Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98 of 16 February 1998 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand
Date: 1998-02-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Asia, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import policy, manufactured goods, steel

20. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 50/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 393/98

of 16 February 1998

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel fasteners
and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China, India, the
Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

(5)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped
imports from countries not members of the European
Community (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commis-
sion after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

Parties were informed of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was
intended to recommend the imposition of defin-
itive anti-dumping duties and the definitive collec-
tion of amounts secured by way of provisional
duties. They were also granted a period within
which to make representations subsequent to this
disclosure.

(6)

The oral and written comments were considered
and, where deemed appropriate, taken into account
in the definitive findings.

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

C. PRODUCT

CONCERNED
PRODUCT

AND

LIKE

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

By Commission Regulation (EC) No 1732/97 (2)
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the provisional duty
Regulation') provisional anti-dumping duties were
imposed on imports into the Community of stain-
(hereafter
fasteners and parts thereof
less steel
called SSFs) falling within CN codes 7318 12 10,
7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61,
7318 15 70 and 7318 16 30 originating in the
People’s Republic of China, India, the Republic of
Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand.

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

Following the imposition of the provisional anti-
dumping measures,
certain interested parties
submitted comments in writing.

Those parties who so requested were granted an
opportunity to be heard by the Commission.

The Commission continued to seek and verify all
information deemed necessary for its definitive
findings.

(1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regula-

tion (EC) No 2331/96 (OJ L 317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1).

(2) OJ L 243, 4. 9. 1997, p. 17.

(7)

(8)

(9)

For the purposes of its preliminary findings the
Commission considered stainless steel
fasteners
produced and sold in India, Malaysia, the Republic
of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand and those exported
to the Community from the countries concerned
those produced and sold in the
as well as
Community by Community producers, as
like
products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereafter called ‘the
Basic Regulation') as they have the same basic
physical, chemical and technical characteristics
and uses.

It has again been claimed by some exporters (as
prior to the imposition of provisional measures)
that nuts imported from the countries concerned
should be excluded from the investigation on the
basis that there is little or no production of nuts
within the Community.

However, as at the provisional stage, this allegation
is not confirmed by the results of the investigation
which has shown that nuts are manufactured by
the Community producers. It was not, therefore,
considered justifiable to exclude nuts from the
scope of the present proceeding.

L 50/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20. 2. 98

(10) One exporting Indian producer claimed that the
domestic sales of a certain type of high carbon
alloy steel screws made by that company should be
used to determine the normal value of some stain-
less steel screws exported to the Community on
the grounds
screws were
comparable. However the investigation has shown
that these different types of steel screws could not
be considered as like products since their physical
characteristics are different
the
exported product concerned. This claim was there-
fore rejected.

these types of

from those of

that

(11)

Several exporting producers in Taiwan contested
the fact that in the provisional duty Regulation
non-standard SSFs have been excluded from the
dumping calculations, although the Commission
considered these non-standard SSFs as a like
product. As already explained in recital 9 of the
provisional duty Regulation,
the Commission
considered standard SSFs to be sufficiently repres-
entative, i.e. more than 70 % of total exports of
SSFs to the Community to serve as a basis for the
determination
exports
dumping
concerned. This approach is confirmed for all
companies with the exception of one. For this
company the analysis revealed that non-standard
SSFs represented a large majority of its export sales
to the Community. It was therefore decided that
for this exporter the dumping calculations had to
be adjusted in order to include non-standard SSFs.

all

of

of

sales, did not allow a proper comparison with their
export prices.

In this respect, it was eventually found that normal
values based on the ex-works domestic prices of
the only cooperating Indian producer selling SSFs
on the domestic market were not comparable with
the export prices of the two exporting producers.
This was due to an incorrect classification by this
company of the different types of SSFs sold on the
domestic market which made the comparison
inappropriate.

For these two companies, the Commission there-
fore calculated a constructed normal value for all
types of SSFs exported to the Community during
the investigation period. This was done on the
basis of manufacturing costs of the exported types
plus a reasonable amount for sales, general and
administrative expenses (hereafter called ‘SG&A')
and profit. The methodology applied for the deter-
mination of
for SG&A and profit
remains the same as at the provisional stage, i.e. it
is based on the only cooperating producer selling
the product concerned on the Indian market.
However, since the normal value of this Indian
producer has changed, the amount for SG&A and
profit margin has been corrected accordingly.

the amount

(b) Republic of Korea

(12)

Since no other comments were received on the
definition of the ‘like product' the findings made
on the issue, as established in recital 11 of the
provisional duty Regulation, are confirmed.

