COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 29.05.1998 
COM(1998) 343 final 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibre ropes 
originating in India and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed 
(presented by the Commission) 
H» 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. On 8 January 1998, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties of 
53.0% and 82.0% on imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India. 
2. The Commission subsequently continued to seek all the information it deemed 
necessary for its definitive findings. The main conclusions are stated below. 
3. Modifications of the dumping margins were made, where necessary, in respect of 
additional information supplied by the co-operating exporter concerned. 
4. As regards injury and causation, the main conclusions were that, between 1993 
and the period from 1 July 1996 to 31 May 1997, the Community industry 
suffered a significant downwards pressure on sales prices and an important 
reduction in profits, in addition to a loss in market share. This situation coincided 
with a significant increase in the volume and market share of synthetic fibre ropes 
originating in India, at prices which were found to be the lowest on the market and 
which undercut the prices of the Community industry. 
5. The estimation of the total volume of the dumped imports into the Community 
was slightly revised further to information submitted by the co-operating exporter. 
However, this revision did not modify the conclusions of the Commission as 
regards injury and causation. 
6. As regards Community interest, it was concluded that there were no compelling 
reasons not to impose definitive measures. 
7. Given that the injury elimination levels determined are lower than the dumping 
margins found, the definitive duties should be based on these lower levels, in 
accordance with Article 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96. On this 
basis, it is proposed to impose definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of 
synthetic fibre ropes originating in India at the following levels : 
- Garware Wall ropes Ltd: 53.0% 
- Other manufacturers: 82.0% 
8. A majority of Member States in the Anti-dumping Advisory Committee were in 
favour of the imposition of definitive measures. 
A 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 
of 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibre ropes 
originating in India and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed 
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 members of the European 
Community 1, and in particular Article 9(4) thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the 
Advisory Committee, 
Whereas: s 
lOJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/96 (OJ L 317, 
6.12.1996, p. 1) 
A^ 
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 
(1) By Commission Regulation (EC) No 18/98^, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
provisional duty Regulation'), provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed 
on imports of synthetic fibre ropes falling within CN codes 5607 49 11, 5607 
49 19, 5607 50 11 and 5607 50 19 originating in India. 
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 
(2) Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures, a number 
of interested parties submitted comments in writing. 
(3) The only co-operating Indian exporter, Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd, requested 
and was granted a hearing. 
(4) The Commission continued to seek and verify all information deemed 
necessary for the definitive findings. 
(5) Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping 
duties and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of provisional 
duty. They were also granted a period within which to make representations 
subsequent to this disclosure. 
(6) The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were 
considered and, where deemed appropriate, taken into account in the definitive 
findings. 
2OJ L4, 08.01.1998, p. 28. 
C. GROUNDS FOR THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDING 
(7) The co-operating Indian exporter reiterated his objections to the opening of the 
proceeding. 
However, this issue was already covered in recital 1 of the provisional duty 
Regulation. In this respect, it should be noted that the submission made by the 
Indian exporter concerned did not contain any evidence or argument which 
would invalidate the conclusions stated in recital I of the provisional duty 
Regulation. 
D. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 
(8) In the absence of any new information, the provisional findings, as stated in 
recitals 7 to 9 of the provisional duty Regulation, are hereby confirmed. 
E. DUMPING 
1. Normal value 
(9) The co-operating exporting producer claimed and demonstrated that the cost 
of production used in order to examine whether or not domestic sales were 
made in the ordinary course of trade contained trade discounts accounted for 
as selling expenses, while the domestic sales prices used for this purpose 
were net of these discounts. The Commission accepted this claim and, 
accordingly, amended both the constructed normal value and that based on 
domestic prices. 
(10) The other findings made in recitals 10 to 12 of the provisional duty 
Regulation concerning the determination of normal value are hereby 
confirmed. 
2. Export price 
(11) In the absence of any new information, the findings set out in recital 13 of 
the provisional duty Regulation are hereby confirmed. 
