TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary. 5

1............ Overview of the legislation. 7

1.1......... Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy. 7

1.1.1...... The international framework. 7

1.1.2...... The EU legislation. 7

1.2......... Safeguards. 8

1.2.1...... The international framework. 8

1.2.2...... The EU legislation. 8

1.3......... Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline services. 9

2............ Basic concepts. 9

2.1......... Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy. 9

2.1.1...... What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies - the material conditions for the imposition of duties?. 9

2.1.2...... Procedure. 10

2.1.3...... Review of measures. 12

2.1.4...... Judicial reviews. 12

2.2......... Safeguards. 13

2.2.1...... What are safeguard measures?. 13

2.2.2...... Procedure. 13

3............ TDI Modernisation. 14

4............ Country-wide market economy status (MES) 15

4.1......... China. 16

4.2......... Vietnam.. 16

4.3......... Armenia. 16

4.4......... Kazakhstan. 16

4.5......... Mongolia. 16

4.6......... Belarus. 16

5............ Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts. 17

5.1......... Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) 17

5.2......... Bilateral contacts/information activities – industry and third countries. 17

6............ The Hearing Officer 17

7............ General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures. 19

7.1......... New investigations. 19

7.2......... Review investigations. 20

8............ Overview of activities in 2012. 21

8.1......... New investigations. 21

8.1.1...... Initiations. 21

8.1.2...... Provisional measures. 22

8.1.3...... Details on individual cases. 23

8.1.4...... Definitive measures. 27

8.1.5...... Details on individual cases. 27

8.1.6...... Investigations terminated without measures. 29

8.1.7...... Details on some individual cases. 30

8.2......... Review investigations. 31

8.2.1...... Expiry reviews. 31

8.2.2...... Interim reviews. 38

8.2.3...... “Other” reviews. 43

8.2.4...... New exporter reviews. 43

8.2.5...... Absorption investigations. 43

8.2.6...... Circumvention investigations. 44

8.3......... Safeguard investigations. 46

9............ Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures. 46

9.1......... Follow-up of measures. 46

9.2......... Monitoring of undertakings. 46

10.......... Refunds. 47

11.......... Judicial review: decisions given by the Court of Justice / Court of First Instance. 47

11.1....... Overview of the judicial reviews in 2012. 47

11.2....... Cases pending. 47

11.3....... New cases. 47

11.4....... Judgments rendered by the General Court 47

11.4.1.... Iron or steel fasteners originating in China – T-150/09 Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd v. Council of the European Union – Judgment of 10 October 2012 (OJ C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 29) 47

11.4.2.... Iron or steel fasteners originating in China – T-162/09 Adolf Würth GmbH & Co KG (Künzelsau, Germany) and Arnold Fasteners (Shenyang) Co Ltd (Shenyang, China) v. Council of the European Union – Judgment of 19 April 2012 (OJ C 165, 9.6.2012, p. 17–17) 49

11.4.3.... Iron or steel fasteners originating in China – T-170/09 Shanghai Biaowu High-Tensile Fasteners Co. Ltd and Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd v. Council of the European Union – Judgment of 10 October 2012 (OJ C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 30) 49

11.4.4.... Iron or steel fasteners originating in China – T-172/09 Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts v. Council of the European Union – Judgment of 10 October 2012 (OJ C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 30) 50

11.4.5.... Ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd - T-156/11 - Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd v Council of the European Union – Judgment of 18 September 2012. 52

11.4.6.... Certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates – T-555/10 – JBF RAK LLC v Council of the European Union – Judgment of 24 May 2012. 53

11.4.7.... Certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates – T-556/10 – Novatex Ltd v Council of the European Union – Judgment of 11 October 2012. 54

11.5....... Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice. 55

11.5.1.... Certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China – C-338/10 GLS Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH– Judgment of 22 March 2012 (OJ C 133, 5.5.2012, p. 5) 55

11.5.1.... Steel wire ropes and cables originating in India – C-552/10 P Usha Martin Ltd– Judgment of 22 November 2012 (OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 2) 56

11.5.2.... Glyphosate originating in the People’s Republic of China – C-337/09 P Council v. Zhejiang Xinan – Judgment of 19 July 2012 (OJ C 295, 29.9.2012, p. 2) 57

12.......... Activities in the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) 58

12.1....... Dispute settlement in the field of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards. 58

12.1.1.... Overview of the WTO dispute settlement procedure. 58

12.1.2.... Dispute settlement procedures against the Union. 58

12.2....... Other WTO activities. 59

13.......... Conclusion. 59

LIST OF ANNEXES. 60

Executive summary

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

The report, as in previous years, gives an overview of the EU legislation in force with regard to the trade defence instruments, including safeguards.

The report also summarises the developments in general policy. As in previous years, the report no longer contains a commentary on each individual case. It gives an overview of all investigations together with the most essential information such as, for instance, the rate of individual duties imposed. In turn, cases which merit some special attention are treated in more detail. Consequently, the report is more factual and condensed and covers the essential facts of the year.

The detailed annexes which cover all cases ensure that the factual content of the report remains meaningful and sufficient to provide a full overview of the activity in 2012.

2012 saw a slight decrease in the number of new cases initiated when compared to the previous year, 19 as compared to 21 in 2011. Regarding other activities, 2012 saw a decrease in the number of provisional measures imposed, 9 compared to 10 the previous year while the number of investigations terminated without measures also dropped slightly from 11 in 2011 to 9 in 2012. There was significant decrease in the number of definitive measures imposed, down from 13 in 2011 to 3 in 2012.

As regards review investigations initiated, there was an increase from 24 in 2011 to 37 in 2012. These included 14 expiry reviews, 5 interim reviews, 1 new exporter review,13 anti-circumvention investigations as well as 4 other reviews. In the period, 9 expiry reviews were concluded with confirmation of the measures and 6 interim reviews were concluded with the measures being confirmed or amended.

There was no new safeguard investigation opened nor safeguard measures imposed during 2012.

In 2012, with the aim of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the EU's trade defence instruments, DG Trade continued work on the initiative concerning the Modernisation of the trade defence instruments which had been launched in October 2011.

As in previous years, this report provides an overview of the Court cases relating to the trade policy instruments. In 2012, the Court of Justice (COJ) and the General Court (GC) rendered 21 judgments in total relating to the areas of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy.

2012 was the fifth full year of activity for the Hearing Officer in DG Trade, who became operational in April 2007. The main task of the Hearing Officer is to guarantee the rights of defence in trade proceedings before the European Commission. In doing so the Hearing Officer also contributed to improved transparency in TDI activities.

The European Parliament's INTA Committee continued to be informed about developments in the EU's trade defence activities.

The relevant activities in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are also reported including dispute settlement procedures initiated against the EU.

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

This report is also available to the general public with the following link.

Internet Website : http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence/anti-dumping/

1. Overview of the legislation

1.1. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy

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. Even though, the beginning of the disciplines dates back quite some time, world trade is currently still distorted by unfair practices, making the instruments still relevant.

Since the beginning, 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 measures can be adopted. The EU played an active role in the negotiation of these relevant criteria which are reflected in its own legislation. The EU's role is the more so important today as a number of new users take action without the necessary rigor and restraint, affecting negatively also EU operators. The role the EU plays as a prudent user has therefore also an exemplary function at WTO level.

1.1.2. The EU legislation

The EU’s anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation was first enacted in 1968 and has since been modified several times. The current basic texts, which form the legal basis of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the EU, entered into force in March 1996 and October 1997 respectively. 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 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European EU – Codified Version[3]

– Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European EU – Codified Version[4].

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

The Basic AD Regulation was amended in September 2012[5] and December 2012[6] to reflect rulings by the WTO Dispute Settlement Board and the Court of Justice respectively. In light of the Court of Justice Ruling in the Brosmann footwear case[7], it was considered appropriate to codify the practice of restricting the examination of MET claims to companies that were sampled. It was also necessary to modify the legal conditions under which exporting producers in non-market economy countries obtain an individual dumping margin to comply with the WTO ruling in the Dispute Settlement[8] case concerning fasteners from the People’s Republic of China.

The EU legislation contains a number of provisions aimed at ensuring a balanced application of the EU’s Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy rules on all interested parties. These provisions include the “EU interest test” and the “lesser duty rule”, which go beyond the WTO obligations.