(15)

In the absence of further arguments, the provi-
sional findings are hereby confirmed.

D. DUMPING

1. Normal value

(a) India

(13) One company claimed that the Commission had
wrongly determined its constructed normal value
by using an inaccurate allocation key in the calcu-
lation of cost of production. This claim was
rejected since the allocation key used by the
Community institution more accurately reflected
the raw material costs as compared to the one
proposed by the company concerned.

(14)

The other two cooperating exporting producers
claimed that the methodology used for the deter-
mination of normal value set out in recital 15 of
the provisional duty Regulation, i.e. to use, when-
ever possible, the weighted average ex-works prices
of the cooperating producer which had domestic

(c) Malaysia

(16) One Malaysian exporting producer contested the
methodology used in establishing SG&A and profit
margin when constructing normal value.
is
recalled that, in accordance with Article 2(6) of the
Basic Regulation, SG&A were based on the data
pertaining to this company while the profit margin
was based on the weighted average profit made by
the group to which the company belonged.

It

In this respect, it is considered that the fact that
the domestic sales are not made in representative
quantities is not in itself sufficient to disregard the
data pertaining to these sales in the context of
Article 2(6)(c) of
the Basic Regulation. In this
particular case, as far as SG&A are concerned, the
investigation showed that this company’s SG&A
proved to be in line with the average amount of
SG&A found for all companies investigated in the
proceeding as already explained in recital 18 of the
provisional duty Regulation. The use of this SG&A
was therefore considered to be the most reasonable
method. With regard to profits, as the company’s
profits differed greatly from those found for other
producers, which might result from the fact that

20. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 50/3

In

circumstances,

this company is a fully-owned subsidiary of a
foreign group, it was considered that the domestic
sales could not constitute a reasonable basis for this
determination.
the
these
the methodology
Commission considered that
used in the provisional duty Regulation (based on
the profit margin found in respect of the product
concerned for the group to which this company
the most appropriate means of
belonged) was
reflecting the economic reality of this company for
establishing profit realised on sales in Malaysia.
Consequently, the claim was rejected.

(17)

had

disregarded

The same company objected to the fact that the
Commission
unprofitable
domestic sales when calculating the profit margin
to be used in the constructed normal value. It
should be recalled that for certain product types
domestic sales made at a loss represented more
than 20 % of total domestic sales of this type.
Thus, sales made at a loss were not made in the
ordinary course of trade and could consequently
not be taken into consideration for the determina-
tion of the profit margin.

(d) Taiwan

(18)

Three exporting producers objected to the meth-
odology used to determine normal value as set out
in recital 20 of the provisional duty Regulation.
They argued that normal value should have been
constructed rather than being based on the prices
charged by other producers in Taiwan.

In accordance with Article 2(1) of the Basic Regu-
lation, normal value is normally based on domestic
prices. If an exporter does not make sufficient
domestic sales in the ordinary course of
trade,
normal value will be established on the basis of
other exporters’ sales prices for the comparable
product. Only in the absence of representative
domestic sales by other producers, or if such sales
prices are not
suitable, will normal value be
constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the
Basic Regulation. Moreover, the exporters in ques-
tion did not substantiate why the use of the other
exporters’ prices should not have been suitable.
Therefore, normal value was determined, wherever
possible, on the basis of the domestic prices of the
other Taiwanese companies.

(19)

Two exporting producers estimated that the profit
margin used for the constructed normal values was
too high and claimed that the Commission had
not provided sufficient information on the calcula-
tion method of this profit margin. In this respect,
it should be noted that the Commission provided a
summary table regarding the data used for the
calculation of the average profit margin. As these
data were taken from other Taiwanese companies,
no further details could be disclosed since,
in
accordance with Article 19(4) of the Basic Regula-

tion, disclosure must take into account the legit-
imate interests of the parties concerned that their
business secrets should not be divulged.

(20) As in Malaysia, one exporting producer claimed
that unprofitable domestic sales should be taken
into account when calculating the profit margin to
be used in constructed normal value. This request
was rejected on the grounds explained in recital 17
with regard to Malaysia.

