2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—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
(OJL211,4.8.2001,p.1)
Amendedby:
OfficialJournal
No page date
►M1CouncilRegulation(EC)No2288/2002of19December2002 L348 52 21.12.2002
▼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
THECOUNCILOFTHEEUROPEANUNION,
HavingregardtotheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanCommunity,
HavingregardtoCouncilRegulation(EC)No384/96of22December
1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries notmembers of the European Community(
1), and in particular Article 9
thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission, after
consultingtheAdvisoryCommittee,
Whereas:
A.PROCEDURE
1.Provisionalmeasures
(1)By Regulation (EC) No 230/2001(2) (‘provisional Regulation’),
the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on
imports ofcertain iron or steel ropesand cables (‘SWR’)origi-
nating in the Czech Republic, Russia,Thailand andTurkey andaccepted undertakings offered by certain exporting producers intheCzechRepublicandTurkey.
(2)No provisional measures were imposed on imports from the
Republic of Korea (‘Korea’) and Malaysia in view of the de
minimisdumpingmarginsfound.
2.Subsequentprocedure
(3)Subsequenttothedisclosureoftheessentialfactsandconsidera-
tionsonthebasisofwhichitwasdecidedtoimposeprovisional
anti-dumping measures, several interested parties submittedcommentsinwriting.Thepartieswhosorequestedweregrantedanopportunitytobeheard.
(4)The Commission continued to seek and verify all informationdeemednecessaryfortheestablishmentofdefinitivefindings.
(5)All parties were informed of the essential facts and considera-tionsonthebasisofwhichitwasintendedtorecommend:
(a) the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports
ofSWRoriginatingintheCzechRepublic,Russia,Thailandand Turkey and the definitive collection of the amountssecuredbywayoftheprovisionalduty;
(b) the termination of the proceeding concerning imports of
SWRoriginatinginKoreaandMalaysiawithouttheimposi-
tionofmeasures.
(6)Theywerealsograntedaperiodwithinwhichtomakerepresen-
tationssubsequenttothisdisclosure.
(7)The oral and written comments submitted by the interestedparties were considered and, where appropriate, the definitivefindingshavebeenmodifiedaccordingly.2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—2
(1) OJL56,6.3.1996,p.1.RegulationaslastamendedbyRegulation(EC)No
2238/2000(OJL257,11.10.2000,p.2).
(2) OJL34,3.2.2001,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 tobytheindustryassteelwireropesor‘SWR’).
(9)SomeinterestedpartiesrepeatedtheirclaimthatSWRshouldbedivided in two groups: some of them distinguished between so-called general purpose SWR (GP) and high performance SWR
(HP),whilesomeothersdistinguishedbetweenStandardGeneral
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, distinctmethods of production, absence 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
producedinawiderangeofdifferenttypeswithacertaindegree
ofphysicalandtechnical differences,allofthemhavethesamebasic physical characteristics (i.e. the steel wires that formthestrand, the strands that are wrapped around the core that formtheropes,andthecoreitself)andthesamebasictechnicalchar-acteristics (all have a number ofwiresina strand, a number of
strandsinarope,acertaindiameterandacertainconstruction).
Whileproductsinthebottomendandinthetopendoftherangearenotinterchangeable,productsinadjoininggroupsare.Itwastherefore concluded that a certain degree of overlapping andcompetitionexistedbetweenSWRindifferentgroups.Moreover,
productsinthesamegroupmayhavedifferentapplications.
(11)Secondly,thedistinction between GPandHPSWRisbasedon
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.Itshouldbe noted that interested parties were notable toshow that a clear dividing line existed between either of thesetwo groups. Moreover, such differentiation does not take intoaccountthefactthatthereareadjoininggroupsinwhichgeneralpurpose SWR compete directly with specific purpose SWR and
arethereforeinterchangeable.
(12)Finally,thedistinctionbetweenstandardandspecialSWRrefers
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 groups in which a standard
SWRcompeteswithaspecial SWR,sincetheycanbeusedforthesamepurposesandare,therefore,interchangeable.
(13)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals9to13oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
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 Communityfromthecountriesconcernedandthoseproducedandsoldonthedomestic markets of the countries concerned. Similarly, theSWRproduced andsoldonthe domestic market inKoreawerealike 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—22.12.2002—001.001—3
▼B
imported from the countries concerned. In particular it was
argued that the SWR imported from the countries concernedwere mainly GP SWR whereas those sold by the Community
industryweremostlyHPSWR;therefore theproceeding should
be limited to GP SWR, if at all. It was also requested thatproject SWR be excluded fromthe scope of m easures as theCommunity industry is virtually the exclusive supplier in theCommunitymarket.
(16)Itshouldbenotedthat inanti-dumping proceedingstheproduct
concerned and the like product are defined by reference to the
basic physical, technical and/or chemical characteristics and thebasicuse.Oncetheproductconcernedisdefined,i.e.theproductproduced in the countries concerned and exported to theCommunity,ithastobeexaminedwhethertheproductproducedandsolddomesticallyinthecountriesconcernedandtheproduct
producedandsoldbytheCommunityindustryintheCommunity
arealiketotheproductconcerned.Inthisrespect,thefactthatacertainproducttypeisnotproducedintheCommunityisirrele-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
shouldbenotedthattheyalsosharethesamebasicphysicalandtechnicalcharacteristicsastheotherSWR.Inanyevent,eveniftheCommunityindustryhasaclearadvantageintermsofproxi-mity, it should be noted that exporting producers are notpreventedfromparticipatingintenders.
(18)It wastherefore concluded that the basic physical and technical
characteristics andthe basicuseoftheSWRimported fromthe
countries concerned and those produced and sold by theCommunityindustryintheCommunityarealike.
