EN OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 5.7.2001 L182/27
COMMISSION DECISION No 1357/2001/ECSC
of 4 July 2001
amending Decision No 283/2000/ECSC imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
certain flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, not clad,
plated or coated, in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled, originating, inter alia, in India
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 members of the European Coal and Steel Community(1) (the Basic
Decision), as last amended by Decision No 4035/2001/ECSC(2), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,
After consulting the Advisory Committee,Whereas:
A.PREVIOUS PROCEDURE
(1)ByDecisionNo283/2000/ECSC(3),aslastamendedbyDecisionNo2113/2000/ECSC(4),(definitive
Decision),theCommissionimposed, inter alia,adefinitiveanti-dumpingdutyof10,7%onimports
of hot-rolled coils (product concerned) originating in India, with the exception of imports fromseveralIndiancompaniesspecificallymentioned,whichareeithersubjecttoalesserrateofdutyorto no duty at all.
B.CURRENT PROCEDURE
(2)The Commission subsequently received an application to initiate a ‘new exporter’ review of the
definitive Decision, pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Decision, from the Indian exportingproducerIspatIndustriesLtd(thecompany).ThiscompanyclaimedthatitwasnotrelatedtoanyoftheexportingproducersinIndiasubjecttotheanti-dumpingmeasuresinforcewithregardtotheproductconcerned.Furthermore,itclaimedthatithadnotexportedtheproductconcernedduringtheoriginalperiodofinvestigation(1January1998to31December1998),buthadexportedtheproduct concerned to the Community since then.
(3)Theproductcoveredbythecurrentreviewisthesameproductastheoneunderconsiderationinthedefinitive Decision.
(4)TheCommissionexaminedtheevidencesubmittedbythecompanyandconsidereditsufficienttojustify the initiation of a review in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(4) of the basicDecision. After consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Community industryconcernedhadbeengiventheopportunitytocomment,theCommissioninitiated,byDecisionNo2113/2000/ECSC,areviewofthedefinitiveDecisionpursuanttoArticle11(4)ofthebasicDecisionwith regard to the company and commenced its investigation.
(5)BytheDecisioninitiatingthereview,theCommissionalsorepealedtheanti-dumpingdutyimposedbythedefinitiveDecisionwithregardtoimportsoftheproductconcernedproducedandexportedtotheCommunitybythecompanyanddirectedcustomsauthorities,pursuanttoArticle14(5)ofthebasic Decision, to take appropriate steps to register such imports.
(6)TheCommissioninformedthecompanyandtherepresentativesoftheexportingcountry.Further-more,itgaveotherpartiesdirectlyconcernedtheopportunitytomaketheirviewsknowninwritingand to request a hearing. However, no such request was received by the Commission.
(1) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996, p. 11.
(2) OJ L 63, 3.3.2001, p. 14.
(3) OJ L 31, 5.2.2000, p. 15.
(4) OJ L 252, 6.10.2000, p. 3.
EN OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 5.7.2001 L182/28
(7)TheCommissionsentaquestionnairetothecompanyandreceivedareplywithinthedeadline.The
Commissionalsosoughtandverifiedalltheinformationdeemednecessaryforthedeterminationofdumping. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of the company.
(8)The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 (the invest-igation period).
C.RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION
1.New exporter qualification
(9)Theinvestigationconfirmedthatthecompanyhadnotexportedtheproductconcernedduringthe
originalperiodofinvestigationandthatithadbegunexportingtotheCommunityafterthisperiod.
(10)Furthermore,thecompanywasabletosatisfactorilydemonstratethatitdidnothaveanylinks,director indirect, with any of the Indian exporting producers subject to the anti-dumping measures inforce with regard to the product concerned.
(11)Accordingly,itisconfirmedthatthecompanyshouldbeconsideredanewexporterinaccordancewith Article 11(4) of the basic Decision, and thus an individual dumping margin should bedetermined for it.
2.Dumping
Normal value
(12)Asfarasthedeterminationofnormalvalueisconcerned,theCommissionfirstestablished,forthe
company,whetheritstotaldomesticsalesofhot-rolledcoilswererepresentativeincomparisonwithits total export sales to the Community. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Decision,domesticsaleswereconsideredrepresentativesincethetotaldomesticsalesvolumeoftheexportingproducer was at least 5% of its total export sales volume to the Community.
(13)The Commission subsequently identified those types of hot-rolled coils sold domestically by thecompanythatwereidenticalordirectlycomparabletothetypessoldforexporttotheCommunity.TheinvestigationshowedthatthegradesanddimensionsoftheproductconcernedexportedintotheCommunity by the company are identical or comparable to the products sold on the domesticmarket.
