-representative data is neutralised when the sales of alldomestically sold models are aggregated at company level,provided that the total domestic sales in the ordinary course oftrade exceed 5 % of the exportsto the Community.
(22)In addition, the Thai cooperating exporting producer also ques-tioned the reasonableness of the profit margin resulting fromthe application of the above methodology. The profit margin
established resulted from a straight application of the appropriate
methodology to the data submitted by the cooperating exportingproducer.
(23)These claims were therefore rejected.
(24)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals18 to 25 and 68 to 70 of the provis ional Regulation areconfirmed.
(b)Export price and comparison
(25)In the absence of any new information on the general metho-
dology for determination of export price and comparisonbetween the normal value and the export price, the provisional
findings as described in recitals 26 to 28 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.
(c)Dumping margins for the companies investigated
(26)The general methodology for establishing the dumping margins
for the companies investigated as described in recital 29 of theprovisional Regulation is confirmed.
(27)It should finally be noted that in cases where an exportingproducer exported more than one product type to the Commu-nity, the weighted average overall dumping margin wasdetermined by computing the dumping found on each type
without zeroing negative differencesbetween normal value and
export price found on individual types.
(d)Dumping margin for non-cooperating companies
(28)In the absence of any new information on the general metho-
dology for determination of the residual dumping margins, theprovisional findings as described in recitals 30 to 34 of theprovisional Regulation are confirmed.
2.TheCzechRepublic
(29)In the absence of any new information on the non-cooperation of
one exporting producer in the Czech Republic, the provisional
findings as described in recital 35 of the provisional Regulation
are confirmed.
(a)Normal value
(30)After provisional measures were imposed, ŽDB a.s. submitted
additional explanation on the allocation of SG&A expenses.The SG&A expenses were revised by deducting the items whichwere proven to the satisfaction of the Commission to have norelation with the production and sales of the product concerned.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 5
▼B
(b)Export price
(31)ŽDB a.s. claimed that exports to the Community via its related
exporter should be disregarded for establishing its export price.Thiswasbas ed on the claim that thisrelated exporter would nolonger export SWR to the Community since ŽDB a.s. had
dismantled one of its plants in September 2000 (after the end of
the IP), which produced most of the SWR sold by the relatedexporter during the IP.
(32)Thisargument could not be accepted. Developmentsoccurringafter the IP can be taken into account exceptionally providedthat the imposition of an anti-dumping duty based on the IPwould be manifestly unsuitable. Indeed, these developmentscould only be used if their effects are manifest, undisputed,
lasting, not open to manipulation and did not stem from a delib-
erate action by interested parties. The simple fact that one of theproduction plantshasbeen clos ed doesnot prevent the relatedexporter from selling SWR produced in the other plant of ŽDBa.s. Indeed, it should also be noted that this related exporter
occasionally sold SWR produced in that other plant during the
IP. Therefore, it wasconcluded that conditionswere not metfor taking into account the alleged cessation in SWR exports bythe related exporter for the determination of the export price ofŽDB a.s.
(33)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecital 38 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(c)Comparison
(34)ŽDB a.s. contested the 5 % adjustment for the notional commis-
sion deducted from the prices charged by the related exporter to
independent customers in the Community since this would not
relate to an actual commission payment. It further claimed thatthe related exporter should have been treated as the export saledepartment of ŽDB a.s. Both companies being related andforming a single economic entity, deduction of a notionalcommission would not have been warranted.
(35)The investigation established that the related exporter does notreplace the exporting department of ŽDB a.s. Indeed, the
exporting department of ŽDB a.s also handles exports itself
without the involvement of the related exporter. A fair compar-ison at ex-works level requires a deduction from the pricescharged by the related exporter to independent customers in theCommunity based on a notional commission corresponding tothe additional trading role of the related exporter which can be
considered similar to the role of a trader acting on a commission
basis. The 5 % adjustment was consequently upheld.
(36)ŽDB a.s. claimed an adjustment on constructed normal valuesfor packing costs since these costs were included in the SG&Aexpenses and an adjustment for the cost of the reels had beenmade on the export price. The Commission established that thealleged differencesin the packing cos tsincluded in the export
price and the normal value at ex-workslevel did not exis t.
Indeed, the amounts reported for transport, insurance andpacking costs in the SG&A expenses did not include any costfor packing since they were equal to the amounts claimed asadjustment for inland freight and insurance alone. Evenassuming that ŽDB a.s. had omitted to break down transport,
insurance and packing costs for claiming the adjustments on
normal value, the claim was not justified since an adjustmentwasmade in res pect of the reported amount for inland freightand insurance. This claim was accordingly rejected.
(37)The adjustment for transport costs on one transaction wasrevised to use actual costs since at the provisional stage it hadbeen, in the absence of other information, based on an estima-tion.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 6
▼B
(38)Therefore, and except where corrected asdes cribed above, the
provisional findings as described in recitals 39 and 40 of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(d)Dumping margin
(39)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned wascompared to the weighted average export priceof each corresponding type.
(40)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin defini-tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif import
price at the Community frontier customs duty unpaid, is for:
— ŽDB a.s.: 30,7 %
(41)In the absence of any new information in this respect, the meth-
odology set out in recital 43 of the provisional Regulation todetermine the residual dumping margin is confirmed. On this
basis the definitive residual dumping margin is 47,1 %.
3.TheRepublicofKorea
(a)Normal value
(42)In the absence of any new information on the methodology for
determination of normal value, the provisional findings asdescribed in recitals 45 to 49 of the provisional Regulation areconfirmed.
(b)Export price
(43)In the absence of any new information on the methodology for
determination of export price, the provisional findings as
described in recital 50 of the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.
(c)Comparison
(44)In the absence of any new information on the methodology for
comparison, the provisional findings as described in recitals 51to 54 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(d)Dumping margin
(45)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned wascompared to the weighted average export priceof each corresponding type.
(46)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margins defini-
tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif import
price at the Community frontier duty unpaid, are for:
— Kiswire Ltd: 0 %
— Chung Woo Rope Co.: 0 %
— DSR Wire Corp.: 0 %.