(21)

Two related exporting producers contested that, in
the case of domestic sales made through a related
reselling company, normal value was established
on the basis of the prices at which the product was
first
resold to an independent customer. They
argued that, although these sales were made to a
related company, they were made at arm’s length
prices, i.e. they were in the ordinary course of trade
in the sense of the third paragraph of Article 2(1)
of
it was
requested that the prices paid by the related resell-
ing company be used in the calculation of normal
value. However, the analysis of prices of sales by
these two related producers to both related and
unrelated customers did not show that the prices to
these
the former were at arm’s length. Under
circumstances, this claim had to be rejected.

the Basic Regulation. Consequently,

(e) Thailand

(22) A Thai company claimed that certain amounts
related to export sales had been included in the
SG&A used for constructing the normal value and
that they should consequently be excluded. After
verification the Commission granted this request
and amended the calculations of
the costs of
production accordingly.

(23)

(24)

It should be noted that this amendment also influ-
enced the determinations for the second company
as these SG&A were used to construct its normal
value.

The same company claimed that the use of the
constructed normal value was not appropriate
where there were sales of similar types on the
domestic market. This claim could not be accepted
since the differences between the exported types
and the types proposed were of more than a minor
nature. Thus, a comparison on the basis proposed
by this company would have necessitated adjust-
ments for differences in physical characteristics of
the comparison would no
such an extent
longer have been accurate.

that

(25)

It should be noted that as far as the third Thai
company is concerned, which had been provision-
ally subject to an individual duty, it was finally not
possible to establish a definitive dumping margin
as it exported a negligible quantity of stainless steel
fasteners which were not produced in Thailand.

L 50/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20. 2. 98

(f) People’s Republic of China

(c) People’s Republic of China

(i) A n a l o g u e c o u n t r y

(i) I n d i v i d u a l

t r e a t m e n t

(26) One cooperating company in Hong Kong which
exported SSFs originating in the People’s Republic
of China proposed that its domestic sales in Hong
Kong be used to determine normal value for the
People’s Republic of China instead of data relating
to Taiwan, which was selected as an analogue
country. In the absence of new arguments to justify
the choice of Hong Kong as an analogue country
this company
and since the domestic sales of
represented less than 5 % of
the total Chinese
export sales to the Community, this proposal was
rejected.

(31)

The six cooperating companies which were refused
individual treatment reiterated their claim in this
respect. However, only one of the six companies
provided substantial additional evidence in support
of its claim. After a careful examination of this
evidence,
this company
enjoyed a degree of legal and factual independence
from the influence of the State comparable to that
which would prevail in a market economy country.
Individual treatment was therefore granted to this
company.

it was concluded that

(ii) A m e n d m e n t

t o n o r m a l v a l u e

(32)

(27)

For the company referred to in recital 26, it should
be noted that the amendments made to the Tai-
wanese normal value influenced the calculations of
its own normal value.

(g) Conclusion

(28)

The other findings made in recitals 12 to 28 of the
provisional duty Regulation concerning the deter-
mination of normal value are hereby confirmed.

2. Export price

(a) India

The other
five cooperating companies did not
provide relevant additional evidence in support of
their claim for individual treatment. It was there-
fore confirmed that
these companies were not
sufficiently independent from the Chinese State in
their operations, in particular in view of the fact
that four of them were joint ventures in which the
partner from the People’s Republic of China was a
State-owned enterprise. The remaining company
also failed to show that its operations were suffi-
ciently independent of the Chinese authorities.

Under these circumstances,
the claim for indi-
vidual treatment made by these five companies was
rejected.

(ii) U s e o f E u r o s t a t

a s e x p o r t p r i c e s

(29) As stated in recital 29 of

the

export prices of

the provisional duty
Regulation,
Indian
the
producer which sold the product concerned for
export through a trading company were established
on the basis of the prices it charged to the trading
company. This company contested the adjustments
made to these export prices. However, after verifi-
cation and in the light of all available information,
it was concluded that the approach taken at the
provisional stage was not appropriate as the price
charged to the trading company was not reliable
because of
the existence of an association or
compensatory arrangement between the producer
and this company. At the definitive stage export
prices were therefore based on the prices charged
to
in the
the
Community.

independent

customer

first

(b) Taiwan

(30) As no arguments were received except for those
relating to the changes
regarding the product
concerned mentioned under recital 8, the findings
set out in recital 33 of the provisional duty Regula-
tion are hereby confirmed.