The EU interest test is a public interest clause and provides that measures can only be taken if they are not contrary to the overall interest of the EU. This requires an analysis of all the economic interests involved, including those of the EU industry, users, consumers and traders of the product concerned. The EU interest test does not involve wider aspects such as foreign or development policy considerations.

The lesser duty rule requires the measures imposed by the EU to be lower than the dumping or subsidy margin, if such lower duty rate is sufficient to remove the injury suffered by the EU industry. Such a “no-injury” rate is determined by using the cost of production of the EU industry and a reasonable profit margin; it reduces the anti-dumping measures for individual exporting companies in almost half of the cases and is applied, on a world-wide level, only by the EU on a regular basis.

1.2. Safeguards

1.2.1. The international framework

The principle of liberalisation of imports was set under the GATT 1947 and strengthened under the 1994 WTO Agreements. As safeguard measures consist of the unilateral withdrawal or suspension of a tariff concession or of other trade liberalisation obligations formerly agreed, they have to be considered as an exception to this principle. Article XIX GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards do not only impose strict conditions for the application of this "escape clause”, but also put in place a multilateral control mechanism under the WTO Committee on Safeguards.

Under WTO rules, safeguard action has to be viewed as a temporary defence measure that applies to all imports of the product covered by a measure, irrespective of origin. As regards non-WTO members, safeguard measures may be selective and apply to products originating in a specific country. WTO Accession Protocols may also provide for such selective safeguard mechanisms as is the case in the People's Republic of China's Protocol of Accession.

WTO safeguards should only be adopted after a comprehensive investigation which provides evidence of the existence of a) unforeseen developments leading to b) increased imports, c) the existence of a serious injury for EU producers and d) a causal link between the imports and the injury.

1.2.2. The EU legislation

The above-mentioned principles are all reflected in the relevant EU regulations, except for the “unforeseen development requirement” (which is not in the EU law but has been confirmed as a self-standing condition by WTO jurisprudence). Additionally, the adoption of measures in the EU requires an analysis of all interests concerned, i.e. the impact of the measures on producers, users and consumers. In other words, safeguard action can only be taken when it is in the EU’s interest to do so. The current EU safeguard instruments are covered by the following regulations:

– Council Regulation (EC) No 260/2009[9] on the common rules of imports – Codified Version

– Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94[10] on common rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing Regulations (EEC) Nos 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83. This Regulation was amended in 2003 when a Transitional Product-Specific Safeguard Mechanism for imports originating in the People’s Republic of China was adopted[11]. This Regulation ensures that Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 is no longer applicable to the People’s Republic of China;

– Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94[12] on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific EU import rules.

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

1.3. Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline services

Regulation No 868/2004[13] dealing with the effect of subsidisation and unfair pricing for air services from third countries which was adopted by the EP and the Council in 2004 requested the Commission to prepare a methodology to assess unfair pricing practices. This complex work, involving different services of the Commission as well as external experts, is on-going. The resulting methodology should be both derived from the significant EU experience in trade in goods and adapted to the highly specific sector of the air-services.

2. Basic concepts

2.1. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy

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

2.1.1.1. Dumping and subsidies

Dumping is traditionally defined as price discrimination between national markets, or as selling below cost of production, plus profit. The EU’s anti-dumping legislation defines anti-dumping as selling a product in the EU 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, plus profit. In the latter case, a company is selling at dumped prices if its export prices are below the cost of production, plus profit.

A certain segregation of the market, triggered by a variety of distortions, 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 intervention. 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 in that they allow exporters to operate from a distorted home base. Subsidies involve a direct support from a government or a government-directed private body 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 EU. Only subsidies which are “specific”, i.e. targeted at individual companies or certain sectors of the economy, can be subject to trade defence measures.

Both anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures are thus only second-best solutions in the absence of internationally agreed and enforced competition rules.

2.1.1.2. 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 EU at dumped or subsidised prices. Measures can only be taken if these exports cause material injury to EU producers.

Typical indicators of injury are that the dumped and/or subsidised import volumes increase over a certain period and import prices undercut the sales prices of the EU 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 EU producers by using a predatory, below cost, pricing strategy. In any event, the injury analysis requires that all relevant factors be taken into account before deciding whether the EU industry is in fact suffering “material injury”.

A further condition for the imposition of measures is the need for “a causal link”: the injury must be caused by the dumping or the subsidy. This condition is often fulfilled when the injury to the EU 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.

2.1.1.3. EU interest

Finally, it has to be established whether there are compelling reasons according to which measures would be contrary to the overall interest of the EU. 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. These interests typically include those of the EU industry, users, consumers and traders of the product concerned and the analysis assesses the positive impact measures will have on some operators as opposed to the negative impact on others. Measures should not be imposed only if it can be clearly concluded that their negative impact would be disproportionate,.

2.1.2. 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 EU 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 any candidate countries. The rules relating to a new case are summarised below.

Initiation

A case normally starts with a sufficiently substantiated complaint from the EU industry manufacturing the same or a similar product to the one referred to in the complaint. Then, 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, exporting country authorities in anti-subsidy investigations in particular 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, in anti-subsidy investigations also to the exporting country authorities, and in the EU to the producers, traders (in particular importers) and other interested parties, such as users. These questionnaires cover all different conditions to be fulfilled, i.e. dumping/subsidy, injury, causation and EU interest. The 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, as well as for the EU interest analysis. The respective calculations and analysis often involve the processing of thousands of transactions, the complex examination of production costs and the assessment of the economic situation of numerous economic operators.

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, whether to continue the investigation without proposing duties or whether 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 findings 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, assessment of comments of interested parties 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 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.

As set out above, throughout the process and at various specific steps, the procedure - consisting e.g. of requests for information, hearings, access to the file and disclosure – ensures that the rights of defence of interested parties are fully respected in this quasi-judicial process.

Unless the Council decides by a simple majority not to adopt the Commission proposal for definitive measures, such measures are imposed. 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. 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 in anti-dumping cases and to thirteen 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 EU 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.

2.1.3. Review of measures

The basic Regulations provide for administrative reviews and distinguish between interim reviews, newcomer reviews and expiry reviews.

The expiry review is initiated at the end of the five year life-time of the measures. Initiation of such a review requires a request by the EU industry evidencing that the expiry of the measures would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Since the amendment to the basic Regulations, expiry reviews initiated after 20 March 2004 are subject to strict deadlines, i.e. they shall normally be concluded within 12 months of the date of initiation of the review, but in all cases be concluded within 15 months.

During the five year life-time of measures, 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. Since 20 March 2006, the deadline for concluding an interim review is set at 12 months, but no later than 15 months.

Finally, the basic Regulations provide that a review shall be carried out to determine individual margins for new exporters in the exporting country concerned. Since 20 March 2006, the deadline for conclusion of newcomer reviews is nine months.

During these reviews, the main procedural rules outlined in chapter 2.1.2 are also applicable.

2.1.4. 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 General Court and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Furthermore, WTO members may recourse to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.

2.2. Safeguards

2.2.1. What are safeguard measures?

Safeguard measures allow temporary protection against the adverse effects of import surges. Under the EU legislation[14] implementing the WTO Safeguards Agreement, they can be applied under the following conditions: safeguard measures may be imposed if, as a result of unforeseen developments, a product is being imported into the EU in such increased quantities and/or on such terms and conditions as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to EU producers of like or directly competitive products. Safeguard measures may only be imposed to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy the injury.

2.2.2. Procedure

Investigations are carried out in accordance with the procedural rules laid down in the basic safeguard Regulations. These rules guarantee a transparent, fair and objective proceeding. In addition, the results of safeguard investigations are published in the Official Journal, and the EU is obliged to justify its decisions in this publication.

Initiation

The Commission is informed by one or more Member States should trends in imports of a certain product appear to call for safeguard measures. This information must contain evidence available, of the following criteria: a) the volume of imports, b) the price of imports, c) trends in certain economic factors such as production, capacity utilisation, stocks, sales, market share, prices, profits, employment, etc.. Where there is a threat of serious injury, the Commission must also examine whether it is clearly foreseeable that a particular situation is likely to develop into actual injury.

