1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 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)No1796/1999
of12August1999
imposingadefinitive anti-dumpingduty,andcollecting definitively theprovisional dutyimposed,
on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the People's Republic of China, Hungary,India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Ukraine and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding
inrespectofimportsoriginatingintheRepublicofKorea
(OJ L 217, 17.8.1999, p. 1)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
►M1Council Regulation (EC) No 1674/2003 of 22 September 2003 L 238 1 25.9.2003
NB: This consolidated version contains references to the European unit of account and/or the ecu, which from 1 January 1999
should be understood as references to the euro — Council Regulation (EEC) No 3308/80 (OJ L 345, 20.12.1980, p. 1) andCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 (OJ L 162, 19.6.1997, p. 1).
▼B
COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1796/1999
of12August1999
imposingadefinitive anti-dumpingduty,andcollecting definitively
the provisional duty imposed, on imports of steel ropes and cablesoriginating in the People's Republic of China, Hungary, India,Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Ukraine and terminating the
anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports originating in the
RepublicofKorea
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December
1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not
membersof the European Community (1), and in particular Articles9
and 10(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.PROVISIONALMEASURES
(1)By Regulation (EC) No 362/1999 (2) (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘provisional Regulation’) the Commission imposed a provi-sional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community ofsteel ropes and cables originating in the People's Republic ofChina (PRC), India, Mexico, South Africa and the Ukraine andaccepted undertakingsoffered by certain exportersin Hungary
and Poland.
B.SUBSEQUENTPROCEDURE
(2)Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, the
interested parties which so requested were granted an opportu-nity to be heard. Parties were informed of the essential factsand considerations on the basis of which it was intended torecommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping dutyand the definitive collection, at the level of these duties, of
amounts secured by way of provisional duties. They were also
granted a period within which to make representations subse-quent to this disclosure.
(3)The oral and written comments submitted by the interestedpartieswere cons idered and, where deemed appropriate, the defi-nitive findingshave been changed accordingly.
C.PRODUCTUNDERCONSIDERATIONANDLIKEPRODUCT
1.Productunderconsideration
(4)It isto be recalled that recital 7 of the provis ional Regulation
described the product concerned as steel ropes and cables,including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stain-
less steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding
3 mm (hereinafter, using industry terminology, referred to assteel wire ropes or ‘SWR’).
(5)It has been alleged that SWR should be divided into two sepa-rate productsaccording to what hasbeen des cribed astwodistinct areas of application or use, i.e. general purpose ropesfor general applications and special purpose ropes for use inspecific industries.1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation aslas t amended by Regulation (EC) No
905/98 (OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18).
(2) OJ L 45, 19.2.1999, p. 1.
▼B
(6)Contrary to the allegation of the existence of two different sepa-
rate products, i.e. general purpose ropes and special purpose
ropes, it was found that SWR were produced in a wide range ofdifferent typesby the exporting producersand that all SWR hadthe same basic physical characteristics (i.e. the steel wires thatform strands, the strands that are wrapped around the core thatform the rope and the core itselfJ. All SWR were also found to
have the same basic technical characteristics (all have a number
of wires in a strand, a number of strands in a rope, a certaindiameter and a certain construction).
(7)The various types of SWR can be classified into a number of
product groupsreflecting their phys ical and technical character-
istics. While SWR in groups in the top end and in the bottomend of the range are clearly not interchangeable, SWR inadjoining groupshave been found to be interchangeable. It wasconcluded that a certain degree of overlapping and competition
existed between SWR in different groups. Given this overlap
between the groups, no clear dividing line could be establishedat any point in the range of SWR. Thisconclus ion isin linewith the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EuropeanCommunities(
1).
(8)In conclusion, given that all SWR were found to have the samebasic physical and technical characteristics and use, even ifdifferencesexis ted between SWR in the top end and bottomend of a range, since competition exists between SWR in adja-cent groups, it was concluded that all products in the range
formed one single product and therefore all SWR were consid-
ered to be one product.
2.Likeproduct
(9)It isto be recalled that in recital 8 of the provis ional Regulation,
the Commission found that the imported SWR from the coun-triesconcerned and the SWR produced and s old in the
Community by the Community industry were alike in their basic
physical and technical characteristics. Both the Community-produced and imported SWR were also found to have essentiallythe same use and to be competing with each other.
(10)It hasbeen alleged that SWR produced and s old by the Commu-nity producerswere not alike to thos e imported from thecountriesconcerned. In particular it wasargued that the productproduced in the exporting countrieswasmainly commoditySWR whereasthe product produced in the Community was
specialised SWR. It was further argued that the Community
producers had included more so-called specialised product typesin their range of SWR over the period examined ascould beseen from the increase in their unit prices.
