Accompanying document to the 24th Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the community's anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard activities (2005) {COM(2007)171 final} /* SEC/2007/0440 final */





[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES | Brussels, 10.04.2007 SEC(2007) 440 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the 24th ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the community's anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard activities (2005) {COM(2007)171 final} 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 Community legislation 7 1.1.3. Changes to the Community legislation in 2005 8 1.2. Safeguards 8 1.2.1. The international framework 8 1.2.2. The Community legislation 9 1.2.2.1. The basic safeguard Regulations 9 1.3. Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline services 10 2. Basic concepts 10 2.1. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 10 2.1.1. What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies - the materialconditions for the imposition of duties? 10 2.1.1.1. Dumping and subsidies 10 2.1.1.2. Material injury and causation 11 2.1.1.3. Community interest 11 2.1.2. Procedure 12 2.1.3. Review of measures 14 2.1.4. Judicial reviews 14 2.2. Safeguards 15 2.2.1. What are safeguard measures? 15 2.2.2. Procedure 15 3. Enlargement 16 4. Country-wide market economy status (MES) 17 5. Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts 18 5.1. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) 18 5.2. Stakeholder's process 18 5.2.1. Seminars 18 5.2.2. Evaluation study 19 6. The Trade Defence Instruments’ services 19 7. General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures 20 7.1. New investigations 20 7.2. Review investigations 21 8. Overview of activities in 2005 22 8.1. New investigations 22 8.1.1. Initiations 22 8.1.1.1. Overview 22 8.1.1.2. Details on individual cases (in alphabetical order) 24 8.1.2. Provisional measures 27 8.1.3. Definitive measures 28 8.1.3.1. Overview 28 8.1.3.2. Details on individual cases (in alphabetical order) 29 8.1.4. Investigations terminated without measures 35 8.1.4.1. Overview 35 8.1.4.2. Details on individual cases (in chronological order) 36 8.2. Review investigations 39 8.2.1. Expiry reviews 39 8.2.1.1. Initiations 39 8.2.1.2. Reviews concluded with confirmation of duty(ies) 40 8.2.1.3. Reviews concluded by termination 45 8.2.2. Interim reviews 45 8.2.3. “Other” interim reviews 46 8.2.4. New exporter reviews 46 8.2.5. Absorption investigations 47 8.2.6. Circumvention investigations 47 8.3. Safeguard investigations 48 8.3.1. Safeguard measures on textile products 48 8.3.2. Safeguard measures on certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (satsumas) 49 8.3.3. Safeguard measures on salmon 50 8.3.4. Safeguard measures on frozen strawberries 50 9. Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures 51 9.2. Follow-up of measures 51 9.3. Monitoring of undertakings 51 10. Refunds 53 11. Judicial review : decisions given by the Court of Justice / Court of First Instance 53 11.1. Overview of the judicial reviews in 2005 53 11.2. Cases pending 53 11.3. New cases 54 11.4. Judgments rendered by the Court of First Instance 55 11.4.1. Unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and India - T-192/98 – Eurocoton v. Council of the European Union : Judgment of 17 March 2005 (OJ 132, 28.05.2005, p. 22) Unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and India - T-195/98 – Ettlin Gesellschaft für Spinnerei und Weberei AG v. Council of the European Union : Judgment of 17 March 2005 (OJ 132, 28.05.2005, p. 22) 55 11.4.2. Broadcast camera systems originating in Japan - T-350/02 – Ikegami v.Council of the European Union (case withdrawn by applicants) 55 11.4.3. Grain oriented electrical sheets (GOES) originating in Russia - T-335/04 –Viz Stal, Russia and Duferco Commerciale, Italy v. Council of the EuropeanUnion (case withdrawn by applicants) 56 11.5. Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice 56 11.5.1. Capacitors originating in Japan, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan 56 12. Activities in the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) 57 12.1. Dispute settlement in the field of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards 57 12.1.1. Overview of the WTO dispute settlement procedure 57 12.1.2. Dispute settlement procedures initiated by third countries against the Community 58 12.1.2.2. Korea – countervailing duties on dynamic access memory chips (DRAMs) 58 12.2. Other WTO activities 58 13. Conclusion 59 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is submitted to the European Parliament following its resolution of 16 December 1981 on the Community’s anti-dumping activities[1], and the report of the European Parliament’s Committee on industry, external trade, research and energy[2]. This report, as in previous years, gives an overview of the Community legislation in force with regard to trade defence instruments, including safeguards. This chapter also covers the adoption by the Council late 2005 of a proposal amending the anti-dumping basic Regulation graduating Ukraine to a market economy country. The report further 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 duty 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 2005. As regards the 2005 activities, after a somewhat low activity overall in 2004, the year was characterized by a return to a normal average level. Indeed, a total of 29 new investigations were concluded, of which 19 by the imposition of definitive anti-dumping or countervailing measures and 10 by termination. In a further 15 investigations, provisional measures were imposed. As regards the expiry review investigations, 23 investigations were initiated. In 7 cases, the investigations were concluded with confirmation of the duty. As for the interim review investigations, 22 were initiated, 3 terminated and 18 concluded with confirmation or amendment of the duty. As regards safeguard activities, the Commission initiated in 2005 two safeguard investigations : one on imports of certain textile products originating in the People’s Republic of China and one on frozen strawberries based on the WTO general erga omnes rules. The investigation on textile products was later terminated following a memorandum of understanding on agreed growth levels reached with the Chinese Government. The safeguard measures imposed in 2004 on citrus fruits were confirmed following a review. Definitive measures were imposed on farmed salmon but these measures were later revoked. As in previous years, this issue continues to provide an overview on the Court cases relating to the trade policy instruments. During 2005, five Judgments were rendered by the Court of First Instance and one by the Court of Justice. The chapter in this report on activities in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) covers dispute settlement procedures initiated against the Community. Furthermore, it deals with other activities, such as the continuation of the negotiations on the Anti-dumping and Subsidies Agreements, in which the Commission continues to play an active role by submitting negotiating proposals. The annexes to this report provide easy access to the activities in table form. This report has to be seen against the general background of EU trade policy as set out more recently in the Commission's Communication on "Global Europe"[3]. In this context, the Commission adopted in December 2006 a "Green Paper" inviting a public reflection on how the EU can best use its trade defence instruments in a changing global economic context. All stakeholders in the EU dealing with trade defence are invited to reply to the questions raised in the Green Paper. Besides the Member States, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, this includes for example producers, consumers and users, exporters, importers, the legal community, academics or any other person interested in this field. Third country governments are also invited to respond to this Green Paper. The results of this process will be reflected in future reports. This report is also available to the general public. The 2004 version was released in more or less 500 copies.(Internet Website http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/respectrules/anti_dumping/legis/index_en.htm 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 framework dates back quite some time, world trade is currently still distorted by unfair practices, making the instrument 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 protective measures can be adopted. The Community played an active role in the negotiation of these relevant criteria which are reflected in its own legislation. This 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 Community plays as a prudent user has therefore also an exemplary function at WTO level. 1.1.2. The Community legislation The Community’s anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation was first enacted in 1968 and has since been modified several times. The current basic texts , which form the legal basis of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the Community, entered into force in March 1996 and October 1997. These are in line with the Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Agreements adopted during the GATT/WTO negotiations. The basic texts are : - Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community[4] - Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community[5]. These regulations will overall be referred to as the "basic Regulation(s)". The Community legislation contains a number of provisions aimed at ensuring a balanced application of the Community’s Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy rules on all interested parties. These provisions include the “Community interest test” and the “lesser duty rule”, which go beyond the WTO obligations. The Community interest test is a public interest clause and states that measures can only be taken if they are not contrary to the overall interest of the Community. This requires an analysis of all the economic interests involved, including those of the Community industry, users, consumers and traders of the product concerned. The Community interest test does not involve wider aspects such as foreign or development policy considerations. The lesser duty rule requires the measures imposed by the Community to be lower than the dumping or subsidy margin, if such lower duty rate is sufficient to remove the injury suffered by the Community industry. Such a “no-injury” rate is determined by using the cost of production of the Community 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 Community on a regular basis. 