3. Comparison 
(12) The co-operating exporting producer claimed that the method used by the 
Commission to grant adjustments for duty drawback did not reflect the 
amount of import duties paid for the product concerned sold on the domestic 
market. It argued that the Commission should not have allocated the duty 
drawback adjustment on the basis of domestic turnover of the product 
concerned but on the basis of the quantity sold domestically. After further 
examination, this claim was accepted and the calculations were modified 
accordingly. 
(13) The co-operating company reiterated its claim for adjustments for the 
domestic market infrastructure and for differences in physical characteristics 
of the exported and the domestically sold ^products. However, as the 
company did not supply any new supporting evidence, the positions set out 
in recital 15 of the provisional duty Regulation are hereby confirmed. 
(14) As far as credit costs are concerned, the co-operating company, which had 
already been granted adjustments for credit costs directly linked to the 
domestic sales at the provisional stage, claimed that the Commission should 
have granted an additional adjustment taking into account the difference in 
interest rates for financing domestic and export working capital. This claim 
had to be rejected since the company was not in a position to quantify 
correctly these differences nor to show how they could have affected price 
comparability. In this context, it should be noted that a difference in costs 
incurred for export sales and domestic sales does not in itself justify an 
adjustment under Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Basic Regulation'). 
4. Dumping margin 
(15) In the absence of any new arguments concerning the methodology used for 
the calculation of the dumping margin, the methodology described in recitals 
16 and 17 of the provisional duty Regulation is hereby confirmed. On this 
basis, the dumping margins are as follows: 
- In view of the changes in the calculations mentioned above, the definitive 
dumping margin calculated for the co-operating exporting producer, 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at Community frontier, is 87.5 
%. 
- The definitive dumping margin established for Indian exporting producers 
other than those co-operating in this investigation, expressed as a 
percentage of the CIF price at Community frontier, is 243.0 %. 
F. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 
(16) In the absence of any new information, the provisional findings, as stated in 
recital 18 of the provisional duty Regulation, are hereby confirmed. 
G. INJURY 
1. Sampling 
(17) The co-operating Indian exporter contested the selection of Community 
producers made by the Commission for the purposes of the investigation of 
injury on the grounds that it was different from the sample used in the 
previous proceeding concerning imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating 
in India, which was terminated without the adoption of measures. This 
exporter claimed that failure to use the same sample of Community 
producers would result in a biased analysis, since the Commission would not 
be able to assess the degree of any injury suffered by the Community 
industry in the present proceeding, as compared with that in the previous 
case. 
(18) Furthermore, the Indian exporter argued that four of the companies in the 
sample had been inadequately selected for the examination of injury and that, 
if those companies were consequently excluded, the remaining Community 
producers in the sample would not be representative of the Community 
industry any longer. The Indian exporter alleged that the activities of one 
company had been severely disrupted by a fire which had destroyed its 
production facilities and that any injury suffered by this company would be 
due to this event. It was further claimed that a second company had not 
provided complete information on sales transactions. Finally, the Indian 
exporter claimed that two of the companies in the sample mainly 
manufactured high performance leisure ropes, which could not be considered 
to compete with the products sold by the Indian exporters in the Community, 
i.e. simple, commodity type ropes, at the lower end of the market. 
(19) The selection of the sample of Community producers in the present 
investigation was based on levels of production and sales and geographical 
location, i.e. the same methodology as in the previous proceeding, which has 
not been disputed. It should be noted, in this context, that some of the 
companies selected in the previous proceeding no longer produced the 
product concerned at the time of the initiation of the present proceeding. The 
companies in the sample accounted for 47% of production and 44% of sales 
on the Community market of the product concerned by the Community 
industry during the investigation period. Moreover, the sample included 
large as well as small companies and producers from several Member States. 
These companies are therefore representative of the Community industry, in 
the meaning of Article 17 of the Basic Regulation. 