(11)The following wasconcluded:
— the Community producerswere found to be engaged in the
production of the whole range of SWR, aswere the exportingproducers, i.e. the production of the more specialised SWRaswell asthe more commodity type of SWR,
— the overlap between the productsproduced by the Commu-
nity producersand the exporting producersisevidenced by
volume of sales where matching SWR models were found
(75 % of the exporting producers' volume of sales and 51 %of the Community industry's volume of sales). This overlapcan also be seen from the fact that Community-producedSWR and those imported cover all CN codes concerned.
(12)The provisional findings that Community-produced and importedSWR are like productswithin the meaning of Article 1(4) of1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 3
(1) Case C-175/87 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd v. Council, [1992]
ECR I, p. 1409.
▼B
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to asthe ‘bas ic
Regulation’) are therefore confirmed.
D.DUMPING
1.NormalValue
1.1.Determination ofthenormalvalue
(13)One Indian exporting producer claimed that the costs of produc-
tion for the investigation period (1 January 1997 to 31 March1998, hereinafter referred to as the ‘IP’), should be establishedon the basis of data relating to the period preceding the IP.However, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, forthe purpose of a representative finding concerning dumping, an
IP is selected and the information analysed is normally limited
to the IP. No reasons have been forwarded which would makeit more appropriate to use the cost of production relating to aperiod prior to the IP. In particular, it should be noted that theexporting producer continued to produce and to sell the product
types in question also during the IP. Thus the findings based on
information relating to the IP were considered representative andthe request was not, therefore, accepted.
(14)The South African exporting producer and one Indian exportingproducer objected to the method used to determine theconstructed normal value of the product concerned.
(15)The South African exporting producer claimed that the calcula-tion of the profit margin on domestic sales was inappropriatesince it was based on all domestic transactions includingdomestic sales of mining SWR. Due to the specific properties
of the mining SWR not exported to the Community, which
constitutes a specific product requiring sophisticated equipmentand which is sold with a substantial profit margin, it claimedthat the profit margin made on domestic sales of mining SWRshould not be taken into consideration in the calculation of the
constructed normal value of the other types of ropes.
(16)The Indian exporting producer requested that the domestic salesof certain high-value product typesbe excluded from the
constructed normal value calculations on the grounds that theseproductswere not exported, or only rarely, during the IP and thatthe domestic sales of these product types yielded abnormallyhigh profitsthat dis torted the determination of the average profitof the product concerned.
(17)It wasfound that the South African mining SWR and Indianhigh value product typeswere ‘like products ’ to the product
under consideration within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the
basic Regulation. The profit margin used in constructing thenormal value wastherefore correctly determined in accordancewith Article 2(3), (4) and (6) of the basic Regulation, i.e. onthe basis of all domestic market sales of the like product madein the ordinary course of trade. In this context, it should be noted
that for the determination of the profit margin pursuant to Article
2(6) of the basic Regulation it is irrelevant whether the producttypes in question were also exported to the Community, as longas they constitute a like product within the meaning of the basicRegulation.
(18)These claims were therefore rejected.
(19)Asan alternative to the above, it wasreques ted by the Indiancompany that the average profit be calculated on the basis ofall domestic sales, i.e. sales of both profitable and unprofitable
product types, and not on the basis only of domestic sales of
profitable product types. In this respect it should be noted that,pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the amount forprofitshasto be bas ed on data pertaining to production andsales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product in thedomestic market of the exporting country. In this context, sales1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 4
▼B
below cost of a particular product type can only be taken into
account for the determination of the profit margin if the volumeof non-profitable sales of such type is not higher than 20 % of
all sales of this type in question or if the weighted average
selling price is not below the weighted average unit cost. Thisrule wasres pected when determining the profit margin andconsequently the alternative requested could not be acceptedeither.
(20)Since no other commentsconcerning normal value werepresented, the findings set out in recitals 9) to 13) of the provi-sional Regulation are confirmed.
1.2.Choice of analogue country for non-market economy coun-
tries
(21)Chinese and Ukrainian exporting producers contested the choiceof India as analogue country and asked that the provisionalchoice of analogue country be reviewed. The Ukrainianexporting producer proposed the selection of the Republic of
Korea (hereinafter referred to as‘South Korea’) becaus e it had
an open market.
(22)The argumentsput forward agains t the choice of India as
analogue country were carefully analysed, and for the reasons
set out below it was decided to abandon India as analoguecountry. In the absence of any cooperating market economy thirdcountries not subject to the current investigation, it was consid-ered that Poland represented the most reasonable choice ofanalogue country for the calculation of normal value for China
and the Ukraine.
(23)Further to provisional disclosure, the Chinese and Ukrainian
exporting producers also questioned the choice of Poland as
analogue country; it wasclaimed that South Korea would be
more appropriate in termsof level of import duty, s ize ofdomestic market and the existence of competition on thedomestic market. Poland was, however, considered to be appro-priate given its low level of import duty, the openness and sizeof its domestic market, the existence of competition between
local producers, and the fact that Polish SWR provided, overall,
the most representative comparison in terms of matching modelswith those of China and the Ukraine.
