REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION - NINETEENTH ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON THE COMMUNITY'S ANTI-DUMPING AND ANTI-SUBSIDY ACTIVITIES - OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORING OF THIRD COUNTRY ANTI-DUMPING, ANTI-SUBSIDY AND SAFEGUARD CASES (2000)

CONTENTS

Purpose and aim

1. Overview of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation

1.1. The legal framework

1.1.1. The applicable law

1.1.1.1. The international framework

1.1.1.2. The Community legislation

1.1.2. What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies - the material conditions for the imposition of duties

1.1.2.1. Dumping and subsidies

1.1.2.2. Material injury and causation

1.1.2.3. Community interest

1.1.3. Procedure

1.1.4. The anti-dumping and anti-subsidy services in the Commission

1.2. Changes to the basic anti-dumping Regulation in 2000

1.3. WTO dispute settlement in the field of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy

1.3.1. Definition of the WTO dispute settlement procedure

1.3.2. Dispute settlement procedures involving Community activities

1.3.2.1. Cases in which the Community initiated the dispute settlement procedure

1.3.2.2. Dispute settlement procedures initiated by third countries against the Community.

2. General overview of measures in force

3. Initiations of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations

3.1. Introduction

3.2. Cases (in chronological order)

3.2.1. Aluminium foil from the People's Republic of China and Russia

3.2.2. Steel ropes and cables from the Czech Republic, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Thailand and Turkey

3.2.3. Paracetamol from the People's Republic of China, India, Turkey and the USA

3.2.4. Integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps from the People's Republic of China

3.2.5. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film from India and the Republic of Korea

3.2.6. Colour television receivers from Turkey

3.2.7. Internal gear hubs for bicycles from Japan

3.2.8. Urea from Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Egypt, Estonia, Lithuania, Libya, Poland, Romania and Ukraine

3.2.9. Ferro molybdenum from the People's Republic of China

3.2.10. Worked monumental or building granite stones from the People's Republic of China and India

3.2.11. Zinc oxide from the People's Republic of China

4. Provisional measures

4.1. Overview

4.2. Cases (in chronological order)

4.2.1. Polyester staple fibres (AD) from Australia, Indonesia and Thailand

4.2.2. Polyester staple fibres (AS) from Australia, Indonesia and Taiwan

4.2.3. Hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy steel (quarto plates) from the People's Republic of China, India and Romania

4.2.4. Malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings from Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand

4.2.5. Solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate from Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine

4.2.6. Stainless steel fasteners (AS) from Malaysia and the Philippines

4.2.7. Cathode-ray colour television picture tubes from India, Malaysia, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea

4.2.8. Hairbrushes from the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand

4.2.9. Glycine from the People's Republic of China

4.2.10. Styrene-butadien-styrene (SBS) thermoplastic rubber(AD) from Taiwan

4.2.11. Styrene-butadien-styrene (SBS) thermoplastic rubber (AS) from Taiwan

4.2.12. Coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm from the People's Republic of China

4.2.13. Polyester staple fibres from India and the Republic of Korea

4.2.14. Ammonium nitrate from Poland and Ukraine

4.2.15. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AD) from India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand

4.2.16. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) from India, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand

5. Definitive measures

5.1. Overview

5.2. Cases (in chronological order)

5.2.1. Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel (hot rolled coils) (AD) from Bulgaria, India, South Africa, Taiwan and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

5.2.2. Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel (hot rolled coils) (AS) from India and Taiwan

5.2.3. Seamless pipes and tubes of non-alloy steel from Croatia and Ukraine

5.2.4. Synthetic fibres of polyester (AS) from Australia, Indonesia and Taiwan

5.2.5. Synthetic staple fibres of polyester from Australia, Indonesia and Thailand

5.2.6. Stainless steel fasteners (AS) from Malaysia and Philippines

5.2.7. Hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy steel (quarto plates) from the People's Republic of China, India and Romania

5.2.8. Malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings from Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand

5.2.9. Styrene-butadien-styrene (SBS) thermoplastic rubber from Taiwan

5.2.10. Styrene-butadien-styrene (SBS) thermoplastic rubber (AS) from Taiwan

5.2.11. Solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate from Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine

5.2.12. Black colorformers from Japan (formerly One Dye Black 1 and One Dye Black 2)

5.2.13. Cathode-ray colour television picture tubes from India and the Republic of Korea

5.2.14. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand

5.2.15. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) from India, Malaysia and Thailand

5.2.16. Electronic weighing scales (REWS) from the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan

5.2.17. Coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm from the People's Republic of China

5.2.18. Polyester staple fibres (PSF) from India and the Republic of Korea

6. Investigations terminated without measures

6.1. Overview

6.2. Cases (in chronological order)

6.2.1. Polyester staple fibres (AS) from the Republic of Korea and Thailand

6.2.2. Television camera systems from the USA

6.2.3. Flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel (hot rolled coils) from Iran

6.2.4. Flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel (hot rolled coils)(AS) from South Africa

6.2.5. Yellow phosphorus from the People's Republic of China

6.2.6. Bicycle frames from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan

6.2.7. Bicycle forks from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan

6.2.8. Bicycle wheels from the People's Republic of China

6.2.9. Hairbrushes from Hong Kong

6.2.10. Parts of television camera systems from Japan

6.2.11. Compact disc boxes from the People's Republic of China

6.2.12. Stainless steel fasteners (AS) from Singapore and Thailand

6.2.13. Steel wire rod from Turkey

6.2.14. Malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings from Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

6.2.15. Solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate from the Slovak Republic

6.2.16. Woven glass fibre fabrics (AS) from Taiwan

6.2.17. Cathode-ray colour television picture tubes from Lithuania, Malaysia and the People's Republic of China

6.2.18. Hairbrushes from the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand

6.2.19. Glycine from the People's Republic of China

6.2.20. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) from Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan

7. Reviews of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures

7.1. Overview

7.2. Expiry reviews

7.2.1. Expiry reviews initiated (in chronological order)

7.2.1.1. Urea from Russia

7.2.1.2. Colour television receivers from Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand

7.2.1.3. Gas-fuelled, non refillable lighters from the People's Republic of China

7.2.1.4. Ammonium nitrate from Russia

7.2.1.5. Peroxodisulphates from the People's Republic of China

7.2.2. Expiry reviews concluded with confirmation of duty (in chronological order)

7.2.2.1. Magnesium (dead-burned) from the People's Republic of China

7.2.2.2. Potassium chloride from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine

7.2.2.3. Silicon carbide from the People's Republic of China, Russia and Ukraine

7.2.2.4. Bicycles from the People's Republic of China

7.2.2.5. Ethanolamines from the USA

7.2.2.6. Fluorspar from the People's Republic of China

7.2.2.7. Television camera systems from Japan

7.2.3. Expiry reviews concluded by termination (in chronological order)

7.2.3.1. Non-refillable lighters from Japan

7.2.3.2. Large aluminium electrolytic capacitors (LAECs) from Japan

7.2.3.3. Low carbon ferro-chrome from Russia and Kazakhstan

7.3. Interim reviews

7.3.1. Interim reviews initiated (in chronological order)

7.3.1.1. Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China

7.3.1.2. Stainless steel bars from India

7.3.1.3. Unwrought unalloyed magnesium from the People's Republic of China

7.3.1.4. Television camera systems from Japan

7.3.1.5. Colour television receivers from Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand

7.3.1.6. Polyester textured filament yarn (PTY) from Thailand

7.3.1.7. Personal fax machines from the People's Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand

7.3.1.8. Ammonium nitrate from Russia

7.3.1.9. Bicycles from the People's Republic of China

7.3.1.10. Lighters (gas-fuelled non-refillable) from Thailand

7.3.1.11. Polyester staple fibres (PSF) from Belarus

7.3.2. Interim reviews concluded with confirmation/amendment of duty (in chronological order)

7.3.2.1. Television camera systems from Japan

7.3.2.2. Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel from Russia

7.3.2.3. Potassium chloride from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine

7.3.2.4. Tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel from Thailand

7.3.2.5. Ethanolamines from the USA

7.3.2.6. Polyester textured filament yarn from Malaysia

7.3.2.7. Polyester textured filament yarn from Taiwan

7.3.2.8. Fluorspar from the People's Republic of China

7.3.2.9. Microwave ovens from the Republic of Korea

7.3.2.10. Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China

7.3.2.11. Television camera systems from Japan

7.3.2.12. Unwrought unalloyed magnesium from the People's Republic of China

7.3.3. Interim reviews concluded by termination (in chronological order)

7.3.3.1. Lighters (non-refillable) from Japan

7.3.3.2. Large aluminium electrolytic capacitors (LAECs) from Japan

7.3.3.3. Large aluminium electrolytic capacitors (LAECs) from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan

7.3.3.4. Bicycle parts from the People's Republic of China

7.3.3.5. Magnetic disks (3,5" microdisks) from Taiwan

7.3.3.6. Stainless steel bars (AS) from India

7.4. New exporter reviews

7.4.1. New exporter reviews initiated (in chronological order)

7.4.1.1. Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China

7.4.1.2. Stainless steel wire (= or > 1 mm diameter) from India (AS)

7.4.1.3. Stainless steel bars from India (AS)

7.4.1.4. Sacks and bags of polyethylene or polypropylene from India

7.4.1.5. Flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel (hot rolled coils) from India (AS)

7.4.1.6. Flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel (hot rolled coils) from India

7.4.2. New exporter reviews concluded with imposition/amendment of duty (in chronological order)

7.4.2.1. Handbags (leather) from the People's Republic of China

7.4.2.2. Cotton-type bed linen from Egypt, India and Pakistan

7.4.2.3. Bicycles from Taiwan

7.4.2.4. Flat pallets of wood from Poland

7.4.2.5. Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China

7.4.2.6. Salmon from Norway

7.4.2.7. Sacks and bags of polyethylene or polypropylene from India

7.5. Absorption investigations

7.5.1. Anti-absorption investigations initiated (in chronological order)

7.5.1.1. Polypropylene binder or baler twine from Poland

7.5.2. Anti-absorption investigations concluded with increase of duty (in chronological order)

7.5.2.1. Glyphosate from the People's Republic of China

7.5.2.2. Ring binder mechanisms from the People's Republic of China

7.5.2.3. Unwrought unalloyed magnesium from the People's Republic of China

7.5.3. Anti-absorption investigations concluded without increase of duty/termination (in chronological order)

7.5.3.1. Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof from Malaysia and Thailand

