1999R1600 — EN — 23.07.1999 — 000.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 1600/1999
of 12 July 1999
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties and collecting definitively the provisional duties imposed
on imports of stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India andterminating the proceeding concerning imports of stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or
more originating in the Republic of Korea
(OJ L 189, 22.7.1999, p. 19)
Corrected by:
►C1 Corrigendum, OJ L 9, 13.1.2000, p. 30 (1600/1999)
1999R1600 — EN — 23.07.1999 — 000.001 — 2
▼B
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 1600/1999
of 12 July 1999
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties and collecting definitively
the provisional duties imposed on imports of stainless steel wireswith a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India and termi-nating the proceeding concerning imports of stainless steel wireswith a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in the Republic of
Korea
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 Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October
1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries notmembers of the European Community (
2) and in particular Article 24
thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
(A)PROVISIONAL MEASURES
(1) The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 617/1999 (3) (herein-
after referred to as the ‘provisional Regulation') imposed provi-sional anti-dumping duties on imports of stainless steel wireswith a diameter of 1 mm or more (hereinafter referred to as ‘largeSSW' or ‘product concerned'), originating in India, and fallingwithin CN code ex 7223 00 19.
(2) In the same Regulation, it was provisionally concluded that noanti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the productconcerned originating in Korea covered by the same invest-igation, due to the dumping margins established which wereeither de minimis or very close to de minimis .
(B)SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
(3) Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considera-
tions on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisionalmeasures on imports of large SSW originating in India (herein-after referred to as ‘disclosure'), several interested partiessubmitted comments in writing. The parties who so requestedwere also granted an opportunity to be heard orally.
(4) The Commission continued to seek and verify all information itdeemed necessary for its definitive findings.
(5) All parties were informed of the essential facts and considera-tions on the basis of which it is intended to recommend theimposition of definitive anti-dumping duties and the definitivecollection of amounts secured by way of provisional duties. Theywere also granted a period within which they could make repre-sentations subsequent to this disclosure.
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 905/98 (OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18).
(2) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 79, 24.3.1999, p. 13.
1999R1600 — EN — 23.07.1999 — 000.001 — 3
▼B
(6) The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were
considered, and, where deemed appropriate, the provisional find-ings have been modified accordingly.
(C)PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(7) The product concerned is large SSW, containing by weight 2,5 %
or more of nickel, other than containing by weight 28 % or morebut no more than 31 % of nickel and 20 % or more but not morethan 22 % of chromium.
(8) It was found at the provisional stage of the investigation thatthere were differences in physical characteristics and usesbetween SSW covered by the present investigation, i.e. with adiameter of 1 mm or more (large wire) and SSW with a diameterof less than 1 mm (fine wire). For these reasons, it also appearedthat there was no or only very limited interchangeability betweenlarge and fine wires’ applications. However, it was also stated inthe provisional Regulation that the question whether a cleardividing line could be drawn between these two products wasgoing to be further investigated up to the definitive stage.
(9) On the basis of the further information collected from interestedparties, it is concluded that large wire and fine wire are twodifferent products as they present different physical characteris-tics and are used for different applications. Firstly, as to thephysical characteristics, the tensile strength, granular structureand coating of SSW are different for large and fine wires.Secondly, as regards the various applications of the two products,it has been found that large wire is used for heavier duty engin-eering applications such as fasteners, wall reinforcement prod-ucts, welding wires, etc. By contrast, fine wire is as a rule usedfor precision applications such as screens and filters (woven wirecloth) with small openings for filtering very fine or smallparticles (for example dust filters and chemical filters), medical/surgical applications, etc.
(10) On the basis of the above it is concluded that fine and large wiresare two different products which have different characteristicsand applications and that they are not interchangeable from thepoint of view of SSW users.
(11) In view of the above and since no arguments were put forward byany of the parties concerned with respect to the Commission’sprovisional findings on the product concerned and the considera-tions made on the like product, the facts and findings as set out inrecitals 7 to 11 of the provisional Regulation, are herebyconfirmed.
(D)DUMPING
1.Korea
(12) Since no arguments have been put forward by any interested
party and the investigation has not led to any different conclu-sion, the provisional findings as set out in recital 23(b) of theprovisional Regulation are hereby confirmed, i.e. the dumpingmargins established for the Korean exporting producersconcerned are de minimis except for two exporting producers.