(33)

Some interested parties contested the use of Euro-
stat by the Commission in the determination of
the export prices. These interested parties argued
that the Eurostat figures were greatly overestimated,
and that the seven cooperating companies in the
People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong in
reality accounted for the majority of the exports
concerned, and were therefore representative.

However, these interested parties failed to show the
alleged inaccuracy of Eurostat
figures and to
provide more reliable alternative data. Moreover,
the Commission investigated the accuracy of Euro-
stat data by contacting Eurostat, national custom
authorities, and the European importers concerned.
The outcome of this inquiry confirmed that Euro-
stat was the most reliable source of information for
the purpose of the current investigation. Therefore,
the methodology used in the provisional deter-
mination is confirmed.

(d) Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand

(34)

In the absence of new arguments, the provisional
findings are hereby confirmed.

20. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 50/5

3. Comparison

(a) India

(35)

(36)

For the two companies mentioned under recital 29,
in order
to make a fair comparison between
normal value and export price the latter had to be
adjusted to take account of the activities of the
trading company. Since its function can be consid-
ered to be similar to that of a trader acting on a
commission basis, an adjustment was made on the
basis of this company’s own SG&A and a reason-
for profit. This adjustment was
able amount
deducted from the prices charged by the trading
company
in the
to
Community.

independent

customers

These companies also alleged that
insufficient
allowance had been granted for duty drawback. In
this respect it should be noted that they failed to
submit conclusive evidence to substantiate the
claim that all stainless steel used for the produc-
tion of fasteners, including those sold domestically,
contained imported raw materials for which duties
were paid in accordance with Article 2(10)(b) of the
Basic Regulation. Therefore the position set out in
recital 42 of the provisional duty Regulation is
hereby confirmed.

(37) Of these two companies, the one which produced
and sold the product concerned on the domestic
market repeated the claim set out in recital 41 of
the provisional duty Regulation concerning adjust-
ment for credit costs. As the company concerned
did not supply new supporting evidence, the posi-
tion set out in recital 41 of the provisional duty
Regulation is hereby confirmed.

(38)

The same companies also claimed an adjustment
for level of trade on the grounds that domestic
sales were made to traders and end users whereas
the sales for export were made to traders only. The
companies provided sufficient evidence showing
that a part of domestic sales was made at a level of
sale different to export sales and that this differ-
ence affected price comparability. Indeed,
there
were consistent and distinct differences in the
functions and prices of the two companies for the
different levels of trade. Consequently, the claim
was granted and the calculation based on a
comparison of the domestic and export sales to
traders only where they were made in sufficient
quantities to be representative.

(b) Malaysia

(39) One Malaysian exporting producer claimed an
allowance for currency conversions on export sales
and requested that the exchange rate prevailing on
the payment date be used. This claim was rejected
on the grounds that, in accordance with Article
the relevant
2(10)(j) of

the Basic Regulation,

(40)

(41)

(42)

exchange rate can be either that on the date of
invoice, the date of contract, the date of purchase
order or the date of order confirmation, but not the
one valid for the date of payment.

(c) Taiwan

The exporting producers mentioned under recital
18 who had requested that normal value be
constructed rather than based on the prices of
other producers claimed that if this request were
rejected, an adjustment for differences in level of
trade should be made since the product concerned
was
sold to retailers on the domestic market
whereas the export product was sold to traders.
This claim was rejected since the prices used were
taken from producers who had already in compar-
able circumstances been refused the same kind of
level of trade adjustment.

Two related exporting producers claimed an allow-
ance for currency conversions similar to the one
discussed in recital 39. The claim was rejected on
the same grounds set out in that recital.

These two related companies claimed an allowance
for the credit cost of sales on the domestic market
and requested that
the actual payment date be
used. This claim was rejected on the grounds
already mentioned in recital 41 of the provisional
duty Regulation.

(d) Republic of Korea, Thailand, People’s Republic

of China

(43)

In the absence of new arguments, the provisional
methodology is hereby confirmed.