(19)Inviewofalltheabove,thefindingsinrecitals14to16oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
C.DUMPING
1.General methodology
(a)Normal value
(20)Some cooperating exporting producers contested the metho-
dology used to establish the amounts for profit added to thecostofmanufacturingandtotheselling,generalandadministra-
tive expenses (‘SG&A expenses’) in case of recourse to
constructednormalvalues.FortheRussianandThaicooperatingexportingproducers,bydeterminingthetotalnetprofitsonlyonthe basis of the sales made in the ordinary course of trade andnot on the total turnover of all domestic sales of the product
concerned,theCommissionwouldunreasonablyinflatetheprofit
margin. For the Czech cooperating exporting producer, theCommissionshouldhaveexcludeddomesticsalesofSWRtypeswhose volume represented less than 5 % of the volume of thesame type exported to the Community. As prices of such salesareusuallynotconsideredfordeterminingthenormalvaluedue
to their lack of representativeness, they should also be disre-
gardedforthedeterminationoftheprofitmargin.
(21)Pursuant to the chapeau of Article 2(6) of Regulation (EC) No384/96(the‘basicRegulation’),theamountforprofitshastobebasedondatapertainingtoproductionandsales,intheordinarycourseoftrade,ofthelikeproductinthedomesticmarketofthe
exporting country where such data is available. There is conse-
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 thatonceitisestablished thatthedomestic salesofthelike productare representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—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
likeproductlevel.Domesticsalesintheordinarycourseoftrade
ofagivenmodelmayyielderraticresultswhenthesesalesweremade 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 oftradeexceed5%oftheexportstotheCommunity.
(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
establishedresultedfromastraightapplicationoftheappropriate
methodologytothedatasubmittedbythecooperatingexportingproducer.
(23)Theseclaimswerethereforerejected.
(24)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals 18to25and68to70ofthe provisionalRegulation 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
Regulationareconfirmed.
(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 theprovisionalRegulationisconfirmed.
(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 differences between normal value and
exportpricefoundonindividualtypes.
(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 theprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
2.TheCzechRepublic
(29)Intheabsenceofanynewinformationonthenon-cooperationof
one exporting producer in the Czech Republic, the provisional
findingsasdescribed inrecital 35oftheprovisional Regulation
areconfirmed.
(a)Normal value
(30)After provisional measures were imposed, ŽDB a.s. submitted
additional explanation on the allocation of SG&A expenses.TheSG&Aexpenseswererevisedbydeductingtheitemswhichwere proven to the satisfaction of the Commission to have norelationwiththeproductionandsalesoftheproductconcerned.2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—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.Thiswasbasedontheclaimthatthisrelatedexporterwouldnolonger export SWR to the Community since ŽDB a.s. had
dismantledoneofitsplantsinSeptember2000(aftertheendof
the IP), which produced most of the SWR sold by the relatedexporterduringtheIP.
(32)This argument could not be accepted. Developments occurringafter 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,notopentomanipulationanddidnotstemfromadelib-
erateactionbyinterestedparties.Thesimplefactthatoneoftheproduction plants has been closed does not prevent the relatedexporter fromselling SWRproduced in the other plant ofŽDBa.s. Indeed, it should also be noted that this related exporter
occasionally sold SWR produced in that other plant during the
IP. Therefore, it was concluded that conditions were not metfortakingintoaccounttheallegedcessationinSWRexportsbythe related exporter forthe determination of the export price ofŽDBa.s.
(33)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecital38oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(c)Comparison
(34)ŽDBa.s.contestedthe5%adjustmentforthenotionalcommis-
siondeductedfromthepriceschargedbytherelatedexporterto
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 notionalcommissionwouldnothavebeenwarranted.
(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. Afair compar-ison at ex-works level requires a deduction fromthe pricescharged bytherelated exporter toindependent customersintheCommunity based on a notional commission corresponding tothe additional trading role of the related exporter which can be
consideredsimilartotheroleofatraderactingonacommission
basis.The5%adjustmentwasconsequentlyupheld.
(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 differences in the packing costs included in the export
price and the normal value at ex-works level did not exist.
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 adjustmentwas made in respect of the reported amount for inland freightandinsurance.Thisclaimwasaccordinglyrejected.
(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—22.12.2002—001.001—6
▼B
(38)Therefore, and except where corrected as described above, the
provisional findings as described in recitals 39 and 40 of the
provisionalRegulationareherebyconfirmed.
(d)Dumping margin
(39)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned was compared to the weighted average export priceofeachcorrespondingtype.
(40)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin defini-tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif import
priceattheCommunityfrontiercustomsdutyunpaid,isfor:
— ŽDBa.s.:30,7%
(41)Intheabsenceofanynewinformationinthisrespect,themeth-
odology set out in recital 43 of the provisional Regulation todetermine the residual dumping margin is confirmed. On this
basisthedefinitiveresidualdumpingmarginis47,1%.
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 51to54oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(d)Dumping margin
(45)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned was compared to the weighted average export priceofeachcorrespondingtype.
(46)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margins defini-
tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif import
priceattheCommunityfrontierdutyunpaid,arefor:
— KiswireLtd:0%
— ChungWooRopeCo.:0%
— DSRWireCorp.:0%.
(47)Recital 57 of the provisional Regulation established that, when
compared to data reported by Eurostat, the three cooperating
exporting producers appeared to represent the entirety of the
Korean exports to the Community of the product concerned.The complainant claimed that Korean producers which did notcooperate in the investigation had actually exported to theCommunityduringtheIPandthereforeitclaimedthataresidualduty might have to be imposed. The Commission could subse-
quently confirmthat indeed at least one non-cooperating
producerhadactuallyexportedtotheCommunityduringtheIP.
(48)Eventhoughthelevelofcooperationwashigh,itwasfoundthatone producer had deliberately not cooperated, and therefore theresidual dumping margin was determined at the level of the2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—7
▼B
highest dumping margin established for representative transac-
tionsbycooperatingexportingproducers.
(49)Finally,aweightedaveragedumpingmarginforKoreawasalsorecalculated. For this purpose, the proportion of exports to the
Communityfromnon-cooperatingexportershadtobeestimated
pursuanttoArticle 18ofthebasicRegulation. Tothatenddatafromapreviousproceedingonthesameproductwereused.Theresulting dumping margin for Korea is less than 2 % expressedasapercentageofthecifimportpriceattheCommunityfrontier
customs duty unpaid. Therefore, pursuant to Article 9(3) of the
basic Regulation the investigation in respect of the Republic ofKoreashouldbeterminated.