(20) With regard to the allegations made in relation to certain companies included 
in the sample, it was found that one company had indeed suffered a fire. 
However, the production facilities of this company had not been damaged 
and any effects from the fire on the financial performance of the company 
could be identified in its accounts and were duly excluded for the purposes 
of the injury findings. Concerning the second company referred to by the 
exporter and the allegation that it had provided insufficient information, il 
should be noted that this company provided all information requested during 
the investigation. Finally, as to the allegation concerning the two companies 
producing high performance leisure ropes, it is noted that these ropes fall 
within the definition of the product concerned by this proceeding. Moreover, 
it was found that these two companies had significant production of standard 
ropes directly comparable to those sold by the Indian exporter. 
Therefore, it is considered that the inclusion of the above-mentioned 
Community producers in the sample is fully justified. 
2. Community consumption 
(21) In determining total apparent consumption on the Community market, the 
total sales of the Community producers were added to the imports into the 
Community. 
(22) As explained in more detail in recital 23, the volume of imports was, for the 
purposes of the definitive findings, determined on the basis of Eurostat 
figures. This resulted in a change in consumption figures for the period 
considered (i.e. the period between 1993 and 31 May 1997). On this basis, 
Community consumption increased from 21.820 tons in 1993 to 26.325 tons 
in 1995 and remained relatively stable thereafter, reaching 26.773 tons in the 
investigation period, which represents an overall increase of 23% over the 
period considered. 
3. Volume and market share of the dumped imports 
(23) The volume of the imports originating in India was determined, at the 
provisional stage, on the basis of information on export sales to the 
Community supplied by the co-operating Indian exporter as verified by the 
Commission. 
Subsequent to the imposition of provisional measures, the co-operating 
Indian exporter contested this determination. It was claimed that part of the 
sales for export to the Community were not released for free circulation in 
the Community, but were put in bonded warehouses on the Community 
territory partly for subsequent export sales to seagoing ships, without 
clearing customs. Consequently, it was requested that Eurostat statistics, 
rather than the sales volume reported by this company to the Commission, be 
used to determine the volume and market shares of the Indian imports. 
(24) The Commission examined this issue. It should be noted that the quantities 
reported by the co-operating Indian exporter concerned as being sold in the 
Community, exceeded the import quantities reported by Eurostat, in 
particular in 1996 and during the investigation period. While at the 
provisional stage no importer co-operated in the investigation and the 
Commission based its conclusions on the information submitted by the 
Indian exporter, following the imposition of provisional measures a number 
of importers made information available to the Commission which showed 
that, during the investigation period some quantities purchased from the co­
operating Indian exporter had, indeed, not been released into free circulation 
on the Community market. 
In these circumstances, Eurostat appears to be a more reliable source of 
information for determining the volume of the Indian imports for the period 
examined than the export quantities reported by the co-operating Indian 
exporter. However, it was also found that, in the investigation period, part of 
the volumes stored in bonded warehouses on the-Community territory had 
not yet been resold and that these volumes could potentially be released for 
free circulation in the Community at very low prices. 
In any event, it should be noted that both Eurostat figures and the sales 
volume reported by the co-operating Indian exporter indicate the same 
increasing trend in volume and market share for the Indian imports over the 
period considered. Overall, the revised volume of dumped imports increased 
by 107% between 1993 and the investigation period (from 440 tons in 1993 
to 1089 tons in 1995 and then a decrease to 911 tons in the investigation 
period). The market share of these imports rose from 2% in 1993 to 4.1% in 
1995, then decreased to 3.4% in the investigation period. It should be noted 
that this relative decrease after 1995 coincided with the previous anti-
dumping proceeding concerning this product. 
4. Prices of the dumped imports 
(25) The following comments were submitted with regard to the determination of 
price undercutting. 