7.6. Circumvention investigations

7.6.1. Anti-circumvention investigations initiated (in chronological order)

7.6.2. Anti-circumvention investigations concluded with extension of duty (in chronological order)

7.6.2.1. Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel from the People's Republic of China

7.6.3. Anti-circumvention investigations concluded without extension of duty/termination (in chronological order)

7.6.3.1. Magnetic disks (3,5" microdisks) from Taiwan and the People's Republic of China

8. Monitoring of undertakings

9. Refunds

10. Judicial review : decisions by the Court of Justice / Court of First Instance

10.1. Overview of the judicial reviews in 2000

10.2. Cases pending

10.3. New cases

10.4. The main Judgments rendered by the Court of First Instance

10.4.1. Unbleached cotton fabrics originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China

10.4.2. Monosodium glutamate originating, inter alia, in the Republic of Korea

10.4.3. Unwrought, unalloyed zinc originating in Russia and Poland

10.4.4. Handbags originating in the People's Republic of China

10.4.5. Bicycle parts originating in the People's Republic of China

10.4.6. Bicycle parts originating in the People's Republic of China

10.4.7. Potassium chloride originating, inter alia, in Russia

10.4.8. Farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway

10.4.9. Unbleached cotton fabrics originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China

10.5. Judgment rendered by the Court of Justice

10.5.1. Appeal against CFI Judgment of 15 October 1998 in case T-2/95

11. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations of third countries concerning imports from the Community and/or its Member States

11.1. Anti-dumping cases against the Community and/or its Member States

11.2. Details on some individual cases

11.2.1. X-ray films from Germany

11.2.2. Milk from the Community

11.2.3. Acrylates from Germany

11.2.4. Ropes and Cables of iron and steel from Germany, Spain and the UK

11.2.5. Low enriched uranium from France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK

11.3. Anti-subsidy cases against the Community and/or its Member States

11.4. Details on some individual cases

11.4.1. Sugar from the Community

11.4.2. Canned ham from Denmark and the Netherlands and against imports of canned pork-based luncheon meat from the Community

11.4.3. Lead and bismuth from the UK

11.4.4. Olive oil from the Community

11.4.5. Corrosion resistant steel from Germany

11.4.6. Bulk brandy from France

12. Safeguard measures

12.1. Legal framework

12.2. Community activities in the field of safeguards

12.3. Safeguard cases concerning the Community

12.4. Details on some individual cases

12.4.1. USA - Steel wire rod

12.4.2. USA - Welded line pipe

12.4.3. Russia - steel tubes and pipes

12.4.4. Latvia - Swine meat

12.4.5. Chile - Liquid milk and milk powder

12.4.6. India - Methylene Chloride

12.4.7. Egypt - Milk powder

13. Conclusion

LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEXES : SUMMARY

ANNEX A // New investigations initiated during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

A. Anti-dumping investigations

B. Anti-subsidy investigations

ANNEX B // New investigations initiated by country of export during the period 1996 - 2000 (31 December)

ANNEX C // New investigations initiated by product sector during the period 1996 - 2000 (31 December)

ANNEX D // New investigations concluded by the imposition of provisional duties during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

A. Anti-dumping investigations

B. Anti-subsidy investigations

ANNEX E // New investigations concluded by the imposition of definitive duties during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

A. Anti-dumping investigations

B. Anti-subsidy investigations

ANNEX F // New investigations terminated without imposition of measures during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

A. Anti-dumping investigations

B. Anti-subsidy investigations

ANNEX G // Expiry reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

ANNEX H // Interim reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

ANNEX I // New exporter reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

ANNEX J // Anti-absorption investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

ANNEX K // Anti-circumvention investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

ANNEX L // Accelerated review investigations (anti-subsidy) initiated or concluded during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

ANNEX M // Undertakings accepted or repealed during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

ANNEX N // Measures which expired during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

ANNEX O // Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2000

A. Ranked by product

B. Ranked by country

ANNEX P // Definitive anti-subsidy measures in force on 31 December 2000

A. Ranked by product

B. Ranked by country

ANNEX Q // Undertakings in force on 31 December 2000

A. Ranked by product

B. Ranked by country

ANNEX R // Anti-dumping & anti-subsidy investigations pending on 31 December 2000 :

A. New investigations (ranked by product)

B. Review investigations (ranked by product)

C. Ranked by country (new & review investigations)

ANNEX S // Refunds during the period 1 January - 31 December 2000

ANNEX T // Court cases

A. Court cases pending before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 December 2000

B. Judgments, orders and other decisions rendered by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance of the European Communities during 2000

ANNEX U // Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations of third countries concerning imports from the Community or its Member States

ANNEX V // Third country safeguard actions during 2000

Purpose and aim

This report is submitted to the European Parliament following its resolution of 16 December 1981 on the Community's anti-dumping activities [1], and the report of the European Parliament's Committee on industry, external trade, research and energy [2].

[1] OJC 11, 18.1.1982, p.37

[2] PE 141.178/fin of 30.11.1990, reporter Mr Gijs DE VRIES.

This report summarises the developments in general policy and contains a concise commentary on each anti-dumping and anti-subsidy case initiated, each provisional and definitive measure adopted, the reviews undertaken and each case terminated without the imposition of measures. It also provides an overview on the Court cases relating to these trade policy instruments.

As last year, this issue also includes an overview of the activities in relation to anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard measures adopted by third countries and actions under the dispute settlement understanding of the World Trade Organisation. Due to a restructuring in the anti-dumping services, however, the application of the Trade Barrier Regulation will from now onwards be included in the European Commission Report to the European Parliament on activities in the WTO.

The year 2000 shows a remarkable increase in the number of provisional (48 against 17 for the whole of 1999) and definitive measures adopted (51 versus 21 for the whole of 1999). Also, the number of terminations shows an increase in comparison with previous years (32 in 2000 against 22 in 1999 and 16 in 1998). All this is a direct consequence of the exceptional increase in the number of new investigations initiated during 1999.

The number of new investigations initiated during 2000 significantly decreased (31 against 86 in 1999). Hence, 2000 can be described as a return to normality with regard to the initiations of investigations. However, it should be noted that, due to the large amount of review investigations, the year 2000 was a record year in terms of investigations carried out.

In 2000, eleven countries initiated a total of 31 anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations against imports from Community Member States. The Commission provided assistance to Community companies in a large number of such cases and intervened vis-à-vis third country investigating bodies as well as in the WTO context.

The annexes to this report provide easy access to the activities in table form.

This report is also available to the general public. The 1999 version was released in more or less 600 copies. (Internet Website http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg01/trade10.htm)

Overview of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation

1.1. The legal framework

1.1.1. The applicable law

1.1.1.1. The international framework

On an international level, unfair trading practices such as dumping and the granting of subsidies, were identified as a threat to open markets as early as 1947, when the first GATT agreement was signed. The agreement contained specific provisions allowing GATT members to take action against these practices if they caused material injury to the domestic industry of a GATT member.

Since that time considerable efforts have been made to harmonise the rules relating to trade instruments. During the last GATT round (the « Uruguay Round ») which led to the creation of the WTO and the detailed Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Agreements, much of the attention was focused on the procedural and material conditions to be fulfilled before protective measures can be adopted. The Community played an active role in the negotiation of these relevant criteria which are reflected in its own legislation.

1.1.1.2. The Community legislation

The Community's anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation was first enacted in 1968 and has since been modified several times. The current basic texts (EC and ECSC), which form the legal basis of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the Community, entered into force between March 1996 and April 1998. These are in line with the Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Agreements adopted during the GATT/WTO negotiations. The basic texts are :

- Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [3]

[3] OJ L 56, 6.3.96, p. 1, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2)

- Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community [4]

[4] OJ L 288, 21.10.97, p. 1

- 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 [5]

[5] OJ L 308, 29.11.96, p. 11, as last amended by Commission Decision No 435/2001/ECSC (OJ L 63, 3.3.2001, p. 14)

- Commission Decision No 1889/98/ECSC of 3 September 1998 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Coal and Steel Community [6]

[6] OJ L 245, 4.9.1998, p. 3

These regulations and decisions will overall be referred to as the "basic Regulation(s)".