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 Regulationareconfirmed.
(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
and63oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(d)Dumping margin
(53)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned was compared to the weighted average export price
ofeachcorrespondingtype.
(54)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin defini-
tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif importpriceattheCommunityfrontierdutyunpaid,isfor:
— KiswireSdn.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 was submitted tobackthisclaim, theCommissioncouldnotconfirm thatexportsby non-cooperating producers to the Community had actually
takenplaceduringtheinvestigationperiod.
(56)The provisional findings set out in recital 66 of the provisional
Regulation are thus confirmed. Therefore, pursuant to Article9(3) of the basic Regulation the investigation in respect ofMalaysiashouldbeterminated.
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 Regulationareconfirmed.2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—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 importers when constructing export price in accordancewith Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. It submitted that the
related importers also acted as unrelated importers for imports
of the like product originating in third countries, and that theprofitmarginsobtainedinthattradeshouldbeused.
(59)However,Article2(9)ofthebasicRegulationrequirestheprofitmargin used for the construction of export price to be reason-able. It is to be noted that one of the related importersconcerned has no profit at all and that the profit level of theotherrelated importer concerned onlyrepresents0,8%onturn-
over. These profit levels could not be considered asreasonable,
particularlywhencomparedwiththeprofitmarginobtainedfromcooperating unrelated importers in a previous proceedingconcerningthesameproduct.
(60)Moreover, it is questionable whether the profit margin obtainedbyarelatedimporterinitsallegedroleasunrelatedimportercanbe considered as reliable since it will in all likelihood be influ-encedbysalesmadeattransferpricesbetweenrelatedparties.
(61)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecital71oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(c)Comparison
(62)Thecooperatingproducerclaimed thatthemethodologyutilised
by the Commission in adjusting the normal value of typessuggested by the exporting producer as closely resembling in
ordertobringthemtoacom parable level withthe exportprice
isnotcorrect,sinceitincorporates,inadditiontothedifferencein manufacturing cost, an amount for SG&A and for profitswhichshouldnotbeincluded.
(63)Inaccordance withArticle 2(10)(a)ofthebasicRegulation: theamount of the adjustment fordifferences in ‘physical character-istics’ correspondsto 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 areasonable amountforselling,general andadmin-istrativecostsandforprofitsaswell.
(64)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals72and73oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(d)Dumping margin
(65)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned was compared to the weighted average export priceofeachcorrespondingtype.
(66)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin defini-tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif importpriceattheCommunityfrontierdutyunpaid,isfor:
— UshaSiamSteelIndustriesPublicCompanyLimited:28,9%.
(67)Intheabsenceofanynewinformationonthemethodologyused
to determine the residual dumping margin, the provisional find-ingsasdescribed inrecital 76ofthe provisional Regulation arethusconfirmedandonthisbasisthedefinitiveresidualdumpingmarginis42,8%.2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—9
▼B
6.Turkey
(a)Normal value and export price
(68)Intheabsenceofanynewinformationonthenormalvalueand
theexportprice,theprovisionalfindingsasdescribedinrecitals
78to80oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(b)Comparison
(69)Newevidencewassubmittedinrespectoftheadjustmenttothe
normal value claimed by one exporting producer for a 3 % taxpaid on imported raw materials purchased on delayed paymenttermsandwhichwouldnotbecollectedinrespectofrawmate-rials to be used in the manufacture of SWR to be eventually
exported. It was proved to the satisfaction of the Commission
thatthe3%taxwasbornebytherawmaterialsincorporatedinSWRsolddomesticallywhileithadnotbeencollectedinrespectoftherawmaterials incorporatedinSWRwhenexportedtotheCommunity.Theclaimwasconsequentlyaccepted.
(70)One exporting producer reiterated its request for adjustments tothenormal valuefordifferences inlevel oftradeonthegroundthat all exports to the Community were to retailers whereasdomesticsalesweretoretailersandend-users.Newexplanationsandevidence weresubmitted whichsoughttoestablishthatthis
exporting producer performed different functions in these two
distribution channels. The aforementioned information wassubmittedataveryadvanced stageoftheinvestigation andhadnever 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
thequestionnaireandagainon-the-spot.Thequestionnairereply,
theanswertotherequestforadditionalinformationandexplana-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
pricestoend-userswereconsistentlyhigher.Underthesecircum-
stances, the claimis rejected and the provisional findings, asdescribed in recital 83 of the provisional Regulation, areconfirmed.
(71)Therefore, and except where corrected as described above, theprovisional findings as described in recitals 81 and 83 to 88 oftheprovisionalRegulationareherebyconfirmed.
(c)Dumping margin
(72)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned was compared to the weighted average export price
ofeachcorrespondingtype.
(73)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margins defini-
tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif importpriceattheCommunityfrontiercustomsdutyunpaid,arefor:
— CelikHalatveTelSanayiiA.S:55,2%
— HasCelikveHalatSanTicA.S:17,8%.
(74)Intheabsenceofanynewinformationinthisrespect,themeth-
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 thesamelevelasthehighestmarginestablishedforthecooperatingcompanies,i.e.55,2%.2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—10
▼B
7.Russia
(a)General aspects
(i) AnalysisofMarketEconomyStatus
(75)In the absence of any new information in this respect, the
finding that one Russian exporting producer was considered asnon-cooperatingintheinvestigationisconfirmed.Afterpublica-tion of the provisional Regulation, the cooperating exportingproducers submitted comments on the market economy status(‘MES’) determination mainly reiterating comments made
earlier, following disclosure on the proposed determination on
theMESclaimsandansweredtogetherwithdisclosureonprovi-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'sfindings,thatMESdeterminationremainsinforce
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 nothaveaffectedtheMESdeterminationeither.