This information is immediately passed on by the Commission to all other Member States, at which stage consultations are held within the Advisory Safeguard Committee. If there is sufficient evidence to justify an investigation, the Commission publishes a notice of initiation in the Official Journal within one month of receipt of the information and commences the investigation, acting in co-operation with the Member States.

Provisional measures

Provisional measures may be imposed at any stage of the investigation. They shall be applied in critical circumstances where delay would cause damage which would be difficult to repair, making immediate action necessary, and where a preliminary determination provides clear evidence that increased imports have caused, or are threatening to cause, serious injury.

The duration of the provisional measures can, however, not exceed 200 days (i.e. six months).

Definitive measures

If, at the end of the investigation, the Commission considers that definitive safeguard measures are necessary, it will take the necessary decisions no later than nine months from the initiation of the investigation, at which stage the results of the investigation are being published in the Official Journal. In exceptional circumstances, this time limit may be extended by a further maximum period of two months, provided a notice is published in the Official Journal specifying the duration of the extension and a summary of its reasons.

Safeguard measures shall be applied only to the extent to prevent or remedy serious injury, thereby maintaining as far as possible traditional trade flows. As to the form of the measures, the EU will choose the measures most suitable in order to achieve these objectives. These measures could consist of quantitative quotas, tariff quotas, duties, etc.

Duration and review of the measures

The duration of safeguard measures must be limited to the period of time necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustments on the part of the EU producers, but should not exceed four years, including the duration of the provisional measures, if any. Under certain circumstances, extensions may be necessary but the total period of application of safeguard measures should not exceed eight years.

If the duration of the measures exceeds one year, the measures must be progressively liberalised at regular intervals during the period of application. If the duration exceeds three years, the Commission should seek consultations with the Advisory Safeguard Committee in order to examine the effects of the measures, to determine the appropriateness of further liberalisation and to ascertain that the application of the measures is still necessary. Depending on the consultations, the measures may be revoked or amended.

3. TDI Modernisation

The TDI modernisation exercise was launched in October 2011 and significant progress in order to move the project forward was made throughout the year 2012. In particular, a public consultation was carried out from April to July 2012.

Drawing from the over 300 replies to the public consultation, the initiative was overall rather positively received by stakeholders: e.g. any improvements regarding further increasing transparency, or effectiveness and enforcement were welcomed by a majority of stakeholders. Other ideas put forward, such as a three-weeks shipping clause or reimbursing the duties collected during an expiry review investigation, in cases where the duties are not prolonged, were more critically received, with certain groups of stakeholders expressing their opposition. Other issues that seemed problematic for certain groups of stakeholders are ex-officio initiations in cases of retaliation, or the non-application of the lesser duty rule in cases of circumvention, fraud and subsidisation.

The detailed analysis of the replies received, carried out by the Commission services in 2012, provided important input for the Commission proposal on modernisation which was adopted in April 2013.

The work in 2012 on modernisation also drew on the TDI evaluation study published in March 2012, feedback received during the high level conference held in May 2012, and not least the Commission services' extensive practice in the application of the instruments. On this basis an impact assessment was carried out and presented to the impact assessment board in December 2012. Following the green light from the board, the Commission was able to proceed with the elaboration of the legislative proposal, the communication and the guidelines. The main areas covered by the initiative are transparency and predictability, fight against retaliation, effectiveness and enforcement, facilitating cooperation, optimising review practice and codification.

In order to address certain concerns of stakeholders, it was decided to slightly change the timetable, as compared to what was indicated in last year's report (originally the legislative proposal and communication was scheduled for end of 2012/beginning 2013 and the guidelines by summer 2013.) All three elements of the modernisation initiative (Commission communication, the legislative proposal and the draft guidelines) were released at the same time, as a package, in spring 2013. It was considered that having all the information on the proposed legislative changes, changes in practice and the content of guidelines at their disposal, would make it easier for stakeholders to form an opinion.

In addition it was felt that, taken as a package, the overall aim of the modernisation exercise would also be more clearly apparent. In addition to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the instruments and any trade defence measures imposed, for the benefit of all stakeholders concerned, the Commission also wants to send a signal to our trading partners i.e. the EU will adapt when it is faced with new challenges and the EU remains fully committed to free trade, provided it takes place under fair conditions.

After adoption of the pacakge in spring 2013, the legislative proposal is following the ordinary legislative procedure in the Council and Parliament expected to continue throughout 2013/14. The draft guidelines, also released in spring 2013, were subject to a public consultation in 2013. The Commission aims at concluding the modernisation exercise during the current legislature, i.e. in spring 2014 and works constructively with the other institutions in order to achieve this goal.

4. Country-wide market economy status (MES)

A normal anti-dumping investigation can only be conducted if costs and prices are reliable and the result of market forces. There are five criteria to determine whether a country can be considered a full market economy for the purpose of anti-dumping investigations (according to Article 2 (7) of the basis antidumping Regulation). These criteria are:

i. a low degree of government influence over the allocation of resources and decisions of enterprises, whether directly or indirectly (e.g. public bodies), for example through the use of state-fixed prices, or discrimination in the tax, trade or currency regimes;

ii. an absence of state-induced distortions in the operation of enterprises linked to privatisation and the use of non-market trading or compensation system;

iii. the existence and implementation of a transparent and non-discriminatory company law which ensures adequate corporate governance (application of international accounting standards, protection of shareholders, public availability of accurate company information);

iv. the existence and implementation of a coherent, effective and transparent set of laws which ensure the respect of property rights and the operation of a functioning bankruptcy regime;

v. the existence of a genuine financial sector which operates independently from the state and which in law and practice is subject to sufficient guarantee provisions and adequate supervision.

To obtain Market Economy Status for trade defence investigations, all five criteria need to be fulfilled. 2012 saw the continued evaluation of two of the six requests for country-wide MES from China, Vietnam, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Belarus. Only Mongolia and Vietnam provided further information information in support of their claims throughout the year and their requests are at various stages of progress. The remaining other four countries, China, Armeniam, Kazakhstan and Belarus did not submit any relevant information that allowed further analysis of their progress. Already in 2010 the consultations with the authorities of the Republic of Belarus were put on hold due to the political situation in the country. In June 2010 additional questions on further developments in their progress towards MES were sent to Armenia. However, by the end of 2012 still no new information had been sent to the Commission by Armenia. The other four applicant countries pursued their MES applications and are at different stages of progress in terms of meeting the five criteria for MES.

Companies from these applicant countries have the possibility to request market economy treatment on an individual basis in the context of anti-dumping investigations.

4.1. China

China is undoubtedly the most important MES applicant country and the first of the six countries to have requested the status.

The first preliminary assessment was prepared in 2004 which concluded at that time that China fulfilled only one of the five MES criteria i.e. the second criteria outlined above.

At several working group meetings since then both parties discussed China's progress on the outstanding criteria. The last MES report was shared with the Chinese authorities in 2008. Although at several occasions the Chinese authorities agreed to have another working group meeting on MES in 2012, they always cancelled the meeting. The Commission remains willing to discuss further progress made by China towards MES, but it is essential that the Chinese authorities engage in the exercise and deliver the necessary data for the MES analysis by the Commission.

4.2. Vietnam

The EU-Vietnam MES working group meeting took place in Vietnam in November 2012 at which a draft MES report was discussed and the Vietnamese authorities replied to a long list of questions from the Commission on outstanding issues related to the four criteria that still need to be fulfilled. It was agreed that Vietnam would sent the replies to additional questions raised during this meeting. The final MES report is expected to be shared with the Vietnamese authorities in 2013.

4.3. Armenia

After the results of the first assessment report on Armenia's MES was shared with the Armenian authorities early 2010. The Commission services followed this with a series of questions to the Armenian authorities in June 2010 in order to have information on further developments in their progress towards becoming a fully fledged market economy. By the end of 2012 still no new information had been sent to the Commission from Armenia.

4.4. Kazakhstan

As a follow-up of DG Trade's assesment of Kazakhstan's progress towards fulfilling the market economy status criteria in 2010, a Note Verbale was sent to the Kazakhstan authorities setting out the main problems regarding the 5 MES criteria. Since then no reaction was received from the Kazakhi authorities. While it was agreed already in 2010 to develop a road map setting out the next steps to be taken on MES, no progress won such a map was made in 2012. The Commission remains convinced that the next step should be to jointly develop a roadmap setting out the actions to be taken in order to achieve progress on this matter.