4. Dumping margins

(a) General

(44)

(45)

In the absence of any other new arguments
concerning the determination of
the dumping
margin, the methodology set out in recitals 45 to
47 of the provisional duty Regulation is hereby
confirmed. On this basis, the dumping margins are
as follows:

(b) India

the changes

In view of
in the calculations
mentioned above, it was found that, for the two
exporting producers in India which did not sell the
product concerned on the domestic market, there
was a pattern of export prices which differed
significantly among different time periods and that
a calculation based on weighted average would not
reflect the full degree of dumping being practised.
The new weighted average normal value was there-
fore compared to prices of all individual export
transactions.

L 50/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20. 2. 98

(46)

The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of
the cif price at Community frontier are as follows:

percentage of the cif price at Community frontier
is 7,0 %.

(cid:190) Audler Fasteners, Vasai

11,2 %

(cid:190) Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd, Rothak 19,8 %

(cid:190) Kundan Industries Ltd, Vasai/

Tata Export Ltd, Mumbai

47,4 %.

(51)

(47)

(48)

The dumping margin definitively established for
Indian exporters other than those cooperating in
this investigation, expressed as a percentage of the
cif price at Community frontier, is 59,4 %.

(c) Republic of Korea

In the absence of any comment from the sole
cooperating exporting producer
its
dumping margin remains unchanged; this margin,
expressed as a percentage of
the cif price at
Community frontier is as follows:

in Korea,

(cid:190) Daegil Trading Co. Ltd, Seoul

24,0 %

The definitive dumping margin established for
Korean exporting producers other
than those
cooperating in this investigation, expressed as a
percentage of the cif price at Community frontier
is 26,7 %.

(d) Malaysia

that

(49) One Malaysian exporting producer contested the
existence of a pattern in its export prices which
differed significantly among different time periods
in the sense of Article 2(11) of the Basic Regula-
tion. This exporter pointed out
the steady
decrease in its export prices during the period of
investigation could be explained by a parallel
decrease in the costs of raw materials. Should
monthly average costs instead of a yearly average
cost have been used in the dumping calculation,
the pattern mentioned above would have disap-
the evidence submitted the
peared. In view of
claim was accepted and the dumping margin for
this company was established on an average to
average basis for the purpose of definitive deter-
mination.

One company in Malaysia offered undertakings on
the basis of Article 8 of
the Basic Regulation.
However, after consultation with the Commission
the company withdrew its request.

The definitive dumping margins calculated for the
producers,
cooperating Malaysian
expressed as a percentage of
the cif price at
Community frontier, are as follows:

exporting

(cid:190) Tong Heer Fasteners Co.,

Sdn. Bhd., Penang

(cid:190) Tigges Stainless Steel Fasteners

(M) Sdn. Bhd.

7,0 %

5,7 %.

(e) Taiwan

Some non-cooperating exporting producers
in
Taiwan submitted information to the Commission
concerning their export prices in order to show
that, had these prices been used in the calculation
of the residual duty, this duty would have been
much lower. Whilst
these companies acknow-
ledged that
they should be considered as non-
cooperating parties, they requested that their data
nevertheless be taken into consideration as part of
the facts available in the sense of Article 18(1) of
the Basic Regulation. This claim is not acceptable
since it would consitute a bonus for non-coopera-
tion and could result in unreliable findings due to
selectively
information. Moreover,
pursuant to Article 18(3) of the Basic Regulation,
the information submitted by an interested party
should not be disregarded provided that, inter alia,
it is appropriately submitted in good time and it is
verifiable. However, none of these conditions is
fulfilled in the present case.

submitted

these related companies,

The same non-cooperating companies contested
that, whilst a single dumping margin had been
imposed on two related Taiwanese companies, the
residual duty was based on the individual margin
found for one of
this
found in Taiwan.
margin being the highest
However, the fact that an average dumping margin
is imposed on a group of related companies in
order to avoid circumvention does not have a
bearing on the determination of the duty applic-
able to non-cooperating companies. The claim was
therefore rejected.

For three exporting producers in Taiwan, the new
weighted average normal value was compared to
prices of all individual export transactions as it was
found that there was a pattern of export prices
which differed significantly among different time
periods and that a calculation based on weighted
average would not have reflected the full degree of
dumping being practised.