(24)Asfar asSouth Korea isconcerned, it wasnoted that althoughthiscountry als o had a low level of import duty, it had a muchlower percentage of domestic sales which were comparable tothe importsinto the Community from the PRC.
(25)It was therefore considered that Poland was the most reasonablechoice of analogue country both for the Ukraine and for thePRC.
2.Exportprice
(26)Since no commentsconcerning export price were pres ented, the
findings set out in recitals 14) to 17) of the provisional Regula-
tion are confirmed.
3.Comparison
(27)One Polish exporting producer reiterated its claim for adjust-
mentsto the normal value for differencesin inventory financing
and warehousing between the domestic and the export sales.
However, in the absence of any new evidence on the effect ofthe above factorson price comparability asrequired by Article2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation, the claim was not accepted.
(28)The same Polish exporting producer and one Hungarianexporting producer reiterated their request for adjustments tothe normal value for differencesin level of trade. In view ofthe new evidence submitted, the claims were reconsidered andaccepted asit wasproved that the export price and the normal1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 5
▼B
value were at a different level of trade and thisdifference
affected price comparability.
(29)One Indian exporting producer submitted a request for an adjust-ment for differencesin the level of trade on the groundsthatexport sales were made exclusively at wholesaler level, while
domestic sales were made at both wholesaler and end-user
levels. An adjustment was granted to the extent that the requestwasmerited.
(30)One Polish exporting producer contested the use of monthlyaverage exchange ratesto convert the export price into domes ticcurrency for the determination of provisional findings. Thisexporting producer claimed that the exchange rateseffectivelyapplied should have been used. In this respect, it should be notedthat it is normal practice to use monthly average exchange rates.
Moreover, both approacheswere tes ted and it wasfound that the
differenceswere only marginal and that any pos itive differenceswere balanced out by negative differences, i.e. none of the twoapproaches resulted in consistently higher or lower exchangerates and the impact of this issue on the final dumping marginwasnot material. It wascons equently decided to apply the
normal practice of monthly average exchange rates.
(31)The South African exporting producer claimed an allowance for
currency conversion on export prices on the grounds that a
comparison between the lowest exchange rate of the currency
and the ecu during the IP, and that of the highest exchange ratein 1999 showed an important devaluation of the ecu.
(32)In accordance with Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation, thisclaim wasrejected s ince the fluctuationsin exchange ratesdidnot show a sustained movement during the IP that would havejustified an adjustment. Moreover, it should be noted that theaverage devaluation of the ecu versus the South African rand
wasvery s mall during the IP.
(33)Since no other commentsconcerning the comparis on were
presented the findings set out in recitals 17) to 19) and 21) to
23) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
4.Dumpingmargins
4.1.Methodology
(34)At the provisional stage, export sales of SWR by an Indian
exporting producer which were made to itsrelated importer in
the Community and which were subsequently transformed by
the related importer were excluded from the determination ofdumping.
(35)Following disclosure of the provisional findings, the Indianexporting producer contested this approach. It was requestedthat the dumping found for the export transactions examinedshould be expressed as a percentage of the total cif price, i.e.including those export transactions relating to products whichhad been subsequently transformed as described above. In
support of this request, the exporting producer pointed out that
any anti-dumping measures would be applied to all imports ofthe product concerned.
(36)This request could not be accepted. First, it would have beendifficult to construct a reliable export price for those importedproducts which had subsequently been resold in a transformedstate. Secondly, the export sales taken into consideration for thedetermination of a dumping margin accounted for 80 % of all
export resales to the Community made by the exporting producer
during the IP. This was considered largely sufficient as a basisfor representative findings. Third, since the export sales relatingto products which had subsequently been transformed could notbe used for the calculation of dumping, they could not be takeninto consideration for the calculation of the dumping margin1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 6
▼B
since this would have distorted the findings by artificially
lowering the dumping margin.
(37)Therefore, the methodology used for the establishment of theprovisional findings, including the residual margins, as set outin recitals24) to 26), isconfirmed.
4.2.Level ofdumpingmargins
(38)The weighted average normal value per product type was
compared with the weighted average export price on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade in accordance with
Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.