4.5. Mongolia

A working group meeting took place in Ulan-Bator in September 2011 to verify the information received and ask additional questions to clarify outstaniding issues. The information collected during the working group meeting and the additional information received in December 2012 is being analysed and an MES report will be ready in 2013.

4.6. Belarus

In 2012 no progress was made on the MES file. The Commission had decided already in 2010 to put the consultations with the authorities of the Republic of Belarus on hold due to the political situation in the country. As soon as the situation in Belarus changes the Commission is ready to continue the MES analysis.

5. Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts

5.1. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)

The Trade Defence Helpdesk for SMEs was set up in December 2004 in view of the complexity of TDI proceedings, especially for SME's, because of their small size and their fragmentation. Its role is to address specific SME questions and problems regarding TDIs, both of a general nature or case-specific. A part of the TDI website is dedicated to SMEs, and refers to the Trade Defence Helpdesk contact points.

In 2012 these contact points received many requests for information, from importers, exporters and potential complainants/applicants. The number of queries remained overall stable in comparison to the previous year. These requests, which were dealt with promptly, concerned both the procedures and substance of TDI proceedings.

5.2. Bilateral contacts/information activities – industry and third countries

Explaining the legislation and practice of the EU's trade defence activity is an important part of the work of the TDI services.

The Commission organized a training seminar on trade defence for officials from third countries in 2012. In addition, there were a number of bilateral contacts dedicated to discussing various trade defence related topics with a number of third countries including China, Korea, Morocco and Malaysia held in 2012.

There were also several meetings with key stakeholder associations and companies in 2012, including Business Europe and Eurocommerce. These included a full one day seminar for Business Europe in November 2012.

6. The Hearing Officer

The primary role of the hearing officer is to guarantee the rights of defence of interested parties and thereby contribute to ensure that the rules are implemented in an objective and transparent manner in trade proceedings. The latter refer to a number of trade investigations conducted by the Commission, including all trade defence proceedings.

The rights of defence comprises a set of rights described in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as follows: the right of every person (i) "to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken", (ii) "to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time" and (iii) "to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy".

In 2012, the role and the powers of the Hearing Officer for DG Trade, who became operational in 2007, has been set out in a formal mandate by a Decision of the President of the European Commission of 29 February 2012 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain trade proceedings (OJ L 107/5, 19 April 2012), underpinning the Commission’s commitment to guaranteeing due process in trade proceedings and to improve the impartiality of the function. Since 2012, the Hearing Officer is attached, for administrative purposes, to the Commissioner responsible for trade policy, thus reinforcing the position's independence.

The terms of reference also lay out detailed rules on hearings conducted by the hearing officer on all aspects of a trade proceeding, from initiation to disclosure of final findings and conclusion. Furthermore, the mandate grants the hearing officer decision making powers in case of dispute on access to file, confidentiality of information in the possession of the Commission and the granting of extensions of deadlines. The Hearing Officer is empowered to raise with the Commissioner responsible for trade policy and the Director General for Trade any concerns about the conduct or content trade investigations.

The ever expanding trend of the intervention requests since the creation of the function of the Hearing Officer in 2007 made another step in 2012 and increased sharply by more than 50% compared to 2011. In the reporting period, the Hearing Officer had 132 intervention requests (81 in 2011), out of which 128 related to TDI and concerned 41 TDI proceedings. The number of hearings also increased significantly by 50% compared to 2011: 39 hearings were held (26 in 2011), out of which 12 were multiparty hearings where altogether 43 interested parties with similar interests allied in common hearings.

The interventions were requested by exporting producers in third countries, by the Union industry, by users and importers as well as by Governments of third countries. The Hearing Officer intervened on issues covering all stages of the investigation and made a number of recommendations to the Commission services with an aim to strengthen the exercise of rights of defence.

The main issues that the Hearing Officer faced in 2012 can be grouped in three categories (i) content and quality of disclosure (ii) access to files and quality of non-confidential files and (iii) disagreement with determinations, findings and conclusions.

Content and quality of disclosures

The content and quality of disclosure is one of the major subjects of intervention requests. The Hearing Officer organised hearings and continued to recommend that the Services provide, as detailed and as early as possible, disclosure documents in order to enable the parties to exercise effectively their rights of defence. Where parties complained about insufficient analysis of arguments and submissions, the Hearing Officer ensured that the matter was clarified and adequately disclosed in a detailed form or addressed in the relevant Regulation. As in the previous years, requests for interventions relating to additional disclosure of specific data and figures were made in a number of cases. Such interventions are usually complex since an adequate balance between the obligation of the Commission not to divulge business secrets and the right to information of interested parties has to be found. In cases where the risk of breaching confidentiality rules by disclosing more was considered too high, the Hearing Officer ensured that the methodology used to arrive at the findings was explained in full detail. In some cases the Hearing Office examined, in accordance with the terms of reference, confidential information and informed the requesting interested parties whether the information withheld from the party was relevant for its rights of defence and, if so, whether the information was correctly reflected in the findings and conclusions.

Access to files – Quality of non-confidential files

In principle, all interested parties involved in an investigation are allowed access to the non-confidential file. In some cases, parties questioned the meaningfulness and completeness of the non-confidential file and requested the Hearing Officer's intervention. The requests mainly related to the quality of non-confidential summaries of complaints or questionnaire replies and to the need to apply consistent rules to all parties. The Hearing Officer observed improvements in the overall quality of the files after his interventions. In several cases, the Hearing Officer was requested to examine claims of companies which did not register in time as interested parties. Almost all of these parties were allowed to register as interested parties and to exert the procedural rights that were still available in view of the late registration.

Disagreement with determinations, findings and conclusions

Main subjects of intervention requests were objections to determinations, findings and conclusions. In the majority of these cases parties disputed certain determinations and decisions, e.g. initiation of a case or objected the Commission’s findings or conclusions on certain aspects such as definition of the Union industry, selection of a sample, MET decisions or conclusions with regard to Union interest.. The Hearing Officer organised hearings, ensured that parties were fully informed about procedural rules and that comments and arguments of the parties were heard and replied to in the disclosure document and the Regulation. Some cases were terminated or findings were modified as a result of the arguments put forward. It is now consistent practice that in the cases where the Commission informs a party of its intention to declare that party as non-cooperating, the Hearing Officer chairs a hearing if requested. Twelve hearings were organised following such requests.

In one case, an SME which had applied to be sampled but was not selected asked the Hearing Officer for advice concerning its rights.

7. General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures

The number of new investigations initiated in 2012 decreased in comparison to the previous year, 19 compared to 21. The number of definitive measures imposed decreased very significantly by comparison to 2012 (3 as compared to 13) while the number of provisional measures imposed in 2012 decreased by 1 in 2012 down from 10 in 2011. Below are details on new investigations and review investigations.

7.1. New investigations

At the end of 2012, the EU had 102 anti-dumping measures and 10 countervailing measures in force[15]. The anti-dumping measures covered 60 products and 24 countries (see Annex O); the countervailing measures covered 6 products and 7 countries (see Annex P). Of the measures, the large majority was in the form of duties; however, in a number of cases, undertakings were accepted.

Of the 102 anti-dumping measures in force at the end of 2012 the main countries affected were China (47), India (7), Malaysia and Thailand (6 each), Russia (5), Ukraine (4) Taiwan (3), Indonesia (4) Korea (3) and USA (2). Of the 10 anti-subsidy measures in place the majority concern imports from India – 4 in total, with imports from Canada, China, Iran, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates and USA all subject to 1 measure each.

Regarding the anti-dumping measures one has to look at the trade volume of the products concerned, which varies considerably depending on the sector concerned. The largest trade volumes are often generated by high technology, such as electronics, which are high-value products. It should be noted that in 2012, only 0.17%[16] of total imports into the EU was affected by anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures. Table 1 below provides statistical information on the new investigations for the years 2008 – 2012.