(47)Recital 57 of the provisional Regulation established that, when
compared to data reported by Eurostat, the three cooperating
exporting producersappeared to repres ent the entirety of the
Korean exportsto the Community of the product concerned.The complainant claimed that Korean producerswhich did notcooperate in the investigation had actually exported to theCommunity during the IP and therefore it claimed that a residualduty might have to be imposed. The Commission could subse-
quently confirm that indeed at least one non-cooperating
producer had actually exported to the Community during the IP.
(48)Even though the level of cooperation washigh, it wasfound thatone producer had deliberately not cooperated, and therefore theresidual dumping margin was determined at the level of the2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 7
▼B
highest dumping margin established for representative transac-
tionsby cooperating exporting producers .
(49)Finally, a weighted average dumping margin for Korea wasals orecalculated. For thispurpos e, the proportion of exportsto the
Community from non-cooperating exportershad to be es timated
pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. To that end datafrom a previous proceeding on the same product were used. Theresulting dumping margin for Korea is less than 2 % expressedasa percentage of the cif import price at the Community frontier
customs duty unpaid. Therefore, pursuant to Article 9(3) of the
basic Regulation the investigation in respect of the Republic ofKorea should be terminated.
4.Malaysia
(a)Normal value
(50)In the absence of any new information on the methodology for
determination of normal value, the provisional findings asdescribed in recitals 59 and 60 of the provisional Regulationare confirmed.
(b)Export price
(51)In the absence of any new information on the methodology for
determination of export price, the provisional findings as
described in recital 61 of the provisional Regulation areconfirmed.
(c)Comparison
(52)In the absence of any new information on the methodology for
comparison, the provisional findings as described in recitals 62
and 63 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(d)Dumping margin
(53)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned wascompared to the weighted average export price
of each corresponding type.
(54)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin defini-
tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif importprice at the Community frontier duty unpaid, isfor:
— Kiswire Sdn. Bhd.: 0 %.
(55)The complainant claimed that Malaysian producers which did
not cooperate in the investigation might have exported to theCommunity during the IP. Since no evidence wass ubmitted toback this claim, the Commission could not confirm that exportsby non-cooperating producersto the Community had actually
taken place during the investigation period.
(56)The provisional findings set out in recital 66 of the provisional
Regulation are thusconfirmed. Therefore, purs uant to Article9(3) of the basic Regulation the investigation in respect ofMalaysia should be terminated.
5.Thailand
(a)Normal value
(57)In the absence of any new information on the methodology for
determination of normal value, the provisional findings asdescribed in recitals 68 and 70 of the provisional Regulationare confirmed.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 8
▼B
(b)Export price
(58)The cooperating exporting producer claimed that the Commis-
sion should have used data on profit margins obtained by itsrelated importerswhen cons tructing export price in accordancewith Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. It submitted that the
related importersals o acted asunrelated importersfor imports
of the like product originating in third countries, and that theprofit margins obtained in that trade should be used.
(59)However, Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation requires the profitmargin used for the construction of export price to be reason-able. It isto be noted that one of the related importersconcerned hasno profit at all and that the profit level of theother related importer concerned only represents 0,8 % on turn-
over. These profit levels could not be considered as reasonable,
particularly when compared with the profit margin obtained fromcooperating unrelated importersin a previousproceedingconcerning the same product.
(60)Moreover, it isques tionable whether the profit margin obtainedby a related importer in itsalleged role asunrelated importer canbe considered as reliable since it will in all likelihood be influ-enced by sales made at transfer prices between related parties.
(61)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecital 71 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(c)Comparison
(62)The cooperating producer claimed that the methodology utilised
by the Commission in adjusting the normal value of typessuggested by the exporting producer as closely resembling in
order to bring them to a comparable level with the export price
is not correct, since it incorporates, in addition to the differencein manufacturing cost, an amount for SG&A and for profitswhich should not be included.
(63)In accordance with Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation: theamount of the adjustment for differences in ‘physical character-istics’ corresponds to a reasonable estimate of the market valueof the difference. Consequently, the reasonable estimate cannot
be limited to differences in manufacturing costs, and it has to
incorporate a reasonable amount for selling, general and admin-istrative costs and for profits as well.
(64)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals72 and 73 of the provis ional Regulation are confirmed.
(d)Dumping margin
(65)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned wascompared to the weighted average export priceof each corresponding type.
(66)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin defini-tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif importprice at the Community frontier duty unpaid, isfor:
— Usha Siam Steel Industries Public Company Limited: 28,9 %.
(67)In the absence of any new information on the methodology used
to determine the residual dumping margin, the provisional find-ings as described in recital 76 of the provisional Regulation arethus confirmed and on this basis the definitive residual dumpingmargin is42,8 %.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 9
▼B
6.Turkey
(a)Normal value and export price
(68)In the absence of any new information on the normal value and
the export price, the provisional findings as described in recitals
78 to 80 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(b)Comparison
(69)New evidence was submitted in respect of the adjustment to the
normal value claimed by one exporting producer for a 3 % taxpaid on imported raw materialspurchas ed on delayed paymenttermsand which would not be collected in res pect of raw mate-rialsto be us ed in the manufacture of SWR to be eventually
exported. It was proved to the satisfaction of the Commission
that the 3 % tax wasborne by the raw materialsincorporated inSWR sold domestically while it had not been collected in respectof the raw materialsincorporated in SWR when exported to theCommunity. The claim wascons equently accepted.
(70)One exporting producer reiterated its request for adjustments tothe normal value for differencesin level of trade on the groundthat all exportsto the Community were to retailerswhereasdomestic sales were to retailers and end-users. New explanationsand evidence were submitted which sought to establish that this
exporting producer performed different functionsin thes e two
distribution channels. The aforementioned information wassubmitted at a very advanced stage of the investigation and hadnever been mentioned before even though questions on thedifferences in functions performed in respect of domestic end-users and retailers had been asked after reviewing the reply to
the questionnaire and again on-the-spot. The questionnaire reply,
the answer to the request for additional information and explana-tions received on-the-spot justified the price differenceexclusively on the fact that retailers had to resell the productand thus were not in a position to accept prices at user level.