(76)ThecooperatingexportingproducercontestedtherejectionofitsMES application on three main grounds. The company allegedthat:(i)non-respectofthethreemonthtimelimitfordetermina-tionbreacheditslegalexpectations,itsrightsofdefenceandtheprinciple ofgoodadministration; (ii)therequestforafullreply
to the dumping questionnaire (including on data relevant to the
normal value determination) put an unnecessary workload onthe company; and (iii) the MES determination was based on awrong interpretation of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulationandonanincorrectinterpretationoranalysisofthefactualsitua-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 accountingrecordshadbeenindependentlyauditedinlinewithinternationalaccounting standards and existing differences between the
Russianandtheinternationalaccountingstandardscouldleadto
anadjustmentorareconciliationratherthantoarejectionoftheMES claim; payments via compensation of debts during the IPhad been exceptional, made in accordance with real marketvalues, concerned small cost factors not related to the productconcernedanddidnotqualifyasbarter/countertradeorcompen-
sationtrade.
(77)Although it is not disputed that the Commission was unable to
complete its determination of MES within three months of theinitiation oftheinvestigation, thefindingsweredisclosedtothecompanyassoonasitwasinapositiontodosoinaccordance
withtheprincipleofsoundadministration.Thecompany'srights
ofdefenceanditsexpectationsthatitwouldbeabletocommentonanysuchproposalandtosubmitrelevantinformationinviewofthisdeterminationwereinnowayprejudicedasitwasinvitedtopresentitsviewsandanycounterargumentsontheproposedMES determination and given a reasonable period of time in
which to do so. It was also invited to comment on the choice
oftheanaloguecountry.Asstatedabove,thecommentsreceivedin response to the disclosure of the MES determination did notraiseanynewfactsorconsiderationswhichcouldinvalidatetheCommission'sfindings.
(78)It wasconsidered desirable to request a full questionnaire replyin order to enable the Commission to proceed to establishnormalvalueonthebasisofthedatasubmittedbythecompanyintheeventthatMESwasjustified.Asregardstheworkloadforreplying to the questionnaire, some of the information requiredfor questionnaire reply should also have formed part of the2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—11
▼B
MES claimform . In any event, due account was taken of the
particular circumstances encountered by the company, whichreceivedtwoextensionsofoneweekeachtotheinitialdeadline.
(79)Contrarytothecompany'ssubmissions,theon-the-spotverifica-tion and explanations submitted 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 inUSdollarsprepared inlinewith international accounting standards but not audited and (ii)financialstatementsauditedinlinewithRussianstandardswhichdiffered fromthe International Accepted Accounting Standards.
Though asked several times, the company did not provide any
explanationonhowtoreconcilethediscrepanciesfoundbetweenthesedifferentsetsoffinancialstatements,thusitfailedtoprovetheexistenceofasinglesetofaccounts.Inadditionnoevidencewasprovidedthatanyoftheseaccountshadbeenindependentlyauditedinlinewithinternationalaccountingstandards.Theexis-
tenceofnumerous‘triangular’transactionswasmentionedinthe
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
allproducts)thatthepaymentshadbeenmadepartlybyanothercompanyormutuallysettled,apracticewhichthecompanyitselfadmittedtoexist.
(ii) Choiceofanaloguecountry
(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 analoguecountryinthenoticeofinitiation.Thecomplainantclaimedthatthe selection of Korea favoured Russian exporting producers asshown by the difference in the provisional dumping margins
between Russiaandthe Czech Republic. Thefact 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 provisionalRegulationfornotselectingtheCzechRepublic.
(81)The reasons for envisaging Korea as an appropriate marketeconomythirdcountryweredisclosedtoallinterestedpartiesinduetimeduringtheinvestigation.Commentswereonlyreceivedfromthe exporting producers concerned, which agreed with the
selection.Intheabsenceofanyobjection,Koreawasselectedas
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 therewas only a small overlap between the SWR types exported bythe Russian exporting producers to the Community and the
SWR types sold by the Czech cooperating exporting producer
onitsdomestic market typesduringtheIP.Nootherargumentswere put forward which would question the appropriateness ofKoreaasanaloguecountry.
(82)Under these circumstances, the decision to use Korea as anappropriateanaloguecountrywasupheld.
(iii) Individualtreatment
(83)In the absence of any new information on individual treatment,
the provisional findings as described in recitals 101 to 105 oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—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 usedto define variousmodels andtypes of SWR and, in this way, increasing the number of types
sold on the Korean market that are comparable to the types it
hadexportedtotheCommunity.
(85)Article 2(7)(a) ofthe 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 withthisrequest.
(86)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecital106oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(c)Export price
(87)In the absence of any new information on export price, the
provisionalfindingsasdescribedinrecital107oftheprovisional
Regulationareconfirmed.
(d)Comparison
(88)The cooperating exporting producer contested the use of
analogue country costsin order to determine the adjustments toexportpriceswithregardtotransportandrelatedcosts(handling,
loading and ancillary costs). It argued that its owncosts 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 theCommissionwithregardtoadjustmentsconcerningcommission,
packingandcreditcosts.Alternatively,thecooperatingexporting
producer asked for a check of the transport cost allowance,whichitconsideredunreasonable.
(89)The request to base the adjustment on the transport and related
costs incurred by the Russian exporting producer could not be
accepted. Indeed,thisproducerdidnotreceivemarket economytreatment.Moreover,noevidencewassubmittedthatthesecostsreflected market signals. The transport costs allowance wasbased on data collected and verified in the analogue country.
Asrequested,theresultwasre-checkedandconfirmed.
(90)Followingtheabovementionedclaim,andinviewoftheconclu-
sions set out in the preceding paragraph, the Commissionrevieweditsapproachwithregardtopackaging costsandbased
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
bythenon-marketeconomyenvironment.
(92)Therefore and except where corrected as described above, the
provisional findings as described in recitals 108 and 109 of the
provisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(e)Dumping margin
(93)In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of the productconcerned was compared to the weighted average export priceofeachcorrespondingtype.2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—13
▼B
(94)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin defini-
tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif import
priceattheCommunityfrontiercustomsdutyunpaid,isfor:
— CherepovetskyStaleprokatnyZavod:36,1%.
(95)Intheabsenceofanynewinformationinthisrespect,themeth-
odology set out in recital 112 of the provisional Regulation to
determine the residual dumping margin is confirmed. On this
basisthedefinitiveresidualdumpingmarginis50,7%.