The Community legislation contains a number of provisions aimed at ensuring a balanced application of the Community's Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy rules on all interested parties. These provisions include the "Community interest test" and the "lesser duty rule".

The Community interest test is a public interest clause and states that measures can only be taken if they are not contrary to the overall interest of the Community. This requires an analysis of all the economic interests involved, including those of the domestic industry, users and consumers.

The lesser duty rule requires the measures imposed by the Community to be lower than the dumping or subsidy margin, if such lower duty rate is sufficient to remove the injury suffered by the Community industry.

1.1.2. What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies - the material conditions for the imposition of duties

1.1.2.1. Dumping and subsidies

Dumping is traditionally defined as price discrimination between national markets, or as selling below cost of production. The Community's anti-dumping legislation defines anti-dumping as selling a product in the Community at a price below its "normal value". This "normal value" is usually the actual sales price on the domestic market of the exporting country. Therefore, a country is selling at dumped prices if the prices in its home market are higher than its export prices (i.e. price discrimination) .

Where sales in the domestic market are not representative, for instance because they have only been made in small quantities, the normal value may then be established on another basis, such as the sales prices of other producers on the domestic market or the cost of production. In the latter case a company is selling at dumped prices if its export prices are below the cost of production.

A certain segregation of the market exists in the majority of the cases where dumping occurs on a more than incidental basis. That segregation may be caused, amongst other reasons, by government regulation or consumer preferences. As a result, exporters are shielded, at least to a certain degree, from international competition on their domestic market.

Subsidies can have similar effects to sales at dumped prices. They involve a direct support from a government which has the effect of conferring a benefit to producers or exporters (e.g. grants, tax and duty exemptions, preferential loans at below commercial rates, export promotion schemes, etc, all aimed at allowing the exporters to sell at low prices in the Community.)

1.1.2.2. Material injury and causation

For measures to be taken against these unfair trading practices, it is not sufficient that companies are exporting their products to the Community at dumped or subsidised prices. Measures can only be taken if these exports cause material injury to Community producers, who cannot compete on an equal footing with exporters.

Typical injury indicators are that the dumped and/or subsidised import volumes increase over a certain period and import prices undercut the sales prices of the Community industry. As a consequence, the latter is forced to decrease production volumes and sales prices thus losing market shares, making losses or having to make employees redundant. In extreme cases, exporters may try to eliminate viable Community producers by using a predatory pricing strategy. In any event, the injury analysis requires that all relevant factors be taken into account before deciding whether the Community industry is in fact suffering "material injury".

A further condition for the imposition of measures is the need for "causality": the injury must be caused by the dumping or the subsidy. This condition is fulfilled when the injury to the Community industry coincides with the increase in dumped and subsidised imports. It is important to note that the dumped or subsidised imports do not have to be the only cause of the injury.

1.1.2.3. Community interest

Finally, it has to be established that the application of measures would not be contrary to the overall interest of the Community. In this respect, the interests of all relevant economic operators which might be affected by the outcome of the investigation must be taken into account.

1.1.3. Procedure

Investigations are carried out in accordance with the procedural rules laid down in the basic Regulations. These rules guarantee a transparent, fair and objective proceeding by granting significant procedural rights to interested parties. In addition, the results of an investigation are published in the Official Journal, and the Community is obliged to justify its decisions in this publication. Finally, it is ensured that each case is decided on its merits and the Commission does not hesitate to terminate a case if the conditions to impose measures are not met.

Whereas each investigation is different depending on the products and countries involved, all cases follow the same procedural rules. However certain preferential rules apply to Central and Eastern European Countries and Turkey. The rules relating to a new case are summarised below.

Initiation

A case normally starts with a sufficiently substantiated complaint from the Community industry manufacturing the same or a similar product to the one referred to in the complaint. After receipt of this complaint, the Commission assesses whether the complaint contains sufficient evidence to allow for the initiation of the case. A case is opened by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal. In this notice, all interested parties, including users and, where appropriate, consumer organisations, are invited to participate and co-operate in the proceedings. Detailed questionnaires are sent to producers in the exporting countries and in the Community, traders (in particular importers) and other interested parties, such as users. These parties are also informed that they can request a hearing and ask for access to the non-confidential files which will help them defend their case.

The investigation up to the provisional measures

Following receipt of the replies to the questionnaire, investigations are carried out by Commission officials at the premises of the co-operating parties.

The main purpose of these visits is to verify whether the information given in the questionnaires is reliable. The verified information is subsequently used to calculate or determine the dumping margin and the injury factors, in particular the price undercutting margin and injury elimination level. These calculations often involve the processing of thousands of transactions, and require a complex analysis of production costs.

The results of the calculations and other findings are summarised in a working document, on the basis of which it is decided - after consultation of the Member States in the Advisory Committee - whether to impose provisional measures or to terminate the proceedings. In either eventuality, at this stage the decision is the Commission's responsibility.

The investigation up to the definitive stage

Following the publication in the Official Journal of a Commission regulation imposing provisional duties, interested parties which so request receive a full disclosure which allows them to verify the Commission's calculations and to submit comments. Comments can also be made at a hearing. These provisional submissions and comments are taken into account when a second, definitive, working document is prepared by the Commission.

After final disclosure and consultation of the Member States on the basis of the second working document, the Commission makes a proposal to the Council whether or not to confirm the provisional measures and impose definitive measures. Another possibility is that the Commission accepts undertakings offered by exporters, which undertake to respect minimum prices. In the latter case, no duties are generally imposed on the companies from which undertakings are accepted.

The Council decides on the adoption of the Commission proposal by simple majority vote, i.e. at least eight Member States have to be in favour of the Commission proposal. The regulation imposing definitive duties, and deciding on the collection of the provisional duties, is published in the Official Journal.

In view of the findings made, it may also be decided to terminate a case without the imposition of measures. The same procedure (disclosure, comments, hearing, working document) as described above applies. The termination of the case would generally be made by a Commission Decision after consultation of the Member States.

Timing

The procedure described above is subject to strict statutory time limits. Thus, a decision to impose provisional duties must be taken within nine months of the initiation and the total duration of an investigation is limited to fifteen months (13 months in anti-subsidy cases). This leads to significant time constraints, taking into account, inter alia, internal consultations and the necessity to publish regulations and decisions in all Community languages at the same time.

Anti-dumping or countervailing measures will normally remain in force for five years, and may consist of duties or undertakings concluded with exporters. Measures are taken on a countrywide basis, but individual treatment, i.e. the application of a company-specific duty, can be granted to exporters which have co-operated throughout the investigation. During the five-year period, interested parties may, under certain conditions, request a review of measures or the refund of anti-dumping duties paid. Measures may also be suspended for a certain period, subject to given criteria.

The basic Regulations provide for administrative reviews and distinguish between interim reviews, newcomer reviews and expiry reviews. Those procedures are initiated normally only on the basis of substantiated evidence and will normally not exceed 12 months in length.

The expiry review is intended to determine if the expiry of the measures would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. During the five year period, the Commission may perform an interim review. Under the latter procedure, the Commission will consider whether the circumstances with regard to subsidy/dumping and injury have changed significantly or whether existing measures are achieving the intended results in removing the injury. Finally, the basic Regulations provide that a review shall be carried out to determine individual margins for new exporters in the exporting country concerned.

Judicial reviews

The procedural rights of the parties, including hearings and access to non-confidential files, are respected in the course of the proceeding, and a system of judicial review is in place to ensure their correct implementation. The competence to review anti-dumping and anti-subsidy cases lies with the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Furthermore, the possibility of recourse to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism exists for WTO members.

1.1.4 The anti-dumping and anti-subsidy services in the Commission

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations are carried out, among other responsibilities, by Directorates B and C of Directorate General Trade in charge of external commercial policy. Whilst Directorate C deals with the dumping and subsidy aspects of investigations, Directorate B covers the areas of injury and Community interest. In addition, Unit 1 in Directorate B is in charge of policy aspects for both Directorates and Unit 1 in Directorate C monitors the activity of third countries on anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards.

1.2. Changes to the basic anti-dumping Regulation in 2000

In 2000, the special market economy regime applicable in anti-dumping cases concerning Russia and China since 1998 [7] was reviewed. The review examined the application of the regime to date, the possibility of extending the regime to any other countries normally classed as non-market economies for anti-dumping purposes and the criteria for granting individual treatment.

[7] Regulation (EC) No 905/98 (OJ L 128, 30.04.1998).

The review found that while only a small number of companies had succeeded in their claim for market economy status, the criteria were a proper indication of a market economy and were in fact relevant, realistic and attainable. It was also found that while reforms had continued in Russia and China, there had been some setbacks and, as a result, it was considered appropriate to continue applying the current regime to anti-dumping investigations concerning imports from these two countries.