Furthermore, the weighted average country-wide dumping marginfor all the exporting producers investigated which represent thetotality of exports of large SSW to the Community originating inKorea expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at Communityfrontier level is de minimis , i.e. under 2 %. Under these circum-
stances, the dumping margin for Korea has to be considerednegligible in accordance with Article 9(3) of the Basic Regula-tion.
1999R1600 — EN — 23.07.1999 — 000.001 — 4
▼B
2.India
(a)Normal value
(13) Several Indian exporting producers argued that the average profit
margins used to determine the constructed normal value wereunreasonable, in particular because they were substantially higherthan the profit margin of 5 % which was mentioned in recital 79of the provisional Regulation as a reasonable profit rate for theCommunity industry in the determination of the non-injuriousprice. These exporting producers claimed that the company-wideprofit margin during the investigation period, i.e. a global figureincluding both the product concerned and other products, shouldbe used to determine the constructed normal value. In the case ofnon-profitable companies, it was claimed that the average of thecompany-wide profit margins of profitable companies in Indiashould be used to determine the constructed normal value.
(14) As an alternative to the above it was requested that the averageprofit be calculated for each company concerned on the basis ofall domestic sales, i.e. sales of both profitable and unprofitableproduct types, and not only on the basis of domestic sales ofprofitable product types.
(15) In this respect it should be noted that, pursuant to Article 2(6) ofCouncil Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as‘Basic Regulation'), the amount for profits has to be based ondata pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course oftrade, of the like product in the domestic market of the exportingcountry. In this context sales below cost of a particular producttype can only be taken into account for the determination of theprofit margin if the volume of non-profitable sales of such type isnot higher than 20 % of all sales of the type in question. Theabove rule has been respected when determining the profitmargin used in the determination of the constructed normal value.
(16) Therefore, the claims concerning the profit margin used to deter-mine constructed normal value were rejected.
(17) One Indian exporting producer claimed that account should betaken of the goods-in-process stock variation in the determinationof the constructed normal value. This claim was granted since theevidence finally submitted was sufficient.
(18) Two Indian exporting producers which sustained lossesthroughout the investigation period claimed, pursuant to Article2(5) of the basic Regulation, that these losses had occurredduring the start-up phase and that this situation should be takeninto account. However, since none of these two companies metthe criteria set in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the adjust-ment could not be granted.
(19) In the absence of any other arguments concerning the deter-mination of the normal value, the findings set out in recitals 12and 13 of the provisional Regulation are otherwise confirmed.
(b)Export price
(20) In the absence of any new arguments concerning the deter-
mination of the export price, the findings set out in recitals 14 to16 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(c)Comparison
(21) One Indian exporting producer requested that the credit cost
incurred by its related importer be determined on the basis of thepayment terms granted by the latter to its first independentcustomer in the Community instead of on the basis of thepayment terms agreed between the parent company and therelated importer. This request was accepted and the credit costdetermination amended accordingly.
1999R1600 — EN — 23.07.1999 — 000.001 — 5
▼B
(22) In the absence of any other arguments concerning the adjust-
ments made in order to allow for a fair comparison, the provi-sional findings set out in recitals 17 to 19 of the provisionalRegulation are hereby confirmed.
(d)Dumping margins
(23) In the absence of any new arguments concerning the deter-
mination of the dumping margin, the findings set out in recitals20 to 22 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. Onthis basis, the dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of thecif price at Community frontier level, are:
Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt., Ltd 1,2 %
Devidayal India Ltd 27,5 %Hindustan Stainless Steel Wire Co., Pvt Ltd 76,2 %Indore Wire Co., Ltd 35,8 %Isibars Ltd/Isinox Steels Ltd 11,4 %Kei Industries Ltd 76,2 %Macro Bars & Wires Pvt., Ltd 21,9 %Mukand Ltd 23,3 %Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd 16,0 %Triveni Shinton International Ltd 68,2 %Venus Wire Industries Ltd 6,6 %
(E)INJURY
1.Community industry
(24) In the absence of new evidence or any further substantiated
argument put forward by any of the parties concerned, the factsand findings set out in recitals 24 and 25 of the provisionalRegulation are confirmed, i.e the complainant Community produ-cers representing more than 65 % of the total Community produc-tion of large SSW constitute the Community industry, in accord-ance with Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.
