2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COMMISSIONDECISIONNo1758/2000/ECSC
of9August2000
imposingadefinitiveanti-dumpingdutyonimportsofcertainhot-rolledflatproductsofnon-alloy
steeloriginatinginthePeople'sRepublicofChina,IndiaandRomania,acceptinganundertaking
withregard toIndiaandRomaniaandcollecting definitively theprovisionaldutiesimposed
(OJ L 202, 10.8.2000, p. 21)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
►M1Commission Decision No 979/2002/ECSC of 3 June 2002 L 150 36 8.6.2002
▼B
COMMISSIONDECISIONNo1758/2000/ECSC
of9August2000
imposingadefinitive anti-dumpingdutyonimportsofcertain hot-
rolled flat products of non-alloy steel originating in the People'sRepublic of China, India and Romania, accepting an undertakingwith regard to India and Romania and collecting definitively the
provisionaldutiesimposed
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel
Community,
Having regard to Commission Decision No 2277/96/ECSC of 28
November 1996 on protection against dumped imports from countries
not membersof the European Coal and Steel Community(1), as
amended by Decision No 1000/1999/ECSC(2), and in particular Arti-
cles8 and 9 thereof,
After consulting the Advisory Committee,Whereas:
A.PROVISIONALMEASURES
(1)The Commission, by Decision No 307/2000/ECSC(3) (the
‘provisional Decision’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping
duty on importsinto the Community of certain hot-rolled flat
productsof non-alloy s teel originating in the People'sRepublicof China, India and Romania and falling within CN codesex 7208 51 30, ex 7208 51 50, ex 7208 51 91, ex 7208 51 99and ex 7208 52 91.
B.SUBSEQUENTPROCEDURE
(2)Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty,
the exporting producersand the complainant made written repre-
sentations; interested parties which so requested were granted an
opportunity to be heard. Parties were informed of the essentialfacts and considerations on the basis of which it was intendedto recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping dutyand the definitive collection of amountss ecured by way of theprovisional duty. They were also granted a period within which
to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.
(3)The oral and written comments submitted by the interested
partieswere cons idered and, where appropriate, the definitive
findingshave been changed accordingly.
C.PRODUCTCONCERNEDANDLIKEPRODUCT
(4)It is recalled that recital 9 of the provisional Decision described
the product concerned asflat productsof non-alloy s teel, not in
coils, not further worked than hot-rolled, without patterns inrelief, with a thickness of more than 10 mm and a width of600 mm or more falling within CN codesex 7208 51 30(TARIC code 7208 51 30 10), ex 7208 51 50 (TARIC code
7208 51 50 10), ex 7208 51 91 (TARIC code 7208 51 91 10)
and ex 7208 51 99 (TARIC code 7208 51 99 10), or with athickness of 4,75 mm up to 10 mm and a width of 2 050 mmor more falling within CN code ex 7208 52 91 (TARIC code7208 52 91 10) and originating in the People'sRepublic ofChina, India and Romania.2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996, p. 11.
(2) OJ L 122, 12.5.1999, p. 35.
(3) OJ L 36, 11.2.2000, p. 4.
▼B
(5)In the absence of any new arguments concerning the definition
of the product concerned and the like product, the findingss et
out in recitals 9 to 11 of the provisional Decision are confirmed.
D.DUMPING
1.Normalvalue
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, INDIA AND ROMANIA
Determination of normal value
(6)Since no commentsconcerning normal value were pres ented the
findings set out in recitals 12 to 25 of the provisional Decision
are confirmed.
2.Exportprice
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, INDIA AND ROMANIA
(7)Since no commentsconcerning export price were pres ented the
findings set out in recitals 26 to 29 of the provisional Decisionare confirmed.
3.Comparison
(8)The Romanian exporting producer claimed that the cif price at
Community frontier level had not been calculated correctly since
undue account had been taken of insurance and ocean freight.Since it was found that this claim was justified, adjustmentswere made to the export price for these elements in accordancewith the evidence obtained.