Regarding the application of the regime to other countries, an examination of the situation in these countries found that the economic reforms ongoing in Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Vietnam showed that steps have been taken to move away from a centrally planned economy towards an economy based on market principles. It was therefore considered that it was appropriate to extend the special anti-dumping regime to them.

It was further decided, given that membership of the WTO indicates a certain level of economic reform and trade liberalisation, that the special regime should be extended to those non-market economy countries which are members of the WTO. In addition, provision was made in the legislation that the regime should be automatically extended to other non-market economy countries which become WTO members in the future.

As a result, the Council adopted on 9 October 2000, Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 [8] amending the basic anti-dumping Regulation. The amendment entered into force on 12 October 2000.

[8] OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2

In addition to the amendment to the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the review also examined the criteria that are applicable for exporters in non-market economies who apply for individual treatment in anti-dumping cases. Following this examination, it was decided to amend the criteria to focus more on the independence from State influence with regard to the export activities of firms. The amendment ensures that any unnecessary overlap with market economy treatment criteria is now removed.

1.3. WTO dispute settlement in the field of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy

1.3.1. Definition of the WTO dispute settlement procedure

In line with the conclusions of the Uruguay Round, the WTO provides for a procedure for the settlement of disputes between WTO Members on the application of certain WTO agreements. This was a major development for international trade law. The procedure is divided into two stages. The first stage is at the level of the WTO Members and consists of a bilateral consultation. Upon failure of the consultation, the second stage can be opened by consulting a special group ("panel"). The panel will publish a report, which can be appealed before the Appellate Body. Both the panel report and the report by the Appellate Body are deemed to be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body unless the latter rejects the report by unanimity [9].

[9] Each appeal is heard by three members of a permanent seven-member Appellate Body set up by the Dispute Settlement Body. The Dispute Settlement Body has to accept or reject the appeals report within 30 days and rejection is only possible by consensus.

The Marrakech agreement identifies the specific WTO agreements that may be invoked for the initiation of the dispute settlement procedure. The dispute settlement procedure applies expressly to the agreements on anti-dumping and to the agreement on anti-subsidy and countervailing duties.

1.3.2. Dispute settlement procedures involving Community activities

The Community initiated dispute settlement procedures in three cases involving safeguard measures. In all three of them, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body, which upheld most of the Community claims. In two of the cases, the WTO members found to be violating the Agreement on Safeguards, complied with the decisions of the Dispute Settlement Body. In the third case, the final decision of the Dispute Settlement Body is still pending. As regards cases involving anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures, there are also a number of pending consultations. One panel was established further to the request of the Community in the field of anti-dumping and one panel report was released in the field of anti-subsidy, further to a dispute brought by the Community. Furthermore, one panel report was released in the field of anti-dumping further to a dispute brought by India against the Community.

1.3.2.1. Cases in which the Community initiated the dispute settlement procedure

- Korea - safeguard measures on dairy products

On 7 March 1997, Korea imposed definitive safeguard measures in the form of a quota on imports of certain diary products (milk powder blends). Community trade affected by this measure amounts to approximately EUR 75 million.

The Community initiated dispute settlement action in September 1997 and on 23 July 1998 a panel was established. In January 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body in this case. They upheld most of Community claims, and found that the Korean measures violated several provisions of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. In particular, the injury investigation was found to be incomplete and insufficient, the choice of the measure was not justified and the notifications to the WTO were not made within time limits.

Korea accepted the decision and complied with it by abolishing the measures in May 2000.

- Argentina - safeguard measures on footwear

On 12 September 1997, Argentina imposed definitive measures on imports of all footwear (except ski-boots- and snowboard-boots). The Community trade interest is estimated at approximately EUR 10 million.

The Community initiated a dispute settlement procedure on this case in April 1998. On 12 January 2000, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted the reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body, which had found that Argentina's measures were not in conformity with its international obligations, and requested Argentina to bring its measure into conformity with the Safeguard Agreement. In particular, it declared that the serious injury determination was in serious breach of several WTO rules and did not show that an emergency situation existed as a result of increased imports.

In 2000, under pressure from the Commission, Argentina finally extended and modified the existing regime under which minimum specific duties at a level not exceeding WTO bound rates were imposed on "non-sport" footwear while a tariff quota, (including per-country allocation) was introduced on imports of sport footwear. Imports within that quota are subject to minimum specific duties at a level not exceeding WTO bound rates. The duties are doubled for imports falling outside that quota. The portion of the quota allocated to the Community has been determined on the basis of the historical trade, updated to reflect present market conditions. This should ensure adequate protection for Community exports.

The Commission continues to monitor the evolution of Community trade to Argentina, to ensure that the current regime does not unduly penalise Community exporters.

- USA - safeguard measures on wheat gluten

In May 1998, the USA imposed a safeguard measure (quota) on imports of wheat gluten originating in third countries (except NAFTA and developing countries). As the measure will expire on 1 June 2001, the industry has submitted a request for a 2-year extension and the USA is conducting the relevant review. The Community trade interests amounts to approximately EUR 48 million.

The Community initiated WTO dispute settlement action on this case in April 1999. The final reports of the panel and the Appellate Body, the latter circulated on 22 December 2000, has confirmed that the safeguard measure violates the Safeguard Agreement for reasons of both substance (in particular causality and exclusion of NAFTA imports) and procedure (WTO notifications and consultations). The Commission has already told the USA that it expects them to comply with the ruling by removing the measure without delay.

On 14 August 1998, the Community withdrew "substantially equivalent concessions" under the WTO by imposing a tariff quota on imports of corn gluten feed from the USA. In accordance with Article 8 of the Safeguard Agreement, the suspensions shall become effective upon the declaration of a WTO Dispute Settlement Body that the measures imposed by the USA are not in compliance with WTO rules. This declaration and the related introduction of tariff quota on corn gluten feed from the USA, are expected to take place during January 2001.

- Argentina - anti-dumping measures on floor tiles from Italy

On 12 November 1999, Argentina imposed definitive anti-dumping measures in the form of minimum prices of 7,80 US$/m (tiles of 20x20 cm), 9 US$ (tiles of 30x30 cm) and 10,9 US$ (tiles of 40x40 cm). Community exporters and the Commission contested this decision on a number of grounds. In brief, Argentina appears to have disregarded the information presented by the Community exporters without providing any valid justification.

On 26 January 2000, the Community requested WTO consultations with Argentina under Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU"), and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The consultations also included another Argentinean anti-dumping case, Carton Board from Germany, for which similar issues could be raised. Consultations were held in Geneva on 1 March 2000, but failed to resolve the dispute.

On 6 November 2000, the Community requested the establishment of a Panel on the two cases pursuant to Articles 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. However, the Community request concerning the Carton Board case was finally suspended, given that there were reasonable expectations that Argentina would let the measures lapse at their natural expiry, i.e. in February 2001.

As regards the floor tiles case, the Dispute Settlement Body, at its meeting of 17 November 2000, agreed to the establishment of the Panel.

It is important to note that this is the first panel requested by the Community in the anti-dumping area. The Commission attaches considerable importance to this case, which shows its firm intention to pursue vigorously breaches of WTO rules also in this area.

- USA - countervailing duties on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel originating from the UK.

On 10 May 2000, the Appellate Body ruled in the case brought by the Community concerning countervailing duties on imports of lead and bismuth steel from the UK.

The panel and the Appellate Body upheld the Community's complaint that these countervailing duties, which relate to subsidies granted by the UK Government to British Steel Corporation before its privatisation, were inconsistent with the provisions of the WTO Subsidies Agreement.

The Appellate Body ruled against the USA on two counts. Firstly, it concluded that the USA could not, as it had done, simply presume that subsidies granted prior to a change of ownership « passed through » to the purchaser. Secondly, the Appellate Body ruled that a privatisation for fair market value (which it determined the British Steel privatisation to be) eliminated the benefit of any past subsidies.

The panel and the Appellate Body's findings have led the USA to change its countervailing practice in this area, and the findings also call into question the continued imposition by the USA of countervailing duties, particularly on steel products, against several other Member States of the Community.

1.3.2.2. Dispute settlement procedures initiated by third countries against the Community.

- Complaint by India against the Community regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports of cotton-type bed linen from India

On 30 October 2000, the panel report concerning the above-mentioned dispute was released: it ruled in favour of the Community on 13 points, did not consider it necessary to give a ruling on 14 points, and ruled against the Community on four points. The Community presented an appeal on one of these points, concerning the practice of "zeroing" in dumping margin calculations.

2. General overview of measures in force

At the end of 2000, the Community had 175 anti-dumping measures [10] and 17 countervailing measures in force. The anti-dumping measures covered 67 products and 38 countries (see Annex O); the countervailing measures covered 11 products and 8 countries (see Annex P). Of the measures, the large majority was in the form of duties; however, in a significant number of cases, undertakings were accepted.

[10] The measures are counted per product and country concerned.

Of the measures in force at the end of 2000, 34 concerned China, 11 Russia and 13 measures applied to non-market-economy countries, including Ukraine with 9 measures, Belarus with 3 measures and Kazakhstan with 1 measure. Twenty-two measures concerned one or more of the 10 Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) [11].