2.Competition aspects
(25) In their comments following the disclosure, the Indian exporting
producers reiterated their claim that all data submitted by theCommunity industry within the framework of the currentproceeding would be artificially inflated as a result of theuniform application of the ‘alloy surcharge' system, and that itwould, therefore, not be possible to conduct any accurate injuryanalysis within the framework of the anti-dumping proceeding.Since no new arguments have been put forward by any interestedparty and there has been a definitive decision of the Commissionrejecting the complaint on the case No IV/E-l/36.930 concerningstainless steel bright bars, which belong to the same category ofproducts as SSW, the findings set out in recitals 27 of theprovisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
3.Community consumption
(26) Following disclosure, some interested parties have argued that the
methodology followed for the purpose of determining theCommunity consumption, in particular with regard to the sales ofnon-cooperating Community producers and third countriesimports, was inappropriate.
(27) In this respect, it should be recalled that detailed and verified dataare only available for the Community industry and the cooper-ating exporting producers in the countries concerned. Therefore,in line with the consistent practice of the Community institutions,recourse was made to information available to the Commission,and in particular to independent statistical sources. No interestedparty has provided information that would show that the
1999R1600 — EN — 23.07.1999 — 000.001 — 6
▼B
approach followed by the Community institutions was unreason-able and not justified in the circumstances of the present case.
(28) Consequently, the findings as set out in recitals 28 and 29 of theprovisional Regulation are confirmed.
4.Import volume and market shares of the dumped imports
(29) Since no new arguments were put forward by any interested
party, the findings detailed in recitals 30 and 31 of the provi-sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5.Prices of the dumped imports
(30) Some interested parties contested the methodology used by the
Commission at the provisional stage for the calculation of priceundercutting margins. They claimed that these margins wereinflated because any negative amount by which the exportingproducers’ prices undercut those of the Community industry werenot offset with any positive amounts.
(31) It should be noted that in the methodology described in recitals33 and 34 of the provisional Regulation for the calculation of theprice undercutting margins the weighted average net sales pricesof the dumped imports were compared, on a model-by-modelbasis, with the weighted average net sales price by model of theCommunity industry in the Community market. Therefore, thismethodology allowed, on a per model basis, to take into accountthe amount by which the exporting producers’ price of an exporttransaction exceeded that of the Community industry’s weightedaverage price. The argument was therefore rejected.
(32) In the absence of any other comments, the conclusions reached inrecitals 32 to 35 of the provisional Regulation are herebyconfirmed.
6.Situation of the Community industry
(33) Since no arguments were put forward by any interested party as
to the provisional findings concerning the economic indicatorsrelating to the situation of the Community industry, the findingsas set out in recitals 36 to 43 of the provisional Regulation areconfirmed.
(34) Some interested parties have argued that the economic indicatorsof the Community industry did not allow the conclusion that thisindustry was materially injured. Indeed, they argued that thesituation of the Community industry remained relatively stableduring the period under consideration, and even showed signs ofimprovement in terms of production, sales volume and invest-ments. As to profitability, its decreasing trend should beexplained by the decision of the Community industry to concen-trate on products generating higher costs of production.
(35) As set out in recitals 44 and 45 of the provisional Regulation, it isrecalled that the conclusion of material injury of the Communityindustry was based on the fact that the Community industry,faced to dumped imports, could not follow the growing trend ofthe market, did never recover its position on the market but wasonly able to keep its sales volume stable at the expense of itsprofitability which, in a context of depressed sales prices,strongly deteriorated. Indeed, the sales volume of the Communityindustry only increased by 5 % between 1994 and the invest-igation period, whilst the Community market went up by 20 %during the same period. Furthermore, the slight increase ofproduction and investment reflect the fact that the Communityindustry tried to keep its market share in a significantly growingmarket. Thus, the decreasing trend of its profitability is notexclusively due, if at all, to the fact that the Community industrystarted to produce also some models for which less competitionfrom the dumped imports was faced.
1999R1600 — EN — 23.07.1999 — 000.001 — 7
▼B
(36) On the basis of the above, it is concluded that the Community
industry is suffering material injury as set out in recitals 44 and45 of the provisional Regulation.
(F)CAUSATION
(37) Following the adoption of the provisional Regulation, some inter-
ested parties questioned whether the injury suffered by theCommunity industry was caused by the dumped imports. Inparticular, it was alleged that the injury was caused by otherfactors, namely by Community producers which are not part ofthe Community industry as defined above. It was argued in thisrespect that in view of the limited cooperation obtained from theCommunity producers, the assessment of the impact of sales bythe non cooperating Community producers was not fully reliable.