Furthermore, the Commission re-checked whether there was a
consistent difference in prices by comparing the prices chargedto end-users and retailers for the same type of SWR and in thesame month given the high inflation in Turkey during the IP.This comparison showed large variation of prices within thesame category of domestic customers and did not establish that
prices to end-users were consistently higher. Under these circum-
stances, the claim is rejected and the provisional findings, asdescribed in recital 83 of the provisional Regulation, areconfirmed.
(71)Therefore, and except where corrected asdes cribed above, theprovisional findings as described in recitals 81 and 83 to 88 ofthe provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(c)Dumping margin
(72)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned wascompared to the weighted average export price
of each corresponding type.
(73)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margins defini-
tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif importprice at the Community frontier customs duty unpaid, are for:
— Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii A.S: 55,2 %
— HasCelik ve Halat San Tic A.S: 17,8 %.
(74)In the absence of any new information in this respect, the meth-
odology set out in recital 91 of the provisional Regulation todetermine the residual dumping margin is confirmed. On thisbasis the definitive residual dumping margin was set at thesame level as the highest margin established for the cooperatingcompanies, i.e. 55,2 %.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 10
▼B
7.Russia
(a)General aspects
(i) Analysis of Market Economy Status
(75)In the absence of any new information in this respect, the
finding that one Russian exporting producer was considered asnon-cooperating in the investigation is confirmed. After publica-tion of the provisional Regulation, the cooperating exportingproducers submitted comments on the market economy status(‘MES’) determination mainly reiterating commentsmade
earlier, following disclosure on the proposed determination on
the MES claims and answered together with disclosure on provi-sional findings. It should be noted that as JSC ChSPZ hadalready had an opportunity to comment following disclosure ofthe proposed MES determination and as those comments didnot raise any new facts or considerations which invalidated the
Commission's findings, that MES determination remains in force
throughout the investigation in accordance with Article 2(7)(c)of the basic Regulation. In any event, the objections raisedfollowing publication of the provisional Regulation, would nothave affected the MES determination either.
(76)The cooperating exporting producer contested the rejection of itsMES application on three main grounds. The company allegedthat: (i) non-respect of the three month time limit for determina-tion breached itslegal expectations , itsrightsof defence and theprinciple of good administration; (ii) the request for a full reply
to the dumping questionnaire (including on data relevant to the
normal value determination) put an unnecessary workload onthe company; and (iii) the MES determination wasbas ed on awrong interpretation of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulationand on an incorrect interpretation or analysis of the factual situa-tion of the applicant. Notably, costs identified as not reflecting
substantially market values were not major inputs in its views;
it did have one clear set of basic accounting records (namelythe set made according to Russian legislation); its accountingrecordshad been independently audited in line with internationalaccounting standards and existing differences between the
Russian and the international accounting standards could lead to
an adjustment or a reconciliation rather than to a rejection of theMES claim; paymentsvia compens ation of debtsduring the IPhad been exceptional, made in accordance with real marketvalues, concerned small cost factors not related to the productconcerned and did not qualify asbarter/counter trade or compen-
sation trade.
(77)Although it is not disputed that the Commission was unable to
complete itsdetermination of MES within three monthsof theinitiation of the investigation, the findings were disclosed to thecompany as soon as it was in a position to do so in accordance
with the principle of sound administration. The company's rights
of defence and itsexpectationsthat it would be able to commenton any such proposal and to submit relevant information in viewof thisdetermination were in no way prejudiced asit wasinvitedto present its views and any counter arguments on the proposedMES determination and given a reasonable period of time in
which to do so. It was also invited to comment on the choice
of the analogue country. Ass tated above, the commentsreceivedin response to the disclosure of the MES determination did notraise any new facts or considerations which could invalidate theCommission's findings.
(78)It was considered desirable to request a full questionnaire replyin order to enable the Commission to proceed to establishnormal value on the basis of the data submitted by the companyin the event that MES wasjus tified. Asregardsthe workload forreplying to the questionnaire, some of the information requiredfor questionnaire reply should also have formed part of the2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 11
▼B
MES claim form. In any event, due account wastaken of the
particular circumstances encountered by the company, whichreceived two extensions of one week each to the initial deadline.
(79)Contrary to the company's submissions, the on-the-spot verifica-tion and explanationss ubmitted by the company actuallyrevealed that for several important inputs the cost did not
substantially reflect market values. It is important to note that
the company had more than one set of financial statements. Itsubmitted (i) financial statements in US dollars prepared in linewith international accounting standards but not audited and (ii)financial statements audited in line with Russian standards whichdiffered from the International Accepted Accounting Standards.
Though asked several times, the company did not provide any
explanation on how to reconcile the discrepancies found betweenthese different sets of financial statements, thus it failed to provethe existence of a single set of accounts. In addition no evidencewasprovided that any of thes e accountshad been independentlyaudited in line with international accounting standards. The exis-
tence of numerous‘triangular’ trans actionswasmentioned in the
1998 US dollars financial statements. The company could notsubmit such financial statements for 1999 to establish whetherthis practice had ceased during the IP, and the Commissionfound for a significant amount of transactions (charge for land
use in 1999, water supply i.e. general expenses which concern
all products) that the payments had been made partly by anothercompany or mutually settled, a practice which the company itselfadmitted to exist.
(ii) Choice of analogue country
(80)Following publication of the provisional Regulation, the
complainant questioned the choice of Korea as an analogue
country instead of the Czech Republic. The latter country wasenvisaged (together with Brazil) as an appropriate analoguecountry in the notice of initiation. The complainant claimed thatthe selection of Korea favoured Russian exporting producers asshown by the difference in the provisional dumping margins
between Russia and the Czech Republic. The fact that the cata-
logues of the Czech and Russian producers propose the samerange of SWR for domestic and export sales would also invali-date the reasoning set out in recital 99 of the provisionalRegulation for not selecting the Czech Republic.