TABLE 1

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy new investigations

during the period 1 January 2008 - 31 December 2012[17]

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012

Investigations in progress at the beginning of the period || 20 || 26 || 25 || 24 || 21

Investigations initiated during the period || 20 || 21 || 18 || 21 || 19

Investigations in progress during the period || 42 || 47 || 43 || 45 || 40

Investigations concluded : - imposition of definitive duty or acceptance of undertakings - terminations[18] || 16 3 || 11 11 || 9 10 || 13 11 || 3 9

Total investigations concluded during the period || 19 || 22 || 19 || 24 || 12

Investigations in progress at the end of period || 26 || 25 || 24 || 21 || 28

Provisional measures imposed during the period || 5 || 10 || 13 || 10 || 9

7.2. Review investigations

Anti-dumping measures, including price undertakings, may be subject, under the basic Regulation, to five different types of reviews: expiry reviews (Article 11(2)), interim reviews (Article 11(3)), newcomer investigations (Article 11(4)), absorption investigations (Article 12) and circumvention investigations (Article 13).

Also anti-subsidy measures may be subject, under the basic Regulation, to five different types of reviews: expiry reviews (Article 18), interim reviews (Article 19), absorption investigations (Article 19(3)), accelerated reviews (Article 20) and circumvention investigations (Article 23).

These reviews continue to represent a major part of the work of the Commission's TDI services. In the period from 2008 to 2012, a total of 149 review investigations were initiated. These review investigations represented 60% of all investigations initiated in that period.

In 2012, 37 reviews were initiated. Of these, 14 were expiry reviews, 5 interim reviews, 1 newcomer reviews, 4 other reviews and 13 circumvention investigations.

An overview of the review investigations in 2012 can be found in Annexes F to K. Table 2 provides statistical information for the years 2008 – 2012.

TABLE 2

Reviews of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations

during the period 1 January 2008 - 31 December 2012[19]

|| 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012

Reviews in progress at the beginning of the period || 46 || 32 || 33 || 34 || 21

Reviews initiated during the period || 23 || 34 || 31 || 24 || 37

Reviews in progress during the period || 69 || 66 || 64 || 58 || 58

Total reviews concluded during the period[20] || 37 || 33 || 30 || 37 || 32

Reviews in progress at the end of the period || 32 || 33 || 34 || 21 || 26

8. Overview of activities in 2012

8.1. New investigations

8.1.1. Initiations

In 2012, 13 new anti-dumping investigations, 6 new anti-subsidy investigations and no safeguard investigations were initiated. The anti-dumping investigations involved 7 different products from 9 different countries. The anti-subsidy investigations involve 5 products from 4 different countries. Details of these investigations are given in Annex A. The country most affected by the anti-dumping investigations is China with 4 investigations, Indonesia 2 investigations and 1 investigation each opened concerning Argentina, Thailand, Turkey, Taiwan, F.Y.R.O.M., Ukraine, India. The main sector concerned by these new cases is iron and steel.

In the five-year period from 2008 to 2012, 99 investigations were initiated on imports from 24 countries. The main sectors concerned by the investigations included iron and steel – 35 investigations, chemical and allied – 27 investigations, other metals – 7 investigations and electronics - 5 investigations, wood and paper – 2 investigations, other mechanical engineering – 5 investigations. A breakdown of the product sectors is given in Annex B(A).

The main countries concerned during the period from 2008 to 2012 include the People's Republic of China with 38 investigations, India 10, USA 7, Thailand 5, Indonesia and Turkey 4 each, Malaysia and Taiwan 3 each, Argentina, Belarus, Iran, Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine and U.A.E. with 2 each and Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Kazakhstan, F.Y.R.O.M., Moldova and Russia with 1 each. A table showing all the investigations initiated over the last five years broken down by country of export is at Annex B(B).

The list of cases initiated in 2012 can be found below, together with the names of the complainants. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex A.

Product – Type of investigation || Country of origin || Complainant

Ceramic tableware - AD || P.R. China || Cerami Unie

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron - AD || P.R. China Thailand Indonesia || Defence Committee of the Tube or Pipe Cast Fittings, of Malleable cast Iron

Welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross-section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless - AD || F.Y.R.O.M. Turkey Ukraine || Defence Committee of the welded steel tubes industry of the EU

Stainless steel wires -AD || India || Eurofer

Biodiesel - AD || Argentina Indonesia || European Biodiesel Board

Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) - AD || P.R. China || EU Prosun

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings - AD || P.R. China Taiwan || Defence Committee of the Stainless Steel Butt-welding Fittings industry

Organic coated steel - AS || P.R. China || Eurofer

Bicycles - AS || P.R. China || European Bicycle Manufacturers Association

Stainless steel wires - AS || India || Eurofer

Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) - AS || P.R. China || EU Prosun

Biodiesel - AS || Argentina Indonesia || European Biodiesel Board

8.1.2. Provisional measures

In 2012, provisional duties were imposed in 8 anti-dumping proceedings and in 1 anti-subsidy measures proceeding. The AD measures involved imports of 6 products and covering 4 countries, the anti-subsidy concerning 1 country. As shown in Table 1 (see point 7.1), this figure compares to 10 provisional measures imposed in 2011 and 13 in 2010.

The list of cases where provisional measures were imposed during 2012 can be found below, together with the measure(s) imposed. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex C.

Product || Originating from || Type[21] and level of measure

Aluminium radiators || P.R. China || AD Duty of 61.4%

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel || Russia Turkey || AD Duty of 23.8% AD Duties ranging 2.9% - 12.1%; All others 16.7%

Aluminium Foil in small rolls || P.R. China || AD Duties ranging from 13% - 16.3% All others rate 35.4%

Organic coated steel products || P.R. China || AD Duties ranging from 13.2% - 55.3%; All others rate 57.8%

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron || P.R. China Thailand || AD Duties ranging 32.1% - 67.8% All others 67.8%

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware || P.R. China || AD Duties ranging from 23% - 31.2%; All others rate 58.8%

Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || India || AS Duties ranging from 3.2% - 13.6%; All others rate 16.5%

8.1.3. Details on individual cases

Organic Coated Steel Products originating in People’s Republic of China

In December 2011, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People's Republic of China on the basis of a complaint lodged by Eurofer representing a major proportion Union industry.

The product concerned is certain organic coated steel products ('OCS'), i.e. flat rolled products of non-alloy and alloy steel consisting of two outer metal sheets with a stabilising core of insulation material sandwiched between them, and excluding those products with a final coating of zinc-dust and are covered under CN codes ex 7210 70 80, ex 7212 40 80, ex 7225 99 00, ex 7226 99 70. The main application of the OCS is in the construction industry, also for further processing in various products used in construction (like sandwich panels, roofing, cladding, etc.) as well as home appliance production (white and brown goods) or equipment for construction (doors, radiators, lights, etc.).

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 and the examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of September 2011.

Owing to the large number of Union producers and also exporting producers, sampling was used in the investigation. As regards the Union producers, the Commission selected a sample consisting of six Union producers which accounted for 46 % of the Union production and 38 % of the Union sales. As regards the exporting producers, the Commission, after receiving inaccurate data from one producer and two others withdrawing their co-operation the Commission finally decided to limit the sample to the two exporting producers originally selected to form part of the sample and that had the highest export volume to the Union. Their export volume accounted for more than 30 % of total exports of the product to the EU in the investigation period (IP). In view of the limited number of cooperating importers, sampling was not used for this category.

Dumping

Three Chinese exporting producers, including one that was included in the sample, requested market economy treatment (MET) pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, or individual treatment (IT) should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET. The other exporting producer in the sample requested IT only. One exporting producer subsequently withdrew its request.

As regards the remaining two cooperating exporting producers in the PRC having requested MET, following a judgment by the Court of Justice of February 2012 in the Brossman footwear case it was decided to examine the claims of both the exporting producer which was included in the sample (Zhangjiagang Panhua Steel Strip Co. Ltd and its related companies) and the exporting producer which was not included in the sample (Union Steel China and its related company). Neither of the two were found to meet the criteria to be granted MET, because the cost of the major raw material, hot-rolled steel coils, is significantly distorted due to State interference in the steel market in the PRC and did not substantially reflect market values, as required by the first criteria for MET.

As a result of none of the Chinese companies being granted MET the normal value for all Chinese exporting producers was established on the basis of information received from the producer in the analogue country, which was Canada. The export prices were based on the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

The normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis. In order to ensure a fair comparison allowance in the form of adjustments were made for differences where appropriate, in respect of transport, insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing, credit, bank charges and commissions in all cases where justified.