[11] These countries are : Romania, Bulgaria, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

For a more realistic view of the impact of anti-dumping measures, however, one has to look at the trade volume of the products concerned, which varies considerably depending on the product sector. The biggest trade volumes are often generated by high technology, such as electronics, which are high-value products. It should be noted that in 2000, 0,5% [12] of total imports into the Community was affected by anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures.

[12] Source Comext.

TABLE 1

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy new investigations

during the period 1 January 1996 - 31 December 2000 [13]

[13] The initiation of a case concerning several countries is accounted as separate investigations/proceedings per country involved.

>TABLE POSITION>

3. Initiations of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations

3.1. Introduction

In 2000, 31 investigations were initiated. They involved 11 products from 20 different countries (review investigations are dealt with in section 7 of this report). Details of these investigations are given in Annex A.

In comparing with 1999, where the number of new investigations amounted to 86, one notices a remarkable reduction. This reduction appears to confirm that the year 1999 was exceptional in terms of the high number of initiations registered and seems to confirm a return in 2000 to the normal situation which has existed throughout the nineties.

In the five-year period from 1996 to 2000, 216 investigations were initiated on imports from 41 countries. The main countries concerned were the People's Republic of China with 30 investigations, India with 27 investigations and Korea with 22 investigations. The investigations initiated over the last five years are broken down by country of export in Annex B.

The main sectors concerned by the investigations during the period from 1996 to 2000 were iron and steel with 64 investigations, chemical and allied with 53 investigations and textiles and allied with 38 investigations. A breakdown of the product sectors is given in Annex F.

A summary of the cases initiated in 2000 can be found below.

3.2. Cases (in chronological order)

3.2.1. Aluminium foil from the People's Republic of China and Russia

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated on 18 February 2000, following a complaint lodged by Eurométaux on behalf of the Community industry. The complaint was supported by a total of six companies.

No provisional measures were imposed. However, the investigation continued and was still pending at the end of the year.

3.2.2. Steel ropes and cables from the Czech Republic, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Thailand and Turkey

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated on 5 May 2000, following a complaint lodged by EWRIS on behalf of the Community industry. The complaint was supported by a total of 17 companies.

The investigation was still pending at the end of the year.

3.2.3. Paracetamol from the People's Republic of China, India, Turkey and the USA

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated on 13 May 2000, following a complaint lodged by CEFIC on behalf of the Community industry. The complaint was supported by the sole Community producer of paracetamol.

The investigation was still pending at the end of the year.

3.2.4. Integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps from the People's Republic of China

This anti-dumping proceeding was initiated on 17 May 2000, following a complaint lodged by the European Lighting Companies Federation on behalf of the Community Industry. The complaint was supported by a total of 3 companies.

The investigation was still pending at the end of the year.

3.2.5. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film from India and the Republic of Korea

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated on 27 May 2000, following two complaints lodged by DuPont Teijin Films (DTF), Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH, Nuroll SpA and FAPACK SpA on behalf of the Community industry.

The investigation was still pending at the end of the year.

3.2.6. Colour television receivers from Turkey

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated on 15 July 2000, following a complaint lodged by the Producers of European Televisions in Co-operation (Poetic) on behalf of the Community industry. The complaint was supported by producers representing a major proportion of the total Community production of colour television receivers.

The investigation was still pending at the end of the year.

3.2.7. Internal gear hubs for bicycles from Japan

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated on 27 July 2000, following a complaint lodged by Sram Deutschland GmbH on behalf of the Community industry. Apart from Sram Deutschland GmbH, only one other Community producer, Sturmey Archer Ltd., was identified.

The investigation was still pending at the end of the year.

3.2.8. Urea from Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Egypt, Estonia, Lithuania, Libya, Poland, Romania and Ukraine

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated on 21 October 2000, following a complaint lodged by the European Fertilisers Manufacturers Association (EFMA) on behalf of the Community industry. The complaint was supported by a total of 10 companies.

The investigation was still pending at the end of the year.

3.2.9. Ferro molybdenum from the People's Republic of China

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated on 9 November 2000, following a complaint lodged by Euro Alliages on behalf of the Community industry. The complaint was supported by a total of two companies representing 66% of the total Community production.

The investigation was still pending at the end of the year.

3.2.10. Worked monumental or building granite stones from the People's Republic of China and India

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated on 11 November 2000, following a complaint lodged by the European & International Federation of Natural Stone Industries (EURO-ROC) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion of the total Community production of certain worked monumental or building granite stones.

The investigation was still pending at the end of the year.

3.2.11. Zinc oxide from the People's Republic of China

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated on 20 December 2000, following a complaint lodged by Eurométaux on behalf of the Community industry. The complaint was supported by a total of 6 companies.

The investigation was still pending at the end of the year.

4. Provisional measures

4.1. Overview

In 2000, provisional duties were imposed in 48 proceedings involving imports from 18 different countries. As shown in Table 1 (see point 2), this figure compares to 17 in 1999 and 30 in 1998. The increase in the number of provisional measures imposed during 2000 is a direct consequence of the high level of investigations initiated during 1999.

An overview of the provisional duties imposed in 2000 is given in Annex D. This section of the report gives a summary of each of these cases.

4.2. Cases (in chronological order)

4.2.1. Polyester staple fibres (AD) from Australia, Indonesia and Thailand

Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed by the Commission on 21 January 2000. The proceeding was initiated in parallel with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning the same product originating in the same countries (see above) April 1999, following a complaint lodged by the International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee (CIRFS) on behalf of the Community industry.

The investigation confirmed that the total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999) amounted to 578.000 tonnes. The value of the total imports originating in the countries concerned during the same period amounted to EUR 38,2 million.

Dumping

Due to the large number of exporting producers in Indonesia, the Commission used sampling for the investigation of dumping in this country. Dumping was found for all investigated exporting producers in the three countries concerned by comparing normal values with export prices to the Community by product type. The provisional dumping margins established ranged from 5,2% to 36,6%.

Injury and causation of injury

The Community industry was found to have suffered material injury during the period 1996 to March 1999, particularly in terms of declining capacity, sales volume, sales prices, market share, investments and employment. A weighted average price undercutting margin of 40%, expressed as a percentage of the Community producer's sales price, was established during the investigation period.

Although other factors, for example low-priced imports from other countries, may have contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry, the Commission found that the significant increase in import volume from these three countries and their substantial price undercutting of the Community industry's prices had material negative consequences on the situation of this industry. It was, therefore, concluded that dumped imports from the countries concerned, when taken in isolation, had caused material injury to the Community industry.

Community interest

All the various interests involved were examined, in particular those of the Community industry, of the importers and of the users. The Commission considered that there were no compelling reasons not to impose measures in order to correct the distortive effect of injurious dumping, to restore a competitive regime of fair pricing practices and prevent further injury to the Community industry.

Measures

In all cases, the injury margins were found to be higher than the dumping margins established and, therefore, the provisional duty rates were based on the latter. The rates of the duty imposed ranged from 5,2% to 36,6%. However, given that a provisional countervailing duty based on export subsidies was imposed at the same time against Australia (see parallel anti-subsidy proceeding), the anti-dumping duty rate for Australia was adjusted by the amount of the countervailing duty in order to avoid making Australian PSF subject to two measures dealing with the same situation.

4.2.2. Polyester staple fibres (AS) from Australia, Indonesia and Taiwan

On 21 January 2000, the Commission imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Australia and Taiwan, and continued the investigation regarding Indonesia without imposing provisional measures. The proceeding had been initiated in April 1999 following complaints lodged by the International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee ("CIRFS") on behalf of producers representing a major proportion of the total Community production of polyester staple fibres (PSF).

The investigation confirmed that the total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999) amounted to 578.967 tonnes. The value of the total imports in the countries concerned during the same period amounted to EUR 32,2 million.

Subsidisation

(a) Australia

This was the first anti-subsidy investigation concerning this country. It was found that the exporting producer received benefits from export subsidies under the following schemes: the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, the International Competitiveness Scheme, the Investment Attraction Programme and the Import Credit Scheme. The amount of subsidy for the sole exporting producer in Australia was 6%.

(b) Indonesia

This was the first anti-subsidy investigation concerning imports from this country. Due to the high number of exporters, sampling methods were used. The companies availed themselves of the BKPM Schemes and the BAPEKSTA Schemes. The amounts of countervailable subsidies for the individual exporters in the sample did vary from 0,2% to 1% and were therefore below the de minimis threshold for subsidisation. However, it should be noted that two companies representing a substantial share of imports of the product concerned into the Community did not co-operate in this proceeding. The treatment of these companies and the effect on the establishment of the country-wide margin of subsidisation was further investigated and determined at the definitive stage of the proceeding.