Since no other commentsconcerning the comparis on were
presented the findings set out in recitals 30 and 31 of the provi-sional Decision are confirmed.
4.Dumpingmargins
Methodology
(9)Several Chinese exporting producers requested more explanation
of the Commission's decision not to grant individual treatment.
In this respect it should be noted that all of the companies wereeither wholly or majority State-owned, the independence fromState interference could not be guaranteed and there wasthusarisk of circumvention of the measures. Therefore, in line withthe consistent practice of the Community institutions, it was
decided not to grant individual treatment.
(10)The Chinese exporting producers, representing 74 % of the total
exports to the Community registered by Eurostat, objected to thecalculation of the dumping margin using a categorisation of theproduct concerned based on CN codes and requested a morerefined methodology, differentiating between different qualitiesof steel. This request was granted. Each product type exported
by the cooperating Chinese exporting producers was, therefore,
compared with the Indian normal valuesof the corres pondingproduct types (also taking into account the quality of steel).
(11)For the remaining Chinese sales, representing 26 % of totalexport sales to the Community registered by Eurostat, findingshad to be made on the basis of facts available, in accordancewith Article 18(1) of the basic Decision. In this case it was
found that the most reasonable approach was to use the same
methodology asthat us ed to determine the injury eliminationmargin. Thusthe res idual dumping margin wasdetermined byusing the same product categories and quarters used to determinethe residual elimination margin (see recital 59). This approachwas considered appropriate since there was no reason to believe2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 3
▼B
that a non-cooperating exporting producer had dumped at a level
lower than the cooperating exporting producers. Moreover,partiess hould not be given a bonusfor non-cooperation.
Level of dumping
(12)Weighted average normal value per product type wascompared
with the weighted average export price on an ex-worksbas isand
at the same level of trade in accordance with Article 2(11) ofDecision No 2277/96/ECSC (the ‘basic Decision’).
(13)After revision of the calculations, the dumping margins defini-
tively established, expressed as a percentage of the cif price at
Community frontier level, are asfollows :
People'sRepublic of China 55,5 %
India
— Steel Authority of India Ltd 51,1 %
— Residual 51,1 %
Romania
— Sidex SA 12,1 %
— Residual 52,6 %
E.INJURY
1.Communityindustry
(14)No new information has been submitted with respect to the defi-
nition of the Community industry. Therefore, the findings set outat recitals 39 to 44 of the provisional Decision are confirmed.
2.Consumption
(15)Asno new information hasbeen received regarding the data on
consumption determined at the provisional stage, the findings setout at recitals 45 and 46 of the provisional Decision areconfirmed.
3.Importsfromthecountriesconcerned
Cumulation
(16)Chinese and Romanian exporting producers repeated the argu-
ments made at the provisional stage that the effects of theirimports to the Community should not be cumulatively assessed
with those of the other countries concerned, without however
providing any further information or evidence. The findingss etout at recitals 47 and 48 of the provisional Decision in respectof cumulation of dumped importsfrom the People'sRepublic ofChina, India and Romania are therefore confirmed.
Volume and market shares
(17)Asno new information wasreceived regarding volumesand
market shares of dumped imports, the findings set out at recital
49 of the provisional Decision are confirmed.
Price undercutting
(18)Romanian exporterscontended that the calculation of price
undercutting should be revised as regards the cif Communityfrontier price calculation and the physical differences betweenimported Romanian productsand the Community indus try'sproducts.2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 4
▼B
Chinese exporting producers also alleged that the importer's
margin used by the Commission at the provisional stage wastoo low. In addition, they requested that price undercutting be
calculated taking into account the quality of steel.
cif Community frontier price
(19)Asfor the calculation of the dumping margin (s ee recital 10), the
Romanian cif Community frontier import priceswere revis ed totake into account the additional information submitted.
The Chinese request with regard to price undercutting was
accepted and the calculationswere adjus ted in line with themethodology described in recital 59.