(38) In view of the transparency and the price sensitivity of the SSWmarket in the Community, it is not unreasonable to conclude thatother Community producers are likely to have followed a trendsimilar to that found for the Community industry, in particular asregards prices. Furthermore, no interested party has submittedany information that would suggest that the non-complainingproducers operated in a more positive context. Thus, the argu-ment should be rejected and the findings set out in recital 50 ofthe provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed, i.e. the otherCommunity producers have not contributed to the injury sufferedby the Community industry.
(39) In the light of the above, the findings set out in the provisionalRegulation in recitals 46 to 59 are hereby confirmed, i.e that thelow-priced dumped imports originating in India have causedmaterial injury to the Community industry.
(G)COMMUNITY INTEREST
(40) Following the adoption of the provisional Regulation, comments
have been submitted by users with respect to the potential effectof the duties.
(41) As to the Community industry and other Community producers,in the absence of any further submissions regarding the impact ofthe duties on their situation, the conclusion is hereby confirmedthat the imposition of measures are likely to enable theCommunity industry to regain a satisfactory profitability, and tomaintain and further develop its activities in the Communitysecuring both employment and investment.
(42) In the absence of any further reaction from unrelated importersand from the suppliers, the findings set out in recitals 66 to 70 ofthe provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(43) Concerning the users, some companies have alleged that theimposition of measures would have a direct impact on theireconomic situation since it would lead to an increase of the priceof their raw material. However, they have also stated that, apartfrom India, there are other sources of supply outside theCommunity. Furthermore, in view of the overall low level of theduties, the impact of any price increase would be limited.
(44) Other users have insisted on the quality and reliability of theCommunity industry’s products, considering therefore that theimposition of the measures would not affect their own situation.
(45) Therefore, the findings set out in recitals 60 to 77 of the provi-sional Regulation are confirmed in the sense that there are nocompelling reasons against the imposition of anti-dumping duties.
1999R1600 — EN — 23.07.1999 — 000.001 — 8
▼B
(H)DEFINITIVE COURSE OF ACTION
1.Korea
(46) In the light of the above findings that the country-wide weighted
average dumping margin for imports originating in Korea is de
minimis , the proceeding concerning imports of large SSW origin-
ating in Korea should be terminated in accordance with Article9(3) of the Basic Regulation.
2.India
(47) Based on the above conclusions on dumping, injury, causal link
and Community interest, it was considered what form and levelthe definitive anti-dumping measures would have to take in orderto remove the effects of injurious dumping.
(48) Accordingly, as explained in recital 79 of the provisional Regula-tion a non-injurious level of prices was calculated at a levelwhich covers the Community industry’s cost of production and areasonable return on sales.
(49) The comparison of the non-injurious price levels at the samelevel of trade with the export price of the producers led to injurymargins which ranged from around 20 % to more than 50 %expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Community-frontierimport price level. For three Indian exporting producers thismargin was below the dumping margins.
(50) The finding set out in recital 83 of the provisional Regulation ishereby confirmed, i.e. all of the schemes investigated have beenfound to constitute export subsidies within the meaning of Article3(4)(a) of the above Regulation (EC) No 2026/97. As such, thesubsidies can affect the export prices of the Indian exportingproducers, thus leading to increased margins of dumping. There-fore, and as stated in recitals 80 to 82 of the provisional Regula-tion, the anti-dumping duties need to be adjusted to reflect theactual dumping margins remaining after the imposition of thecountervailing duties offsetting the effect of the export subsidies.
(51) On the basis of the above, the definitive duty rates, expressed asa percentage of the cif Community border price, customs dutyunpaid, taking into account the results of the parallel anti-subsidyproceeding, are as follows:
Company Antidumping duty (%)
Bhansali 0
Devidayal 2,4
Indore Wire 16,5
Isibars/Isinox 0
Kei Industries 32,6
Macro Bars 0
Mukand 10,1
Raajratna 0
Triveni 55,6
Venus Wire 0
(52) As far as other exporting producers are concerned, in view of the
high level of cooperation found, the highest company-specificanti-dumping duty found should be applied. This was found to be55.6 %. This duty was not adjusted within the meaning of Article24(1) of the above Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 since thecompany on the basis of which it was established, i.e. Triveni,was not found to have received any countervailable export subsi-dies.