(39)After revision of the calculations, in particular due to the fact
that for the PRC and the Ukraine the normal valueshave beenbased on the domestic market sales of the Polish producers, the
dumping margins definitively established, expressed as a percen-
tage of the CIF price at Community frontier level, are asfollows:
— THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: 60,4 %
— HUNGARY:
Drótáru ésDrötkotél Ipari ésKeres kedelmi Rt 28,1 %All producers/exporters: 28,l %
— INDIA:
Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd 23,8 %Mohatta & Heckel 30,8 %All producers/exporters: 30,8 %
— REPUBLIC OF KOREA:
Kiswire Ltd 1,2 %Manho Rope & Wire Ltd 0,1 %Chung Woo Rope Co. Ltd 0,2 %Chun Kee Steel and Wire Rope Co. Ltd 0,4 %
— MEXICO:
AcerosCames a SA de CV 95,6 %All producers/exporters: 95,6 %
— POLAND:
Drumet SA 27,9 %Slaskie Zaklady Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut’ Spólka
Akeyjna
Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Linodrut’ Zabrze Spólka z
organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia
Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Falind’ Spólka z organic-
zona odpowiedzialnoscia
Górnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut’
Bytom Spólka organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia
Dolnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut
Linmet’ Spólka z organiczona odpowiedzial-
noscia 48,3%
All producers/exporters: 48,3 %
— SOUTH AFRICA:
Haggie Rand Ltd (the company haschanged
name and isnow called Haggie) 132 %1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 7
▼B
All producers/exporters: 132 %
— UKRAINE: 51,8 %
E.COMMUNITYINDUSTRY
1.Communityproduction
(40)In the absence of any new information, the provisional findings
as described in recitals 34 to 36 of the provisional Regulation are
therefore confirmed.
2.Communityindustry
(41)Following commentsreceived by interes ted partiesthe Commu-
nity industry is as follows.
(42)The following 16 complainant Community producersand fourCommunity producerss upporting the complaint and which coop-
erated in the investigation, made up the ‘Community industry’ in
the meaning of Article 4 of the basic Regulation, i.e.:
— Bremer Drahtseilerei Lüling GmbH (Germany),
— Bridon International Limited (UK),
— BTS Drahtseile GmbH (Germany),
— CablesY AlambresEs pecialesSA (Spain),— Casar Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH (Germany),
— Cordoaria Oliveira SA (Portugal),
— Drahtseilerei Gustav Kocks GmbH (Germany),
— Holding FICADI (France),
— Iscar Funi Metalliche (Italy),— D. KoronakisSA (Greece),
— Metalcalvi Wire Ropes(Italy),
— Midland Wire Cordage Co. Ltd (UK),— RandersRebs laareri (Denmark),
— Redaelli Tecnacordati SpA (Italy),
— Trefileurope (France),
— TrenzasY CablesSL (Spain),
— Vereinigte Drahtseilwerke GmbH (Germany),— Voest-Alpine Austria Draht GmbH (Austria),
— Vornbäumen-Stahlseile GmbH (Germany),
— Wadra GmbH (Germany).
3.ImportsmadebytheCommunityindustry
(43)Certain interested parties have questioned the calculation of the
level of importsmade by the Community indus try.
(44)It isto be noted that the information on importshasbeen bas ed
on data supplied by the exporters in their export sales listings
and duly verified. Importsmade by the Community indus tryhas in this manner been established as representing 4,4 % ofconsumption in the investigation period.
(45)The analysis in the provisional Regulation that the principal
activity of the Community industry remained the production of
SWR given the low level of itsimportsisconfirmed. Further-more, this low level was not such as to shield the Communityproducersfrom the injuriouseffectsof the dumping, nor did itallow them to unduly benefit from the importsconcerned.1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 8
▼B
F.INJURY
1.Preliminary remark—theinvestigationperiod
(46)It has been argued that the inclusion of 1994 distorts the injury
analysis, given that the largest part of the imports took place
between 1994 and 1995 and that thereafter the level of the
importsfrom the countriesconcerned remained s table. It hasalso been argued that the situation of the Community industryhas remained stable from 1995 to the IP. As a result, it wasrequested to start the injury investigation period in 1995.
(47)The purpose of the investigation is to evaluate the effect of thedumped importson the economic s ituation of the Communityindustry during the IP. In order to make such an analysis, trendsare established for a number of indicators on the basis of infor-mation relating to a number of yearspreceding the IP. It is
therefore irrelevant whether 1994 or 1995 hasbeen taken asa
starting point for the purpose of establishing trends.
(48)In any event it isto be noted that:
— although the biggest part of the imports from the countries
concerned took place between 1994 and 1995, contrary to
what hasbeen alleged, thes e importshave continued toincrease after 1995 (+ 12 % between 1995 and the IP),
— prices of these imports remained significantly below those of
the Community industry throughout the whole period,
— the impact of these imports on the situation of the Commu-
nity industry resulted in a significant decrease in profitability
between 1994 and 1995 (from 1,3 % to − 0,3 %), coincidingwith a loss of market share (− 10 percentage points). Asexplained in the provisional Regulation, the Communityindustry attempted to regain market share by decreasingprices between 1995 and 1996, only to incur further losses
(−0,3 % to − 0,7 %). In order to reduce these losses, the
Community industry again increased its prices between 1996and 1997. However, this was at the expense of market share,which suffered a further decline,
— this deterioration in the situation of the Community industry
was therefore the result of pressure from both the volume ofimportsfrom the countriesconcerned and the low level ofthe prices of these imports.