(81)The reasons for envisaging Korea as an appropriate marketeconomy third country were disclosed to all interested parties indue time during the investigation. Comments were only receivedfrom the exporting producersconcerned, which agreed with the
selection. In the absence of any objection, Korea was selected as
an appropriate analogue country. Moreover, the fact that thecatalogues of the Czech and Russian producers contained thesame types of SWR is quite irrelevant in this case since therewasonly a s mall overlap between the SWR typesexported bythe Russian exporting producers to the Community and the
SWR typess old by the Czech cooperating exporting producer
on itsdomes tic market typesduring the IP. No other argumentswere put forward which would question the appropriateness ofKorea asanalogue country.
(82)Under these circumstances, the decision to use Korea as anappropriate analogue country wasupheld.
(iii) Individual treatment
(83)In the absence of any new information on individual treatment,
the provisional findings as described in recitals 101 to 105 ofthe provisional Regulation are confirmed.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 12
▼B
(b)Normal value
(84)The cooperating exporting producer argued that the use of
constructed normal values unduly inflated its dumping margin.It suggested to extend the use of domestic sales prices byrelaxing some characteristics used to define various models andtypesof SWR and, in thisway, increas ing the number of types
sold on the Korean market that are comparable to the types it
had exported to the Community.
(85)Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation provides that in the caseof imports from countries such as Russia, normal values be
established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a
market economy third country unless an exporting producermeets the criteria set out in subparagraph (c) of the aforemen-tioned provision. Therefore, it was not possible to comply withthisreques t.
(86)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecital 106 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(c)Export price
(87)In the absence of any new information on export price, the
provisional findings as described in recital 107 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.
(d)Comparison
(88)The cooperating exporting producer contested the use of
analogue country costs in order to determine the adjustments toexport prices with regard to transport and related costs (handling,
loading and ancillary costs). It argued that its own costs should
be used since they are paid to independent forwarders andinsurers and therefore follow market prices. Such an approachwould also be consistent with the approach taken by theCommission with regard to adjustments concerning commission,
packing and credit costs. Alternatively, the cooperating exporting
producer asked for a check of the transport cost allowance,which it considered unreasonable.
(89)The request to base the adjustment on the transport and related
costs incurred by the Russian exporting producer could not be
accepted. Indeed, thisproducer did not receive market economytreatment. Moreover, no evidence was submitted that these costsreflected market signals. The transport costs allowance wasbased on data collected and verified in the analogue country.
As requested, the result was re-checked and confirmed.
(90)Following the abovementioned claim, and in view of the conclu-
sions set out in the preceding paragraph, the Commissionreviewed its approach with regard to packaging costs and based
the adjustment on data obtained from the analogue country
producer.
(91)Adjustments on export prices for credit and commissionremained unchanged since they were not likely to be distorted
by the non-market economy environment.
(92)Therefore and except where corrected asdes cribed above, the
provisional findings as described in recitals 108 and 109 of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(e)Dumping margin
(93)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned wascompared to the weighted average export priceof each corresponding type.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 13
▼B
(94)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin defini-
tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif import
price at the Community frontier customs duty unpaid, is for:
— Cherepovetsky Staleprokatny Zavod: 36,1 %.
(95)In the absence of any new information in this respect, the meth-
odology set out in recital 112 of the provisional Regulation to
determine the residual dumping margin is confirmed. On this
basis the definitive residual dumping margin is 50,7 %.
D.COMMUNITYINDUSTRY
(96)In the absence of any new information on the Community
industry, the provisional findings as described in recitals 114 to120 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
E.INJURY
1.Collectionofinjurydata
(97)Some interested parties disagreed with the methodology adopted
by the Commission to request information from the wholeCommunity industry relating to the product concerned withrespect to production, capacity, capacity utilisation, sales, stocksand employment and basing the analysis of the remaining injuryindicatorson a s ample of companiesfrom the Community
industry. They alleged that this methodology was allegedly
insufficient to satisfy the Commission's obligations under Article3(5) of the basic Regulation.
(98)In arriving at its provisional findings, the Commission evaluatedall relevant economic factorsand indiceshaving a bearing on the
state of the industry in accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic
Regulation and applied the sampling methodology described inArticle 17 of the basic Regulation. Sampling, which is fullycompatible with the requirementsof Article 3(5) of the bas icRegulation, was necessary in view of the number of complai-nant/supporting Community producers and the need to limit the
investigation to a reasonable number of parties which could
reasonably be investigated within the time available (a sampleof five companies). It should be noted that neither the selectionof the sample nor its representativity were contested by anyinterested party.
(99)In view of the above, the methodology described in recitals 123to 125 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
2.ApparentCommunityconsumption
(100)One interested party contested the statement in recital 128 that
the decrease of apparent consumption in 1999 could beexplained by sales of stock built up in 1998 by importers/traders.It argued that the reasons behind the decrease in apparentconsumption were the decisions taken by the Community ship-
ping and fisheries sectors to buy SWR in third countries
without clearing customs in the Community and by a certainnumber of importers to increase sales of SWR to off-shore oilrigslocated outs ide the Community in order to avoid the effectsof the imposition of anti-dumping measures.
(101)Firstly, it is important to note that no evidence was provided tosubstantiate this allegation.
(102)Secondly, it isrecalled that apparent cons umption, i.e. thevolume of sales made by Community producers and the volumeof importsinto the Community originating in third countries ,
does not necessarily reflect the real consumption of the users
concerned.
(103)Finally, given the low percentage of the users' total costs repre-sented by SWR, as found in the context of the previousinvestigation, it is unlikely that the fishing and shipping sectors2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 14
▼B
would decide on their purchases of SWR according to their
routes.
(104)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals126 to 128 of the provis ional Regulation are confirmed.
3.Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports
concerned
(105)In the absence of any new information on the cumulative assess-
ment of the effectsof the importsconcerned, the provis ional
findings as described in recitals 129 to 132 of the provisionalRegulation are confirmed.
4.Importsfromthecountriesconcerned
(a)Volume and market share of dumped imports
(106)The Thai exporting producer argued that itsexportsto the
Community were negligible throughout the period considered.
(107)Importsof SWR originating in Thailand repres ented 1,5 % in1999 and 2 % in the IP and were therefore not negligibleaccording to Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore,they represented 4,6 % of the Community's volume of imports
of the product concerned originating in third countriesin 1999
and 6,5 % in the IP and were thus also above the 3 % thresholdestablished in the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.