A weighted average of the sampled exporting producers’ dumping margins was calculated for the cooperating exporting producers not selected in the sample. On this basis the provisional dumping margin for the non- sampled exporting producers, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid was 61,1 %. Given that cooperation from the PRC was approximately 70 %, the country-wide dumping margin applicable to all other exporters was established by using the highest dumping margin established for representative product types of exporting producers, which was provisionally established at 77,9 % of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.

Injury and causation

The investigation showed that all injury indicators relating to the economic situation of the Union industry deteriorated or did not develop in line with consumption during the I.P. During the period, in the context of decreasing consumption, the volume of imports from the PRC increased steadily and significantly. At the same time, the Union industry sales volume decreased overall by 13 % and its market share dropped from 59 % in 2008 to 56,7 % in the IP. Although consumption recovered by 20 %, from 2009 to the IP, after the year of economic crisis affecting demand, the Union industry market share was decreasing. The Union industry was unable to regain the lost market due to the growth of the dumped imports from the PRC in the EU market, which were constantly undercutting the prices of the Union industry. In addition, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as cash flow and profitability were seriously affected meaning that the Union industry’s ability to raise capital and invest was undermined. As a result it was concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury.

In calculating the injury margins it was considered that a profit margin of 6,7 % of turnover could be regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Union industry could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping. On that basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry for the like product. The non-injurious price was obtained by adding the above-mentioned profit margin of 6,7 % to the cost of production. The injury margins found were all lower than the dumping margins established.

There was a substantial increase in the volume and market share of the dumped imports originating in the PRC in the period considered, especially from 2009 to the IP and these imports were constantly undercutting the prices charged by the Union industry in the EU and during the IP. This increase coincided with the negative development in the economic situation of the Union industry which worsened in the IP. Other known factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry were also examined in order to determine if the dumped imports were a cause of injury. The other factors examined included imports from other sources, the export performance of the EU industry, EU industry importing from the PRC itself, captive use and captive sales at lower prices to related companies, the economic crisis and structural overcapacity. This examination revealed that these factors were not such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

Union interest

In the context of the Union interest test, the most active users and importers made joint written submissions and several hearings were held in the course of the investigation. Their main arguments regarding the imposition of measures related to the Competition situation on the EU market, and fears regarding Shortage of supply. However based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there were no compelling reasons against the imposition of provisional measures.

As a result, provisional anti-dumping duties ranging between 13.2% and 57.8% were imposed on organic coated steel originating in the People’s Republic of China in September 2012.

An anti-subsidy investigation was also initiaited on the same product originating in China in February 2012. These were the first simultaneaous anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations initiated on a product originating in the People’s Republic of China. There were no provisional anti-subsidy measures imposed in the case. Both definitive anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures were subsequently imposed on the product originating in China in March 2013.

Ceramic tableware and kitcheware

In February 2012, the European Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding on imports into the EU of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China, on the basis of a complaint lodged on behalf of EU representing more than 30 % of the total Union production of ceramic tableware and kitchenware.

The product concerned was ceramic tableware and kitchenware falling within CN codes 6911 10 00, ex 6912 00 10, ex 6912 00 30, ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912 00 90. A number of requests for exclusions of certain types of products were made. At provisional stage, all such claims were rejected except the request to exclude ceramic knives from the product scope which was accepted.

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 and the examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of December 2011.

Owing to the large number of Union producers and also exporting producers, sampling was used in the investigation. As regards the Union producers the Commission selected a sample which included seven Union producers covering all major product types and located in six Member States, out of which two were SMEs, representing over 20 % of the estimated total Union production. As regards exporting producers in the PRC the final sample selected included the five largest companies in terms of export volume accounting for almost 20 % of the exports to the Union.

Dumping

Ten exporting producers or groups (comprised of sixteen legal entities) of exporting producers from the PRC requested market economy treatment (MET). However, none of the companies was found to meet the criteria to be granted MET. In particular, none of the exporting producers had a clear set of basic accounting records or demonstrated that there were no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system. Some failed to show that business decisions were made in response to market signals without State interference. In view of the fact that all requests for MET were denied, normal value for all Chinese exporting producers was based on information received from a producer in the analogue country, Brazil.

As all cooperating exporting producers made export sales to the Union directly to independent customers, the export prices were based on the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned. The comparison of normal value and export prices on an ex-works basis was made with adjustments in respect of level of trade, differences in physical characteristics and for other factors affecting price comparability, including ‘branding’. The dumping levels established ranged from 17.6% to 58.8% at country wide level.

Injury/Causation

The investigation showed that the injury indicators such as production volume, capacity, sales to unrelated customers and employment deteriorated during the period considered. In addition, the injury indicators relating to the financial performance of the Union producers, such as profitability, investments and return on investments also developed negatively during the period. Productivity of the Union industry increased over the period considered. However, this was mainly due to significant efforts to compete against the highly present dumped Chinese imports. It was provisionally concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning basic Regulation.

In calculating injury margins a profit margin of 6 % of turnover was regarded as appropriate and which the Union industry could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping. On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union industry for the like product. The injury margins found were all higher than the dumping margins found.

The investigation showed that the Union consumption decreased by 12 % over the period considered. At the same time while the volume of dumped imports from China decreased by about 9 %, their market share increased. Moreover, sales volume of the Union industry decreased by 20% and market share dropped from 23% in 2008 to 20,9 % in the IP. It was concluded that the increase of the market share of dumped imports from China at prices constantly undercutting those of the Union industry had a determining role in the material injury suffered by the Union industry. Other factors which were examined in the context of the causality examination: the development of demand on the Union market and its segmentation, the export performance of the Union industry, imports from other countries of the product under investigation, the elimination of the import quotas, anti-competitive practices on the Union market, differences in production methods and the second-hand market. However the impact of none of these factors was such as to have broken the causal link between the Chinese imports and their impact on the EU industry.

An examination of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users of the product concerned, concluded that the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China would be in the interest of the Union industry.

As a result provisional dumping duties were imposed in November 2012 at the level of the dumping margins found. The investigation continued and definitive measures were imposed in May 2013.

8.1.4. Definitive measures

During 2012, definitive duties were imposed in 3 anti-dumping investigations and in no anti-subsidy cases. They involved imports from the People’s Republic of China with 2 measures and India with 1.

The list of cases where definitive measures were imposed during 2012 can be found below, together with the measure(s) imposed. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex D.

Product || Originating from || Type[22] and level of measure

Oxalic Acid || P.R. China India || China: AD Duties ranging from 14.6% to 37.7%: All others rate 52.2% India: AD Duties ranging from 22.8% to 31.5%: All others rate 43.6%

Aluminium Radiators || P.R. China || AD Duties ranging from 12.6% to 56.2%: All others rate 61.4%

8.1.5. Details on individual cases

Aluminium Radiators originating in People’s Republic of China

The investigation was initiated in August 2011, following a complaint lodged by the International Association of Aluminium Radiator Manufacturers Limited Liability Consortium representing more than 25 % of total Union production of aluminium radiators. The investigation period (IP) ran from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 and injury was considered over the period 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP. The product concerned was aluminium radiators falling within CN codes, ex 7615 10 10, ex 7615 10 90, ex 7616 99 10 and ex 7616 99 90. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed in May 2012.

Dumping: Prior to the imposition of provisional measures two Chinese exporting producers were selected in the sample, accounting for 62% of export sales volume to the EU. Neither had claimed market economy treatment in the investigation. Both claimed, and were granted, individual treatment. Following the imposition of provisional measures one additional Chinese exporter who had claimed individual examination applied for MET and IT. However, the company, Sira failed to meet the MET criteria but did meet the criteria for IT. In cases involving non-market economy countries, for those companies who have not been granted MET, normal value is generally determined on the basis of data from an analogue country. However, in this proceeding no appropriate analogue country could be found and normal value was therefore based on the prices paid or payable in the EU market. Given the size and level of competition in the EU market, including also from imports, this was considered an appropriate approach. The normal value of each product type was based on the actual sales price (ex-works) for profitable sales and on a constructed normal value for non profitable sales.