(49)On the basis of the above, the allegation concerning the startingpoint of the analyses of the trend is therefore rejected.
(50)Therefore the period during which the economic situation of theCommunity industry was analysed has allowed a proper assess-
ment of itss ituation and accurately reflectsthe evolution of the
market of SWR in the Community.
2.Cumulation
2.1.ImportsfromHungary
(51)One exporting producer repeated itsclaim that the importsfrom
Hungary should be decumulated from imports from the othercountriesconcerned. However, no new argumentswerepresented supporting the decumulation of imports from Hungary.Therefore the groundsfor cumulation ass et out in recital 47 ofthe provisional Regulation are confirmed.
2.2.ImportsfromMexico
(52)One exporting producer hasargued that importsfrom Mexico
should be decumulated from imports from the other countriesconcerned on the basis that these Mexican imports should beconsidered to be de minimis . In thisres pect it wasclaimed that
most of the imports from Mexico were made by an importerrelated to a Community producer and that these imports should1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 9
▼B
not be taken into account when establishing the level of imports
from Mexico. Consequently, the remaining Mexican importswould bede minimis and therefore importsfrom Mexico s hould
be decumulated from the other importsconcerned for the
purposes of the injury analysis.
(53)It is to be noted that in assessing whether imports from a countryconcerned are considered to be de minimis in accordance with
Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation, the total volume of importsoriginating in the country concerned iscalculated.
(54)The level of the importsdes cribed in recitals45 and 48 of theprovisional Regulation is therefore confirmed, i.e. 3 % ofconsumption in the IP, and also the allegation that Mexicanimportsaredeminimis isrejected.
3.Prices ofthedumpedimports
3.1.Comparison between Community prices and those of the
dumpedimports
(55)It has been alleged that the elements used in the categorisationof SWR for the undercutting calculationsdo not allow a mean-ingful and proper price comparison. In particular, it has beenargued that the elementsnot included in the undercutting calcu-lations (i.e. galvanisation, tensile strength, core and cover), and
additional elements not foreseen in the questionnaire (i.e. toler-
ated diameter variance, elongation factor and breaking load)have a significant influence on prices. It has also been allegedthat the same product categorisation should be used for bothdumping and injury calculations.
(56)The following hasbeen concluded:
— for the undercutting calculationsSWR were grouped
according to the number of wiresand the number of s trandsin a rope, the construction type of the rope and its diameter.These elements were found to be the main price drivers ofSWR. Other elementsnot included in the undercutting
analysis (i.e. galvanisation, tensile strength, core and cover),
were found to have only a secondary impact on prices in theCommunity market.
The undercutting calculationsgrouping SWR asdes cribed
above, resulted in a reasonable volume of sales beingcovered for both the exporting producersand the Community
industry and were therefore considered to provide a mean-
ingful and representative result,
— the inclusion of additional elements not foreseen in the ques-
tionnaire (i.e. tolerated diameter variance, elongation factorand breaking load), was considered to be unnecessary giventhat these elements were largely the result of a combination
of the main elementsof SWR already included in the product
categorisation. Their inclusion was not considered to providea more accurate pricing comparison and therefore theirrequest would have been unduly burdensome on all interestedparties,
— the product categorisation for the calculation of the dumping
margin was not considered to serve as a good model in
calculating undercutting given that the dumping categorisa-
tion was, for the most part, a comparison of one company'sproduct range, i.e. the same or similar products produced byone and the same producer and sold on two differentmarkets. The undercutting calculation however, was a
comparison made between a larger number of SWR sold by
a larger number of parties. It was therefore considered thatthe methodology already used in the provisional Regulationprovided a more reasonable basis for the analyses of priceundercutting: while taking into account the main pricedrivers, this approach covered the largest volume of sales,1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 10
▼B
— finally no significant price differentials were found to exist
for the varioustypesof SWR within one group.
(57)In conclusion, the arguments concerning the product categorisa-tion for the undercutting calculationsare rejected.
3.2.Level oftrade
(58)Certain interested parties have argued that an adjustment should
be made to sales prices to reflect an alleged difference in levels
of trade on the basis that sales made by the Community industry
were to end users whereas the imported products were generallysold to wholesalers/distributors.
(59)The Community industry's sales were found to have been madethrough various sales channels including both wholesalers/distri-butors and end users. Furthermore no consistent and/orsignificant price differentials were found to exist according tothe different sales channels.
(60)The request for a level of trade adjustment was thereforerejected.
4.SituationoftheCommunityindustry
(61)Certain exporting producershave alleged that the Community
industry had not suffered material injury in the sense of Article
3 of the basic Regulation, on the basis that the Communityindustry's production, capacity, prices, investments and produc-tivity remained stable or improved between 1994 and the IP.