1.1.3. Changes to the Community legislation in 2005 In view of the significant progress made by Ukraine towards the establishment of market economy conditions until the end of 2005, the Commission proposed to graduate this country to become a full market economy for anti-dumping investigations. This thus allows normal value for Ukrainian exporters and producers to be established on the basis of their prices and costs. On 21 December 2005, the Council adopted the Commission proposal thereby amending the basic Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 entered into force on 30 December 2005. 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 (e.g. the People's Republic of China's Protocol). 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 Community producers and d) a causal link between the imports and the injury. WTO Accession Protocols may provide for specific requirements. 1.2.2. The Community legislation The above-mentioned principles are all reflected in the relevant Community regulations, except for the “unforeseen development requirement” (which is not in the Community law but has been confirmed as a self-standing condition by WTO jurisprudence). Additionally, the adoption of measures in the Community 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 Community’s interest to do so. The current Community safeguard instruments are covered by the following regulations : 1.2.2.1. The basic safeguard Regulations The basic safeguard regulations consist of : - Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94[6] on the common rules of imports and repealing Regulation (EC) No 518/94; - Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94[7] 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[8]. 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[9] 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 Community 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[10] 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. The Community’s anti-dumping legislation defines anti-dumping as selling a product in the Community at a price below its “normal value”. This “normal value” is usually the actual sales price on the domestic market of the exporting country. Therefore, a country is selling at dumped prices if the prices in its home market are higher than its export prices (i.e. price discrimination). Where sales in the domestic market are not representative, for instance because they have only been made in small quantities, the normal value may then be established on another basis, such as the sales prices of other producers on the domestic market or the cost of production. In the latter case, a company is selling at dumped prices if its export prices are below the cost of production. A certain segregation of the market, 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 regulation. 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 Community. 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 Community at dumped or subsidised prices. Measures can only be taken if these exports cause material injury to Community producers, who cannot be expected to compete on an equal footing with exporters. 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 Community industry. As a consequence, the latter is forced to decrease production volumes and sales prices thus losing market shares, making losses or having to make employees redundant. In extreme cases, exporters may try to eliminate viable Community producers by using a predatory, below cost, pricing strategy. In any event, the injury analysis requires that all relevant factors be taken into account before deciding whether the Community industry is in fact suffering “material injury”. A further condition for the imposition of measures is the need for “a causal link”: the injury must be caused by the dumping or the subsidy. This condition is often fulfilled when the injury to the Community industry coincides with the increase in dumped and subsidised imports. It is important to note that the dumped or subsidised imports do not have to be the only cause of the injury. 2.1.1.3. Community interest Finally, it has to be established whether there are compelling reasons that the application of measures would not be contrary to the overall interest of the Community. In this respect, the interests of all relevant economic operators which might be affected by the outcome of the investigation must be taken into account. These interests typically include those of the Community 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. Only if it can be clearly concluded that the negative impact would be disproportional, measures should not be imposed. 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 Community is obliged to justify its decisions in this publication. Finally, it is ensured that each case is decided on its merits and the Commission does not hesitate to terminate a case if the conditions to impose measures are not met. Whereas each investigation is different depending on the products and countries involved, all cases follow the same procedural rules. However, certain preferential rules apply to the candidate countries. The rules relating to a new case are summarised below. Initiation A case normally starts with a sufficiently substantiated complaint from the Community industry manufacturing the same or a similar product to the one referred to in the complaint. After receipt of this complaint, the Commission assesses whether the complaint contains sufficient evidence to allow for the initiation of the case. A case is opened by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal. In this notice, all interested parties, including users, in anti-subsidy investigations in particular exporting country authorities 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 Community, 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 Community 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 the Community 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 calculations and to submit comments. Comments can also be made at a hearing. These provisional submissions and comments are taken into account when a second, definitive, working document is prepared by the Commission. After final disclosure, 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. Thus, a decision to impose provisional duties must be taken within nine months of the initiation and the total duration of an investigation is limited to fifteen months 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 Community languages at the same time. Anti-dumping or countervailing measures will normally remain in force for five years, and may consist of duties or undertakings concluded with exporters. Measures are taken on a countrywide basis, but individual treatment, i.e. the application of a company-specific duty, can be granted to exporters which have co-operated throughout the investigation. During the five-year period, interested parties may, under certain conditions, request a review of measures or the refund of anti-dumping duties paid. Measures may also be suspended for a certain period, subject to given criteria. 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 depends on the existence of a request by the Community 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. Under the new provisions of the basic Regulations, the deadline for concluding an interim review is set at 12 months, but no later than 15 months for reviews initiated after 20 March 2006. Finally, the basic Regulations provide that a review shall be carried out to determine individual margins for new exporters in the exporting country concerned. As of 20 March 2006, the deadline for conclusion of newcomer reviews shall be 9 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 Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Furthermore, the possibility of recourse to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism exists for WTO members. 2.2. Safeguards 2.2.1. What are safeguard measures? Safeguard measures allow temporary protection against the adverse effects of import surges. Under the Community legislation[11] 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 Community in such increased quantities and/or on such terms and conditions as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to Community 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 Community 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. and d) facts other than trends. 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. 