(14)ForeachtypesoldforexporttotheCommunitybytheexportingproducerandfoundtobedirectlycomparabletothetypesoldonitsdomesticmarket,itwasestablishedwhetherdomesticsalesweresufficientlyrepresentativeforthepurposesofArticle2(2)ofthebasicDecision.Domesticsalesofalltypes were considered sufficiently representative.
(15)Anexaminationwasalsomadeastowhetherthedomesticsalesofeachtypecouldberegardedashavingbeenmadeintheordinarycourseoftrade,byestablishingtheproportionofprofitablesalestoindependentcustomersofthetypeinquestion.Incaseswherethesalesvolumeoftheproductconcerned sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production (profitablesales)represented80%ormoreofthetotalsalesvolumeandwheretheweightedaveragepriceofthattypewasequaltoorabovecostofproduction,normalvaluewasbasedontheactualdomesticprice, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales made during the invest-igation period, irrespective of whether all these sales were profitable or not. In cases where thevolumeofprofitablesalesoftheproductconcernedrepresentedlessthan80%but10%ormoreofthetotalsalesvolume,normalvaluewasbasedontheactualdomesticprice,calculatedasaweightedaverage of profitable sales only.
(16)Incaseswherethevolumeofprofitablesalesofanytypeoftheproductconcernedrepresentedlessthan 10% of the total sales volume, it was considered that this particular type was sold ininsufficientquantitiesforthedomesticpricetoprovideanappropriatebasisfortheestablishmentofthe normal value.
EN OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 5.7.2001 L182/29
(17)Whereverdomesticpricesofaparticulartypesoldbythecompanycouldnotbeused,constructed
normal value had to be used in preference to domestic prices of other exporting producers or todomesticpricesofothersimilartypes.Duetothefactthatonlyonecompanyisconcernedbythisinvestigation, the former option was not available. As to the use of similar types, the number ofdifferent types and the variety of factors affecting them, would have meant in this case makingnumerous adjustments, most of which would have had to be based on estimates. It was thereforeconsideredthattheconstructedvalueofthecompanyformedamoreappropriatebasistoestablishnormal value.
(18)As a result of the above tests, for 33 types normal value calculations were based on the actualdomestic sales prices of hot-rolled coils whilst for all other types (1006) normal value had to becalculated,inaccordancewithArticle2(3)ofthebasicDecision,onthebasisofaconstructedvaluethat was determined by adding to the manufacturing costs of the exported models, a reasonablepercentage for selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and reasonable profit margin.
(19)Tothisend,theCommissionexaminedwhethertheSG&Aincurredandtheprofitrealisedbythecompany on the domestic market constituted reliable data. Actual domestic SG&A expenses wereconsideredreliablesincethedomesticsalesvolumeofthecompanyconcernedcouldberegardedasrepresentativewhencomparedtothevolumeofexportsalestotheCommunity.Thedomesticprofitmargin was determined on the basis of domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade.
(20)Thecompanyhasclaimedanadjustmenttoitscostofproductionforstart-upcostsbecauseoflowcapacity utilisation rate, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the basic Decision.
(21)Itwasfoundthatthecompany'scostsfortheinvestigationperiodwereaffectedbytheuseofnewproductionfacilitiesthatrequiredaverysubstantialinvestmentandthatwerecharacterisedbylowcapacityutilisationrates.Itwasalsoestablishedthattheselowcapacityutilisationrateswerepartiallydue to start-up operations. Consequently, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the basic Decision, theCommission has adjusted the company's cost of production for the entire investigation period toreflect the actual costs incurred during the last three months thereof, which corresponded to themomentwhenthecompanywasconsideredascommerciallyputtousepursuanttotheapplicableIndian law.
Export price
(22)SinceallexportsalestotheCommunityweremadetoindependentcustomersintheCommunity,
theexportpricewasestablishedinaccordancewithArticle2(8)ofthebasicDecision,namelyonthebasis of export prices actually paid or payable.
Comparison
(23)For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between normal value and export price, due
allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price comparability inaccordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Decision.
(24)All of the export sales allowances with the exception of that for commissions, which was doubleaccounted, could be accepted. These relate to inland freight, other freight, bank charges, othercharges and packing.
(25)All the domestic sales allowances claimed by the company with the exception of that for dutydrawback could be accepted.