4.1.Production
(62)Production levelswere found to have remained s table over the
period examined (+ 1 %), this should be seen in conjunctionwith the increasing levels of stocks (+ 30 %) and the decrease
in sales volume (− 9 %), as outlined in recitals 58 to 60 of the
provisional Regulation. It is also recalled that consumptionincreased by 5 % over the period.
4.2.Capacity andinvestments
(63)The finding that the increase in capacity noted in the provisional
Regulation (+ 11 %) resulted from investments made in higherperformance replacement machinery, asoutlined in recitals59and 65 of the provisional Regulation, is confirmed.
4.3.Profitability
(64)Certain exporting producers questioned the use of audited
accountsto calculate profitability of the Community indus try as
set out in recital 64 of the provisional Regulation. It was arguedthat the audited accountsincluded s alesof productsnot coveredby the investigation and did not cover the full IP.
(65)It wasfound that although s ome companieswere able to provideinformation specific to the product concerned, some others didnot have a cost accounting system allowing the separate identifi-cation of the product investigated. In the absence of this
information, it wascons idered that the audited accountsprovided
reliable information on the narrowest group of products,including the product concerned, for which the necessary infor-mation on profitability wasavailable. For all s ix companiesinthe sample, the production of SWR represents its main activity.
Other products manufactured by these companies (e.g. stainless
steel wire ropes, SWR of less than 3 mm, steel wires, and pre-stressed strands) were broadly found to be related to this mainactivity and generally used the same raw material, machineryand personnel.
(66)The use of profitability relating to 1997 in place of the IP wasconsidered to be reasonable given that 1997 largely covers theIP, which runsfrom January 1997 to March 1998.1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 11
▼B
(67)In conclusion, for the reasons given above, it was considered
that the audited accountsprovided a repres entative and reliable
picture of the profitability of the product concerned, in accor-dance with Article 3(8) of the basic Regulation.
(68)At the time of the provisional Regulation one Communityproducer, whose financial year ended in March, only had provi-
sional profitability data available. Final information has since
been received and the profitability for the Community industryhasbeen recalculated to be − 0,3 % in 1997 which asmentionedabove isrepres entative of the IP. The profitability of theCommunity industry therefore went from + 1,3 % in 1994 to− 0,3 % in 1997.
4.4.Conclusiononsituation oftheCommunityindustry
(69)Certain exporting producersargued that the Community indus try
had performed well in the period subsequent to 1995 and that
therefore a finding of material injury wasunjus tified.
(70)It isto be recalled (s ee Section F.1 ‘Preliminary Remark’), thatwhether 1994 or 1995 istaken asa s tarting point for the injuryanalysis, the situation of the Community industry has deterio-
rated. Even if 1995 were to be taken asa s tarting point,
production, sales volume, employment and investmentsdecreased. Stocks increased. Market share remained stable(going from 65,26 % to 65,64 %) and profitability remainednegative (− 0,3 %).
(71)In any event in accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regu-lation, the analysis of injury suffered by the Community industryrelates to the overall assessment of these economic indicatorsand none of these indicators can in isolation give decisiveguidance.
(72)Thisargument istherefore rejected.
4.5.Conclusiononinjury
(73)The conclusion that the Community industry has suffered mate-
rial injury as set out in recital 68 of the provisional Regulation isconfirmed.
G.CAUSATION
(74)In the absence of any new information the provisional findings
as described in recitals 69 to 85 of the provisional Regulationare confirmed.
H.COMMUNITYINTEREST
(75)Certain parties have raised queries concerning the assessment of
the impact of anti-dumping measures on user industries.
(76)It isto be recalled that no replieswere received to the Commis -sion services' questionnaires from the user industries concernedby thisproceeding (recital 87 of the provis ional Regulation).Furthermore, no information hasbeen received following thepublication of the provisional Regulation. It is to be noted that
the conclusions outlined in the provisional Regulation indicated
that users would not be significantly affected by the impositionof measures. This conclusion has not been contested by users,therefore it ishereby confirmed.
(77)It hasbeen argued by a number of interes ted partiesthat the
Community producersdo not produce s mall diameter SWR and
that the effect of the anti-dumping measures would result in ashortage of these SWR on the Community market. It was alsoargued that thiswould have a negative impact on the employ-ment situation of importers currently importing small diameterSWR in the Community.1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 12
▼B
(78)It isto be recalled that the Community indus try producesthe full
range of SWR including the small diameters. It is concluded that
the imposition of measures would not lead to a price increasesuch as to cause a shortage of supply of small diameter SWRon the Community market. It isals o confirmed that a numberof alternative sources of supply of SWR exist that are not subjectto anti-dumping measures (recital 105 of the provisional Regula-
tion).
(79)Given the above, it isconcluded that the impos ition of definitive
measures would not have a significant negative impact on theeconomic operatorsin the Community.