6 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 Community 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 Community 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. ENLARGEMENT Following a range of activities that were carried out related to the 2004 enlargement exercice, the Commission, during 2005, continued its efforts in this respect aimed at ensuring a smooth integration of the administrations of the new Member States concerned in the area of trade defence. Apart from regular exchange of information, these efforts involved holding dedicated training and stocktaking seminars. In 2005, the Commission also concluded the monitoring and application of the special transitional measures in the form of undertakings that were taken in respect to four cases (ammonium nitrate from Russia and Ukraine, grain oriented electrical sheets from Russia and silicon carbide from Ukraine) in order to avert economic hardship/shock to users and consumers in the new Member States after the 2004 enlargement. On the basis of the positive experience with the 2004 enlargement, in 2005 the TDI services set up an Action Plan for the preparation in the area of trade defence for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. In the framework of this Action Plan, a number of activities, such as creating channels for regular exchange of information and a training seminar, has already been carried out, while its further implementation is foreseen for 2006 and 2007. Its aim is to ensure, inter alia , that the administrations and industries of the new Member States would be able to fully take up their new roles from the very beginning of their EU membership and that the positive experience gained during the last enlargement is used also in this future one. 4. Country-wide market economy status (MES) The work on the country-wide market economy requests has intensified during 2005. Conceptually, the country-wide criteria for determining whether a country can be considered a full market economy for the purpose of anti-dumping investigations are inspired from those applicable to individual companies located in economies in transition to a market economy, which are set out in Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation. These criteria are : - Degree of government influence - Absence of State-induced distortions in the operation of enterprises - Existence and implementation of a transparent and non-discriminatory company law - Existence and implementation of a coherent, effective and transparent set of laws - Existence of a genuine financial sector These criteria are used to analyse whether countries classified as non-market economies or as economies in transition should be graduated to full market economy countries. As a consequence of such graduation, the behaviour of economic operators would be analysed on the basis of their specific cost and prices, rather than using data from analogue country producers. It should be noted that the MES analysis is not a judgment on a country’s overall economic development. Rather, the issue is whether costs and prices can automatically be used for the purpose of TDI investigations. Significant work has been done in this respect during 2005. In particular, the request received in March 2002 from Ukraine was assessed and the Commission reached the conclusion to propose granting MES to this country as all criteria were met. After discussion, the Council agreed in December 2005 to this Commission proposal and granted MES to Ukraine. The People’s Republic of China’s request was received in September 2003 and a preliminary assessment was carried out by the Commission in June 2004. Following the assessment, a bilateral working group was set up to examine any progress made. This working group met twice during 2005. At the EU-China summit in September 2005, it was agreed to upgrade this working group, as "the two sides agreed to launch high-level dialogues to address outstanding issues with a view to achieving positive progress on the issue of MES". During 2005, Vietnam, Mongolia and Armenia provided further information to complement their MES request. The Commission analysed the newly submitted information and followed up with questions on issues that had not been sufficiently addressed in the replies. The Commission also analysed external sources for all three countries. The Commission also requested further information from Kazakhstan, which was received in March 2006. For all countries that are currently being examined, country-wide MES is conditional on the outstanding criteria being fulfilled. 5. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES / BILATERAL CONTACTS 5.1. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) The Trade Defence Helpdesk for SMEs, set up in December 2004, continued its activity in addressing specific SME questions/problems regarding TDIs, whether general or case-specific. This helpdesk is accessible through a direct link from a TDI SME website, which has been launched at the same time. All this is geared towards ensuring proper access to the TDI instruments, especially for companies and sectors which could otherwise meet technical difficulties using these instruments because of their small size, their fragmentation and/or their high number. 5.2. Stakeholder's process 5.2.1. Seminars The TDI services continued to organise and participate in information and training seminars for third country government representatives and for economic operators, both within and outside the EU. All in all, 10 seminars have been held for the following third country beneficiaries: Bulgaria, China, Kyrgyz Republic, Mexico, Peru, Romania, Russia, Tunisia and UEMOA countries as well as the Western Balkan countries. Furthermore, a number of ad hoc meetings on TDI matters were organised with specific third country TDI services and economic operators. The Commission services continued their process of dialogue with stakeholders. This year the emphasis of the stakeholders' seminar was laid on canvassing opinions from importers, distributors, users and consumers, as well as their legal representatives, to identify possible areas of improvement in our application of the instruments. The opinions expressed at this seminar together with the "evaluation study" (see point 5.2.2), will serve as a basis for the reflection process to be launched in 2006. 5.2.2. Evaluation study The Commission’s Directorates-General and Services carry out regularly ex post evaluations of their activities and policies. In December 2005, DG TRADE received the results of an evaluation study of its trade defence instruments.(http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/respectrules/anti_dumping/legis/index_en.htm) The evaluation had three objectives : (1) to provide a broad description of the European Community’s trade defence practice; (2) to identify and evaluate differences between the European Community and the United States; and, (3) to identify possible areas for improvement of the European Community’s trade defence laws and practice. The evaluation was based on a survey of stakeholders to EU trade defence activities, such as Member States, Community industry, exporters, importers and downstream users. The evaluators made a positive assessment of the general approach of the Community to trade defence investigations. While confirming the balanced nature of the EC system and the high standards applied, the evaluation also suggests reflecting on some specific issues and contains some interesting proposals for improvements. These proposals could contribute to improving certain aspects of our current system, in particular rights of parties and transparency. 6. THE TRADE DEFENCE INSTRUMENTS’ SERVICES Within DG Trade, Directorate B is responsible for trade defence instruments. The directorate consists of 5 Units. Unit 1 is in charge of policy aspects related to anti-dumping and anti-subsidy (including WTO and complaints office). Units 2 to 5 deal with investigations covering dumping/subsidization, injury and Community interest aspects. Moreover, Unit 2 monitors the activity of third countries on anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards, as well as policy aspects related to safeguards. Unit 4 is also responsible for following up and controlling the efficiency of measures and for policy matters concerning circumvention/absorption. 7. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF ANTI-DUMPING AND ANTI-SUBSIDY INVESTIGATIONS AND MEASURES As regards the 2005 activities, after a somewhat lower activity overall in 2004, the year was characterized by a return to a normal average level. Below are details on both, new investigations and review investigations. 7.1. New investigations At the end of 2005, the Community had 135 anti-dumping measures[12] and 12 countervailing measures in force. The anti-dumping measures covered 56 products and 32 countries (see Annex O); the countervailing measures covered 10 products and 5 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 measures in force at the end of 2005 (both anti-dumping and anti-subsidy), 38 concerned China, 17 India, 12 Russia, 8 Thailand, 7 the Republic of Korea and Indonesia, 6 Taiwan, 3 Japan and 17 measures (excluding China) applied to countries with economies in transition or to non-market-economy countries, including Ukraine with 7 measures, Belarus with 5 measures and Vietnam with 5 measures. Five measures were still applicable against imports originating in the candidate countries Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. For a more realistic view of the impact of anti-dumping measures, however, one has to look at the trade volume of the products concerned, which varies considerably depending on the product sector. The biggest trade volumes are often generated by high technology, such as electronics, which are high-value products. It should be noted that in 2005, only 0,45%[13] of total imports into the Community was affected by anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures. Table 1 below provides statistical information on the new investigations for the years 2001 – 2005. TABLE 1 Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy new investigations during the period 1 January 2001 - 31 December 2005[14] 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Investigations in progress at the beginning of the period | 34 | 43 | 33 | 15 | 31 | Investigations initiated during the period | 33 | 23 | 8 | 29 | 26 | Investigations in progress during the period | 67 | 66 | 41 | 44 | 57 | Investigations concluded : - imposition of definitive duty or acceptance of undertakings - terminations[15] | 12 12 | 28 5 | 5 21 | 11 2 | 19 10 | Total investigations concluded during the period | 24 | 33 | 26 | 13 | 29 | Investigations in progress at the end of period | 43 | 33 | 15 | 31 | 28 | Provisional measures imposed during the period | 18 | 17 | 10 | 6 | 15 | 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 2001 to 2005, a total of 209 review investigations were initiated. These review investigations represented almost 64% of all investigations initiated. In 2005, 54 reviews were initiated. Of these, 23 were expiry reviews, 22 interim reviews, 5 newcomer reviews, 1 anti-absorption investigation and 3 circumvention investigations. An overview of the review investigations in 2005 can be found in Annexes F to K. Table 2 provides statistical information for the years 2001 - 2005. TABLE 2 Reviews of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations during the period 1 January 2001 - 31 December 2005[16] 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Reviews in progress at the beginning of the period | 53 | 58 | 67 | 53 | 41 | Reviews initiated during the period | 29 | 55 | 26 | 42 | 54 | Reviews in progress during the period | 82 | 113 | 93 | 95 | 95 | Total reviews concluded during the period[17] | 24 | 46 | 40 | 54[18] | 35 | Reviews in progress at the end of the period | 58 | 67 | 53 | 41 | 60 | Details on the conclusions can be found under heading 8.2. 