(108)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in
recitals133 and 134 of the provis ional Regulation are confirmed.
(b)Prices of the dumped imports
(i) Price evolution
(109)In the absence of any new information on the price evolution,
the provisional findings as described in recital 135 of the provi-sional Regulation are confirmed.
(ii) Price undercutting
(110)One interested party stated that the double conversion carried out
by the Commission — from the currency of the invoice to the
national currency of the exporting country and then to the EUR— contravened Article 2.4.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agree-ment.
(111)In this respect it should be noted that Article 2.4.1 of the WTOAnti-dumping Agreement isnot relevant for the price undercut-ting calculation, but only for the determination of dumping.However, in order to eliminate any inaccuracy resulting fromtwo currency conversions, the calculations of all exportingproducers were revised as requested. The cif values in the
currency provided by the exporting producerswere directly
converted into EUR using the appropriate exchange rates.
(112)One Turkish exporting producer argued that the adjustment forlevel of trade wasbas ed on an inappropriate choice of importer
because the latter was neither a customer of the exporting
producer nor an importer of SWR from Turkey. Furthermore, itclaimed that the level of the adjustment was too low. In supportof thisclaim the exporting producer provided a s ample of itssales invoices for certain types of SWR issued to an unrelated
importer in the Community and the latter's sales invoices issued
to customers in the Community. At a later stage, the financialstatements of the unrelated importer were also submitted tosupport this claim. The margin thus obtained, which reflectedthe overall difference between purchases and re-sales, was higherthan the one used by the Commission at the provisional stage.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 15
▼B
(113)It should firstly be noted that, in the absence of substantiated
information on thispoint from the s ole cooperating unrelated
importer, the pricesof the exporting producerswere adjus tedfor differencesin level of trade on the bas isof the informationavailable, i.e. the data provided by an association of importersin the Community and supported by evidence presented by oneof its members. In this respect it is worth noting that the unre-
lated importer proposed by the Turkish exporting producer was
contacted by the Commission at the outset of the investigation,but did not reply to the questionnaire or provide any information.The importers' association was given disclosure of the adjust-ment and did not raise any objection. Furthermore, the
adjustment took into account all relevant costs incurred by unre-
lated importersbetween importation and s alesex-worksand thusit did not reflect the overall margin between purchases and re-sales, as claimed by the Turkish exporting producer. In view ofthe above, it is considered that the adjustment made at the provi-sional stage adequately reflects the differences in the level of
trade. The request was thus rejected.
(114)Some interested parties argued that the tensile strength, contrary
to the Commission's statement in recital 137 of the provisionalRegulation, was a main price driver and requested the use of
thiscriterion to avoid inflating price undercutting margins .
(115)Though the analysis of tensile strength on a type by type basis at
company level did not show a discernible pattern in prices, acomparison of the exporting producers' prices with those of the
Community industry's showed that tensile strength was indeed a
factor that affected price. Price undercutting wasthusrecalcu-lated including tensile strength as a criterion for the productcategorisation.
(116)Based on the methodology explained in recitals 136 to 139 ofthe provisional Regulation, and taking into account the modifica-tionsmentioned above and the correction of clerical errors , thedifference between the prices, expressed as a percentage of theCommunity industry's weighted average price (ex works), i.e.the price undercutting margin, iss hown in the table below.
Country CompanyUndercutting margin
(%)
Czech Republic ŽDB a.s. 24,1
Russia Cherepovetsky Staleprokatny Zavod 41,8Thailand Usha Siam Steel Industries Plc. 14,2
Turkey Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii A. Ş. 16,4
HasCelik ve Halat San Tic A.S. 27,0
5.SituationoftheCommunityindustry
(a)Investments and ability to raise capital
(117)Some interested parties argued that the impact of investments
cannot only be considered in terms of depreciation and the
interest paid to finance the investment, but the analysis shouldalso cover the creditworthiness, goodwill and the cost/benefit ofthe use of financial resources.
(118)It should be noted that the analysis of creditworthiness is madein recital 153 of the provisional Regulation.
(119)Goodwill can be defined asthe exces samount that hasto bepaid to acquire a part or the whole of a business as a going2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 16
▼B
concern, over and above the value of the net assets owned by the
business (purchased goodwill is capitalised as an asset). As such,it would only be analysed if depreciation of goodwill had influ-
enced profitability, which isnot the cas e.
(120)Finally, a cost/benefit analysis of the Community industry's
investments that goes beyond the analysis made on the impactof investments in profitability is beyond the scope of theproceeding.
(121)The same interested parties argued that the Commission hadfound in the course of the investigation in the previous anti-dumping proceeding that the Community industry's investmentshad increased significantly between 1994 and 1998 and that theirimpact in termsof depreciation and interes t paid in the period
considered should also be analysed.
(122)Though depreciation in the period considered increased by 9 %,
depreciation of plant and machinery actually decreased 3 %,which shows that investments have not been excessive, butwere needed to replace old machinery already fully depreciated.
The depreciation figuresals o reflect the depreciation chargesdue
to investment made before the period considered. As stated inrecital 152 of the provisional Regulation, the impact in profit-ability of the increase in depreciation is minor.
(123)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals151 to 153 of the provis ional Regulation are confirmed.
(b)Other factors
(124)In the absence of any new information on other relevant injury
factors, the provisional findings as described in recitals 141 to
150 and 154 to 157 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(c)Conclusion on injury
(125)On the basis of the above it is confirmed that following the
imposition of anti-dumping measures in 1999, the situation of
the Community industry stabilised in the IP, but was still weak:production remained largely stable, capacity utilisation stagnatedand stocks remained largely at the same level. Although salesincreased modestly from 66 331 in 1999 to 67 671 tonnes in the
IP, the Community industry's market share did not increase
despite the restored, effective competition from the countriessubject to anti-dumping measures. The Community industry'ssales prices also remained basically at the same level, despitethe imposition of anti-dumping measures in 1999.
(126)Regarding the profitability of the Community industry, although
it improved slightly from a loss of – 1,4 % to break even over
the period considered, it still remained at such a low level thatthe long term viability of the Community industry cannot beensured.