I.ANTI-DUMPINGMEASURES
1.Terminationoftheproceedinginrespect ofSouthKorea
(80)In view of the conclusions set out in recitals 24 et seqs/ . of the
provisional Regulation that the dumping margin for South Koreaisde minimis and that no new argumentshave been pres ented
against the termination of the proceeding for South Korea, the
proceeding concerning importsoriginating in South Korea ishereby terminated without the imposition of measures.
2.Injuryelimination level
(81)For the purposes of establishing the level of measures defini-
tively to be imposed, it was considered that the prices of the
dumped imports should be increased to a non-injurious level.For the purposes of calculating the necessary price increase, i.e.the injury margin, the pricesof the dumped importswerecompared with the selling prices of the Community industryplus the profit shortfall and a reasonable level of profit. It is to
be noted that asthe profitability of the Community indus try has
been recalculated to be − 3 % in 1997 (see Point 4.3 ‘Profit-ability’ in Section F), the element for profit shortfall in theunderselling calculation has been amended accordingly. Other-wise the methodology used for establishing the injury margin as
described in recital 110 of the provisional Regulation is
confirmed.
3.Undertakings
(82)At a late stage in the investigation several exporting producers in
the PRC, Mexico and Ukraine offered undertakings. Furthermore
in the case of India and South Africa the exporting producers
submitted revised offers of price undertakings,
— asconcernsthe PRC, given that none of the companiesin
these countries were granted individual treatment and thatno guaranteeswere contained in the offerson the part of theChinese authorities to allow for adequate monitoring, the
offersof undertakingswere not cons idered to be acceptable,
— as concerns India (Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron
Ltd), Mexico, South Africa and the Ukraine, the exportingproducersconcerned offered price undertakingswhich areconsidered acceptable.
(83)It will be recalled from recital 112 et seg. of the provisional
Regulation that undertakingshad been offered by the exportingproducersin Hungary and Poland, and accepted by the Commis -sion. These undertakings have been adjusted to reflect thedefinitive findings of the investigation with respect to theminimum pricesprovided therein.
4.Formandlevelofthedefinitivemeasures
(84)Definitive measures should take the form of ad valorem duties,
the ratesof which have been fixed individually for cooperatingcompanies. As far as other exporting producers are concernedin view of the high level of cooperation found, the highest1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 13
▼B
company-specific duty found for a cooperating exporter in the
country concerned should be applied. For those companies whichhave offered acceptable price undertakings, the definitive
measures take the form of undertakings.
(85)According to Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, where the
marginsof dumping found in res pect of a particular exportingproducer were below the corresponding increases in importprices necessary to remove injury, as calculated above, the defi-
nitive dutieshave been limited to the dumping margin
established.
(86)These duties, expressed as a percentage of the cif net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty amount to:
— THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA:
All producers/exporters: 60,4 %
— HUNGARY:
Drótarú ésDrótkötél Ipari ésKeres kedelmi Rt 28,1 %All producers/exporters: 28,1 %
— INDIA:
Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd 23,8 %Mohatta & Heckel 30,8 %All producers/exporters 30,8 %
— MEXICO:
AcerosCames a SA de CV 56,1 %All producers/exporters: 56,1 %
— POLAND:
Drumet SA 27,9 %Slaskie Zaklady Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut’ Spólka
Akeyjna
Fabryka Lin i Drutow ‘Linodrut’ Zabrze Spólka z
organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia
Fabryka Lin i Drutow ‘Falind’ Spólka z organic-
zona odpowiedzialnoscia
Górnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut’
Bytom Spólka organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia
Dolnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut
Linmet’ Spólka z organiczona odpowiedzial-
noscia 48,3%
All producers/exporters: 48,3 %
— SOUTH AFRICA:
Haggie 38,6 %All producers/exporters: 38,6 %
— UKRAINE:
All producers/exporters: 51,8 %
(87)The individual duty rates specified in this Regulation were estab-
lished on the basis of the findings of the present anti-dumping
investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during
that investigation. These duty rates are thus exclusively applic-able to importsof productsoriginating in the countriesconcerned and produced by the specific legal entities mentioned.Productsproduced by any other company not s pecificallymentioned in the operative part of thisRegulation, including1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 14
▼B
related entities, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be
subject to the residual duty.
(88)Any claim requesting the application of these individual dutyrates(e.g. following a change in the name of the entity) s houldbe addressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevantinformation, in particular any modification in the company's
activities linked to production, domestic and export sales asso-
ciated with that name change.
J.COLLECTIONOFPROVISIONALDUTIES
(89)In view of the magnitude of the dumping marginsfound for the
exporting producers, and in the light of the seriousness of the
injury caused to the Community industry, it is considered neces-sary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties under the provisional Regulation should be defi-nitively collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposedunless the provisional duty rates are lower, in which case the
latter should prevail,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty ishereby impos ed on importsof
steel ropes and cables, currently classifiable within CN codesex 7312 10 82 (TARIC code 7312 10 82*10), ex 7312 10 84 (TARICcode 7312 10 84*10), ex 7312 10 86 (TARIC code 7312 10 86*10),ex 7312 10 88 (TARIC code 7312 10 88*10) and ex 7312 10 99
(TARIC code 7312 10 99*10) and originating in the People'sRepublic
of China, Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa, Ukraine.