Importer'smargin
(20)Asregardsthe importer'smargin, 8 % wasadded, at the preli-
minary stage, to the cif Community frontier price to cover
customs clearance and post importation costs. This amount
reflected 4 % importer's profit, and miscellaneous import costs.This amount, as set out in recital 50 of the provisional Decision,wasbas ed on information collected from unrelated importersinthe course of the investigation.
In claiming that the above margin wastoo low, the Chines e
exporting producersrelied on information provided by two unre-lated importersthat had not cooperated in the inves tigation andhad made themselves known at a very late stage in the
proceeding. As, therefore, the Commission was not in a position
to verify the information supplied, which in any event referred tothe period following the investigation period (the ‘IP’), theconclusions reached in recital 50 of the provisional Decisionare confirmed.
Adjustment for physical differences
(21)An adjustment was requested by the Romanian exporting
producer to take into account alleged physical differences
between Romanian and Community products. Analysis of theevidence available, however, does not justify an adjustment, asin fact both Romanian and Community productsconform tointernational standards. There are therefore no grounds for
granting any adjustment as regard differences in physical charac-
teristics.
Conclusion on price undercutting
(22)In the light of the above, the appropriate amendmentshave been
made to the price undercutting calculations. It is recalled that atthe provisional stage the price undercutting margins were estab-lished by quarter for each category, and were then weighted by
tonnage imported. At the definitive stage, it became apparent
that the weighting between categoriess hould be more accuratelyexpressed by weighting on the basis of the hypothetical turnover,obtained by multiplying the average price per category of theCommunity industry by the tonnage of the comparable imported
categories; this method was found appropriate since it takes into
account both the quantity imported and the amplitude of pricevariationsbetween different categoriesof the Community-likeproduct.
(23)The definitive price undercutting marginsare therefore:
People'sRepublic of China 7,5 %
India
— Steel Authority of India Ltd 12,9 %
— Other 12,9 %2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 5
▼B
Romania
— Sidex SA 7,1 %
— Other 14,7 %
4.SituationoftheCommunityindustry
(24)It wasargued by s ome exporting producersthat the annual data
examined by the Commission in its provisional Decision couldnot lead to the conclusion of a deterioration of the situation ofthe Community industry. In addition, it was questioned whetherthe subsequent quarterly analysis made by the Commission was
pertinent, given the excellent performance of the Community
industry in the IP as a whole. In particular, it was argued that atrend during the IP could not take precedence over actual perfor-mance throughout thisperiod. The compatibility of theCommission's methodology as regards Article 6(1) of the basic
Decision was questioned, in particular in relation with the
analysis by quarter of the IP.
In addition, it was claimed that the Commission had taken into
consideration post-IP information, without sufficiently explaining
why it had derogated from itsnormal practice. Thiswasals oalleged to be contrary to the provisions of Article 6(1) of thebasic Decision.
(25)The Commission examined these claims, in particular as regards
the relevant provisions of both Article 3 and Article 6 of the
basic Decision. In fact, the provisional analysis took into consid-eration the volume of the dumped importsand the effect of thedumped importson pricesin the Community market, and theconsequent impact of those imports on the Community industry.
The examination of the latter impact included an evaluation of
all relevant economic factorsand indiceshaving a bearing onthe state of the industry.
(26)At the provisional stage, the Commission's analysis referred toannual data for a large range of indicatorsin the period cons id-ered, and was supplemented by an examination on the basis of
half-yearly information during the period considered of the
volumesand pricesof dumped imports , and of the pricesandprofitability of the Community industry. Finally a quarterlyanalysis of the prices and profitability of the Communityindustry in the IP completed the examination. This was done,
as explained at recital 59 of the provisional Decision, because it
wascons idered that an examination of pricesand profitabilityduring the IP asa whole (a period of 15 months ) would haveled to inappropriate conclusions, the Community market havingexperienced pronounced changesover thisperiod.