(26)ThedutydrawbackallowancethatwasclaimedwascalculatedonthebasisofthecreditsgainedonthebasisoftheDEPBschemedescribedinrecital40ofCommissionDecisionNo284/2000/ECSC(
1)
that imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of the product concerned originating inIndia.Thisschemedependsontheexportsalesquantitiesirrespectiveofwhetherornotanyimportduties have been paid or whether any raw materials have actually been imported at all. Since thecompany only imported negligible quantities of raw materials, it could not demonstrate that theimported materials were physically incorporated in the final product when sold on the domesticmarketoftheexportingproducer.Thisallowancecannotthereforebegrantedasitdoesnotsatisfythe requirements of the basic Decision.
(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.2000, p. 44.
EN OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 5.7.2001 L182/30
CompanyDumping
margin
(%)Injurymargin
(%)Exportsubsidy
margin
(%)Proposedcoun-
tervailingduty
(%)ADdutytobe
imposed
(%)Dumping margin
(27)AccordingtoArticle2(11)ofthebasicDecision,thedumpingmarginwasestablishedonthebasisof
acomparisonbetweentheweightedaveragenormalvaluebytypeandtheweightedaverageexportprice.
(28)Thisweightedaveragedumpingmarginestablishedforthecompany,expressedasapercentageofthe free-at-Community-frontier price, amounts to 46,5%.
D.AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES BEING REVIEWED
(29)Inthelightoftheforegoing,itisconsideredthatadefinitiveanti-dumpingdutyshouldbeimposed
atthelevelofthedumpingmarginfound,but,inaccordancewithArticle9(4)ofthebasicDecisionshould not be higher than the country-wide injury margin established for India by the definitiveDecision in the original anti-dumping investigation.
(30)No individual injury margin can be established in a new exporter review since the investigation,pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Decision, is limited to the examination of the individualdumping margin.
(31)InaccordancewithArticle24(1)ofCommissionDecisionNo1889/98/ECSC(1)andArticle14(1)of
thebasicDecision,noproductshallbesubjecttobothanti-dumpingandcountervailingdutiesforthe purposes of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from exportsubsidisation.Asanti-dumpingdutiesshouldbeimposedonimportsoftheproductconcerneditisnecessarytodeterminewhether,andtowhatextent,thesubsidyandthedumpingmarginarisefromthe same situation.
(32)In the case in question the schemes investigated in India have been found to constitute exportsubsidieswithinthemeaningofArticle3(4)(a)ofDecisionNo1889/98/ECSC.Assuch,thesubsidiescanaffecttheexportpricesoftheIndianexportingproducers,thusleadingtoincreasedmarginsofdumping.Inotherwords,thedumpingmarginestablishediswhollyorpartlyduetotheexistenceofexport subsidies. In these circumstances the anti-dumping duty needs to be adjusted to reflect theactual dumping margin remaining after the imposition of the countervailing duties offsetting theeffect of the export subsidies.
E.ADJUSTMENT OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY APPLICABLE TO JINDAL VIJAYANAGAR STEEL
LTD
(33)JindalVijayanagarSteelLtdappliedforanacceleratedreviewpursuanttoArticle20ofCommission
DecisionNo1889/98/ECSC,butdidnotapplyforareviewoftheanti-dumpingdutyapplicabletoit.Followingtheinitiationofareview(
2)anindividualcountervailingdutyratewasestablishedat5,7%
forthiscompany.Giventhatpursuanttorecital255ofCommissionDecisionNo283/2000/ECSCthe anti-dumping duty is determined as the difference between the injury margin and the exportsubsidyestablished,theanti-dumpingdutyapplicablehastobeadjusted.Theinjurymarginattrib-uted to Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd is the residual injury margin of 23,8%. Consequently, theanti-dumpingdutyapplicabletoproductsexportedtotheCommunitybythiscompanyhastobefixed at 18,1%.
(34)Accordingly, the rate of duty applicable to the free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty andtaking into account the results of the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding, shall be:
IspatIndustriesLtd 46,5 23,8 8,8 8,8 15
JindalVijayanagarSteelLtd 56,3 23,8 5,7 5,7 18,1
(1) OJ L 245, 7.9.1998, p. 3.
(2) OJ C 201, 14.7.2000, p. 2.
EN OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 5.7.2001 L182/31
Company RateofADduty TARICadditionalcodeF.RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY
(35)AsthereviewhasresultedinadeterminationofdumpinginrespectofthecompanyIspatIndustries
Ltd,theanti-dumpingdutyapplicabletothiscompanyshallalsobeleviedretroactivelyfromthedateof initiation of this review on imports which have been made subject to registration pursuant toArticle 3 of Decision No 2113/2000/ECSC.