8. Overview of activities in 2005 8.1. New investigations 8.1.1. Initiations 8.1.1.1. Overview In 2005, 26 investigations were initiated, two of which concerned anti-subsidy investigations. They involved 12 different products from 14 different countries. Details of these investigations are given in Annex A. Most affected countries are China with 8 investigations, Malaysia with 3 investigations and Romania, Thailand and Hong Kong with 2 investigations each, followed by Croatia, Russia, Ukraine, Guatemala, Pakistan, Korea, India, Vietnam and Taiwan with 1 investigation each. As to the products, the most affected is the electronics sector, followed by the footwear sector, the iron and steel sector and the chemical and allied sector. In the five-year period from 2001 to 2005, 119 investigations were initiated on imports from 32 countries. The main sectors concerned by the investigations were iron and steel with 37 investigations, chemical and allied with 24 investigations and electronics with 15 investigations. A breakdown of the product sectors is given in Annex B(A). The main countries concerned during the period from 2001 to 2005 were the People's Republic of China with 25 investigations, India with 14 investigations, Russia with 9 investigations, Korea, Indonesia and Malaysia with 6 investigations and Vietnam and Taiwan with 5 investigations each. The investigations initiated over the last five years are broken down by country of export in Annex B(B). The alphabetical list of cases initiated in 2005 can be found below, together with the name of the complainant. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex A. Product/type of investigation[19] | Originating from | Complainant | Chamois leather (AD) | P.R. China | British Leather Confederation | Ethyl alcohol (AD) | Guatemala Pakistan | Committee of Industrial Ethanol Producers of the EU (CIEP) | Footwear with protective toecap (AD) | P.R. China India | European Confederation of the Footwear Industry (CEC) | Footwear with uppers of leather (AD) | P.R. China Vietnam | European Confederation of the Footwear Industry (CEC) | Lever arch mechanisms (AD) | P.R. China | Interkov spol.s.r.o., MI.ME.CA. Srl and Nico Metallurgical company, d.d. Zelezniki | Plastic sacks and bags (AD) | P.R. China Malaysia Thailand | 30 European producers | Plastic sacks and bags (AS) | Malaysia Thailand | 30 European producers | Recordable compact disks (CD-Rs) (AD) | P.R. China Hong Kong Malaysia | CECMA | Recordable digital versatile discs (DVD+/-R) (AD) | P.R. China Hong Kong Taiwan | CECMA | Refrigerators (side-by-side) (AD) | Korea (rep. of) | Whirlpool | Seamless pipes and tubes (AD) | Croatia Romania Russia Ukraine | Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union | Silicon carbide (AD) | Romania | CEFIC | Tungsten electrodes (AD) | P.R. China | Eurométaux | 8.1.1.2. Details on individual cases (in alphabetical order) 1. Footwear with uppers of leather from the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam In July 2005, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding on imports into the Community of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Vietnam. The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by the European Confederation of the Footwear industry (CEC) on behalf of Community producers representing more than 40% of the total Community production of certain footwear with uppers of leather. The product under investigation was footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather, other than: (i) footwear which is designed for a sporting activity and has, or has provision for the attachment of, spikes, sprigs, stops, clips, bars or the like; (ii) skating boots, ski-boots and cross-country ski footwear, snowboard boots, wrestling boots, boxing boots and cycling shoes; (iii) slippers and other indoor footwear and (iv) footwear with a protective toecap. During the course of the investigation, exporting producers and importers claimed that certain footwear for use in sporting activities and involving a special technology called Special Technology Athletic Footwear (STAF) should also be excluded from the product scope. These parties provided evidence that STAF shoes should be excluded from the product scope because of differences of basic physical and technical characteristics, sales channels, end-use and consumer perception. The Community Industry and Member States were consulted on the possible exclusion of STAF shoes and provided their relevant contributions during 2005. The Community Industry and a number of Member States opposed the exclusion of STAF shoes from the product scope. As both the PRC and Vietnam are economies in transition, an appropriate analogue country had to be used for the purpose of establishing normal value of exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not granted Market Economy Treatment (MET). Brazil was chosen as the appropriate analogue country in view of its representative domestic market. Data submitted by three Brazilian companies for the purposes of establishing normal value was verified at the Brazilian companies' premises during September 2005. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) Following the initiation of the proceeding, 365 producers in the PRC came forward, out of which 163 exporting producers provided the requested information within the given deadline set in the notice of initiation. However, only 154 of them reported exports to the Community during the investigation period. Account taken of the aforesaid number of companies, the Commission decided to apply sampling in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. Consequently, a sample of 13 Chinese exporting producers was chosen, representing around 25% of the export volume to the Community of the Chinese companies cooperating with the proceeding. The Chinese authorities gave their full agreement to the sample chosen. The Commission, during 2005, sought all information deemed necessary and verified all information submitted in the MET claim at the premises of the 12 Chinese companies selected in the sample. One Chinese exporting producer did not submit a questionnaire reply subsequent to having had its request for MET examined. The company's MET submission was consequently considered void and the company was excluded from the sample. Vietnam Following the initiation of the proceeding, 114 producers in Vietnam came forward, out of which 86 exporting producers provided the requested information within the given deadline set in the notice of initiation. However, only 81 of them reported exports to the Community during the investigation period. Account taken of the aforesaid number of companies, the Commission decided to apply sampling in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. Consequently, a sample of 8 Vietnamese exporting producers was chosen, representing around 22% of the export volume to the Community of the Vietnamese companies cooperating with the proceeding. The Vietnamese authorities gave their full agreement to the sample chosen. The Commission, during 2005, sought all information deemed necessary and verified all information submitted in the MET claim at the premises of the 8 Vietnamese companies selected in the sample. The Commission conclude that none of the Vietnamese sampled companies fulfilled the conditions for granting MET. In particular, six companies failed to demonstrate that their business decisions were made in response to market signals and without significant State interference. Seven companies failed to prove that they had one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes. Finally, all companies failed to demonstrate that there are no distortions carried over from the non-market economy system. The Vietnamese companies were requested to provide their comments on the aforesaid conclusions but the arguments submitted did not challenge their validity. Injury and causation of injury As far as Community producers are concerned, the Commission selected a sample of 10 producers. The sample reflected the size and importance of the various producing companies, as well as the geographical spread of the industry in the Community. It represented around 10% of the production of the complaining Community producers. During 2005, the Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified all information submitted at the premises of the 10 Community producers selected in the sample. Community interest Representations were received from importers/distributors/retailers or organisations of distributors/retailers which were in general against the imposition of any measures on the product under investigation. During 2005, the Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified all information submitted at the premises of 6 unrelated importers in the Community. 8.1.2. Provisional measures In 2005, provisional duties were imposed in 15 anti-dumping proceedings. They involved imports from 8 different countries. As shown in Table 1 (see point 7.1), this figure compares to 6 in 2004 and 10 in 2003. The alphabetical list of cases where provisional measures were imposed during 2005 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[20] and level of measure | Barium carbonate | P.R. China | AD : 20,6-60,8% | Finished polyester filament apparel fabrics | P.R. China | AD : 20-85,30% | Granular polytetrafluoro-ethylene (PTFE) | P.R. China Russia | AD : 62,7% AD : 36,6% | Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts | P.R. China | AD : 29,7-49,6% | Magnesia bricks | P.R. China | AD : 11,2-66,1% | Salmon | Norway | AD : 6,8-24,5% | Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof | P.R. China Indonesia Taiwan Thailand Vietnam | AD : 11,4-27,4% AD : 9,8-24,6% AD : 8,8-23,6% AD : 10,8-15,9% AD : 7,7% | Tartaric acid | P.R. China | AD : 2,4-34,9% | Trichloroisocyanuric acid | P.R. China USA | AD : 9,2-40,3% AD : 20,8-33,8% | 8.1.3. Definitive measures 8.1.3.1. Overview During 2005, definitive duties were imposed in 19 anti-dumping cases. They involved imports from 8 different countries and covered 11 products. The People’s Republic of China featured with 9 investigations, followed by Russia, Vietnam and the USA with 2 investigations each and Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Taiwan and Thailand with 1 investigation each. The alphabetical list of cases where definitive measures were imposed during 2005 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. Annex D also gives some additional information on import and consumption volumes. Product | Originating from | Type[21] and level of measure | Barium carbonate | P.R. China | AD : 6,3-56,4% | Bicycles | Vietnam | AD : 15,8-34,5% | Castings | P.R. China | AD : 0-47,8% | Finished polyester filament fabrics | P.R. China | AD : 14,1-56,2% | Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel | USA Russia | AD : 31,5-37,8% AD : 0-11,5% | Granular polytetrafluoro-ethylene (PTFE) | P.R. China Russia | AD : 55,5% AD : 36,6% | Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts | P.R. China | AD : 7,6-46,7% | Magnesia bricks | P.R. China | AD : 2,7-39,9% | Polyester staple fibres | P.R. China Saudi Arabia | AD : 4,9-49,7% AD : 20,9% | Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof | P.R. China Indonesia Taiwan Thailand Vietnam | AD : 11,4-27,4% AD : 9,8-24,6% AD : 8,8-23,6% AD : 10,8-14,6% AD : 7,7% | Trichloroisocyanuric acid | P.R. China USA | AD : 7,3-42,6% AD : 7,4-25% | 8.1.3.2. Details on individual cases (in alphabetical order) 1. Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts from the People’s Republic of China In April 2004, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding on imports into the Community of hand pallet trucks (HPT), not self propelled, used for the handling of materials normally placed on pallets, and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC). The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by four Community producers (the 'Community industry') representing more than 60% of the total Community production of HPT. The Commission imposed provisional measures in January 2005 and definitive measures were imposed by the Council in July 2005. The rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty ranged from 7,6% to 46,7%. Dumping Since the PRC is an economy in transition, an appropriate analogue country had to be used in order to establish normal value for exporting producers not granted Market Economy Treatment (MET). Canada was chosen for that purpose. Four Chinese exporting producers representing some 53% of HPT imports in the Community co-operated with the investigation. One of them was granted MET, the other three were rejected because they did not fulfil the criterion concerning accounting. However, all three were granted Individual Treatment (IT) since export prices and quantities were freely determined. The dumping margins established for the four co-operating exporting producers ranged from 7,6% to 39,9%, whilst the rate for non-cooperating exporting producers was set to 46,7%. Injury and causation of injury Between 2000 and March 2004 (the end of the 12 months investigation period), all relevant injury indicators of the Community industry showed negative development. In particular negative was the development of production (33% drop), sales volume (24% drop), market share (34% drop) and profitability (losses of more than 2% incurred during the investigation period). All these coincided with a sharp increase of dumped imports (138%) during a period where consumption increased only by 17%. The market share of the dumped imports increased from 28% in 2000 to 57% in the investigation period. No other factor than the dumped imports was found to contribute to the injury suffered by the Community industry. For example, during the period considered other imports decreased both in volume and market share, the latter dropped to 4% in the investigation period. Community interest No reasons which could justify the non-imposition of measures in the interest of the Community industry were established. In fact, the investigation established that importers/traders, which normally are more affected by the measures, enjoy a very high mark-up leading to net profits of up to 50% on turnover. Thus, the imposition of measures was not expected to affect their HPT operations. In addition, for many of them, HPT represent only a small part of their business. As to users, given the existing high mark-up of importers/traders, it was not expected that the effect of the measures would be passed on to them to any significant degree. 2. Finished polyester filament fabrics from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) The case was initiated on 17 June 2004 following a request lodged by AIUFFASS, an affiliate of Euratex, on behalf of seven individual producers. This is a case in which the complainants requested and were granted anonymity. Indeed, some of the complainants purchase raw materials from Chinese suppliers and the request for anonymity was considered justified as the complainants could provide evidence that disclosure of their details would cause significant adverse effects and risk of retaliation. Nevertheless, access to files and the rights of defence were fully guaranteed. There were a high number of exporting producers in the PRC and sampling was therefore employed. The eight largest exporting producers representing over 50% of the total export volume were selected in the final sample. The case was however further complicated by the fact that an additional 41 exporting producers in the PRC requested market economy treatment (MET). A desk analysis was carried out with all of the producers but on the spot verifications had to be limited to the eight companies included in the sample. Out of the eight companies subject to on the spot verifications, only three met the legal requirements necessary to obtain MET. The investigation revealed a number of state-induced competitive distortions as regards the five companies that could not be granted MET. These mainly consisted of distortions carried over from the former non market economy system, limiting the freedom of the companies or conferring advantages on them as well as insufficient enforcement of the companies' adherence to internationally accepted accounting rules. As regards the remaining 41 companies, 22 companies could successfully demonstrate that the MET criteria were met. The remaining companies were not granted MET, mainly because they were either found to be subject to the mentioned significant anti-competitive distortions, or they did not sufficiently co-operate in the investigation by submitting the necessary information to prove conformity with the legal requirements. All exporting producers requesting MET did also request to be granted individual treatment (IT) in the event that their MET application would not be granted. An additional seven companies requested IT only. Out of the 19 companies for which MET was rejected, 13 could instead be granted IT as they could successfully demonstrate that their export prices were determined without state intervention. Out of the eleven companies only requesting IT, five were found to fulfil the criteria and were thus granted IT. Definitive measures were imposed on 17 September 2005 with duties ranging between 14,1% and 56,2%. The country wide duty mainly applicable to the non-cooperating parties was established at 56,2%. 3. Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA) from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the USA The proceeding concerning imports of TCCA originating in China was initiated on 10 July 2004. The case was extended in October 2004 to cover the same product originating in USA. The proceeding was based on a complaint lodged by CEFIC, an association representing a major share, namely more than 50% in this case, of the Community production of TCCA. Six exporting producers in China and two in the USA cooperated with the investigation. Three Chinese companies fulfilled all the criteria to be granted Market Economy Treatment (MET) whereas the MET claims made by the other 3 companies could not be accepted. The reason that MET could not be granted was based, for one company on the failure to fulfil the criterion which requires that business decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant state interference and where costs reflect market values. The second company also failed this criterion and was furthermore not able to demonstrate a clear set of independently audited accounting records, nor could they show that there were no distortions of production costs and financial situation carried over from former non-market economy system. The third company could not be granted MET as it could not demonstrate a clear set of independently audited accounting records. Also with this company, the investigation revealed distortions of production costs and financial situation carried over from former non-market economy system. One of the companies which were not granted MET however demonstrated that it fulfilled the criteria to be granted individual treatment (IT) as the verification established that there was no interference in the export price setting. For the companies not granted MET, Japan was selected as the analogue country because it was the only country producing the product concerned not involved in the proceeding. The investigation showed the existence of competition-distorting dumping which caused injury to the Community industry and therefore the imposition of anti-dumping measures was warranted. The injury margins were in all cases higher than the dumping margins for China and lower than the ones found for the USA. Provisional measures were imposed in April 2005. Definitive measures were imposed on 3 October 2005. The final anti-dumping duty rates for the Chinese co-operating companies were set at the level of the injury margins, namely between 7,3 and 40,5%. The duty for all other companies was set at a level of 42,6%. For the USA, the final rates were 7,4% and 8,1% for the two co-operating companies and the country-wide duty, namely the duty for any other company, was set at 25%. 4. Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof from the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam In August 2004, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding on imports into the Community of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof (SSF) originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC), Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (EIFI) on behalf of Community producers representing more than 50% of the total Community production of stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof. Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof are bolts, nuts and screws of stainless steel which are used to mechanically join two or more elements. During the course of the investigation, Community producers and importers provided evidence to warrant the exclusion of nuts from the product scope. Indeed, nuts and bolts are neither developed nor produced and sold together, whilst the Community industry did not keep the necessary machinery to produce nuts and did not intend to produce them in the future. Thus, nuts were excluded for the purposes of this proceeding from the definition of SSF, the product concerned. As both the PRC and Vietnam are economies in transition, an appropriate analogue country had to be used for the purpose of establishing normal value of exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not granted Market Economy Treatment (MET). Taiwan was chosen as the appropriate analogue country as is one of the biggest worldwide producers of the product concerned and has a representative domestic market with a wide range of products and a significant level of competition. The Commission imposed provisional measures in May 2005 and definitive measures were imposed in November 2005 by the Council. The definitive anti-dumping duty ranges from 11,4% to 27,4% for the PRC, 9,8% to 24,6% for Indonesia, 8,8% to 23,6% for Taiwan, 10,8% to 14,6% for Thailand and 7,7% for Vietnam. Certain duty rates were based on the injury elimination level which was found lower than the dumping margin. The proceeding was terminated for Malaysia (no dumping was found) and the Philippines (no exports to the EC of the product concerned following the exclusion of nuts). The People’s Republic of China (PRC) Two Chinese co-operating exporting producers, representing around 85% of imports from the PRC, co-operated with the investigation. Both companies requested MET. One company was not granted MET due to significant accounting flows. The other company was in a start up phase and did not maintain any short of financial accounts. It was therefore not possible to conclude whether it fulfilled the requirements for granting MET. Both companies requested and were granted Individual Treatment (IT) as they were able to prove that their export prices and quantities were freely determined. Therefore, dumping calculations were based on the companies' export prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned and on the normal value established on the basis of verified information received from the producers in Taiwan which was chosen as analogue country. The dumping margins found were 21,5% and 12,2% respectively, and for all other companies 27,4%. Indonesia For the sole Indonesian co-operating exporting producer, representing around 60% of Indonesian exports to the Community, the definitive dumping margin was 9,8%. The dumping margin was calculated on the basis of constructed normal value and export prices actually paid or payable of the product concerned. For all other companies the dumping margin was set at 24,6% Another Indonesian exporting producer had initially replied to the questionnaire sent by the commission but at a later stage of the proceeding stopped co-operating with the investigation as it terminated its business activities. Taiwan Sampling provisions were applied for exporting producers in Taiwan due to the large number of companies that co-operated with the investigation. Five companies were selected as a sample representing the largest representative volume of exports which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. For the five co-operating exporting producers, representing around 22% of Taiwanese exports to the Community, the dumping margins ranged between 11,4% and 18,8%. For one sampled exporting producer, the dumping margin was established by using partial facts available because of serious problems in the data reported in the domestic sales and costs. The dumping margin for non sampled co-operating exporting producers was set at 15,8% and for all other companies at 23,6%. Thailand For the four Thai co-operating exporting producers, representing 100% of Thai exports to the Community, the definitive dumping margins ranged from 10,8% to 14,6%. In view of the high level of co-operation, the dumping margin for all other companies was set at 14,6%. The dumping margins were calculated on the basis of constructed normal value and export prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned. Vietnam One Vietnamese exporting producer requested MET or IT in case that the former would not be granted. The Commission concluded that the company did not fulfil the conditions for granting MET. The company could not demonstrate that its business decisions and costs were made in response to market conditions without significant state interference. Furthermore, the company's financial accounts were not published in good time and were not properly audited. The company did not fulfil the requirements for IT either. Export sales quantities were not freely determined by the company but fixed by the State in the company's business license. Furthermore, the company could not prove that information on exports to the Community via a related Taiwanese company referred to products manufactured in Vietnam and exported to the Community. Two other Vietnamese producers claimed IT but did not provide the requested information. They were therefore considered as non co-operators and they were not granted IT. The dumping margin calculation for Vietnam was based on Eurostat import statistics and the normal value established on the basis of verified information received from the producers in Taiwan which was chosen as analogue country. The definitive dumping margin for all Vietnamese companies was 7,7%. Injury and causation of injury Injury to the Community industry was essentially caused by the following factors: (i) Volume injury : dumped imports from the countries concerned (PRC, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam) grew strongly, i.e. by 96% over the injury analysis period (January 2001 till June 2004) as compared with just a 24% growth in Community consumption. This development mainly took place after the lapse of the previous anti-dumping measures in 2003. The Community industry suffered a significant loss of market share (14% decrease); this decline coincided in time with corresponding gains for the countries concerned. (ii) Price injury : due to intense price pressure caused by the imports of the product concerned, the Community industry never reached, on average, adequate profitability levels. Although the profit margins of the Community industry improved in the IP, this was largely attributable to exceptional circumstances (steel price speculation). Their customers were ready to accept higher SSF prices anticipating further price increases of the main raw material. Production costs for the Community industry did not rise immediately (stocks of old steel), thus further improving profits. However, following the IP the costs increased and profits of the Community industry fell again. Imports of the product concerned from the countries concerned were clearly identified as the essential cause of the injury sustained by the Community industry. Imports from other countries did not contribute to this negative situation. In fact, overall other third countries lost market share over the period considered (22% decrease). Community interest There were a number of importers/distributors around the Community, which in general had reservations about the imposition of measures. However, these companies were buying and selling SSF from different sources around the world, including the Community industry. Furthermore, the investigation established that they were significantly more profitable than the Community industry. Therefore, the imposition of any measures would not affect them much. Users and consumers were practically not affected by measures, because SSF did not contribute materially to their costs. Overall, it was therefore in the Community interest to redress unfair competition caused by dumping practices. 8.1.4. Investigations terminated without measures 8.1.4.1. Overview 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 therefrom, measures not in the interest of the Community). In 2005, 10 new anti-dumping proceedings (0 anti-subsidy proceedings) were concluded without measures, compared to 2 in 2004 and 21 in 2003. The alphabetical list of cases which were terminated without the imposition of measures during 2005 can be found below. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex E. Product (type of investigation[22]) | Originating from | Main reason for termination | Polyester high tenacity filament yarn (AD) | Belarus Korea (Rep. of) Taiwan | - Zero dumping margin - Below de minimis dumping margin - Lack of causal link between dumping and injury | Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof (AD) | Malaysia Philippines | - No dumping - No dumping | Steel ropes and cables (AD) | Korea (Rep. of) | Below de minimis dumping margin | Styrene-butadiene-styrene thermoplastic rubber (AD) | Korea (Rep. of) Russia | - Below de minimis dumping margin - Lack of causal link between dumping and injury | Tube or pipe fittings (AD) | Taiwan Vietnam | Withdrawal of the complaint | 8.1.4.2. Details on individual cases (in chronological order) 1. Styrene-butadiene-styrene thermoplastic rubber (SBS) from the Republic of Korea and Russia The investigation was initiated in May 2004, in parallel with an interim review of the measures in force on imports of SBS originating in Taiwan, following a complaint and request lodged by the Community industry (CEFIC).In order to be able to fully assess the impact of allegedly dumped imports from the countries concerned on the situation of the Community industry, both proceedings were combined. As regards the new anti-dumping proceeding, no measures were proposed at the provisional stage as the Commission decided to continue the investigation to further examine certain aspects of injury, causation and Community interest. SBS is a chemical product based mainly on styrene and butadiene which is used for the thermo modification of bitumen for asphalt and roofing membranes, for technical