(27)In their claims, the exporting producers did not submit any infor-mation contradicting the finding that the Community market hadchanged profoundly during the IP, and that thiss ituation wasexceptional ascompared to previousperiods . In fact, theylimited themselves to contesting the Commission analysis andsubmitting very general additional information. This information
did not lead to the conclusion that the economic indicators set
out in the provisional Decision had been inappropriatelyassessed.
(28)In fact, nothing in Article 6(1) of the basic Decision prevents thequarterly analysis of data for the IP. Further, it was necessary to
take into consideration a longer IP of 15 months, in order to
reflect as precisely as possible the circumstances of the Commu-nity industry. In any case, it should be noted that an IP of sixmonths, a length which is foreseen in Article 6(1) of the basicDecision, would have led to the same conclusions on the exis-tence of material injury in thiscas e.2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 6
▼B
(29)The Commission analysis at the provisional stage took into
consideration all relevant economic indicators available. It is
clear that some indicators seen in isolation could lead todifferent conclusions. However, if as suggested by someexporting producers, the examination was limited to an analysisof annual economic indicatorsonly, thiswould lead in fact toincomplete conclusions in the present case. Based on the above,
and in the absence of any new elements indicating that the
economic indicators established and evaluated at the provisionalstage are inaccurate, the conclusions set out at recital 68 of theprovisional Decision on the deterioration of the situation of theCommunity industry are confirmed.
5.Conclusiononinjury
(30)Taking into account the significant price undercutting by the
dumped imports and their increasing volume and market shareaswell asthe deterioration of the s ituation of the Communityindustry, it is confirmed that the Community industry suffered
material injury within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the basic
Decision.
F.CAUSATION
1.Effectofdumpedimports
(31)Exporting producerscontended that a link between the dumped
imports, which cumulatively reached their greatest volumes inthe two first quarters of the IP, and the situation of the Commu-nity industry, which showed its greatest deterioration in the lasttwo quarters of the IP, had not been established.
(32)In thiscontext, it s hould be noted that in the early part of the IP,
apparent consumption was good and prices in the Community
were consequently at relatively high levels. However, it soonbecame clear, aspointed out at recitals75 to 77 of the provi-sional Decision, that this increased apparent consumption andthe significant volume of dumped imports was disproportionate
ascompared to the actual cons umption at that time. Indeed,
stocks reached substantial levels. When the mismatch becametoo important in the second part of the IP, the market deterio-rated significantly. Indeed, at that point in time, the price levelof the Community industry decreased by around 25 %.
It is recalled from recital 71 of the provisional Decision that
there isa time lag between importation of dumped productsandtheir effect on the situation of the Community industry becomingclear. Apart from the stock effect mentioned above, the link
between the rise in imports and the deterioration of the situation
of the Community industry therefore exists by way of its priceand quantity effectson the Community market. The exis tenceof high stock levels depressed prices on the market, and led tofalling orders for the Community industry, with the resultant
financial deterioration observed.
Further, thisphenomenon wasreinforced by the fact that
dumped importsfrom the countriesconcerned, although s howingsome reductions later in the IP, remained at sustained levels.
(33)Based on the above analysis, the provisional conclusion set outat recital 79 of the provisional Decision is confirmed. It is clearthat dumped importsfrom the countriesin ques tion, made inquantitiesquite dis proportionate to what the market couldabsorb, and with significant price undercutting, caused materialinjury to the Community industry.2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 7
▼B
2.Effectofotherfactors
Consumption
(34)It wasalleged by exporting producersthat falling demand from
the tube and shipbuilding industries was responsible for the
injury experienced by the Community industry.
(35)It should first be noted that no data supporting this allegationwaspres ented by the exporting producersconcerned. Further,
despite the sending of questionnaires in the framework of theCommunity interest aspects of the investigation, no informationon the situation in either of these downstream industries wasprovided.
(36)The tube and shipbuilding industries are, however, importantconsumers of the product concerned and there may therefore be
an element of injury arising from falling demand from these
industries. However, this is not such as to break the link betweenthe injury suffered and the dumped imports, in view in particularof the increased consumption which occurred between 1995 andthe IP (see recital 80 of the provisional Decision).