(52)

(53)

(54)

The definitive dumping margins established for
the cooperating Taiwanese exporting producers,
the cif price at
expressed as a percentage of
Community frontier, are as follows:

(cid:190) Arrow Fastener Co. Ltd/

Level Fastener Co. Ltd, Taipei

(cid:190) CLC Industrial Co. Ltd, Taiwan

(cid:190) Min Hwei, Kaohsiung

5,3 %

5,4 %

10,2 %

(cid:190) Rodex Fasteners Corp., Chung Li

8,8 %

(50)

The definitive dumping margin established for
Malaysian exporting producers other than those
cooperating in this investigation, expressed as a

(cid:190) Sen Chang, Tao Yuen

(cid:190) Tong Hwei, Kaohsiung

11,1 %

10,2 %.

20. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 50/7

(55)

(56)

(57)

The definitive dumping margin established for the
Taiwanese exporting producers other than those
cooperating in this investigation, expressed as a
percentage of the cif price at Community frontier
is 23,1 %.

(f) Thailand

In view of the amendments made to the normal
value mentioned above,
the definitive dumping
margins established for the two cooperating Thai
exporting producers, expressed as a percentage of
the cif price at Community frontier, are as follows:

(cid:190) A.B.P. Stainless Steel Fastener Co. Ltd

8,4 %

(cid:190) Dura Fastener Co. Ltd

2,7 %.

The definitive dumping margin established for the
Thai exporting producers other than those cooper-
ating in this investigation, expressed as a per-
centage of the cif price at Community frontier is
8,4 %.

(g) People’s Republic of China

(58) With regard to the company in the People’s
Republic of China which was granted individual
treatment only at the definitive stage, the weighted
average normal value fob Taiwan national frontier
was compared with its own weighted average
export prices fob China national frontier at the
same level of trade.

treatment

undertakings

Four cooperating companies in China which were
not granted individual
requested an
undertaking on the basis of Article 8 of the Basic
Regulation. However,
not
normally accepted from companies operating in
non-market economy countries. Moreover, in this
case the risk of circumvention is high and it
should be noted that these companies were refused
individual treatment because it was considered that
they were not operating under normal market
economy conditions. Under these circumstances
the proposed undertakings could not be accepted.

are

The definitive dumping margin, expressed as a
percentage of the cif price at Community frontier,
is as follows.

(cid:190) Ningbo Shyechang Metal Products

24,2 %.

With regard to the company which was already
granted individual
in the provisional
treatment
duty Regulation, the definitive dumping margin
based on the amended Taiwanese normal value
the cif price at
expressed as a percentage of
Community frontier is as follows:

(cid:190) Power Van Industrial Co. Ltd

13,6 %.

(60)

(61)

(62)

(63)

(64)

E. INJURY

1. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the

dumped imports

scope of

excluded from the

Representatives of certain Indian exporters have
claimed that imports from India should not be
cumulated with imports of the product concerned
from the People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, the
Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand and
should be
the
proceeding. This claim was made on the basis that
the increase in the volume and market share of
imports from India was not comparable to that of
the other third countries concerned and that the
volume of imports from India during the invest-
igation period was lower than in 1995 (by 1,5 %).
In addition, it was alleged that the market share
held by India during the investigation period
(2,9 %) was negligible ‘in the overall trade of the
product concerned'.

imports

In this respect, the investigation has shown that
the volume of
imports from India during the
investigation period was significant, as were the
volume of
from the other countries
concerned. Moreover, when the volume of imports
from India during the investigation period (11
months) is extrapolated for a 12-month period and
compared to 1995 levels
the volume actually
increased. Furthermore, pursuant to Articles 5(7)
and 9(3) of the Basic Regulation a market share of
2,9 % cannot be considered as negligible.

the above,

is concluded that
In the light of
imports of
the product concerned from India
should be examined cumulatively with the imports
from the other countries concerned.

it

2. Prices of

the dumped imports on the

Community market

Indian exporters have claimed that the imports of
the product concerned originating in India have
not caused injury to the Community industry
given that their average prices have been stable for
much of the period considered and, between 1994
and 1996, have increased by 19 %.

the weighted
The investigation has shown that
average prices of the Indian imports remained rel-
atively stable between 1992 and 1994, but at a very
low price level and significantly below the level of
the Community producers’ prices, even when
increase in
account
prices. It should also be remembered that substan-
tial levels of undercutting were established during
the investigation period.

the subsequent

is taken of

(59)

For the Chinese exporting producers other than
those mentioned above,
the definitive dumping
margin based on the amended Taiwanese normal
value expressed as a percentage of the cif price at
Community frontier is 78,0 %.