D.COMMUNITYINDUSTRY
(96)In the absence of any new information on the Community
industry, the provisional findings asdescribed in recitals 114to120oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
E.INJURY
1.Collectionofinjurydata
(97)Someinterestedpartiesdisagreedwiththemethodologyadopted
by the Commission to request information from the wholeCommunity industry relating to the product concerned withrespecttoproduction,capacity,capacityutilisation,sales,stocksandemploymentandbasingtheanalysisoftheremaininginjuryindicators on a sample of companies from the Community
industry. They alleged that this methodology was allegedly
insufficienttosatisfytheCommission'sobligationsunderArticle3(5)ofthebasicRegulation.
(98)Inarrivingatitsprovisionalfindings,theCommissionevaluatedallrelevanteconomicfactorsandindiceshavingabearingonthe
stateoftheindustryinaccordancewithArticle3(5)ofthebasic
Regulation and applied the sampling methodology described inArticle 17 of the basic Regulation. Sampling, which is fullycompatible with the requirements of Article 3(5) of the basicRegulation, 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 sampleoffive companies). Itshouldbenoted that neither the selectionof the sample nor its representativity were contested by anyinterestedparty.
(99)Inviewoftheabove,themethodologydescribedinrecitals123to125oftheprovisionalRegulationisconfirmed.
2.ApparentCommunityconsumption
(100)One interested party contested the statement in recital 128 that
the decrease of apparent consumption in 1999 could beexplainedbysalesofstockbuiltupin1998byimporters/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 oilrigslocatedoutsidetheCommunityinordertoavoidtheeffectsoftheimpositionofanti-dumpingmeasures.
(101)Firstly,itisimportant tonotethat noevidence wasprovidedtosubstantiatethisallegation.
(102)Secondly, it is recalled that apparent consumption, i.e. thevolumeofsalesmadebyCommunityproducersandthevolumeof imports into the Community originating in third countries,
does not necessarily reflect the real consumption of the users
concerned.
(103)Finally,given thelowpercentage oftheusers'total costsrepre-sented by SWR, as found in the context of the previousinvestigation, it is unlikely that the fishing and shipping sectors2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—14
▼B
would decide on their purchases of SWR according to their
routes.
(104)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals126to128oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
3.Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports
concerned
(105)Intheabsenceofanynewinformationonthecumulativeassess-
ment of the effects of the imports concerned, the provisional
findings as described in recitals 129 to 132 of the provisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
4.Importsfromthecountriesconcerned
(a)Volume and market share of dumped imports
(106)The Thai exporting producer argued that its exports to the
Communitywerenegligiblethroughouttheperiodconsidered.
(107)Imports of SWR originating in Thailand represented 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 countries in 1999
and6,5%intheIPandwerethusalsoabovethe3%thresholdestablishedintheWTOAnti-dumpingAgreement.
(108)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in
recitals133and134oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(b)Prices of the dumped imports
(i) Priceevolution
(109)In the absence of any new information on the price evolution,
theprovisionalfindingsasdescribedinrecital135oftheprovi-sionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(ii) Priceundercutting
(110)Oneinterestedpartystatedthatthedoubleconversioncarriedout
by the Commission — from the currency of the invoice to the
national currencyoftheexportingcountryandthentotheEUR— contravened Article 2.4.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agree-ment.
(111)InthisrespectitshouldbenotedthatArticle 2.4.1oftheWTOAnti-dumping Agreement isnot relevant forthe 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 producers were directly
convertedintoEURusingtheappropriateexchangerates.
(112)One Turkish exporting producer argued that the adjustment forlevel oftrade wasbasedonaninappropriatechoice ofimporter
because the latter was neither a customer of the exporting
producernoranimporter ofSWRfromTurkey. Furthermore, itclaimedthattheleveloftheadjustmentwastoolow.Insupportof this claimthe exporting producer provided a sam ple of itssales invoices for certain types of SWR issued to an unrelated
importerintheCommunityandthelatter'ssalesinvoicesissued
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 reflectedtheoveralldifferencebetweenpurchasesandre-sales,washigherthantheoneusedbytheCommissionattheprovisionalstage.2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—15
▼B
(113)It should firstly be noted that, in the absence of substantiated
information on this point from the sole cooperating unrelated
importer, the prices of the exporting producers were adjustedfor differences in level of trade on the basis of 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,butdidnotreplytothequestionnaireorprovideanyinformation.The importers' association was given disclosure of the adjust-ment and did not raise any objection. Furthermore, the
adjustmenttookintoaccountallrelevantcostsincurredbyunre-
latedimportersbetweenimportationandsalesex-worksandthusit did not reflect the overall margin between purchases and re-sales,asclaimed bythe Turkishexporting producer. Inview oftheabove,itisconsideredthattheadjustmentmadeattheprovi-sional stage adequately reflects the differences in the level of
trade.Therequestwasthusrejected.
(114)Someinterestedpartiesarguedthatthetensilestrength,contrary
to the Commission's statement in recital 137 of the provisionalRegulation, was a main price driver and requested the use of
thiscriteriontoavoidinflatingpriceundercuttingmargins.
(115)Thoughtheanalysisoftensilestrengthonatypebytypebasisat
company level did not show a discernible pattern in prices, acomparison of the exporting producers' prices with those of the
Communityindustry'sshowedthattensilestrengthwasindeeda
factor that affected price. Price undercutting was thus recalcu-lated including tensile strength as a criterion for the productcategorisation.
(116)Based on the methodology explained in recitals 136 to 139 oftheprovisionalRegulation,andtakingintoaccountthemodifica-tions mentioned 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.thepriceundercuttingmargin,isshowninthetablebelow.
Country CompanyUndercuttingmargin
(%)
CzechRepublic ŽDBa.s. 24,1
Russia CherepovetskyStaleprokatnyZavod 41,8Thailand UshaSiamSteelIndustriesPlc. 14,2
Turkey CelikHalatveTelSanayiiA. Ş. 16,4
HasCelikveHalatSanTicA.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 shouldalsocoverthecreditworthiness,goodwillandthecost/benefit oftheuseoffinancialresources.
(118)It should be noted that the analysis of creditworthiness is madeinrecital153oftheprovisionalRegulation.