(26) The co-operating Indian exporter claimed that the determination of price 
undercutting should not have been made on the basis of the detailed export 
sales listing provided by this exporter to the Commission since a significant 
part of these export sales had not been released for free circulation in the 
Community. The exporter claimed that the average Eurostat prices should 
have been used instead. This claim also applied to the determination of the 
injury margin, which was based on the same export prices as those used for 
the undercutting assessment. 
However, according to the information available (Eurostat), around 70% of 
the total volume of sales made by the Indian exporter to the Community 
during the investigation period were released for free circulation in the 
Community. The prices of these export sales, which were verified by the 
Commission, were therefore, considered to be representative of the actual 
prices of the imports concerned in the Community. Furthermore, no 
differences in export prices between individual transactions, whether or not 
destined for free circulation, could be determined. 
In addition, given the existence of various types of ropes falling within the 
definition of the product concerned, average Eurostat prices would not have 
permitted a proper comparison of prices as they would have consisted of 
average values for greatly varying types of ropes. 
Therefore, the claim was not considered to be justified. 
It was further argued that, in any event, the export sales transactions 
concerning large polypropylene mooring ropes, should be excluded from the 
undercutting and injury elimination level assessments, as these types of ropes 
were only sold to seagoing ships and therefore were never released for free 
circulation in the Community. 
However, it was found that, in the investigation period, a significant volume 
of these types of ropes exported from India to the Community had 
subsequently been released for free circulation in the Community. Moreover, 
no sufficient information was submitted to the Commission to identify, 
among the total export transactions concerning these types of ropes, those 
which resulted in ropes being subsequently released in the Community. This 
argument could therefore not be taken into account. 
10 
(27) The co-operating Indian exporter also claimed that the method used by ihe 
Commission to differentiate between the various types of synthetic fibre 
ropes sold on the Community market, for the purposes of determining 
undercutting and the injury margin, did not take full account of the 
differences between high value and lower value commodity products. 
In this respect, it is noted that the method used enabled a distinction to be 
made between the ropes on the basis of the type of raw material used, the 
number of strands, the diameter of the rope and the construction (braided or 
twisted). These were found to be the main identifiable and objective criteria 
on the basis of which the prices of the product concerned were determined, 
both by the sampled Community producers and by the Indian exporter 
concerned. 
Therefore, the approach used at the provisional stage in order to determine 
price undercutting was also used for definitive findings. 
(28) On this basis, as already indicated in recital 24 of the provisional duty 
Regulation, it was found that, during the investigation period, price 
undercutting margins, expressed as a percentage of the Community 
industry's average selling prices of comparable product types, ranged from 
0% to 38%, with an overall weighted average of 16%. 
5. Situation of the Community industry 
(29) The co-operating Indian exporter submitted that the decline in employment 
observed during the period considered could not be an indicator of injury 
because it was compensated for by an improvement in productivity. It was 
also argued that, according to the Commission's findings in the previous 
proceeding concerning imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India, 
any decrease in employment up to 1995 was due to factors other than the 
dumped Indian imports. 
11 
It should be remembered that, in accordance with Article 3(5) of the Basic 
Regulation, no single injury factor can necessarily give decisive guidance on 
the impact of the dumped imports on the situation of the Community 
industry. 
In this respect, it is not contested that in the early nineties the decline in 
employment may have been due to factors other than dumped imports, such 
as the restructuring of the industry. However, it should also be noted that 
after a slight increase in 1996, employment levels were again on the decline 
in the investigation period. Moreover, in spite of the increase in productivity 
over the period considered, the Community industry suffered a significant 
loss in market share at a time when Community consumption had increased 
by 23%. Furthermore, the Community industry showed a significant 
deterioration in its financial results from 1995 onwards, resulting in a 
weighted average loss of-7.1% of net sales in the investigation period, and 
suffered significant price pressure from the Indian imports throughout the 
period considered, with price undercutting of up to 38% during the 
investigation period. 
6. Conclusion on injury 
(30) In the absence of any other arguments concerning the situation of the 
Community industry and in the light of the above, the conclusion that the 
Community industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of 
Article 3(1) of the Basic Regulation, as stated in recitals 25 to 35 of the 
provisional duty Regulation, is hereby confirmed. 