(c) Taiwan

This was the second investigation concerning Taiwan. Companies have been found to benefit from the following subsidies : Tax credits and tax exemptions, Loans at preferential rates on the basis of conditions set by the Executive Yuan of the Development Fund, Import duty exemptions and Matching Funds and Assistance Funds. The amounts of subsidies for the individual exporters did range from 1,1% to 1,5%. The subsidy margin for two companies was de minimis. The weighted average country-wide subsidy margin was above the applicable de minimis threshold of 1%

Injury and causation of injury

The Community industry was found to have suffered material injury during the period 1996 to March 1999, particularly in terms of declining capacity, sales volume, sales prices, market share, investments and employment. A weighted average price undercutting margin of 21% for Australia and 6,1% for Taiwan, expressed as a percentage of the Community producer's sales price, was established during the investigation period.

Although other factors, for example low-priced imports from other countries, may have contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry, the Commission found that the significant increase in import volume from these three countries and their substantial price undercutting of the Community industry's prices had material negative consequences on the situation of this industry. It was, therefore, concluded that dumped imports from the countries concerned, when taken in isolation, had caused material injury to the Community industry.

Community interest

At this stage of the proceeding, no compelling reasons were found against the imposition of countervailing measures.

Measures

A provisional countervailing duty of 6% was imposed on the Australian exporter, and the residual duty was set at the same rate. Taiwanese exporters were subject to provisional CVD rates of 1,1% to 1,5%, with rates for two companies being de minimis and the all other rate set at 1,5%.

4.2.3. Hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy steel (quarto plates) from the People's Republic of China, India and Romania

Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed by the Commission on 11 February 2000. The proceeding had been initiated in May 1999, following a complaint lodged by EUROFER (the European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries).

The investigation confirmed that the total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 January 1998 until 31 March 1999) amounted to about 7,2 million tonnes. The value of total imports originating in the countries concerned amounted to EUR 308 million during the same period.

Dumping

A number of Chinese companies requested market economy treatment, but since none of these companies met all the criteria it was decided to reject these requests. The normal value therefore had to be based on an analogue country. For this purpose India was used. All Chinese companies also requested individual treatment, i.e. to receive an individual dumping margin based on their own export prices. These requests had to be rejected as well since none of these companies met all the criteria required.

The dumping margins were established on the basis of a comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price. Dumping was found with regard to all the exporting producers in the countries concerned, with dumping margins at Community frontier level ranging from 14,4% to 52,6%.

Injury and causation of injury

The investigation showed that while consumption grew by 5% between 1995 and the investigation period, dumped imports from the countries concerned grew exponentially. They increased their market share by 4,9%.

The Community industry had to reduce production and sales, with a concomitant increase in its stock levels, while price undercutting by the dumped imports increased sharply. Prices and profits experienced very strong falls in the last six months of the investigation period. It was thus considered that the Community industry has suffered material injury.

In the light of the sharp growth in the volumes of dumped imports, with the accompanying increase in price undercutting and the marked worsening of the situation of the Community industry, it was concluded that the dumped imports had played a decisive role in causing the material injury to the Community industry.

Community interest

In general, crude steel production can only benefit from stable prices for downstream products. The lack of interest shown by the user industries, co-operation being almost zero, suggests that measures would have only a limited, insignificant effect on users' activities. It was therefore concluded that there were no compelling reasons not to impose measures, particularly as other sources of supply not subject to measures exist.

Measures

Since for each country concerned the dumping margin established was higher than the injury margin, measures were based on the latter. The rates of duty imposed ranged from 9,6% to 21,8%.

4.2.4. Malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings from Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand

Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed by the Commission on 29 February 2000. The proceeding had been initiated in May 1999, following a complaint lodged by the Defence Committee of Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings Industry of the European Union.

The investigation, which was originally also opened against Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, showed that the market share for these countries was de minimis. Therefore, no provisional measures were imposed.

Furthermore, the investigation confirmed that the total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999) amounted to 61.000 tonnes. The value of the total imports originating in the countries concerned during the same period amounted to around EUR 32 million.

Dumping

Three Chinese exporting producers requested market economy status. The Commission did not grant market economy status to these companies due to significant state interference in their activities. As most appropriate market economy third country, Thailand was used as analogue country to establish normal value for China.

The dumping margins provisionally found amounted to 28,5% for Brazil, 49,4% for China, 28,4% for the Czech Republic and ranged from 17,6% to 28,3% for Japan, from 11,8% to 24,6% for Korea and from 6,3% to 25,8% for Thailand.

Injury and causation of injury

The market shares of the imports from the countries concerned in the Community increased from 20% to 29% between 1995 and the investigation period. The imports volumes increased by around 20%. The weighted average import price of the countries concerned decreased by 5,5% between 1995 and the investigation period. However, when looking at the period between 1996 and the investigation period, the price decrease amounted to 10%. Moreover, substantial undercutting has been found during the investigation period for all countries concerned.

The situation of the Community industry deteriorated between 1995 and the investigation period. Almost all the economic indicators had a negative development in that period. Moreover one plant closed down in 1995.

The analysis established that the cause of the material injury suffered by the Community industry have been caused by the imports from the countries concerned. In fact, the deterioration of the Community industry coincided with the significant increase of the import volumes and market shares of the countries concerned and with the decrease of their prices, in particular as from 1996. The impact of other factors, such as the imports from other third countries or the substitution effect due to fittings of different materials, have been examined as well, but have been considered not to have contributed to the material injury found.

Community interest

As to the importers, the investigation has shown that they are on average profitable and that they have in several cases alternative sources of supply and deal with a large product range, other than the malleable fittings. With respect to the users (gas and water distributors, plumbers, installers of heating and installers of sanitary fittings), it was concluded that the impact of anti-dumping measures would be negligible. In fact, the cost of malleable fittings on the total costs sustained, for example, in a domestic gas installation, has been estimated at around 1%. It was therefore concluded that there were no compelling reasons not to impose anti-dumping duties.

Measures

Since the level of injury found exceeded the dumping margins provisionally established for most companies, provisional duties were set mostly at the level of the latter: 26,1% for Brazil, 49,4% for China, 28,4% for the Czech Republic, between 17,6% and 28,3% for Japan, between 11,8% and 24,6% for Korea and between 6,3% and 25,8% for Thailand.

The co-operating exporting producer in the Czech Republic offered a price undertaking which could be accepted by the Commission since it eliminates the injurious effect of dumping.

4.2.5. Solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate from Algeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine

Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed by the Commission on 24 March 2000. The proceeding had been initiated in June 1999, following a complaint lodged by the European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association on behalf of the Community industry.

The investigation confirmed that the total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999) amounted to 3,3 million tonnes. The value of the total imports originating in the countries concerned during the same period amounted to around EUR 100,5 million.

The investigation was originally also opened against the Slovak Republic. No dumping margin was however calculated for the Slovak Republic, due to the absence of material impact of the Slovak imports on the injury caused to the Community industry.

Dumping

As regards the sole exporting producer in Lithuania and Algeria, the dumping margins were established on the basis of a comparison of a constructed normal value with weighted average export price.

For the three other non-market economy countries, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, the Commission determined the normal value on the basis of data obtained from producers in a market economy third country, in this case Lithuania. This normal value was compared with export prices for each of these countries, which were generally established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export to the Community. However, for Ukraine, in view of the exporter's non-co-operation, the facts available were used, in this case Eurostat and the figures in the complaint.

Injury and causation of injury

The overall situation of the Community industry improved between 1995 and 1996/1997, in parallel to the imposition of measures on imports of UAN originating in Poland and Bulgaria. However, between 1997 and the investigation period, it worsened, as indicated by the unfavourable development of economic indicators during the period under investigation.

The analysis provisionally established that the imports originating in the Slovak Republic did not cause material injury to the Community industry. With respect to the other countries concerned, it was established that the cause for the material injury suffered by the Community industry was the imports originating in these countries. The worsening of the Community industry's situation coincided in time with the significant increase in the import volumes and market shares of the countries concerned and the decrease in their prices, in particular as from 1997.

Community interest

It was found that without measures, the price-depressive effect of the dumped imports would continue to frustrate all efforts of the Community industry to regain a satisfactory margin of profitability. As concerns the importers/traders, given the level and nature of the measures proposed, it was considered that imports would continue to take place, albeit at non-injurious prices, although it could not be excluded that these importers would face some negative effects. With respect to the users (farmers and farmers' co-operatives), the Commission considered that any anti-dumping measures would most likely not have a decisive impact on the users.

Measures

The provisional duties set for Algeria (9,42 EUR/tonne), Lithuania (5,19 EUR/tonne), Russia (15,46 EUR/tonne) and Ukraine (21,47 EUR/tonne) were based on the dumping margins as these were found to be lower than the injury margins. For imports originating in Belarus, the duty was based on the injury margin (18,02 EUR/tonne).

4.2.6. Stainless steel fasteners (AS) from Malaysia and the Philippines

Provisional countervailing duties were imposed by the Commission on 22 March 2000. The proceeding had been initiated on 26 June 1999, following a complaint lodged by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute. The investigation originally covered Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore.

However, since the investigation showed that the countrywide subsidy margin for Singapore and Thailand were zero or below the de minimis threshold, the proceeding was terminated as regards imports from these 2 countries.

The investigation confirmed that the total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999) amounted to around EUR 239 million. The value of the total imports originating in the countries concerned during the same period amounted to around EUR 19 million.