(119)Goodwill can be defined as the excess amount that has to bepaid to acquire a part or the whole of a business as a going2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—16
▼B
concern,overandabovethevalueofthenetassetsownedbythe
business(purchasedgoodwilliscapitalisedasanasset).Assuch,itwouldonlybeanalysedifdepreciation ofgoodwillhadinflu-
encedprofitability,whichisnotthecase.
(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 investmentshadincreasedsignificantlybetween1994and1998andthattheirimpact in terms of depreciation and interest paid in the period
consideredshouldalsobeanalysed.
(122)Thoughdepreciation intheperiodconsideredincreasedby9%,
depreciation of plant and machinery actually decreased 3 %,which shows that investments have not been excessive, butwereneededtoreplaceoldmachineryalreadyfullydepreciated.
Thedepreciationfiguresalsoreflectthedepreciationchargesdue
to investment made before the period considered. As stated inrecital 152 of the provisional Regulation, the impact in profit-abilityoftheincreaseindepreciationisminor.
(123)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals151to153oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(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
150and154to157oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
(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
theCommunityindustrystabilisedintheIP,butwasstillweak:productionremainedlargelystable,capacityutilisationstagnatedand stocks remained largely at the same level. Although salesincreasedmodestlyfrom66331in1999to67671tonnesinthe
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, despitetheimpositionofanti-dumpingmeasuresin1999.
(126)RegardingtheprofitabilityoftheCommunityindustry,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)ThereforetheCommunityindustrycouldhardlybenefitfromthe
impositionofanti-dumpingmeasuresin1999duetotheincrease
inthevolumeofimportsfromthecountriesconcernedatpriceswhichsignificantlyundercutthoseoftheCommunityindustry.
(128)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals 158 to 161 of the provisional Regulation, i.e. that the
Community industry has suffered material injury within the
meaningofArticle3ofthebasicRegulation,areconfirmed.
F.CAUSATION
(129)Followingdisclosureoftheprovisionalfindings,someinterested
parties argued that no causal link existed between the dumpedimports and the injury suffered bythe 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 erroneous decisions made by the2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—17
▼B
Community industry regarding its investments and production
capacity;andimportsfromotherthirdcountries,includingthoseoriginating in Korea and Malaysia for which no dumping was
found.
(130)As no new information was submitted on the situation of the
other Community producers and evolution of raw materialprices,theprovisionalfindingsasdescribedinrecitals 172,173and180to182oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
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
imports from the countries concerned, was the cause of anyinjurysufferedbytheCommunityindustry.
(132)On the development of apparent consumption, it is useful torecall the findings in recitals 126 to 128 and 169 to 171 of the
provisionalRegulation.
(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 thecountriesconcernedsawtheirexportstotheCommunityriseby
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. This clearly shows that it is not the decline in
consumption that is causing injury to the Community industry,but other factors such as the sustained, high growth of dumpedimportsoriginatinginthecountriesconcerned.
(134)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals169to171oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
2.Self-inflictedinjurythrougherroneousdecisionsoninvest-
ments
(135)Some interested parties argued that the Community industry'slow level of profitability in the IP (0 %) was due to the erro-neous decisions made by the Community industry to increaseinvestments.
(136)As already explained in recital 122 above depreciation of plantandmachinerydecreasedby3%intheperiodconsidered,which
showsthatinvestmenthasnotbeenexcessive,butwasneededto
replaceoldmachineryalreadyfullydepreciated.Thisinvestmenthas 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
withthoseofthelow-priced, dumpedimportsoriginating inthecountriesconcerned.
(137)ThesameinterestedpartiesalsoallegedthatcertainCommunityproducersfailedtorepositionthemselvesinthefaceofcompeti-
tion as they failed to invest in new production technology, to
innovate in terms of research and development in their productline,andtorationalisetheiroveralloperations.
(138)It was found that the Community industry did invest in newproduction technology, was able to innovate and did rationaliseitsoperations.Onthislastpointitisusefultomentionthereor-
ganisations of the manufacturing and sales activities of many
Communityproducers.
(139)It is therefore concluded that the situation of the CommunityindustryintheIPcannotbeattributedtoanyerroneousdecisionsmadebytheCommunityindustryregardingitsinvestments.2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—18
▼B
3.Importsfromotherthirdcountries
(140)Regarding other third countries, some interested parties
requestedthatcarebetakentoensurethattheimpactofimportsfromotherthirdcountrieswasnotattributedtotheimportsfromthe countries concerned. The Russian exporting producersclaimed that imports originating in Romania not only undercut
theCommunityindustry'sprices,butalsotheirprices.
(a)Korea and Malaysia
(141)Imports from Korea and Malaysia registered a significant
increase during the period considered (288 %) and increasedtheirmarketsharefrom2,4%in1997to10%intheIP.Their
prices were also found, with the exception of one Korean
exportingproducer,toundercutthesellingpricesoftheCommu-nityindustryintheIP.
(142)Although the growth of imports originating in the countriesconcerned was lower in the period considered (215 %), theirmarket share in the IP (10,8 %) was still higher than that ofKoreaandMalaysia.Furthermore,theoverallpriceundercuttingmarginintheIPfoundforKoreaandMalaysiawassubstantiallylowerthanthatfoundforthecountriesconcerned.
(143)Thus,theCommunityindustrywouldinalllikelihoodhavebeenable to increase its sales volume if there were no dumpedimports from the countries concerned despite the competitionfromim ports originating in Korea and Malaysia. Therefore the
impact of the latter was not such as to break the causal link
betweenthedumpedimportsandthesituationoftheCommunityindustry.
(b)Other third countries excluding Korea and Malaysia
(144)Thesalesvolumeofthirdcountriesotherthanthoseincludedin
the current investigation decreased by 63 % during the period
considered,mainlyduetothedecreaseinimportsfromthecoun-tries subject to anti-dumping measures. In this context, themarket share of other third countries (excluding the countriesconcerned, Korea and Malaysia) decreased from24,6 % in
1997 to 9,7 % in the IP. Among the countries mentioned by
interested parties as having caused injury to the Communityindustry only Poland and Romania held a market share of atleast1%intheIP.