(65)

Similar allegations have been made by the Tai-
wanese exporters, i.e. that the prices of the imports
from Taiwan were stable over the period consid-
ered.

L 50/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20. 2. 98

Again, the prices of the Taiwanese imports show
some stability but at a relatively low price level.
SSFs from Taiwan were imported in large quant-
ities and undercut
the Community producer’s
prices substantially during the investigation period.

3. Price undercutting

(66)

The basis of calculation of price undercutting is set
out in recital 65 of the provisional duty Regulation.

(67) However, new information on export sales and
prices was supplied by three exporters (two Indian
and one Taiwanese). Revised undercutting margins
were established on the basis of this new data.

(68) As a consequence of individual treatment being
granted to a second cooperating exporter in China
an individual undercutting margin was calculated
for the exporter concerned and a revised undercut-
ting margin calculated for the remaining five coop-
erating exporters in China.

(69)

(70)

In addition to the above, the adjustments to the cif
(to take
export price granted to all exporters
account of post-importation expenses
incurred)
were recalculated and resulted in minor changes to
the margins of undercutting provisionally estab-
lished.

The revised margins of undercutting are expressed,
as in the provisional duty Regulation, as a percent-
age of
the Community industry’s prices (at ex-
works level). The undercutting margins established
are as follows:

Country

Undercutting
margin

People’s Republic
of China
Malaysia

Taiwan

India

Korea

Thailand

from 39,4 to 39,8 %

from 21,8 to 42,5 %

from 17,8 to 60,9 %

from 23,6 to 36,6 %

22,7 %

from 25 to 33,5 %

(71) An overall weighted average price undercutting
from all countries concerned of 28,7 % was found
for the investigation period.

4. Situation of the Community industry

4.1. Production,

capacity,

capacity utilisation

rates and market shares

(72) Chinese exporters have alleged that any injury
suffered by the Community industry is due to the
increase in production and production capacity by
the producers concerned over the period consid-
ered, most noticeably in 1994.

(73) However,

the

shown that
investigation has
consumption of the product concerned increased
by 75 % between 1992 and 1996. Even though
capacity increased by 91 % (mainly due to acquisi-

tion by a complaining Community producer of a
non-complaining producer’s production facilities),
production by the Community industry increased
by only 48 %. In addition, capacity utilisation rates
the
decreased by 18 %. The market
Community producers decreased by 7 % over the
period considered while that of
the exporters
concerned increased by 16,5 %. The investigation
the Community industry was
has
unable to take full advantage of the increase in
consumption due to the high volume and low
prices of the dumped imports.

shown that

share of

4.2. Stocks

(74) Chinese exporters have claimed that the increase
in the stocks of the Community producers is due
to an increase in production of SSFs during a
period when there was ‘no increase in consump-
tion to absorb these extra SSFs'.

(75)

The investigation has shown that this is not the
case as can be seen from the development of
consumption as outlined in the preceding recital.
Indeed, the increase in consumption (75 %) was
significantly greater than that of production (48 %)
and sales (27 %) of the Community industry.

4.3. Prices

(76) Chinese

further

exporters have

claimed that
(contrary to the above) although consumption
increased between 1992 and 1996, the Commission
failed to take account of the increase in production
capacity by the Community producers and that in
the circumstances any drastic increase in prices
would not have been expected.

(77)

(78)

(79)

This argument does not appear to be particularly
pertinent and fails to take account of the fact that,
despite an increase in production capacity, and an
the
increase
overall negligible
Community industry, the increase in sales did not
keep pace with the increase in consumption and
the Community industry’s lost market share over
the period considered.

in prices by

4.4. Profitability

It has been claimed that the negative situation of
the Community industry was overstated in the
provisional duty Regulation and separate informa-
tion has been provided by exporters’ representa-
tives on the overall financial strength of each of
the five complaining producers.