Subsidisation

As regards Malaysia, the investigation revealed that the companies obtained countervailable benefits under the Pioneer Status, sales tax and import duty exemptions for companies in export processing and double deductions of eligible expenses. The investigation resulted in subsidy margins, which ranged from 11,3% to 3,7%.

For the Philippines, the investigation showed that the exporting producer obtained benefits under the income tax exemption scheme and the import duty exemption on imports of spare parts. The subsidy margin for the sole co-operating producer was 3,5%.

Injury and causation of the injury

The volume of imports from the countries concerned increased between 1996 and the investigation period (by 16%), as did their share of the Community market (from 7,9% in 1996 to 12,4% in the investigation period). The prices of these imports decreased substantially during the same period (by 11%).

The Community industry was found to suffer injury in the form of a severe price depression caused by the price undercutting with the consequent deterioration of profitability (-0,8% during the investigation period).

The investigation showed that the imports from the countries concerned caused injury to the Community industry: the deterioration of the situation of the Community industry coincided with the substantial decrease in its prices. Other factors examined were not found to break the causal link.

Community interest

No reasons were found on grounds of the Community interest not to impose countervailing measures.

Measures

For each country, the total of the subsidy margin established was lower than the injury margin. The level of the duty imposed to the Malaysian exporting producers took into account the totality of the domestic subsidy plus the export subsidy amount in excess of the existing anti-dumping duty. The countervailing duty was thus 0% for one exporting producer and 1,8% for the other (the residual duty was also established at this level), which was below the total amount of subsidy found. The duty for the only Philippine exporting producer as well as the residual duty was 3,5%.

4.2.7. Cathode-ray colour television picture tubes from India, Malaysia, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea

Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed on 27 April 2000. The proceeding was initiated in July 1999, following a complaint lodged by the Taskforce against Unfair Business in Europe (TUBE), on behalf of the sole producer in the Community not related to exporters in the countries concerned.

The investigation confirmed that total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 July 1998 - 30 June 1999) amounted to 3,4 million units. The value of total imports originating in the countries concerned during the same period amounted to EUR 38,9 million.

The investigation showed, in respect of all countries except Lithuania, the existence of dumping and injury caused to the Community industry, as well as of a causal link between the two. It was also shown that the adoption of provisional measures would not be against the Community interest. In the case of Lithuania, it was found that the dumping margin was below the de minimis threshold set out in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.

Provisional anti-dumping duties were therefore imposed in respect of imports of the product concerned originating in India (21,2%), Malaysia (between 0 and 5,2%), the People's Republic of China (11%) and the Republic of Korea (20,4%).

4.2.8. Hairbrushes from the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand

Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed by the Commission on 9 May 2000. The proceeding was initiated in August 1999, following a complaint lodged by the Fédération Européenne des Industries de la Brosserie et de la Pinceauterie, on behalf of Community producers representing more than 70% of the Community production of hair brushes.

The investigation confirmed that the total Community consumption in the investigation period (July 1998 - June 1999) amounted to 107 million pieces. The value of the total imports originating in the countries concerned during the same period amounted to EUR 39 million.

Dumping

As regards Korea and Taiwan, the dumping margins were established on the basis of a comparison between the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price at ex-factory level on a type-by-type basis and at the same level of trade. This led to dumping margins at Community frontier level ranging from 5% to 19,5% for Korea and of 3,1% for Taiwan.

For the seven Chinese co-operating companies which were granted individual treatment, it was provisionally decided to establish the dumping margin on the basis of sampling in view of the considerable number of types of hairbrushes exported from China and the large number of companies concerned. The sample was selected on the basis of the four most popular types of hairbrushes sold by the two largest exporters and is largely representative since it covers more than 70% of the exports of the companies concerned This led to a single dumping margin at Community frontier of 48,2% applicable to all seven co-operating exporting producers.

As regards Thailand, the dumping margin was established on the basis of the facts available since the only known exporting producer was considered non-co-operating. The dumping margin for Thailand was based on the complaint, at 48,4%.

Injury and causation of injury

The material injury suffered by the Community industry was caused by the imports from the four countries concerned. In fact, the deterioration of the situation of the Community industry coincided with the significant increase in the import volumes and market shares of the countries concerned and with the decrease in their prices, in particular from 1997. While Community consumption rose by around 33% between 1996 and the investigation period, the sales volume of the Community industry decreased by around 5% and the volume of dumped imports increased by 46%. These opposing trends resulted in a loss of market share for the Community industry by 7 percentage points.

The impact of other factors, such as imports from other third countries, were considered not to have contributed to the material injury found.

Community interest

At this stage of the proceeding, no compelling reasons were found not to impose anti-dumping duties.

Indeed, the Community industry had proven to be viable, tried to adapt its product range to the changing market conditions and had the potential capacity to satisfy an important share of the Community market. Importers dealt with a large product range, of which hairbrushes were only a small part and could source from the Community industry, the countries concerned and third countries. The amount of the duties paid was not likely to be passed over entirely to the consumers.

Measures

On this basis, seven Chinese companies were subject to a provisional anti-dumping duty of 48,2%, whereas a specific residual duty of EUR 0,55 was imposed on the non co-operating Chinese companies in view of the high level of non-co-operation.

Three Korean companies were subject to provisional anti-dumping duties ranging between 5% and 19,5%, with a residual duty of 42,6% for the non co-operating companies.

One Taiwanese company was subject to a provisional anti-dumping duty of 3,1%, with a residual anti-dumping duty of 11,9% for all other companies.

Finally, as concerns Thailand and given that there was no co-operation, the country-wide provisional duty rate was 48,4%.

4.2.9. Glycine from the People's Republic of China

Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed by the Commission on 19 May 2000. The proceeding had been initiated in August 1999, following a complaint lodged by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) on behalf of the sole producer of glycine in the Community.

The investigation confirmed that the value of the total imports originating in the country concerned during the investigation period amounted EUR 5,9 million.

Dumping

Although five Chinese companies claimed market economy status, none demonstrated that they fulfilled all relevant conditions. Therefore, normal value had to be determined by reference to a market economy analogue country, Hungary

The single weighted average dumping margin established for all Chinese exporters, expressed as a percentage of the export price free at Community frontier, amounted to 45,9%.

Injury and causation of injury

The Commission found that the Community producer suffered material injury between 1996 and June 1999, particularly in terms of a reduction in sales volume, in market share, in prices and in employment levels for the product concerned. A weighted average price undercutting margin, expressed as a percentage of the Community producer's sales price, of 24,7%, was calculated.

Furthermore, the Commission found that the pricing behaviour of the Chinese exporters led to the significant increase in their sales volume and market share on the Community market at the expense of the production, sales and market share of the Community producer. It was, therefore, concluded that dumped imports from China, when taken in isolation, had been the cause of the material injury suffered by the Community industry.

Community interest

Although the imposition of anti-dumping measures may possibly have negative effects on downstream industries, not taking anti-dumping measures could entail the disappearance of the sole Community producer. This would reduce competition and prices would be likely to rise. It was, therefore, provisionally concluded that there were no compelling reasons not to adopt measures.

Measures

The injury margin was found to be lower than the dumping margin established and therefore, the provisional duty rate was based on the injury margin of 39,7%. A fixed amount duty of 910 EUR/tonne was considered the most appropriate measure in these circumstances.

4.2.10. Styrene-butadien-styrene (SBS) thermoplastic rubber(AD) from Taiwan

Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed by the Commission on 25 May 2000. The proceeding had been initiated in June 1999, following a complaint lodged by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) on behalf of Community producers representing a major proportion of the Community production of SBS thermoplastic rubber.

The investigation confirmed that the total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 July 1998 - 30 June 1999) amounted to 203.450 tonnes. The value of the total imports from Taiwan during the same period amounted to EUR 9,4 million.

Dumping

Normal value was based either on domestic prices or constructed value where domestic sales were unrepresentative.

Export prices were established on the basis of prices actually paid or payable by the first independent customer in the Community. For both exporters average normal values were compared to individual transaction export prices, for all transactions throughout the investigation period, since specific targeting was found, i.e. all the dumping took place in the last half of the investigation period.

The provisional dumping margin found for the two co-operating exporting producers was 5,3% and 9,1%.

Injury and causation of injury.

After examining all of the elements affecting the Community industry, the Commission concluded that material injury had been suffered. This assessment was based upon the significant price undercutting practised by the exporting producers (averaging 12%) together with the increase in imports from Taiwan, both in absolute terms and in market share, between 1995 and the investigation period.

Over the same period, the Community industry saw decreases in investments (-35%), employment (-5%), capacity utilisation (-16%), sales prices (-47%), market share (-5 percentage points), and profitability (from a profit of 14,9% in 1995 to a net loss of 9,8% during the investigation period).

In view of the substantial increase in import volume from Taiwan, and the considerable degree of price decreases and price undercutting for these imports, the Commission concluded that the dumped imports from Taiwan caused material injury to the Community industry.

One interested party claimed that only one exporter from Taiwan had been responsible for the significant price drop and, consequently, that only this exporter should be subject to measures. However, the Commission found that both co-operating exporters from Taiwan had significantly undersold and undercut Community industry prices, albeit to different degrees. The argument was therefore rejected.