1999R1600 — EN — 23.07.1999 — 000.001 — 9
▼B
Producer Rate of duty (%)Taric additional
code(53) The individual duty rates specified in this Regulation were estab-
lished on the basis of the findings of the present anti-dumpinginvestigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found duringthat investigation. These duty rates are thus exclusively applic-able to imports of products originating in the country concernedand produced by the specific legal entities mentioned. Productsproduced by any other company not specifically mentioned in theoperative part of this Regulation, including related entities,cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to theresidual duty rate.
(54) Any claim requesting the application of these individual dutyrates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity) should beaddressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevant informa-tion, in particular any modification in the company’s activitieslinked to production, domestic and export sales associated withthat name change.
(J)COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTIES
(55) In view of the amount of the dumping margins definitively
established for the exporting producers located in India and in thelight of the seriousness of the injury caused to the Communityindustry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured byway of the provisional Regulation be definitively collected to theextent of the amount of definitive duties imposed, unless theprovisional duty rates are lower in which case the latter shouldprevail,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of
stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1 mm or more, containing byweight 2,5 % or more of nickel, excluding wire containing by weight28 % or more but no more than 31 % of nickel and 20 % or more but nomore than 22 % of chromium, falling within CN code ex 7223 00 19(TARIC code 7223 00 19*90) and originating in India.
2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net,
free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, shall be as follows:
— Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt Ltd, C-8/3, TTC Industrial Area,
Village — Pawne Opposite PIL, Thane — Belapur Road,Navi Mumbai 400 705, India0 A009
— Devidayal Industries Ltd, Gupta Mills Estate, ►C1Reay
Road◄, Mumbai 400 010, India2,4 A010
— Indore Wire Company Ltd, Near Fort, Indore 452 006
(M.P.), India16,5 A004
— Isinox Steels Ltd, Indiasteel Complex, Railway Gate No 4,
Antop Hill, Wadala, Mumbai 400 037, India0 A002
— Isibars Ltd, Indiasteel Complex, Railway Gate No 4, Antop
Hill, Wadala, Mumbai 400 037, India0 A011
— Mukand Ltd, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla, Mumbai 400 070, India 10,1 A003
— Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd, 909, Sakar - III, Nr Income
Tax, Ahmedabad 380 014, Gujarat, India0 A005
1999R1600 — EN — 23.07.1999 — 000.001 — 10
▼B
Producer Rate of duty (%)Taric additional
code
— Venus Wire Industries Ltd, Block No 19, Raghuvanshi Mill
Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai400 013, India0 A006
— Macro Bars and Wires Pvt. Ltd, 702 Bombay Market
Building, ►C1Tardeo Road ◄, Mumbai 400 032, India0 A008
— Kei Industries Ltd, D-90, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-1,
New Delhi, India32,6 A020
— Triveni Shinton International Ltd, Kanti Mansion, 6 Murai
Mohalla, Indore, 452 001, (M.P.), India55,6 A012
— All other Indian companies 55,6 A999
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
4. The individual duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty
applicable to ‘others') specified in this Regulation are exclusivelyapplicable to imports of products produced by the specific legalentity/ies mentioned and originating in the country concerned. Productsproduced by any company not specified by its precise name in theoperative part of the Regulation cannot benefit from these rates.
Any claim requesting the application of these individual duty rates (e.g.
following a change in the name of the entity) should be addressed to theCommission (
1) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any
modification in the company’s activities linked to production, domesticand export sales associated with that name change. The Commissionwill, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, amend the Regula-tion accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting fromindividual duty rates.
Article 2
1. The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
duties on imports of stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm ormore originating in India under Regulation (EC) No 617/1999 (
2) shall
be definitively collected at the rate of the duties definitively imposed.Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping dutiesshall be released.
2. The provisions referred to in Article 1(4) shall also apply to the
definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisionalanti-dumping duties.
Article 3
The proceeding concerning imports of stainless steel wire with a diam-
eter of 1 mm or more originating in Korea shall be terminated.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States.
(1) European Commission,
Directorate-General 1 - External Relations,Directorate C,DM 24 - 8/38,Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat, 200,B-1049 Brussels.
(
2) OJ L 79, 24.3.1999, p. 13.