(127)Therefore the Community industry could hardly benefit from the
imposition of anti-dumping measures in 1999 due to the increase
in the volume of importsfrom the countriesconcerned at priceswhich significantly undercut those of the Community industry.
(128)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals158 to 161 of the provis ional Regulation, i.e. that the
Community industry has suffered material injury within the
meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation, are confirmed.
F.CAUSATION
(129)Following disclosure of the provisional findings, some interested
parties argued that no causal link existed between the dumpedimports and the injury suffered by the Community industry andthat injury, if any, should be attributed to a combination of thefollowing factors: a decline in apparent consumption; self-inflicted injury through the erroneousdecis ionsmade by the2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 17
▼B
Community industry regarding its investments and production
capacity; and imports from other third countries, including thoseoriginating in Korea and Malaysia for which no dumping was
found.
(130)As no new information was submitted on the situation of the
other Community producersand evolution of raw materialprices, the provisional findings as described in recitals 172, 173and 180 to 182 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
1.Developmentofapparentconsumption
(131)Some interested parties argued that the Community industry's
falling sales and production followed the trend of apparent
consumption, which proved that the latter, and not the dumped
importsfrom the countriesconcerned, wasthe caus e of anyinjury suffered by the Community industry.
(132)On the development of apparent consumption, it is useful torecall the findingsin recitals126 to 128 and 169 to 171 of the
provisional Regulation.
(133)While apparent consumption substantially increased in 1998
(9 %), it hardly benefited the Community industry (2 % rise insales to unrelated customers in the Community), though thecountries concerned saw their exports to the Community rise by
42 % in the same year, at a time when there were no anti-
dumping measures in force. The sharp contraction of apparentconsumption in 1999 (–14 %), coinciding with the impositionof anti-dumping measures, did not affect the countriesconcerned, which registered a further 89 % rise of exports to
the Community. Thisclearly s howsthat it isnot the decline in
consumption that is causing injury to the Community industry,but other factors such as the sustained, high growth of dumpedimportsoriginating in the countriesconcerned.
(134)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals169 to 171 of the provis ional Regulation are confirmed.
2.Self-inflictedinjurythrougherroneousdecisionsoninvest-
ments
(135)Some interested parties argued that the Community industry'slow level of profitability in the IP (0 %) wasdue to the erro-neous decisions made by the Community industry to increaseinvestments.
(136)Asalready explained in recital 122 above depreciation of plantand machinery decreased by 3 % in the period considered, which
shows that investment has not been excessive, but was needed to
replace old machinery already fully depreciated. Thisinves tmenthas obviously increased capacity, but it was necessary to main-tain the competitiveness of the Community industry. The lowprofitability of the Community industry is mainly the result of
lower sales volumes and the fact that it had to align its prices
with those of the low-priced, dumped imports originating in thecountriesconcerned.
(137)The same interested parties also alleged that certain Communityproducers failed to reposition themselves in the face of competi-
tion asthey failed to inves t in new production technology, to
innovate in termsof res earch and development in their productline, and to rationalise their overall operations.
(138)It was found that the Community industry did invest in newproduction technology, wasable to innovate and did rationalis eits operations. On this last point it is useful to mention the reor-
ganisations of the manufacturing and sales activities of many
Community producers.
(139)It istherefore concluded that the s ituation of the Communityindustry in the IP cannot be attributed to any erroneous decisionsmade by the Community industry regarding its investments.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 18
▼B
3.Importsfromotherthirdcountries
(140)Regarding other third countries, some interested parties
requested that care be taken to ensure that the impact of importsfrom other third countrieswasnot attributed to the importsfromthe countries concerned. The Russian exporting producersclaimed that importsoriginating in Romania not only undercut
the Community industry's prices, but also their prices.
(a)Korea and Malaysia
(141)Imports from Korea and Malaysia registered a significant
increase during the period considered (288 %) and increasedtheir market share from 2,4 % in 1997 to 10 % in the IP. Their
priceswere als o found, with the exception of one Korean
exporting producer, to undercut the selling prices of the Commu-nity industry in the IP.
(142)Although the growth of importsoriginating in the countriesconcerned waslower in the period cons idered (215 %), theirmarket share in the IP (10,8 %) was still higher than that ofKorea and Malaysia. Furthermore, the overall price undercuttingmargin in the IP found for Korea and Malaysia was substantiallylower than that found for the countriesconcerned.
(143)Thus, the Community industry would in all likelihood have beenable to increase its sales volume if there were no dumpedimportsfrom the countriesconcerned des pite the competitionfrom importsoriginating in Korea and Malays ia. Therefore the
impact of the latter was not such as to break the causal link
between the dumped importsand the s ituation of the Communityindustry.
(b)Other third countries excluding Korea and Malaysia
(144)The sales volume of third countries other than those included in
the current investigation decreased by 63 % during the period
considered, mainly due to the decrease in imports from the coun-tries subject to anti-dumping measures. In this context, themarket share of other third countries (excluding the countriesconcerned, Korea and Malaysia) decreased from 24,6 % in
1997 to 9,7 % in the IP. Among the countriesmentioned by
interested parties as having caused injury to the Communityindustry only Poland and Romania held a market share of atleast 1 % in the IP.
(145)Regarding Poland, during the period considered its market sharedeclined from 3,3 % to 2,9 % and its selling prices per kg roseby 23 %. In thiscontext, it cannot be argued that Poland contrib-uted to the material injury suffered by the Community industry.
(146)Concerning Romania, its market share remained stable duringthe period considered (0,9 % in 1997, 1,1 % in 1998, 0,9 % in1999 and 1 % in the IP), while importsoriginating in thiscountry increased by 8 % from 1 398 tonnes in 1997 to 1 510tonnesin the IP. During the period cons idered, the pricesper
kg of Romanian SWR were, with the exception of 1998, consis-
tently higher than those of the Russian exporting producers andconsistently lower than those of the Community industry. It canbe assumed that, taking into account Romania's stable marketshare (which was negligible in 1997 and 1999), its impact on
the Community industry was not such as to break the causal
link between the importsconcerned and the s ituation of theCommunity industry.