As the sampled exporting producers made export sales to the Union directly to independent customers in the Union, the export prices were based on the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned. The comparison between normal value and export prices was made on an ex-works level with allowances being made for certain costs including indirect taxes, freight, insurance, packing, handling and credit costs. This resulted in a dumping margins ranging between 23% and 70.8% for the cooperating companies and 76.6% for all others.

Injury: Sampling was applied to the EU producers with four companies out of the eight Union producers that were known to produce the like product, selected on the basis of their sales volume, their size and geographic location in the Union. They represented 66 % of the total estimated Union production during the IP.

Imports of aluminium radiators from China increased by 77 % over the period considered. The increase was continuous and was sharpest between 2010 and the IP (+ 33%). Similarly, the market share held by Chinese exporting producers also showed a steady increasing trend over the period considered, passing from 13% in 2008 to 24% during the IP. The prices of the dumped imports were found to undercut the European producers by on average 6.1%.

The investigation showed that most of the injury indicators regarding the economic situation of the Union industry deteriorated or did not develop in line with consumption during the period considered, in particular in the period from 2009 up to the end of the IP. The Union industry sales volume decreased overall by 16% and its market share dropped from 87% in 2008 to 76% in the IP. Even when consumption recovered by 9% from 2009 to the IP, the Union industry market share continued to decrease further. The Union industry was unable to regain the market share previously held, due to the significant expansion of the dumped imports from the PRC in the market.

Causation: The coincidence in time between the surge of dumped imports and the deterioration in the situation of the EU industry was found to be a clear indication that the injury was caused by dumped imports. The impact of a number of factors other than the dumped imports were examined, including the effect of imports from third countries, the economic crisis, the export performance of the sampled EU companies and an increase in raw material prices. However, none of these could explain the losses in market share, production and sales volume which occurred in 2009 to the end of the investigation period.

Union interest: There was no cooperation from users in this investigation and despite the efforts of the Commission after publication of provisional findings no users came forward. The Commission examined the possible impact of measures on the main purchasers of aluminium radiators which are large building companies, distributors and wholesalers, which resale them to specialised chains or retailer shops for sales to smaller construction companies or end users. Since the product concerned is usually part of large projects, where its price is only a small portion of the total business costs, it was considered that any resulting price increase as a result of measures could be easily absorbed in the chain of downstream sales. It was therefore concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would be in the interest of the Union industry. Definitive measures were therefore imposed in November 2012, based on the level of the injury margins found.

8.1.6. Investigations terminated without measures

In accordance with the provisions of the respective basic Regulations, investigations may be terminated without the imposition of measures if a complaint is withdrawn or if measures are unnecessary (i.e. no dumping/no subsidies, no injury resulting there from, measures not in the interest of the EU). In 2012, 9 new proceedings (7 anti-dumping and 2 anti-subsidy) were terminated without measures, compared to 11 in 2011 and 10 in 2010.

The list of cases which were terminated without the imposition of measures during 2012 can be found in the following table. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex E.

Product (type of investigation[23]) || Originating from || Main reason for termination

Vinyl acetate - AD || U.S.A. || Complaint withdrawn

Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof - AD || India || No causal link between dumped imports and injury to EU industry.

Sodium cyclamate - AD || P.R. China || Complaint withdrawn

Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel - AD || Belarus || Complaint withdrawn

Certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics - AD || P.R. China || Complaint withdrawn

Tartaric acid- AD || P.R. China || Complaint withdrawn

Soy protein - AD || P.R. China || Lack of material injury and causal link.

Certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof - AS || India || No causal link between subsidised imports and injury to EU industry.

Bioethanol - AS || USA || Withdrawal of main scheme established in IP; De minimis subsidisation for remaining schemes

8.1.7. Details on some individual cases

Sodium Cyclamate originating in the People's Republic of China

In February 2011 the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People’s Republic of China following a complaint lodged by Productos Aditivos SA the sole producer in the Union of sodium cyclamate, representing 100 % of the Union production of the product.

By a letter of 17 January 2012, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint. Since the Commission did not identify any reason to indicate that termination would not be in the Union interest, it was decided to terminate the proceeding. The investigation was terminated without imposition of measures in April 2012.

Certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India

The anti-subsidy investigation on imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in India was initiated in May 2011 on the basis of a complaint lodged by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (EIFI) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of total Union production of the product.

The investigation of subsidy and injury covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 while the examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of March 2011.

Provisional countervailing measures were imposed in February 2012.

Following the imposition of provisional countervailing duties, one of the co-operating Indian exporters, Viraj Profiles Limited submitted detailed comments regarding the calculation of the Export oriented units scheme (EOU) subsidy rate established which accounted for 2,73% out of a total subsidy rate of 3,2 % for the company. The calculation of the subsidy amount was reexamined and resulted in Viraj’s total subsidy rate being definitively established at 0,7%, i.e. below the de minimis threshold.

Viraj represented, in volume, 87% of Indian exports to the Union. As a result only 13% of the Indian exports of the product concerned to the Union during the IP were subsidised. These subsidised imports had a market share of 2% in the IP.

While the investigation had established that injury existed, the revised findings indicated that the limited import volume of the subsidised imports from India, which had higher prices than the non-subsidised imports, may have played only a very limited role, if any, in the deterioration of the injurious situation of the Union industry. As a result, it was considered that a causal link between the subsidised imports (which accounted for a mere 13% of total imports a very limited market share (2%) and with prices on average 12% higher than those of the non-subsidised imports) and the injury suffered by the Union industry could not be sufficiently established. As a result the anti-subsidy investigation was terminated in May 2012 without the imposition of definitive measures and the amounts secured under the provisional regulation were released.

Bioethanol originating in USA

In November 2011, the European Commission initiated an anti-subsidy investigation on imports into the Union of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (USA). On the same day an anti-dumping proceeding was also initiated on the same product from the USA.

The AS proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged by the European Producers Union of Renewable Ethanol Association (ePURE) representing more than 25% of the total Union production of bioethanol. Prior to the initiation of the AS investigation consultations were held between the EU and the US in November 2011. However no mutually agreed solution was found.

The investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011. The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from January 2008 to the end of the IP.

There were a number of Federal and State schemes investigated; Fuel mixture tax credits - Excise Tax/Income Tax credits; Small producer income tax credit; Income tax credit for producers of cellulosic bioethanol; The US Department of Agriculture Bioenergy Program; USDA Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels; USDA Biorefinery Assistance Program; USDA Biomass Crop Assistance Program; USDA Rural Energy for America Program; Department of Energy Biorefinery Project Grants; Illinois State Bioethanol Incentives ; Illinois Biofuels Production Facility Grants; E85 Infrastructure Grants; Iowa Alternate Energy Revolving Loan Program;) Biofuels Infrastructure Grants; Minnesota State Bioethanol Incentives; Minnesota Cellulosic Ethanol Investment Tax Credit; E85 Fueling Infrastructure Grants; Nebraska Ethanol Production Tax Credit; South Dakota Ethanol Production Incentive.

The investigation showed that all investigated schemes except the Fuel mixture tax credits - Excise Tax/Income Tax credits were negligible and not countervailable during the IP. In relation to the main subsidy scheme identified as countervailable in the IP, the investigation showed that that scheme had expired in the end of 2011 and had not been reintroduced. Given that the basic Regulation provides that no measures shall be imposed if the subsidy or subsidies are withdrawn or when the subsidies no longer confer any benefit on the exporters concerned, it was considered that the imposition of definitive countervailing measures would not be warranted. As a result the investigation was terminated in December 2012. Definitive anti-dumping measures on the product were imposed in February 2013.

8.2. Review investigations

8.2.1. Expiry reviews

Article 11(2) and Article 18 of the basic Regulations provide for the expiry of measures after five years, unless an expiry review demonstrates that they should be maintained in their original form.

In 2012, 13 anti-dumping measures and no anti-subsidy measure expired automatically. The references for these measures are set out in Annex N.

Since the expiry provision of the basic Regulations came into force in 1985, a total of 486 measures have expired automatically.

8.2.1.1. Initiations

The list of the expiry reviews initiated can be found in the following table, together with the name of the complainant. It should be noted that some expiry reviews may be carried out in parallel with interim reviews, which allow the amendment of the duty rates. In such case, these reviews are marked with an asterisk. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex F.