G.UNDERTAKING
(36)Thecompany,IspatIndustriesLtd,offeredapriceundertakingconcerningitsexportsoftheproduct
concerned to the Community, in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Decision.
(37)After examination of the offer, the Commission considered the undertaking as acceptable since itwould eliminate the injurious effects of dumping pursuant to Article 8(1) of the basic Decision.Moreover, the regular and detailed reports which the company undertook to provide to theCommission will allow effective monitoring. Furthermore, the nature of the product and the salesstructureofthecompanyissuchthattheCommissionconsidersthattheriskofcircumventionislimited.
(38)In order to ensure the effective respect and monitoring of the undertaking, when the request forrelease for free circulation pursuant to the undertaking is presented, exemption from the duty isconditional upon presentation to the customs service of the Member State concerned a valid‘commercial invoice’ issued by Ispat Industries Ltd and containing the information listed in theAnnex. Where no such invoice is presented, or when it does not correspond to the productpresented to customs, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty should be payable in order toensure the effective application of the undertaking.
(39)Intheeventofabreachorwithdrawaloftheundertakingananti-dumpingdutymaybeimposed,pursuant to Article 8(9) and (10) of the Basic Decision.
H.DISCLOSURE AND DURATION OF THE MEASURES
(40)Thecompanieswereinformedofthefactsandconsiderationsonthebasisofwhichitwasintended
to impose the amended definitive anti-dumping duty on their exports to the Community.
(41)ThisreviewdoesnotaffectthedateonwhichDecisionNo283/2000/ECSCwillexpirepursuanttoArticle 11(2) of the basic Decision,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. Article1(2)ofCommissionDecisionNo283/2000/ECSCisherebyamendedbyaddingthefollowing
to the section headed ‘India’:
‘IspatIndustriesLtd,ParkPlaza,71ParkStreet,
Calcutta—700016,India15% A204
JindalVijayanagarSteelLtd,JindalManison,5-A.G.Desh-mukhMarg,Mumbai—400026,India 18,1% A270’
2. The duty hereby imposed shall also be levied retroactively on imports of the product concerned
which have been registered pursuant to Article 3 of Decision No 2113/2000/ECSC.
3. Unlessotherwisespecified,theprovisionsoftheCommunityCustomsCodeanditsrelatedlegislation
shall apply.
EN OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 5.7.2001 L182/32
Article 2
1. Imports shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1 provided that they are
producedanddirectlyexported(i.e.invoicedandshipped)toafirstunrelatedbuyeractingasanimporterintheCommunitybyIspatIndustriesLtd,TARICcodeA204,andthattheconditionssetoutinparagraph2are met.
2. When the request for release for free circulation is presented, exemption from the duties shall be
conditionaluponpresentationtothecustomsserviceoftheMemberStateconcernedofavalid‘commercialinvoice’issuedbyIspatIndustriesLtd,containingtheessentialelementslistedintheAnnextothisDecision.Exemption from the duty shall further be conditional on the goods declared and presented to customscorresponding precisely to the description on the ‘commercial invoice’.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the following day to 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.
Done at Brussels, 4 July 2001.
For the Commission
Pascal LAMY
Member of the Commission
EN OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 5.7.2001 L182/33
ANNEX
INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR THE COMMERCIAL INVOICES ACCOMPANYING SALES MADE SUBJECT
TO THE UNDERTAKING
1. The heading ‘ Commercial invoice accompanying goods subject to an undertaking ’
2. The name of the company issuing the commercial invoice3. The commercial invoice number4. The date of issue of the commercial invoice5. TheTARICadditionalcodeunderwhichthegoodsontheinvoicearetobecustoms-clearedattheCommunityfrontier
(as specified in the Decision),
6. The exact description of the goods, including:
— the company product code number (CPC) (if applicable),— theproductcodenumber(PCN)(asestablishedintheundertakingofferedbytheproducingexporterinquestion),— the technical specification of the PCN,— CN code,— quantity (to be given in tonnes),
7. The description of the terms of the sale, including:
— price per tonne,— the applicable payment terms,— the applicable delivery terms,— total discounts and rebates.
8. Name of the first unrelated buyer acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the company.9. Thenameoftheofficialofthecompanythathasissuedthecommercialinvoiceandthefollowingsigneddeclaration:
‘I,theundersigned,certifythatthesalefordirectexporttotheEuropeanCommunityofthegoodscoveredbythis
invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the undertaking offered by Ispat Industries Ltd andacceptedbytheEuropeanCommissionthroughDecision(1357/2001/ECSC).Ideclarethattheinformationprovidedin this invoice is complete and correct.’