Community interest

At this stage of the proceeding, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons not to impose antidumping measures.

Measures

Two Taiwanese exporters co-operated in the investigation. Provisional antidumping duties of 5,3% and 9,1% were imposed on these two exporters. The rate of residual duty to apply to Taiwanese companies which failed to co-operate was set at 20%, based on the highest dumping margins found for both co-operating companies. This approach was deemed necessary due to the low level of co-operation (equivalent to less than 30% of Taiwanese exports of the product concerned to the Community).

4.2.11. Styrene-butadien-styrene (SBS) thermoplastic rubber (AS) from Taiwan

Provisional countervailing measures were imposed by the Commission on 25 May 2000. The proceeding had been initiated in June 1999, following a complaint lodged by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) on behalf of Community producers representing a major proportion of the Community production of SBS thermoplastic rubber.

The investigation confirmed that the total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999) amounted to 203.450 tonnes. The value of the total imports originating in the countries concerned during the same period amounted to EUR 9,4 million.

Subsidisation

Four schemes allegedly available for granting countervailable subsidies to exporters in Taiwan were investigated. These schemes are Tax Credits and Tax Exemptions, Loans at Preferential Interest Rates, Accelerated Depreciation, and Import Duty Exemption. For the Accelerated Depreciation scheme, whilst the scheme had been used by at least one exporter, the amount of benefit was found to be so small as to be negligible. For the other three schemes, it was found that they benefited both of the exporters of the product concerned. All three schemes were found to be countervailable under Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 as they all involve a financial contribution from the Government of Taiwan in the form of foregone revenue, and they confer a benefit on the companies concerned by relieving them of certain costs. The schemes are all either contingent upon the use of domestic over imported products or are otherwise limited to certain enterprises and are therefore specific under the provisions of the basic Regulation.

Concerning the total amount of benefit received by the two co-operating Taiwanese exporters during the investigation period, it was found that one of the exporters benefited from a subsidy of 1,6% and the other of 2,1%.

Injury and causation of injury / Community interest

The findings on injury, causation of injury and Community interest can be found under point 4.2.10.

Measures

Two Taiwanese exporters co-operated in the investigation. A countervailing duty of 1% was imposed on one of the exporters and a rate of 1,5% imposed on the other. The rate of residual duty to apply to Taiwanese companies which failed to co-operate, in accordance with the Commission's policy not to reward non co-operation, was set at 8,2%.

4.2.12. Coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm from the People's Republic of China

Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed by the Commission on 15 June 2000. The proceeding had been initiated in September 1999, following a complaint lodged by EUCOKE-EEIG.

The investigation confirmed that the total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999) amounted to 1.372.862 tonnes. The volume of the total imports originating in the country concerned during the same period was 383.150 tonnes.

Dumping

One company claimed market economy status. The investigation revealed however that the company concerned did not meet the necessary criteria. Consequently, the claim had to be rejected and normal value was based on the information obtained from an analogue third country. As most appropriate market economy third country, the USA was used as analogue country to establish normal value.

Three companies claimed individual treatment. However, one company did not co-operate during the proceeding and the two others did not demonstrate a sufficient level of independence from the State. Their requests were thus rejected.

The provisional country-wide dumping margin exceeded 60%.

Injury and causation of injury

The investigation revealed that the situation of the Community industry deteriorated in terms of production, capacity utilisation, cost of production, stocks, volume and value of sales, market share as well as profitability. This deterioration was attributable to the effect of the dumped imports, which surged in the same period (+63%) and gained the market share lost by the Community industry (+10,6 percentage points) through low prices, which significantly undercut those of the Community industry (29,5%).

All other factors examined such as the prices of raw materials, changes in environmental legislation, alleged over-capacity in the Community and imports from other third countries were not found to have negatively affected the situation of the Community industry.

Community interest

It was found that the imposition of measures was unlikely to have significant negative effects on the main industrial users of coke 80+ (foundries and stone wool producers), while it would allow the Community industry to recover.

Regarding foundries, whose profitability ranged between 5,1% and 22,1%, it was found that coke 80+ represents a very small part of their overall costs (2,3% of the full costs). In this respect, the imposition of the measures proposed would result in a maximum increase in foundries' costs of less than 0,5%.

Regarding the major stone wool producer, Rockwool, whose profitability amounted to [between 7% and 9%] in 1998 [14], it was found that the negative impact of the measures was likely to be limited given that coke 80+ represented only [between 2% and 5%] [15] of its cost of production. Therefore, a provisional anti-dumping duty as proposed would have a maximum hypothetical increase in the cost of production of Rockwool of around 1%. Furthermore, moderate price increases were found to be passed on to customers.

[14] Actual data has been indexed for reasons of confidentiality.

[15] See previous footnote

On the other hand, had measures not been imposed, the situation of the Community industry would have been likely to deteriorate. Given the level of losses made by the Community industry, this could have led in the medium term to closures and to shortages of supply in the Community market.

Therefore, it was concluded that imposing anti-dumping measures was in the overall interest of the Community.

Measures

Since the level of dumping found exceeded the injury elimination margin provisionally established, the provisional duty of 45,1% was set at the level of the latter. It was considered appropriate to impose the duty in form of a specific amount of 33,7 EUR/tonne to ensure the efficiency of the measure and discourage any absorption of the measure through a decrease in the export prices.

4.2.13. Polyester staple fibres from India and the Republic of Korea

Provisional measures were imposed by the Commission on 6 July 2000. Two proceedings were initiated in October and December 1999, following two complaints lodged by the International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee (CIRFS) on behalf of the Community industry. The complaints were supported by a total of 8 companies representing a major proportion of the Community production of polyester staple fibres.

The investigation confirmed that the total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999) amounted to 588.466 tonnes. The value of the total imports originating in the countries concerned during the same period amounted to Ecu/EUR 68,8 million.

Dumping

Dumping was found for all investigated exporting producers in both countries by comparing normal values with export prices to the Community by product type. However, for two Korean exporting producers, the dumping margins established were de minimis. The provisional dumping margins established for all the other exporting producers ranged from 5,3% to 36,5%.

Injury and causation of injury

The Community industry was found to have suffered material injury during the period 1996 to September 1999, particularly in terms of declining capacity, sales volume, market share and employment. A weighted average price undercutting margin of 23%, expressed as a percentage of the Community producer's sales price, was established during the investigation period.

Although other factors, in particular low priced imports from other countries where anti-dumping and countervailing measures were already imposed, have contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry, the Commission found that the significant increase in import volume from these two countries and their substantial price undercutting of the Community industry's prices had material negative consequences on the situation of this industry. It was, therefore, concluded that dumped imports from the countries concerned, when taken in isolation, had caused material injury to the Community industry.

Community interest

All various interests involved were examined in particular those of the Community industry, of the importers and of the users. The Commission considered that there were no compelling reasons not to impose measures in order to correct the distortive effect of injurious dumping, to restore a competitive regime of fair pricing practices and prevent further injury to the Community industry.

Measures

In all cases, the injury margins were found to be higher than the dumping margins established and, therefore, the provisional duty rates were based on the latter. The rates of the duty imposed ranged from 0% to 36,5%.

4.2.14. Ammonium nitrate from Poland and Ukraine

Provisional anti-dumping measures were imposed by the Commission on 26 July 2000. The proceeding had been initiated in October 1999, following a complaint lodged by the European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association on behalf of the Community industry.

The investigation, which was originally also opened against Lithuania, showed that the dumping margin found was de minimis. Therefore, and pending further investigation, it was provisionally proposed not to impose any duties on these imports.

The total Community consumption in the investigation period (1 April 1998 to 30 September 1999) amounted to 7,1 million tonnes. The value of the total imports originating in Poland and Ukraine during the same period amounted to EUR 53 million.

Dumping

As regards the exporting producers in Lithuania and Poland, the dumping margins were established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with weighted average export price at the same level of trade. The provisional dumping margins established for Poland ranged from 25,4 to 43,4%, whereas for Lithuania it was found to be de minimis.

Since the Ukraine is a non-market economy country, the Commission determined the normal value on the basis of data obtained from producers in a market economy third country, in this case Poland. As far as the export price is concerned, in view of the Ukrainian exporter's non-co-operation, the facts available were used, in this case Eurostat and the figures provided in the complaint.

Injury and causation of injury

The overall situation of the Community industry improved between 1995 and 1996. However, between 1996 and the investigation period it worsened considerably.

The analysis provisionally established that the material injury suffered by the Community industry has been caused by the imports from the two countries concerned. In fact, the deterioration of the Community industry's situation coincided in time with the significant increase of the import volumes and market shares of the countries concerned and with the decrease of their prices, in particular as from 1996. Other factors, such as the decreasing imports from other third countries, are considered not to have contributed to the material injury found.

Community interest

Without measures, the price-depressive effect of the dumped imports would have continued to frustrate all efforts of the Community industry to regain a satisfactory margin of profitability. As for the importers/traders, given the level and nature of the measures proposed, it was considered that imports would continue to take place, albeit at non-injurious prices, although it could not be excluded that these importers would face some negative effects. With respect to the users (farmers and farmers' co-operatives), the Commission considered that any anti-dumping m