2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the cif
net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, of the productsmanufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:
Country CompanyRate of duty
(%)TARIC additional
code
The PRC All companies60,4 —
Hungary All companies28,1 8900India Usha Martin Industries &
Usha Beltron Ltd
Shakespeare Sarani
Calcutta-700 071 India23,8 8613
All other companies30,8 8900
Mexico All companies56,1 8900
Poland Drumet SA
87-880 Wloclawek, ul. Polna
26/74 Polska27,9 8614
All other companies48,3 8900
South Africa All companies38,6 8900Ukraine All companies51,8 ►
M1—◄
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning the
customs duties shall apply.1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 15
▼B
Article 2
1. Notwithstanding Article 1, the definitive duty shall not apply to
importsof the product des cribed in Article 1(1) above produced anddirectly exported and invoiced to an importing company in the
Community by the companieslis ted in paragraph 3, from which price
undertakings have been accepted by the Commission under Decision1999/572/EC of 13 August 1999 accepting undertakings offered inconnection with the anti-dumping proceedingsconcerning importsofsteel ropes and cables originating in the People's Republic of China,
Hungary, India, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and
Ukraine (
1).
2. When the request for release for free circulation pursuant to an
undertaking is presented, exemption from the duty shall be conditionalon presentation to the relevant Member State's customs services of avalid undertaking invoice, in the form set out in the Annex to theprovisional Regulation, issued by one of the companies listed in para-
graph 3. In the case of the company in the Ukraine, the undertaking
invoice shall be accompanied by a valid export licence delivered bythe Ukrainian authorities, in the form set out in the Annex.
3. Importsmade within the context of the undertakingsoffered and
accepted shall be declared under the following TARIC additionalcodes:
Country Company TARIC additional code
Hungary Drótáru ésDrótkötél Ipari ésKeres kedelmi Rt.
Besenyöi utca 18, 3527 Miskolc, Hungary8616
Poland Slaskie Zaklady Lin i Drutu "Linodrut" Spólka
Akeyjna
Fabryka Lin i Drutów "Linodrut" Zabrze
Spólka z organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia
PL-41-800 Zabre, Sobieskiego Street No 1
8619/C148/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C149/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C147/C150Fabryka Lin i Drutów Falind Spólka z organic-
zona odpowiedzialnoscia
PL-41-201 Sosnowiec, Niwecka Street 1
Górnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu Linodrut
Bytom Spólka organiczona odpowiedzial-
noscia, 41-906 Bytom, Ks. Jerzago Popieluszki
Street 1
Dolnoslaska fabryka Lin i Drutu "Linodrut
Linmet" Spólka z organiczona odpowiedzial-
noscia, 58-309 Walbrzych, Sluga Street 2
Mexico AcerosCames a SA de CV
Margarita Maza de Juárez No 154,
Col Nueva Ind. Vallejo
México D.F.C.P.07700
MexicoA022
South Africa Haggie
Lower Germiston Road
Jupiter
PO Box 40072
Cleveland
South AfricaA023
India Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd
Shakespeare Sanani, Calcutta, 700071 , IndiaA0241999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 16
(1) See page 63 of thisOfficial Journal▼M1
▼B
Article 3
Asregardsimportsof the product des cribed in Article 1(1) originating
in the PRC, Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and
Ukraine, the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
duty imposed by the provisional Regulation shall be collected at therate of the duty definitively imposed. Amounts secured in excess ofthe definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.
Article 4
The proceeding concerning importsof the product des cribed in Article
1(1) originating in the Republic of Korea ishereby terminated.
Article 5
ThisRegulation s hall enter into force on the day following itspublica-
tion in theOfficial JournaloftheEuropeanCommunities .
ThisRegulation s hall be binding in itsentirety and directly applicable
in all Member States.1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 17
▼B
ANNEX
ELEMENTS TO BE INDICATED IN THE EXPORT LICENCE
REFERREDTOINARTICLE2(2)
1. The product reporting code number (as established in the undertaking offered
by the producing exporter in question), including type, number of strands,
number of wiresper s trand and CN code.
2. The exact description of the goods, including:
— the company product code (CPC),
— CN code,— the TARIC additional code under which the goodson the invoice may be
customs cleared at the Community borders,
— quantity (to be given in kilograms),— minimum price applicable.
3. The invoice number.4. The export licence number and issue date.
5. The name of the importer to whom the invoice is issued directly by the
company.1999R1796 — EN — 26.09.2003 — 001.001 — 18