Situation of the other Community producers
(37)It wasalleged by exporting producersthat other Community
producers were responsible for the loss of market share of the
Community industry and its deteriorating situation. However noinformation was submitted in support of this.
(38)The position of other Community producers is set out at recitals82 and 83 of the provisional Decision. It is clear from this that tosome extent an increase in market share of these producersoccurred between 1997 and the IP when the market share of theCommunity industry decreased. From the information available
to the Commission, it was also concluded that the decreasing
sales volumes of these producers in the period considered andtheir falling market share between 1995 and the IP occurred ata time when dumped importsincreas ed.
In any event, however, while it cannot be excluded that other
Community producersmay have contributed to the deteriorationof the situation of the Community industry, given their salesvolume and market share during the IP, this is not sufficient tobreak the causal link between the injury suffered and thedumped imports.
Oversupply
(39)Exporting producersalleged that s ome injury may have been
caused by the Community industry's overproduction, with conse-quent oversupply in relation to consumption.
(40)An examination of the trendsin production of the Communityindustry and consumption, however, demonstrates that no situa-tion of oversupply on the part of the Community industryexisted. In tonnes per month, production and consumption varia-tions between two consecutive periods developed as follows:
Variation 1996/1995 1997/1996 IP/1997
Production – 9 673 + 31 114 – 28 746
Consumption – 50 748 + 36 220 + 46 360
(41)It isclear from the above that Community indus try'sproduction
did not develop in excess of market demand, and was in factsignificantly below the growth of the market between 1997 andthe IP. This suggests that any element of oversupply was clearlydue to the dumped imports and the resultant situation of over-2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 8
▼B
stocking, and was not the result of the behaviour of the Commu-
nity industry.
Anti-competitive behaviour of the Community industry
(42)The allegation of anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the
Community industry addressed at recitals 85 to 87 of the provi-sional Decision was repeated, without however any furtherinformation or evidence being provided.
The provisional findings are therefore confirmed.
Imports from other third countries
(43)Exporting producersclaimed that the impos ition of dutiesonly
on the countries subject to investigation was discriminatory andraised substantial issues of causality. In support of this, theypointed out that importsfrom other countries , notably FYROM,Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Ukraine, had also
been substantial during the IP. The market share of the latter
countriesin the IP was10,5 % ascompared to a s hare of13,6 % for the countries subject to the investigation, while theirpricesaveraged 325 euro/tonne compared to 317 euro/tonne forthe dumped imports. In sum, they claimed that the export perfor-
mance of these other countries was similar to that of the
countriesinves tigated.
(44)It is recalled that this issue was examined at length in recitals 88to 96 of the provisional Decision, and the above claim byexporting producershasnot brought to light any new cons idera-tion in thisres pect.
(45)The conclusions at recital 96 of the provisional Decision aretherefore confirmed. Even if importsfrom other third countriesmay have contributed to the injury suffered by the Community
industry, this alone is considered insufficient to break the causal
link established between the dumped imports concerned and theinjury of the Community industry.
Situation of the world market
(46)Certain exporting producerscontinued to claim that the
instability of the world steel market, and in particular the Asian
crisis, disrupted the Community market and was responsible for
the situation of the Community industry.
(47)It isnot contes ted that fluctuationsin world pricesand develop-mentsin world trade had a negative effect on the Communityindustry. It is recalled however that, as stated in recital 101 ofthe provisional Decision, this alone cannot explain the sharpprice depression and consequent deterioration of the Community
industry's profitability. In addition, international developments
cannot justify trade at unfair prices which is found to be injuringthe Community industry.
The conclusions at recitals 100 and 101 of the provisional Deci-
sion are therefore confirmed.