(147)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in
recitals174 to 179 of the provis ional Regulation are confirmed.
4.Conclusion
(148)It isconfirmed that, although other factors , namely the imports
from Korea, Malaysia and Romania, may have had a negativeimpact on the situation of the Community industry in the IP,2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 19
▼B
this impact was not such as to break the causal link between the
dumped imports and the situation of the Community industry.Therefore the importsfrom the countriesconcerned taken in
isolation have been found to cause material injury to the
Community industry as described in recitals 164 to 168 of theprovisional Regulation.
G.COMMUNITYINTEREST
1.Collection of information and interest of the Community
industry
(149)In the absence of any new information on the collection of infor-mation and interest of the Community industry, the provisionalfindings as described in recitals 186 to 196 of the provisionalRegulation are confirmed.
2.Interestofthesupplierindustry
(150)One interested party argued that the imposition of measures
would negatively affect raw material suppliers as the Commis-
sion did not take into account the detrimental effect of the anti-
dumping measures in force on the situation of those suppliers ofwire rod exporting to producersin third countriess ubject tomeasures.
(151)The only cooperating raw material supplier (producer of steelwire) indicated that the imposition of measures would be benefi-cial for its business. This company also exported to thirdcountries, including countries subject to the previous and thecurrent investigations. Furthermore, the conclusions reached in
the provisional Regulation on the interest of the supplier industry
were not contested by any raw material supplier.
(152)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals197 to 201 of the provis ional Regulation are confirmed.
3.Interestofimporters/traders
(153)One importers' association argued that since SWR represent the
main business for most importers, it is thus essential for them to
maintain a sufficient volume of sales in order to remain viable. Itfurther alleged that Community producershave their own inte-grated channels of distribution and refuse to sell throughindependent traders. The situation of importers will thus becomeincreasingly precarious taking into account the number of coun-
tries subject to anti-dumping measures.
(154)Firstly, interested parties did not provide any new element onthese points that could change the findings reached at the provi-
sional stage.
(155)Furthermore, it was found that alternative sources of supply not
subject to measures existed, including the Community industry.
Though it istrue that many Community producershave theirown integrated channelsof dis tribution, the information providedby the Community industry shows that they also sell to unrelatedimporters/traders in the Community. The argument should there-fore be rejected.
(156)Another interested party argued that the measures would elimi-nate competition from importsto the benefit of Korean and
Malaysian SWR, which will flood the Community market. This
will result in further injury to the Community industry, limit thesources of supply and discriminate against customers of SWRoriginating in the countriesconcerned.
(157)Although it islikely that Korean and Malays ian exporting produ-cers will increase their market shares, it is unlikely that they willflood the Community market given their current high capacityutilisation and the fact that the level of price undercutting foundfor these countries is lower (or even none in the case of a2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 20
▼B
Korean exporting producer) than those found for the countries
concerned. Regarding discrimination, it is important to note thatdiscrimination does not take place in this respect since imports
from Korea and Malaysia, unlike the other countries concerned,
have not been found to be dumped. The argument should there-fore be rejected.
(158)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals202 to 207 of the provis ional Regulation are confirmed.
4.Interestofusers
(159)In the absence of any new information on the interest of users,
the provisional findings as described in recitals 208 to 211 ofthe provisional Regulation are confirmed.
5.ConclusiononCommunityinterest
(160)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in
recitals212 to 215 of the provis ional Regulation are confirmed,i.e. that no compelling reasons exist on grounds of Communityinterest for not imposing anti-dumping measures.
H.DEFINITIVEANTI-DUMPINGMEASURES
1.Injuryeliminationlevel
(161)Based on the methodology explained in recitals 216 to 219 of
the provisional Regulation, and taking into account the modifica-tionsmentioned in recitals111 and 115 above and the correctionof clerical errors, the weighted average export prices of SWR
were compared with the selling prices charged by the Commu-
nity industry in the Community market — adjusted to reflect aprofit margin of 5 %. The difference was then expressed as apercentage of the exporting producers' export prices on a cifCommunity frontier level.
2.Definitiveanti-dumpingmeasures
(162)In the light of the foregoing, it iscons idered that a definitive
anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of thedumping marginsfound, except for two companies— one in
Thailand and the other in Turkey — for which the duty should
be imposed at the level of the injury margin, which is lower, inaccordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation.
Country CompanyDefinitive Duty
(%)
Czech Republic ŽDB a.s. 30,7
All other companies47,1
Russia Cherepovetsky Staleprokatny Zavod 36,1
All other companies50,7
Thailand Usha Siam Steel Industries Plc. 24,8
All other companies42,8
Turkey Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii A. Ş, 31,0
HasCelik ve Halat San Tic A.S. 17,8
All other companies31,02001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 21
▼B
3.Termination of the proceeding in respect of Korea and
Malaysiawithoutimpositionofmeasures
(163)In view of the results of the investigation concerning Korea andMalaysia, and considering that the dumping margin found in the
case of these two countries is below the 2 % threshold set in
Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding should beterminated without the imposition of anti-dumping measures inrespect of imports of the product concerned originating in Koreaand Malaysia. The proceeding concerning imports originating inKorea and Malaysia has been terminated by Commission Deci-
sion 2001/602/EC of 26 July 2001 accepting undertakings
offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceedingconcerning importsof certain iron or s teel ropesand cablesoriginating in the Czech Republic, the Republic of Korea,Malaysia, Russia, Thailand and Turkey and terminating the
proceeding in respect of imports originating in the Republic of
Korea and Malaysia (
1).
4.Undertakings
(164)The undertakingsoffered by the exporting producersin the
Czech Republic and Turkey were accepted at the provisionalstage. The minimum prices established have been changed toreflect the definitive findingsof the inves tigation.
(165)Following the disclosure of the provisional findings, exportingproducers in Russia and Thailand offered price undertakings inaccordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. By doing
so, they have agreed to sell the product concerned at or above
price levelswhich eliminate the injuriouseffectsof dumping.The companies will also provide the Commission with regularand detailed information concerning their exportsto the Commu-nity, meaning that the undertakingscan be monitored effectively
by the Commission. Furthermore, the nature of the product, the
structure of the companies and their sales patterns is such thatthe risk of them circumventing the agreed undertaking is limited.