and footwear compounding, plastic modification and adhesives. The Community consumption was established at around 180.000 tonnes in 2004. Dumping The investigation showed that imports from Russia were dumped (31,7%), whereas only de minimis dumping was found for Korea. As regards imports from Taiwan, the investigation revealed that one Taiwanese exporting producer continued to sell at dumped prices (16,2%). For the other Taiwanese cooperating producer, only de minimis dumping was established. It should be noted, however, that those two Taiwanese cooperating producers represented only around 30% of imports to the Community during the original investigation. Thus, the majority of Taiwanese producers were subject to the residual dumping margin of 20% and ceased exporting after the imposition of measures. Injury and causation In the context of an overall declining Community consumption (by 7%), the situation of the Community industry deteriorated during 2000 and 2004 showing a negative development for nearly all injury indicators: sales declined by 15%, market shares dropped from 89% to 82%, the profit level was only 1,2% in the IP, prices decreased slightly, production decreased by 4%, stocks rose by 60% and capacity utilisation fell to 75%. This overall deterioration was also reflected in the decreasing employment and in the very negative cash-flow situation during the IP. It thus had to be assessed whether the material injury found was caused by the dumped imports from Russia and from one Taiwanese exporting producer found to dump. The market share of those dumped imports increased from 1,5% in 2000 to 5,3% in the IP and prices undercut those of the Community industry by around 15%. At first sight, there thus seemed to have been a significant impact of those dumped imports. However, a further examination showed that there was no clear coincidence in time between the deterioration of the Community industry's situation and the dumped imports as the development of some key injury indicators did not overlap with the developments of dumped imports. Even more important, it was found that non-dumped imports from Korea and the second cooperating Taiwanese company which was not found to dump increased considerably over the period considered and represented 2,4 times the volume of dumped imports during the IP, reaching a market share of 12,8% in the IP. At the same time, those non-dumped imports undercut Community industry's prices at a higher level than the dumped imports, thereby exerting an even stronger price pressure on the Community industry's prices. Moreover, it could not be excluded that the overall decline of consumption also contributed to the material injury suffered by the Community industry. On this basis, it could not be considered that the dumped imports, taken in isolation, have caused material injury as it appeared that injury could indeed significantly be attributed to other factors, i.e. the effects of non-dumped imports and contraction in demand. Lasting nature of the changed circumstances with regard to imports from Taiwan Within the framework of the interim review concerning Taiwan, it was examined whether the changed circumstances could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature. The investigation showed that the Taiwanese exporting producers sold considerable quantities to their well developed domestic market as well as to third country markets. Prices were found to have increased steadily and thus, it was not expected that dumping was likely to recur after the measures were terminated. The changed circumstances found with regard to imports from Taiwan were consequently considered to be lasting. Proposal for termination In the light of the above findings, the two proceedings were terminated without the imposition of measures as regards imports from Korea and Russia and the existing anti-dumping measures on imports originating in Taiwan were repealed. 2. Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof from Malaysia and the Philippines In August 2004, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding on imports into the Community of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof (SSF) originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC), Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (EIFI) on behalf of Community producers representing more than 50% of the total Community production of stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof. (see also 8.1.3.2 – point 4) The Commission imposed provisional measures in May 2005 and definitive measures were imposed in November 2005 by the Council on the imports from the PRC, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. Malaysia For the two Malaysian co-operating exporting producers, representing 100% of Malaysian exports to the Community, no dumping was found. Consequently, the proceeding was terminated for imports of the product concerned originating in Malaysia. The Philippines As all exports from the Philippines to the Community consisted of nuts, which were not regarded as part of the product concerned, no dumping margins could be calculated. Consequently, the proceeding was terminated for imports of the product concerned originating in the Philippines. 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 2005, 27 measures, of which 7 countervailing measures, were allowed to expire automatically. The references for these measures are set out in Annex N. Since the expiry (or "sunset") provision of the basic Regulations came into force in 1985, a total of 405 measures have been allowed to expire automatically. 8.2.1.1. Initiations During 2005, 23 expiry review investigations were initiated. It should be noted that investigations initiated after 20 March 2004 are now under deadline, i.e. conclusions should be reached within 12 months but not later than 15 months from the date of initiation. The alphabetical list of these cases can be found below, 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[23]) | Originating from | Complainant | Deadburned (sintered) magnesia (AD) | P.R. China | Eurométaux | Ethanolamines (AD) | USA | European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) | Polyester staple fibres (AD) | Australia Indonesia Thailand | Comité International de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques (CIRFS) | Polyester staple fibres (AD) | India | Comité International de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques (CIRFS) | Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AD)* | India Indonesia Korea (Rep. of) Malaysia Taiwan Thailand | PET Committee of PlasticsEurope | Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) | India | PET Committee of PlasticsEurope | Potassium chloride (AD)* | Belarus Russia | European Association of Potash Producers (APEP) | Silicon carbide (AD)* | P.R. China Russia Ukraine | European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) | Television camera systems (AD) | Japan | Grass Valley | Urea and ammonium nitrate solutions (AD) | Algeria Belarus Russia Ukraine | European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA) | 8.2.1.2. Reviews concluded with confirmation of duty(ies) During 2005, 7 expiry reviews concluded that there was a need for the duties to continue for a further 5 years. The alphabetical list of the cases which were concluded with confirmation of duty during 2005, 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 | Antibiotics (AS)* | India | Confirmation and lowering of AS duty : 17,1-32% | Furfuraldehyde | P.R. China | Confirmation of AD duty : EUR 352 per tonne | Magnesium oxide | P.R. China | Confirmation of AD duty : depending on mechanism - difference between the minimum import price of EUR 112 per tonne and the net free-at-Community frontier price - between 0-27,1% | Steel ropes and cables | P.R. China India South Africa Ukraine | Confirmation of AD duty : 60,4% Confirmation of AD duty : 23,8-30,8% Confirmation of AD duty : 38,6% Confirmation of AD duty : 51,8% | Details on some individual cases (in chronological order) 1. Antibiotics from India (anti-subsidy investigation) In October 2003, the Commission initiated an interim and expiry review on imports into the Community of certain broad spectrum antibiotics (namely amoxicillin trihydrate, ampicillin trihydrate and cefalexin not put in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail) originating in India (the 'product concerned'). The review request was made by two major Community producers of certain broad spectrum antibiotics which accounted for a Community market share of over 40% (the 'Community industry'). The original definitive countervailing duty was in place since October 1998 at duty levels between 0% and 14,6%. This timing actually made this investigation the first one to conclude with the continuation of countervailing measures since the coming into force of the anti-subsidy basic Regulation in 1996. The review investigation revealed the continuation of injurious subsidisation at a higher level. Therefore, definitive measures were prolonged in May 2005 at increased levels. The countervailing duty now ranges from 17,3% to 32%. Certain duty rates were based on the injury elimination level which was found lower than the subsidy rate. Subsidisation Various nationwide and regional Indian subsidy schemes were investigated. High subsidy rates have in particular been established for three EXIM-policy schemes (a major Indian tool to stimulate exports, since 2005 called 'Foreign Trade Policy'), namely the Advance License Scheme (ALS), which has been identified as countervailable for the first time, the Export Oriented Units Scheme (EOUS) and the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS). Those EXIM-policy schemes are not in line with WTO-obligations (no permitted duty drawback systems). Some other countervailable subsidies, which were not examined in the original investigation, were identified as well, notably the Export Credit Scheme (ECS), which provide preferential export financing, income tax privileges in the form of the deduction of fictitious R&D expenses and regional subsidy schemes of the Gujarati and Punjabi governments (notably sales and purchase tax exemptions). The new subsidy rates ranged from 25,3% to 35,1%. Injury and causation of injury Injury to the Community industry was essentially caused by the following factors: (i) Price Injury : intense price pressure caused by the subsidised Indian imports prevented the Community Industry from achieving acceptable profitability levels. Indeed, despite the existence of measures, the Community industry had never been able to achieve non-injurious price levels over the injury analysis period (January 1999 to March 2003). (ii) Volume injury : furthermore, imports from India grew at a much faster pace than the EC sales volume of the Community industry. India increased its EC market share over the period considered by 70% and this growth in market share continued to be very dynamic. Subsidised imports of the product concerned from India were clearly identified as the essential cause of the injury sustained by the Community industry. In particular, imports from other countries did not contribute to this negative situation. Community interest Neither importers nor suppliers or users, which in any event showed only very little interest in this proceeding, put forward any facts which could have outweighed from an overall Community interest perspective the interest to redress unfair competition caused by State intervention in the form of countervailable subsidies. 