3.Conclusiononcausation
(48)In the light of the above, the conclusion on causation set out at
recital 102 of the provisional Decision is confirmed. Insummary, while other factors, such as imports from other thirdcountries, the behaviour of other Community producers and the
worldwide instability of the steel market, may have contributed
to the difficult situation of the Community industry, this doesnot detract from the fact that importsof the product concernedfrom the People'sRepublic of China, India and Romania, takenin isolation, have caused material injury to the Communityindustry.2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 9
▼B
G.COMMUNITYINTEREST
(49)Since the publication of the provisional Decision, the Commis-
sion has received comments on the Community interest fromneither the Community industry, nor from users or importers/tradersof the product concerned. The findingss et out at recitals
103 to 109 of the provisional Decision are confirmed.
H.GENERALCONSIDERATIONS
(50)Romanian exporting producersalleged that the impos ition of
anti-dumping measures in this proceeding would slow down the
process of restructuring the Romanian industry and jeopardisethe process of accession to the Community.
(51)In this context, the Commission notes that the Community willpursue the aim of intensifying its economic links with Romania.At the same time, however, they expect Romanian exportingproducersto operate on the Community market in accordancewith international agreements.
It should be noted that anti-dumping measures are not aimed at
removing productsoriginating in Romania from the Communitymarket but at ensuring that a competitive environment unaf-fected by dumping practices is re-established.
I.DEFINITIVEMEASURES
1.Injuryeliminationlevel
(52)The Indian exporting producer argued that the anti-dumping duty
should be set at the level of the undercutting margin found, i.e.12,6 % for India, a level far below the level of the duty imposed
at the provisional stage (21,8 %).
(53)It should be borne in mind that in line with the relevant jurispru-dence, the price-undercutting margin expresses the price effect
of the dumped importson the Community indus try, asprovidedfor in Article 3 of the basic Decision. The undercutting margin istherefore an injury indicator, among others, which has to betaken into consideration in the injury analysis.
(54)Once the existence of material injury has been established, theCommission will, in order to comply with the lesser-duty-rule,establish an injury elimination margin in order to examine
whether a duty based on a level below the dumping margin will
be sufficient to remove injury caused by the dumped imports.The purpose of the determination of the injury eliminationmargin istherefore completely different from that of the calcula-tion of the undercutting margin.
Thisargument istherefore irrelevant.
(55)The Indian exporting producer also contested the method used
for calculating the injury elimination margin and by way of
consequence the duty imposed at the provisional stage. It also
proposed an alternative methodology for the calculation of theinjury elimination margin.
(56)In thiscontext, it isrecalled that the calculation of the injuryelimination margin hasto be made in the light of the circum-stances of each case and is aimed at removing the injurysuffered by the Community industry.
(57)At the provisional stage, the Commission calculated the injuryelimination margin for each category of the product concernedand for each quarter of the IP. These margins were the differ-
ences, expressed as percentages, between the non-injurious
pricesof the Community indus try and cif import pricesat theCommunity frontier, divided by these cif prices. Individualmarginswere then calculated for each category for the IP asawhole by weighting the results of the quarterly analysis by thetonnage imported in each quarter. Thiswasdone to eliminate2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 10
▼B
distortions arising from the sharp fall in prices (–25 %, see
recital 66 of the provisional Decision) that occurred betweenthe first and last quarters of the IP. Finally, the injury elimina-
tion margin for the product concerned wascalculated by
weighting by tonnage the individual marginscalculated in theIP for each category.
(58)If adopted, the calculation suggested by the Indian exportingproducer would in fact minimise the effect of the dramatic pricefall that occurred, and treating the IP asa whole would introduce
the price distortions the Commission's calculation avoids. It
would also fail to accurately reflect the injury to be removed.The Indian claim therefore cannot be accepted.
(59)Asfor the price undercutting determination (s ee recital 18), theChinese and Romanian exporting producers also requested thatthe calculation of the injury elimination margin be revised on
the basis of the additional information they submitted. The
necessary modifications have duly been made where appropriate.
Asregardsthe injury elimination margin for Chines e exporting
producers, this was calculated by using the information provided
by the cooperating exporting producers, taking into account the
quality of steel.