12 
H. CAUSATION OF INJURY 
1. Effects of the dumped imports 
(31) The co-operating Indian exporter argued that any material injury suffered by 
the Community industry could not be attributable to imports originating in 
India. The following arguments were put forward: 
(32) The overall loss of market share suffered by the Community producers was 
not due to the imports originating in India, but resulted from a shift by 
Community producers towards the production of specialised ropes, with a 
higher added value, destined primarily for export markets. It was argued that, 
in this way, these producers created a vacuum in the supply of commodity 
ropes on the Community market which was filled, inter alia, by the Indian 
imports. In addition, it was stated that, in any event, the Community 
producers lacked the necessary production capacity to meet the growing 
demand of the Community market. 
In this respect it should be noted that, although the Community industry was 
found to be developing production of ropes at the upper end of the market in 
terms of added value and specialisation, the bulk of the production of the 
Community industry at the end of the investigation period still consisted of 
commodity type ropes. 
Moreover, the Commission examined the evolution of the exports of the 
sampled Community producers over the period considered. It was found that 
this volume remained stable between 1993 and the investigation period, at 
around 1.900 tons, representing some 15% of the total production of the 
sampled companies. 
As regards the production capacity of the whole Community industry, it 
exceeded total Community consumption throughout the period considered 
(during the investigation period, total consumption was 26.700 tons, while 
total capacity was 36.000 tons). 
13 
The Community industry's loss of market share could not, therefore, be 
attributed to an increase in export sales, an insufficient offer of commodity 
type ropes nor to insufficient production capacity. 
(33) Concerning the decrease in profitability suffered by the Community industry 
between 1995 and the investigation period, the co-operating Indian exporter 
argued that the decrease in raw material prices between 1995 and the 
investigation period should have resulted in increased profitability for the 
Community producers during this period. They therefore claimed that any 
decline in profitability in this period was due to increased overheads, in 
particular depreciation charges and interest expenses, as a result of the 
important investments made by the Community industry. In any event, it was 
argued that the drop in profitability could not be due to the Indian imports, 
which declined between 1995 and the investigation period. 
It was found that between 1995 and the investigation period, the average 
prices of raw materials declined by approximately 11%. Considering that 
raw materials account for approximately 50% of the total costs of production 
of the product concerned, this decrease in raw material costs enabled the 
Community producers to reduce their costs of production by 5%. However, 
over the same period, the average sales prices of the Community producers, 
under strong downward pressure from the prices of the Indian imports, 
declined by 16%. 
Furthermore, as regards the impact of the investments made by the 
Community industry on profitability, it was found that these had a marginal 
impact on the Community producers' costs of production during the period 
considered, mainly because any costs related with these new investments 
were compensated for by gains in productivity and by an overall reduction in 
other general and administrative expenses. 
Finally, it should be noted that, despite the small decline of the imports 
originating in India between 1995 and the investigation period, these imports 
increased overall by 107% during the period considered. Moreover, it was 
14 
found that the prices of these imports undercut the Community producers' 
prices significantly throughout the whole period considered, including the 
period from 1995 onwards, thus exerting downward pressure on the sales 
prices of the Community producers, which declined dramatically, between 
1995 and the investigation period, by 16%. 
The decline in profitability experienced by the Community producers 
between 1995 and the investigation period was therefore clearly linked to a 
major reduction in sales prices over that period, which in turn occurred at a 
time of significant price undercutting by the Indian imports in this 
commodity product market. 
(34) The co-operating Indian exporter also argued that the Community producers 
suffered an inherent competitive disadvantage, because they purchased their 
raw materials at significantly higher prices than the Indian exporters. 