(145)RegardingPoland,duringtheperiodconsidereditsmarketsharedeclined from3,3%to2,9%anditsselling prices perkgroseby23%.Inthiscontext,itcannotbearguedthatPolandcontrib-utedtothematerialinjurysufferedbytheCommunityindustry.
(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 imports originating in thiscountry increased by 8 % from1398 tonnes in 1997 to 1510tonnes in the IP. During the period considered, the prices per
kgofRomanianSWRwere,withtheexceptionof1998,consis-
tently higher than those of the Russianexporting producers andconsistentlylowerthanthoseoftheCommunityindustry.Itcanbe 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 imports concerned and the situation of theCommunityindustry.
(147)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in
recitals174to179oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
4.Conclusion
(148)It is confirmed 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—22.12.2002—001.001—19
▼B
thisimpactwasnotsuchastobreakthecausallinkbetweenthe
dumped imports and the situation of the Community industry.Therefore the imports from the countries concerned taken in
isolation have been found to cause material injury to the
Community industry as described in recitals 164 to 168 of theprovisionalRegulation.
G.COMMUNITYINTEREST
1.Collection of information and interest of the Community
industry
(149)Intheabsenceofanynewinformationonthecollectionofinfor-mation and interest of the Community industry, the provisionalfindings as described in recitals 186 to 196 of the provisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
2.Interestofthesupplierindustry
(150)One interested party argued that the imposition of measures
would negatively affect raw material suppliers as the Commis-
siondidnottakeintoaccountthedetrimental effectoftheanti-
dumpingmeasuresinforceonthesituationofthosesuppliersofwire rod exporting to producers in third countries subject tomeasures.
(151)The only cooperating raw material supplier (producer of steelwire)indicatedthattheimpositionofmeasureswouldbebenefi-cial for its business. This company also exported to thirdcountries, including countries subject to the previous and thecurrent investigations. Furthermore, the conclusions reached in
theprovisionalRegulationontheinterestofthesupplierindustry
werenotcontestedbyanyrawmaterialsupplier.
(152)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals197to201oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
3.Interestofimporters/traders
(153)One importers' association argued that since SWR represent the
mainbusinessformostimporters,itisthusessentialforthemto
maintainasufficientvolumeofsalesinordertoremainviable.Itfurther alleged that Community producers have their own inte-grated channels of distribution and refuse to sell throughindependenttraders.Thesituationofimporterswillthusbecomeincreasinglyprecarioustakingintoaccountthenumberofcoun-
triessubjecttoanti-dumpingmeasures.
(154)Firstly, interested parties did not provide any new element onthesepointsthatcouldchangethefindingsreachedattheprovi-
sionalstage.
(155)Furthermore,it wasfoundthat alternative sourcesofsupplynot
subject to measures existed, including the Community industry.
Though it is true that many Community producers have theirownintegratedchannelsofdistribution,theinformationprovidedbytheCommunityindustryshowsthattheyalsoselltounrelatedimporters/tradersintheCommunity.Theargumentshouldthere-foreberejected.
(156)Another interested party argued that the measures would elimi-nate competition from imports to the benefit of Korean and
Malaysian SWR, which will flood the Community market. This
willresultinfurtherinjurytotheCommunityindustry,limitthesources of supply and discriminate against customers of SWRoriginatinginthecountriesconcerned.
(157)AlthoughitislikelythatKoreanandMalaysianexportingprodu-cerswillincreasetheirmarketshares,itisunlikelythattheywillflood the Community market given their current high capacityutilisationandthefactthatthelevelofpriceundercuttingfoundfor these countries is lower (or even none in the case of a2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—20
▼B
Korean exporting producer) than those found for the countries
concerned.Regardingdiscrimination,itisimportanttonotethatdiscrimination does not take place in this respect since imports
fromKoreaandMalaysia, unlike theother countriesconcerned,
havenotbeenfoundtobedumped.Theargumentshouldthere-foreberejected.
(158)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described inrecitals202to207oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
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 oftheprovisionalRegulationareconfirmed.
5.ConclusiononCommunityinterest
(160)In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in
recitals 212to215oftheprovisionalRegulation areconfirmed,i.e. that no compelling reasons exist on grounds of Communityinterestfornotimposinganti-dumpingmeasures.
H.DEFINITIVEANTI-DUMPINGMEASURES
1.Injuryeliminationlevel
(161)Based on the methodology explained in recitals 216 to 219 of
theprovisionalRegulation,andtakingintoaccountthemodifica-tionsmentionedinrecitals111and115aboveandthecorrectionof 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 cifCommunityfrontierlevel.
2.Definitiveanti-dumpingmeasures
(162)In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that a definitive
anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of thedumping margins found, except for two companies — one in
Thailand and the other in Turkey — for which the duty should
beimposedattheleveloftheinjurymargin,whichislower,inaccordancewithArticle9(4)ofthebasicRegulation.
Country CompanyDefinitiveDuty
(%)
CzechRepublic ŽDBa.s. 30,7
Allothercompanies 47,1
Russia CherepovetskyStaleprokatnyZavod 36,1
Allothercompanies 50,7
Thailand UshaSiamSteelIndustriesPlc. 24,8
Allothercompanies 42,8
Turkey CelikHalatveTelSanayiiA. Ş, 31,0
HasCelikveHalatSanTicA.S. 17,8
Allothercompanies 31,02001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—21
▼B
3.Termination of the proceeding in respect of Korea and
Malaysiawithoutimpositionofmeasures
(163)InviewoftheresultsoftheinvestigationconcerningKoreaandMalaysia,andconsideringthatthedumpingmarginfoundinthe
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 inrespectofimportsoftheproductconcernedoriginatinginKoreaandMalaysia.TheproceedingconcerningimportsoriginatinginKorea 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 imports of certain iron or steel ropes and 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
KoreaandMalaysia(
1).
4.Undertakings
(164)The undertakings offered by the exporting producers in the
Czech Republic and Turkey were accepted at the provisionalstage. The minimum prices established have been changed toreflectthedefinitivefindingsoftheinvestigation.