It isrecalled that exportsby thes e cooperating companiesrepre-
sented around 74 % of the total exports shown by Eurostat (see
recital 10). For these 74 %, a margin was calculated using themethodology applied to Romanian and Indian exporting produ-cers. For the remaining 26 %, a margin was calculated usingthe highest injury elimination margins found in the IP, by quarterand by category of product, for cooperating exporting producers.
These injury elimination margins were finally weighted by the
tonnagesrepres ented by the 74 % and 26 % above.
(60)Finally, the weighting of the injury marginshasals o beenrevised in line with the method described in recital 22 for priceundercutting.
Based on the above, the definitive injury elimination margins are
therefore asfollows :
People'sRepublic of China 8,1 %
India
— Steel Authority of India Ltd 22,3 %
Romania
— Sidex SA 5,7 %
— Other 11,5 %
In the case of Romania, due to the low level of cooperation, the
residual injury margin was calculated by reference to the cate-gory of productswhich wasexported in repres entativequantitiesand for which the highes t margin wasfound.
2.Level ofdefinitiveduties
(61)Asthe marginscalculated above are lower than the dumping
margins finally established, it is considered that a definitiveanti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the injuryelimination marginsin accordance with Article 9(4) of the bas ic
Decision.
(62)The individual company anti-dumping duty ratess pecified in this
Decision were established on the basis of the findings of thepresent investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation foundduring that investigation with respect to these companies. Theseduty rates(asoppos ed to the countrywide duty applicable to ‘allother companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 11
▼B
productsoriginating in the country concerned and produced by
the companiesand thusby the s pecific legal entitiesmentioned.Imported productsproduced by any other company not s pecifi-
cally mentioned in the operative part of thisDecis ion with its
name and address, including entities related to those specificallymentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subjectto the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(63)Any claim requesting the application of these individualcompany anti-dumping duty rates, (for example following achange in the name of the entity or following the setting up ofnew production or sales entities) should be addressed to theCommission(
1) forthwith with all relevant information, in parti-
cular any modification in the company'sactivitieslinked to
production, domestic and export sales associated with, forexample that name change or that change in the production andsales entities. The Commission, if appropriate, will, after consul-tation with the Advisory Committee, amend the Decisionaccordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from
individual duty rates.
3.Undertakings
(64)The following exporting companiesin Romania have offered a
joint price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of thebasic Decision: Sidex SA, Sidex Trading SRL, Metalexportim-port SA, Metanef SA, Metagrimex Business Group SA,
Uzinsider SA, Uzinexport SA, Shiral Trading Impex SRL,
Metaltrade International ‘97 SRL, Romilexim Trading LimitedSRL and Metal SA. The price undertaking offered concernss alesof the products, covered by the undertaking, which are producedby Sidex SA and sold directly (i.e. invoiced and shipped) by
Sidex SA, or one of the other signatories, to an unrelated
customer in the Community. In the case of India, an undertakinghasals o been offered by the Steel Authority of India Ltd for theproductsit producesand s ellsdirectly in the Community.
(65)The Commission considers that the undertakings offered bythese companies can be accepted since they will eliminate theinjuriouseffect of the dumping. Furthermore, the regular anddetailed reportswhich the companieshave undertaken to provideto the Commission will allow an effective monitoring of theundertakings.
(66)In order to ensure that the undertakings are respected, when therequest for release for free circulation pursuant to the undertak-ingsispres ented, exemption from the duty isconditional uponpresentation to the relevant Member States' customs service of
a valid ‘undertaking invoice’ clearly identifying the producer
and containing the information listed in the Annex to this Deci-sion. Where no such invoice is presented, or when it does notcorrespond to the product presented to the customs service, theappropriate rate of anti-dumping duty will be payable in order
to avoid circumvention of the undertaking.
(67)In the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertaking an
anti-dumping duty may be imposed, pursuant to Articles 8(9)and 10 of the basic Decision.