However, it should be noted that, if the Indian importers had not sold the 
product concerned at dumped prices, they would not have undercut the prices 
of the Community industry. The argument is therefore not relevant. In any 
event, it was found that the purchase prices of the co-operating Indian 
exporter's raw materials were approximately 14% lower than those of the 
Community industry. Since raw materials account for 50% of the full cost of 
production, this difference could only explain, at best, a difference in sales 
prices of up to 7%, which is largely below the level by which the Indian 
imports undercut the Community producers' prices, i.e. up to 38%, with a 
weighted average undercutting of 16%. 
(35) Finally, it was argued that, compared with the negative finding on causation 
made in the previous proceeding concerning imports of synthetic fibre ropes 
originating in India, there were no changed circumstances to explain a 
different finding in the present proceeding on the causal link between 
dumping and injury. 
It should be recalled that, in the previous proceeding, dumping by the Indian 
exporters and injury to the Community industry were established. However, 
15 
the information available at the time did not permit the determination of a 
clear causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the 
Community industry. 
In the present case, in accordance with the consistent practice of the 
Community Institutions, the injury examination covered a period of time of 
nearly 5 years, from 1993 to May 1997. It should be noted that this period 
partly coincided with the period examined in the previous proceeding. 
However, compared with the previous proceeding, the present investigation 
has examined the impact of the imports over a longer period of time after the 
Indian imports appeared in significant volume. Indeed, the previous and 
present investigation periods ended respectively in March 1996 and in May 
1997 and the increase in the imports concerned was particularly apparent 
after 1994. Moreover, reliable information on the development of 
profitability of the Community industry for the whole period considered, 
which was lacking in the previous case, was received in the present case. 
Contrary to the previous investigation, it has therefore been possible to 
establish a causal link between the imports concerned and the material injury 
suffered by the Community industry. 
2. Effects of other factors 
(a) Imports from other third countries 
(36) The co-operating Indian exporter argued that imports from countries other 
than India were the cause of any material injury suffered by the Community 
industry. It was claimed, in particular, that the prices of imports of synthetic 
fibre ropes originating in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Tunisia 
had undercut the prices of the Community producers throughout the period 
considered. Moreover, the Indian exporter claimed that the prices of these 
imports were lower than the Indian prices for the types which represented the 
majority of the total imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India to 
16 
the Community, i.e. polyethylene and polypropylene ropes and that, 
therefore, any price pressure suffered by the Community industry was 
largely attributable to these imports and not to the Indian imports. 
The Commission analysed the evolution of the imports of polyethylene and 
polypropylene ropes originating in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and 
Tunisia, as compared to Indian imports of the same types of ropes. This 
analysis showed that the average prices of the imports originating in 
Slovenia and Tunisia were at approximately the same level of the Indian 
export prices throughout the whole period considered. Moreover, it was 
found that the imports originating in Slovenia and Tunisia, although 
increasing in the period considered, accounted for only 0.8% and 1.3% 
respectively of total Community consumption in the investigation period. 
Any impact of these imports should therefore be considered less significant 
as compared to the impact of Indian imports. As regards Poland, the average 
prices of the imports originating in Poland were found, at times, to be 
slightly lower than the Indian import prices. However, the overall market 
share held by these imports decreased from 2.6% in 1993 to 2% in the 
investigation period. As regards the Czech Republic, the market share held 
by the imports originating in this country went from 0.8% in 1993 to 2% in 
the investigation period. However, it was only in 1993 that the prices of 
these imports were found to be significantly lower than the prices of the 
imports originating in India. During the investigation period, the imports 
originating in the Czech Republic entered the Community market at 
approximately the same prices as the Indian imports. 
Finally, it should be noted that, the comparison between the prices of the 
Indian imports and the prices of imports originating in Poland and the Czech 
Republic for all types of synthetic fibre ropes falling within the definition of 
the product concerned, i.e. not only polyethylene and polypropylene ropes, 
indicated that the Indian import prices were the lowest on the Community 
market for the whole period considered, except for 1993. This comparison is 
17 
all the more representative, since it concerns the whole product concerned 
definition. 