Product (type of investigation AD or AS) || Originating from || Complainant

Ethanolamines – AD* || U.S.A. || BASF SE/AG, INEOS Oxide Ltd, Sasol Germany GmbH

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) - AD || India Indonesia Malaysia Taiwan Thailand || Polyethylene terephthalate committee of plastics Europe

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) - AS || India || Polyethylene terephthalate committee of plastics Europe

Tungsten electrodes - AD || P.R. China || Eurometaux

Ironing boards – AD* || P.R. China Ukraine || Colombo New Scal S.p.A., Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd., Roerets

Sweet corn - AD || Thailand || Association Europeenne des Transformers de Mais Doux (AETMD)

Peroxosulphates (Persulphates) - AD || P.R. China || RheinPerChemie GmbH & Co. KG, United Initiators GmbH & Co. KG

Iron or steel ropes and cables - AD || Russia || The Liasion Committee of EU Wire Rope Industries (EWRIS)

Dicyandiamide (DCD) - AD || P.R. China || AlzChem AG

8.2.1.2. Expiry reviews concluded with confirmation of duties

During 2012, 9 expiry reviews were concluded with confirmation of the duties for a further five years.

The list of the cases which were concluded with confirmation of duty during 2012, together with the result of the investigation, can be found below. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex F.

Product || Originating from || Result of the investigation/ Type[24] and level of measure

Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || P.R. China Taiwan || Confirmation of duty AD duty of 11.4% to 12.2% All other companies 27.4%

Steel ropes and cables || P.R. China Ukraine Morocco (ext.) Moldova (ext.) Korea (Rep. of) (ext.) || Confirmation of duty P.R. China: AD duty of 64.3% Ukraine: AD duty of 51.8%

Tartaric acid || P.R. China || Confirmation of duty AD duty of 4.7% to 10.1% All other companies 34.9%

Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel || Russia Ukraine || Confirmation of duty Russia: AD duty of 24.1%-27.2%; All other companies 35.8% Ukraine: AD duty of 12.3%-25.7%; All other companies 25.7%

Lever arch mechanisms || P.R. China || Confirmation of duty AD duty of 27.1%; All others 47.4%

Chamois leather || P.R. China || Confirmation of duty AD duty of 58.9%

8.2.1.3. Details on some individual cases concluded by confirmation of duty

Stainless steel fasteners and parts oriiginating in P.R. China and Taiwan

In November 2005, definitive anti-dumping duty duties were imposed on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof (‘SSF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. In August 2010 a request for the initiation of an expiry review (limited to the PRC and Taiwan) was lodged by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (‘EIFI’) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of SSF. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures imposed on imports of SSF originating in the countries concerned would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry. The expiry review was initiated in November 2010.

The investigation period was from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’) and the examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the review investigation period.

Sampling was used in respect of the Taiwanese exporters and EU producers. No Chinese companies co-operated.

Recurrence of dumping

China: Owing to the lack of co-operation by Chinese exporters, the findings on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping had to be based on best facts available, in particular the Eurostat data and the information submitted by the Union industry in the review request. Official PRC exports statistics could not be used in this case as the product concerned represents only a small fraction of the quantities reported in the relevant Harmonised System Tariff positions.

Since there was no indication that export prices from the PRC to the Union were different than in the request, it was considered likely that dumping from the PRC had continued. As regards the likelihood of the recurrence of dumping taking into account the existing spare capacity in the PRC and the fact that imports of the product concerned into the Union increased during the period considered despite the existence of anti-dumping measures, there appeared to be an incentive for PRC exporting producers to further increase their exports to the Union market at dumped prices if the measures were allowed to lapse.

Taiwan: Despite initial indications of co-operation from Taiwanese exporters it finally transpired that data from only one exporter could be used. As a result most of the findings concerning the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping had to be based on facts available, in particular the data provided by the sole cooperating Taiwanese exporting producer, one cooperating importer, Eurostat data and the information submitted by the applicant in the review request.

It was found that the cooperating exporter continued to engage in dumping practices during the RIP with dumping amounting to 22 %. As regards the remaining exporters, according to the review request exports from Taiwan were allegedly dumped with margins ranging from 14 % to 50 %. Given there was no available information which would allow a different conclusion the existence of dumping at the countrywide level was confirmed.

As regards the likelihood of the recurrence of dumping, the spare capacity in Taiwan and the attractiveness of the Union market, there appeared to be an incentive for Taiwanese exporting producers to increase their exports to the Union market at dumped prices if the measures were allowed to lapse.

Injury and likelihood of continuation of injury

The investigation found despite the existence of anti-dumping measures, the situation of the Union industry remained vulnerable continuing to make losses. Almost all injury indicators for the Union producers – such as profitability, production and sales volumes decreased, capacity and capacity utilisation dropped and were followed by a decrease in employment and productivity levels deteriorated during the period considered. Consequently, it could not be concluded that the situation of the Union industry was secure. On this basis, it was concluded that the Union industry, as a whole, remained in a vulnerable economic situation and continued to suffer material injury.

At the end of the RIP the efforts of the Union industry to maintain sales volumes and a sufficient level of prices were hampered by the increased presence of the dumped imports from the countries concerned as well as low priced imports from other third countries. It was therefore concluded that if the Union industry were to be exposed to increased volumes of imports from the countries concerned at dumped prices, this would be likely to result in a further deterioration of its situation.

Union interest

As regards the Union industry it was considered that maintaining the measures would allow it to grow and improve its situation. There was co-operation only from one importer who showed a healthy profit in the period considered and no users came forward. In any event given the marginal impact of SSF on the costs of downstream products, it was concluded that the measures would not adversely impact the users industry. As a result there were no compelling reasons not to impose anti-dumping duties against imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in the PRC and Taiwan the anti-dumping measures were maintained in January 2012.

Steel ropes and cables originating in P.R. China, Ukraine and South Africa

In August 1999, definitive anti-dumping duty duties were imposed on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the People’s Republic of China, Ukraine and South Africa, which were further continued after an expiry review in 2005. In 2004, following an anti-circumvention investigation the measures applicable to Ukraine had been extended to imports of the product from Moldova while the measures appliacle to China were extended following similar investgiations to Morocco and Korea in 2004 and 2010 respectively. In November 2010, the Commission initiated an expiry review of the measures in place on the basis of a request received from the Liaison Committee of European Union Wire Rope Industries (EWRIS) on behalf of Union producers representing more than 60 %, of the total Union production of SWR.

The investigation period was from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010 (‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). and the examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the review investigation period.

Neither the Chinese nor the Ukrainian exporters were deemed to have co-operated as they did not complete questionnaire replies in a satisfactory manner. One exporter in South Africa, representing total exports of the product to the EU from that country completed a questionnaire.

Dumping and likely recurrence of dumping

China: As was the case in the original investigation, Turkey was used as the analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value. As a result, the weighted average domestic sales price to unrelated customers by the cooperating producer in Turkey were used for normal value. In the absence of co-operation from the Chinese exporters, the export price was based on Eurostat data. Comparison was made with due allowance for those factors deemed to affect price comparability which resulted in a finding of significant dumping of 38%.

Ukraine: Given the lack of co-operation from Ukraine, normal value was established on the basis of the information found in the review request, which corresponded to prices paid or payable on the domestic market of Ukraine by unrelated customers. This was compared to publicly available information regarding the export price with due allowance for ocean freight and insurance in line with the review request. As a result, a dumping margin of more than 80 % was established for the RIP.

South Africa: Normal value was established on the basis of the prices paid on the domestic market of South Africa by unrelated customers as these were made in the ordinary course of trade and representative. This normal value was compared to the actual prices of export sales paid, which showed the existence of dumping amounting to 17%, which was lower than the dumping margin of 38,6 % found in the original investigation.

Regarding the likelihood of continuation of dumping should the anti-dumping measures be repealed, spare capacities and unused stocks as well as pricing and export strategies in different markets were analysed. It was found that for both China and Ukraine dumping would likely continue but, in the case of South Africa, the continuation of dumped imports in significant quantities would not be likely.

Injury and likelihood of continuation of injury

In order to examine the situation of the EU industry sampling was applied owing to the large number of EU producers which cooperated in the investigation