2. Steel ropes and cables from the People’s Republic of China, India, South Africa and Ukraine Background This review proceeding was initiated on 17 August 2004 following a request by the Liaison Committee of European Union Wires Rope Industries (EWRIS). Definitive measures had been imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1769/1999 of 12 August 1999. Measures are also in place concerning Russia, Thailand and Turkey since 2001. It was further found that circumvention of the original measures concerning the Ukraine and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) took place via respectively Moldova and via Morocco. Consequently, the relevant anti-dumping duties were extended to these countries in 2004. The reason why such a large number of countries is covered by measures has to do with the very nature of this industry (SMEs, highly fragmented, relatively low capital intensity), which facilitates legal industrial nomadism (moving one producing facility from one country to another country) and circumvention. As far as the four countries under review are concerned, anti-dumping duties are as follows: 60,5 % for the PRC, between 23,8 and 30,8% for India, 38,6% for South Africa and 51,8% for Ukraine. It should be noted that one producer in India and one producer in South Africa benefit from a price undertaking. Results of the review investigation Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping During the review investigation period (RIP), imports of steel wire ropes from the four countries concerned alltogether represented 4,4% of the Community market share. Specifically, India, China, South-Africa and Ukraine held a market share of respectively 2,2%, 1,1%, 0,1% and 1% of the Community market during the RIP. Continuation of significant dumping was found in all cases. It is noted that significant dumping was found for India and South Africa, although these exports have been made in the framework of the undertakings in force and although the minimum prices of these undertakings were respected during the RIP. No cooperation could be obtained from exporting producers located in the Ukraine. For the examination as to whether dumping would likely continue or recur should the anti-dumping measures be repealed, spare capacities and accumulated stocks as well as pricing and export strategies in different markets were analysed. This examination revealed that there were important spare capacities and accumulated stocks in all exporting countries concerned. It was further found that export prices to other third countries were generally of a significantly lower level than those to the Community market and that therefore the Community remained an attractive market for the exporting producers of all countries concerned. It was therefore concluded that imports from all countries would very likely be redirected to the Community should the access to the Community market be without restrictions. An analysis of the pricing strategies of all countries concerned revealed furthermore that these exports would most likely be made at dumped prices. Indeed, given the substantial dumping margins found, even if export prices would increase after the repeal of measures, they would be most likely still at dumped levels. In the case of China and Ukraine, these conclusions were reinforced by the fact that for both countries circumvention of existing measures was found which indicated that exports from these countries were not able to compete in the Community market at fair prices. In the case of India and South Africa, any increase in export prices would even be unlikely given that exports during the RIP were made right at the level of the undertaking prices i.e. the measures directly influenced the pricing behaviour of the exporters concerned. Considering the above, it was established for all countries concerned that dumping would likely continue or recur should measures be allowed to expire. Likelihood of recurrence of injury This industry is characterised by its high degree of fragmentation. It is composed of a multitude of Small and Medium Sized enterprises (at least 30 companies in the Community), spread over virtually all Member States. During the four years covered by the review investigation, the respective market shares of the Community industry on the one hand and of the four countries concerned on the other hand showed very little movement. This means that the imposition of measures has achieved one of its goals, that is to put a halt to the deterioration in the market shares held by the Community industry, and that this later has not unduly benefited from the measures against the countries concerned. As to injury indicators, some positive developments have been observed : capacity, inventories, unit sales price, profitability, cash-flow and unit labour costs increased. However, a number of negative developments were also observed : production and sales volume, capacity utilisation, employment and productivity declined. In addition, when one compares the trends evidenced in this review with the ones described in the earlier Regulations imposing provisional and definitive measures, it is clear that the introduction of the anti-dumping measures in 1999 concerning imports from India, the PRC, Ukraine and South Africa had a positive impact on the economic situation of the Community industry. Overall, if the situation of the Community industry has improved slightly, it is still far from being robust as evidenced in particular by its still negative profitability. In conclusion and given also the findings on the recurrence of dumping, it is therefore legitimate to conclude that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in the recurrence of the injury to the Community industry. No co-operation was obtained neither from individual importers, nor from users. Therefore, no compelling reasons, in terms of Community interest, could be found against the continuation of the anti-dumping measures. Outcome Given the above findings, the measures in place concerning the four countries concerned and their extension to Morocco and Moldova have been confirmed at the same rate and under the same form for another five year term. 8.2.1.3. Reviews concluded by termination During 2005, no expiry reviews were concluded by termination. 8.2.2. Interim reviews Article 11(3) and Article 19 of the basic Regulations provide for the review of measures during their period of validity on the initiative of the Commission, at the request of a Member State or, provided that at least one year has elapsed since the imposition of the definitive measure, following a request containing sufficient evidence by an exporter, an importer or by the Community producers. In carrying out the investigations, it is being considered, inter alia , whether the circumstances with regard to dumping/subsidization and injury have changed significantly. Reviews can be limited to dumping/subsidization or injury aspects. During 2005, a total of 22 interim reviews were initiated. Eighteen interim reviews were concluded with confirmation or amendment of duty and 3 investigations were concluded thereby terminating the measures. The alphabetical list of cases which were concluded during 2005, together with the result of the investigation, can be found below. It should be noted that some interim reviews may be carried out in parallel with expiry 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 G. Product | Originating from | Result of the investigation/ Type[25] and level of measure | Ammonium nitrate | Russia Ukraine | Amendment of the AD regulation imposing the measures in order to include new product types | Antibiotics (AS)* | India | Amendment of the AD duty | 8.2.3. “Other” interim reviews A series of other reviews, not falling under Article 11(3) or Article 19 of the basic Regulations or for which no notice of initiation was published in the Official Journal, were concluded during 2005. They more specifically concern : - Acceptance, voluntary withdrawal or breach of undertakings (polyester staple fibres, urea) - Suspension of the measures and extension of the suspension of the measures (seamless pipes and tubes) - Amendment of the annex of the regulation in order to include new models (television camera systems) - Clarification of the product description (DRAMs) More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex H. 8.2.4. New exporter reviews As far as the anti-dumping measures are concerned, Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation allows for a review ("newcomer" review) to be carried out in order to determine individual margins of dumping for new exporters located in the exporting country in question which did not export the product during the investigation period. Such parties have to show that they are genuine new exporters, i.e. that they are not related to any of the exporters or producers in the exporting country, which are subject to the anti-dumping measures, and that they have actually started to export to the Community following the investigation period, or that they have entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community. When a review for a new exporter is initiated, the duties are repealed wi