(166)In view of this, the offers of undertakings are therefore consid-ered acceptable and the companiesconcerned have beeninformed of the essential facts, considerations and obligationsupon which acceptance isbas ed.
(167)To further enable the Commission to effectively monitor thecompliance of the companieswith their undertakings , when therequest for release for free circulation is presented to the relevant
customs authority, exemption from the anti-dumping duty shall
be conditional on the presentation of a commercial invoicecontaining at least the elements listed in the Annex. This levelof information is also necessary to enable customs authorities toascertain with sufficient precision that shipments correspond to
the commercial documents. Where no such invoice is presented,
or when it does not correspond to the product presented tocustoms, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty will insteadbe payable.
(168)It should be noted that in the event of a breach or withdrawal ofthe undertaking or a suspected breach, an anti-dumping dutymay be imposed, pursuant to Article 8(9) and (10) of the basicRegulation.
(169)Furthermore, in accordance with Article 8(6) of the basic Regu-
lation, the investigation of dumping, injury and Community
interest was completed in respect of the countries concernednotwithstanding the acceptance of undertakings in the course ofthe investigation. The undertakings offered by two exportingproducers in Thailand and in Russia were accepted by Decision2001/602/EC,2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 22
(1) See page 47 of thisOfficial Journal.
▼B
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty ishereby impos ed on importsof
iron or steel ropes and cables, including locked coil ropes, excluding
ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectionaldimension exceeding 3 mm, with fittings attached or not, falling withinCN codes7312 10 82, 7312 10 84, 7312 10 86, 7312 10 88 and7312 10 99, originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and
Turkey.
2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net,
free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, of the productsorigi-
nating in the countries listed below shall be as follows:
CountryRate of duty
(%)TARIC additional code
Czech Republic 47,1 A999
Russia 50,7 A999Thailand 42,8 A999
Turkey 31,0 A999
3. The above ratess hall not apply to the productsmanufactured by
the companies listed below, which shall be subject to the following
anti-dumping duty rates:
Country CompanyRate of duty
(%)TARIC addi-
tional code
Czech Republic ŽDB a.s.
Bezru čova 300, 735 93 Bohumín,
Czech Republic30,7 A216
Russia Open Joint Stock Company Cherepovetsky
Staleprokatny Zavod,
Russia, 162600 ,
Cherepovets, Vologda Region, ul. 50-letia
Oktiabria, 1/3336,1 A217
Thailand Usha Siam Steel Ind. Public Company
Limited
888/116 Mahatun Plaza Building,
Ploenchit Road, Bangkok 10330 ,
Thailand24,8 A218
Turkey Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii A. Ş.
Fahrettın Kerım Gokaı Cad. No 14
Denızcıler i şMerkezı A. Blok Kat. 131,0 A219
HasÇelik ve Halat Sanayi Ticaret A.S.
Hacilar Yolu 8. Km Kayseri
Turkiye17,8 A220
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
1. Importsunder one of the following TARIC additional codes
which are produced and directly exported (i.e. shipped and invoiced)by a company named below to a company in the Community actingas an importer shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposedby Article 1 provided that they are imported in conformity with para-graph 2.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 23
▼M2
Country ManufacturerTARIC additional
code
Czech Republic ŽDB a.s.
Bezru čova 300, 73593 Bohumín
Czech RepublicA216
Russia Open Joint Stock Company Cherepovetsky
Staleprokanty Zavod,
Russia, 162600 Cherepovets,
Vologda Region, ul. 50-letia Oktiabria, 1/33A217
Thailand Usha Siam Steel Ind. Public Company Limited
888/116 Mahatun Plaza Building
Ploenchit Road, Bangkok 10330
ThailandA218
2. Importsmentioned in paragraph 1 s hall be exempt from the duty
on condition that:
(a) a commercial invoice containing at least the elements listed in the
Annex is presented to Member States customs authorities uponpresentation of the declaration for release into free circulation; and
(b) the goods declared and presented to customs correspond precisely
to the description on the commercial invoice.
Article 3
1. Asregardsimportsof the product des cribed in Article 1(1) origi-
nating in the Czech Republic, Thailand and Turkey, the amountssecured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed byCommission Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 of 2 February 2001 shall
be collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed. Amounts
secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall bereleased.
2. Asregardsimportsof the product des cribed in Article 1(1) origi-
nating in Russia, the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 shall be
collected at the rate of the duty provisionally imposed.
Article 4
ThisRegulation s hall enter into force on the day following that of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
ThisRegulation s hall be binding in itsentirety and directly applicable
in all Member States.2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 24
▼B
▼B
ANNEX
Necessary information for commercial invoices accompanying sales made
subjecttoanundertaking
1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS
SUBJECT TO AN UNDERTAKING’.
2. The name of the company mentioned in Article 2(1) issuing the commercial
invoice.
3. The commercial invoice number.
4. The date of issue of the commercial invoice.
5. The TARIC additional code under which the goodson the invoice isto be
customs-cleared at the Community frontier.
6. The exact description of the goods, including:
— the product code number (PCN) (as established in the undertaking offered
by the exporting producer in question);
— the number of strands; the number of wires per strand; the arrangement of
wires per strand (e.g. standard, seal, warrington etc); rope characteristics
(rotation resistant, compacted etc);
— the company product code number (CPC) (if applicable);— CN code;
— quantity (to be given in kg and length).
7. The description of the terms of the sale, including:
— price per kg;
— the applicable payment terms;— the applicable delivery terms;— total discounts and rebates.
8. Name of the company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued
directly by the company.
9. The name of the official of the company that has issued the invoice and the
following signed declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European
Community of the goodscovered by thisinvoice isbeing made within the
scope and under the terms of the undertaking offered by [company], and
accepted by the European Commission through Decision 2001/602/EC. I
declare that the information provided on thisinvoice iscomplete and
correct.’2001R1601 — EN — 19.07.2003 — 002.001 — 25