Therefore, the findings and conclusions on the effect of imports from 
countries other than India on the injurious situation of the Community 
industry, as stated in recital 41 of the provisional duty Regulation, are hereby 
confirmed. 
3. Conclusion on causation 
(37) In the light of the above, although it cannot be excluded that some of the 
imports originating in countries other than India may have had a negative 
impact on the situation of the Community industry, this impact was not such 
as to break the causal link between the injury suffered by the Community 
industry and the dumped imports originating in India. Therefore and in the 
absence of any new information, the conclusion that the imports of synthetic 
fibre ropes originating in India, taken in isolation, have caused material 
injury to the Community industry, as stated in recitals 36 to 43 of the 
provisional duty Regulation, is hereby confirmed. 
(38) This conclusion is drawn in particular given the loss in market share of the 
Community industry, combined with a deterioration in profitability, which 
coincided with an increase in the volume and market share of Indian imports, 
at prices which constantly undercut those of the Community industry. 
18 
I. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
(39) It was claimed that the conclusion on the Community interest in the 
provisional duty Regulation was not supported by factual evidence. In 
particular, it was argued that the Commission had not sought sufficient 
information on the impact of measures on the users, in order to support its 
conclusions concerning the Community interest. 
It should be noted that the Commission contacted all known associations of 
users, in particular shipping and fishing vessel associations and all known 
distributors of the product concerned in the Community, as well as all known 
significant upstream industries. Only limited and general replies were 
received. Moreover, no additional substantiated comments were submitted 
from the above-mentioned parties after the adoption of provisional measures. 
(40) In the absence of any new information, the findings set out in recitals 44 to 
52 of the provisional duty Regulation concerning Community interest, are ^ 
hereby confirmed. 
J. DEFINITIVE DUTY 
1. Injury elimination level 
(41) The co-operating Indian exporter argued that their export prices had to be 
adjusted for the purposes of the injury elimination level assessment, to take 
account of the difference in raw material prices between the Indian and the 
Community producers. 
However, as stated in recital 53 of the provisional duty Regulation, the injury 
elimination level was determined on the basis of the costs of production of 
the Community industry plus a reasonable amount of profit. Any 
19 
considerations of differences in costs of production between the Indian and 
Community producers are therefore irrelevant in this respect. 
(42) Therefore, the method used by the Commission to establish the injury 
elimination level, as stated in recital 53 of the provisional duty Regulation, is 
hereby confirmed. 
On this basis, the injury margin was found to be 53% of the weighted 
average, net, free-at-Community frontier price, before duty. For companies 
which did not co-operate in the investigation, the injury margin was 82%, as 
stated in recital 55 of the provisional duty Regulation. 
Since the amount of duty adequate to remove the injury sustained by the 
Community industry is lower than the dumping margins found, the anti­
dumping duty to be imposed should be based on the former, in accordance 
with Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation. 
2. Type of definitive anti-dumping duty 
(43) An ad valorem duty appears to be the most appropriate measure given the 
high number of types of ropes involved. 
K. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY 
(44) Considering the conclusions on dumping and injury definitively established 
and that the rate of definitive duty is equal to that provisionally determined, 
the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty should be 
definitively collected, 
20 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of synthetic fibre 
ropes falling within CN codes 5607 49 11, 5607 49 19, 5607 50 11 and 5607 50 19 
originating in India. 
2. The rate of duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community frontier price before 
duty shall be as follows: 
Products manufactured by: 
- Garware Wall ropes Ltd: 53.0% (additional Taric code 8755) 
- Other manufacturers: 82.0% (additional Taric code 8900) 
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties 
shall apply. 
Article 2 
The amount secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to 
Regulation (EC) No 18/98 shall be definitively collected at the duty rate 
definitively imposed. 
21 
Article 3 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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. 
Done at Brussels, 
For the Council 
The President 
22 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 343 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 11 10 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-351-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-36817-2 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
J3