(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 levels which eliminate the injurious effects of dumping.The companies will also provide the Commission with regularanddetailedinformationconcerningtheirexportstotheCommu-nity,meaningthattheundertakingscanbemonitoredeffectively
bythe Commission. Furthermore, the nature of the product, the
structure of the companies and their sales patterns is such thattheriskofthemcircumventingtheagreedundertakingislimited.
(166)In view of this, the offers of undertakings are therefore consid-ered acceptable and the companies concerned have beeninformed of the essential facts, considerations and obligationsuponwhichacceptanceisbased.
(167)To further enable the Commission to effectively monitor thecompliance of the companies with their undertakings, when therequestforreleaseforfreecirculationispresentedtotherelevant
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 levelofinformationisalsonecessarytoenablecustomsauthoritiestoascertain with sufficient precision that shipments correspond to
thecommercial documents.Wherenosuchinvoiceispresented,
or when it does not correspond to the product presented tocustoms, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty will insteadbepayable.
(168)Itshouldbenotedthatintheeventofabreachorwithdrawalofthe undertaking or a suspected breach, an anti-dumping dutymay be imposed, pursuant to Article 8(9) and (10) of the basicRegulation.
(169)Furthermore,inaccordance withArticle8(6)ofthebasicRegu-
lation, the investigation of dumping, injury and Community
interest was completed in respect of the countries concernednotwithstanding the acceptance ofundertakings in the course ofthe investigation. The undertakings offered by two exportingproducersinThailand andinRussiawere accepted byDecision2001/602/EC,2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—22
(1) Seepage47ofthisOfficialJournal.
▼B
HASADOPTEDTHISREGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of
iron or steel ropes and cables, including locked coil ropes, excluding
ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectionaldimensionexceeding3mm,withfittingsattachedornot,fallingwithinCN codes 73121082, 73121084, 73121086, 73121088 and73121099, originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and
Turkey.
2. Therateofthedefinitiveanti-dumpingdutyapplicabletothenet,
free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, of the products origi-
natinginthecountrieslistedbelowshallbeasfollows:
CountryRateofduty
(%)TARICadditionalcode
CzechRepublic 47,1 A999
Russia 50,7 A999Thailand 42,8 A999
Turkey 31,0 A999
3. The above rates shall notapply tothe productsmanufactured by
the companies listed below, which shall be subject to the following
anti-dumpingdutyrates:
Country CompanyRateofduty
(%)TARICaddi-
tionalcode
CzechRepublic ŽDBa.s.
Bezru čova300,73593Bohumín,
CzechRepublic30,7 A216
Russia OpenJointStockCompanyCherepovetsky
StaleprokatnyZavod,
Russia,162600 ,
Cherepovets, Vologda Region, ul. 50-letia
Oktiabria,1/3336,1 A217
Thailand Usha SiamSteel Ind. Public Com pany
Limited
888/116MahatunPlazaBuilding,
PloenchitRoad,Bangkok10330 ,
Thailand24,8 A218
Turkey CelikHalatveTelSanayiiA. Ş.
FahrettınKerımGokaıCad.No14
Denızcıleri şMerkezıA.BlokKat.131,0 A219
HasÇelikveHalatSanayiTicaretA.S.
HacilarYolu8.KmKayseri
Turkiye17,8 A220
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customsdutiesshallapply.
Article 2
1. Imports under 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-graph2.2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—23
▼M1
Country CompanyTaricadditional
code
CzechRepublic ŽDBas
Bezruova300,73593Bohumín
CzechRepublicA216
Russia OpenJointStockCompanyCherepovetsky
StaleprokantyZavod,
Russia,162600 Cherepovets,VologdaRegion,
ul.50-letiaOktiabria,1/33A217
Thailand UshaSiamSteelInd.PublicCompanyLimited
888/116MahatunPlazaBuilding
PloenchitRoad,Bangkok10330 ,
ThaïlandeA218
Turkey HasÇelikveHalatSanayiTicaretA.S.Hacilar
Yolu8.KmKayseri
TurkeyA220
2. Importsmentionedinparagraph1shallbeexemptfromtheduty
onconditionthat:
(a) acommercial invoicecontainingatleasttheelements listedinthe
Annex is presented to Member States customs authorities uponpresentationofthedeclarationforreleaseintofreecirculation;and
(b) the goods declared and presented to customs correspond precisely
tothedescriptiononthecommercialinvoice.
Article 3
1. AsregardsimportsoftheproductdescribedinArticle1(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 shallbe collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed. Amounts
securedinexcessofthedefinitiverateofanti-dumpingdutiesshallbe
released.
2. AsregardsimportsoftheproductdescribedinArticle1(1)origi-
nating in Russia, the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 shall becollectedattherateofthedutyprovisionallyimposed.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its
publicationinthe Official Journal of the European Communities .
ThisRegulation shallbebindinginitsentirety anddirectly applicable
inallMemberStates.2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—24
▼B
▼B
ANNEX
Necessary information for commercial invoices accompanying sales made
subjecttoanundertaking
1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS
SUBJECTTOANUNDERTAKING’.
2. ThenameofthecompanymentionedinArticle2(1)issuingthecommercial
invoice.
3. Thecommercialinvoicenumber.
4. Thedateofissueofthecommercialinvoice.
5. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice is to be
customs-clearedattheCommunityfrontier.
6. Theexactdescriptionofthegoods,including:
— theproductcodenumber(PCN)(asestablishedintheundertakingoffered
bytheexportingproducerinquestion);
— thenumberofstrands;thenumberofwiresperstrand;thearrangementof
wiresperstrand(e.g.standard, seal,warringtonetc); ropecharacteristics
(rotationresistant,compactedetc);
— thecompanyproductcodenumber(CPC)(ifapplicable);— CNcode;
— quantity(tobegiveninkgandlength).
7. Thedescriptionofthetermsofthesale,including:
— priceperkg;
— theapplicablepaymentterms;— theapplicabledeliveryterms;— totaldiscountsandrebates.
8. Name of the company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued
directlybythecompany.
9. Thenameoftheofficialofthecompanythathasissuedtheinvoiceandthe
followingsigneddeclaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European
Community of the goods covered by this invoice is being 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 this invoice is complete and
correct.’2001R1601—EN—22.12.2002—001.001—25