J.COLLECTIONOFPROVISIONALDUTIES
(68)Given the magnitude of the dumping marginsfound for the
exporting producers, and in the light of the level of the injurycaused to the Community industry, it is considered necessary2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 12
(1) European Commission
Directorate-General for Trade
Directorate C
DM 24-8/38
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels
▼B
that the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
duty under the provisional Decision should be definitivelycollected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed. Where the
rate of the definitive duty imposed is higher than the rate of the
provisional duty, only the amount secured at the level of theprovisional duty should be definitively collected,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty ishereby impos ed on importsof
certain flat productsof non-alloy s teel, not clad, plated or coated, notin coils, not futher worked than hot-rolled, other than with patterns inrelief of a width of 600 mm or more and a thickness exceeding 10 mmor of a width of 2 050 mm or more and a thickness of 4,75 mm or
more but not exceeding 10 mm, originating in the People'sRepublic
of China, India and Romania and falling within CN codesex 7208 51 30, ex 7208 51 50, ex 7208 51 91, ex 7208 51 99 andex 7208 52 91 (TARIC codes: 7208 51 30 10, 7208 51 50 10,7208 51 91 10, 7208 51 99 10 and 7208 52 91 10).
2. The ratesof duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier
price, before duty, for productsproduced by the following companies ,shall be:
Country CompanyRate of anti-
dumping dutyTARIC additional
code
People'sRepublic
of ChinaAll companies8,1 % —
India All companies22,3 % A999
Romania Sidex SA 5,7 % A069
All other
companies11,5 % A999
3. The dutiess hall not apply to importsof the product concerned,
manufactured by Steel Authority of India Ltd and originating in India,when the goodsare directly exported (i.e. s hipped and invoiced) by that
company to the importer in the Community and provided that the
conditionsof Article 2(2) are fulfilled.
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
1. The undertakingsoffered by the following companiesin connec-
tion with thisanti-dumping proceeding are hereby accepted.
Country Company TARIC additional code
India Steel Authority of
India Ltd, New DelhiA178
2. When the request for release for free circulation pursuant to an
undertaking is presented, exemption from the duty shall be conditionalupon presentation to the relevant Member States' customs service of avalid Undertaking Invoice issued by the companies mentioned inArticle 2(1). The essential elements of the undertaking invoice arelisted in the Annex to this Decision. Imports accompanied by such an2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 13
▼M1
▼B
▼M1
▼B
▼B
invoice shall be declared under the TARIC additional code provided
for in Article 2(1).
Exemption from the duty shall further be conditional on the goods
declared and presented to customs corresponding precisely to the
description on the undertaking invoice.
Article 3
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty on
importsoriginating in the People'sRepublic of China, India andRomania under Decision No 307/2000/ECSC shall be collected at therate of the duty definitively imposed by this Decision. Amountssecured in excess of the rate of definitive anti-dumping duty shall bereleased. Where the rate of the definitive duty imposed is higher than
the rate of the provisional duty, only the amount secured at the level of
the provisional duty should be definitively collected.
Article 4
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
This Decision shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States.2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 14
▼B
ANNEX
Elementsto be indicated in the undertaking invoice referred to in Article 2(2):
1. The invoice date and the invoice number.
2. The export licence number.
3. The CN code, TARIC code and TARIC additional code under which the
goods on the invoice are customs-cleared at Community borders (as specified
in Article 2(1)).
4. The exact description of the goods, including:
— the product reporting code number (PRC) as established in the under-
taking offered by the exporting producer in question, including qualityof steel, width and thickness of invoiced plates,
— quantity (to be given in tonnes).
5. The description of the terms of the sale, including:
— price per tonne,
— the applicable payment terms,— the applicable delivery terms,— total discounts and rebates.
6. The name of the official of the company that has issued the undertaking
invoice and the following signed declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European
Community of the goodscovered by thisinvoice isbeing made within the
scope and under the terms of the undertaking offered by … (company), and
accepted by the European Commission through Decision No 1758/2000/
ECSC. I declare that the information provided in thisinvoice iscomplete
and correct.’2000S1758 — EN — 09.06.2002 — 001.001 — 15