Information supplied related to all five companies
for the periods prior and up to the investigation
period. However, information in relation to profit-
investigation was
ability during the period of
provided for only one of the complaining produ-
cers
this
producer the information confirms the facts as
established during the investigation, i.e. that there

therefore incomplete. For

and was

20. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 50/9

(80)

(81)

(82)

(83)

was a sharp and significant decrease in profitability
during the investigation period. In addition, the
investigation has
this decline was
shown that
clearly evident for each of the other complaining
producers during the investigation period. This
claim is therefore rejected.

4.5. Employment

It has been alleged that despite heavy investment
in automated production machinery the number of
employees in the Community industry increased
by 16 % over the period considered (from 325 to
378) and that this increase in employment is an
indication that
the Community industry is not
suffering material injury.

The investigation has shown that, despite heavy
investment in production machinery (which neces-
sitated additional employment) and an increase in
productivity of 10 % between 1992 and the invest-
igation period,
the Community industry experi-
enced a loss of market share and a serious deteri-
oration in its financial situation.

5. Conclusion on injury

It should be remembered,
in accordance with
Article 3(5) of the Basic Regulation, that any one of
the above injury factors cannot necessarily give
decisive guidance as to the impact of the dumped
the Community
imports on the situation of
industry.

the Community

this development cannot

In this respect it is to be noted that, while produc-
industry
tion and sales by
increased,
lead to the
conclusion that the Community industry has not
been injured as consumption on the Community
market shows a much greater increase. Further-
share held by the dumped
more,
imports increased by 17 % (to 50,1 %) during a
period when the Community industry’s market
share decreased by 7 % (to 19 %) and its profit-
ability suffered and significant decline.

the market

(84)

In the light of the above and in the absence of
other arguments, it is confirmed that, as was estab-
lished in recitals 66 to 73 of the provisional duty
Regulation, the Community industry has suffered
material injury within the meaning of Article 3(1)
of the Basic Regulation.

F. CAUSATION

1. Effect of the dumped imports

(85)

Indian exporters have referred to the fact that the
financial situation of
the Community producers
was negative in 1992 at a time when the imports
from India were ‘nearly non-existent'.

(86)

(87)

(88)

(89)

(90)

(91)

volume of

In this respect it is noted, in the first instance, that
the impact of the Indian imports on the situation
of the Community industry should, as previously
stated, be examined cumulatively with the imports
from the other countries concerned. Cumulatively,
the
countries
concerned represented 57,5 % of total imports in
1992 (33,5 % of Community consumption). In
addition, even if considered separately, the Indian
imports were seen to increase at the same time as
the market share and profits of the Community
industry decreased.

from the

imports

2. Effect of other factors

The Commission had provisionally examined the
extent to which the material injury suffered by the
Community industry was caused by the impact of
the dumped imports originating in the People’s
Republic of China, India, Malaysia, the Republic of
Korea, Taiwan and Thailand and whether other
factors had caused or contributed to that injury in
order to ensure that any injury caused by these
other factors was not attributed to the dumped
imports concerned. Such other factors included the
evolution of consumption, the effect of imports
from other third countries, fluctuations in the price
of raw materials and any possible anti-competitive
practices by the Community industry.

In spite of this detailed analysis on the causation of
injury it has been alleged that there was no causal
link between the material injury suffered by the
Community industry and the dumped imports, or
alternatively, that any material injury suffered was
caused by factors other than the dumped imports.

In particular, it has been alleged that the scope of
the anti-dumping proceeding is clearly discrimin-
atory as imports of stainless steel fasteners origin-
ating in South Africa have been omitted from the
investigation even though they have been imported
in large quantities and at very low prices. It is
further alleged that the only explanation given by
the Commission in the provisional duty Regula-
tion for the exclusion of these imports from the
scope of the investigation is that, in this particular
instance, Eurostat data was found to be unreliable.

In this respect it is noted that as far as Eurostat
data are concerned, imports alleged to originate in
South Africa are considered unreliable as available
evidence suggests that there is no production of
concerned in South Africa. No
the product
the
submission has been received to support
contrary.

It has also been alleged that imports originating in
the Philippines may have contributed to the injury
suffered by the Community industry and it was
stated that
the product concerned
originating in the Philippines decreased by 18,3 %
between 1995 and 1996.

the price of

L 50/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20. 2. 98

(92)

(93)

(94)

(95)

(96)

(97)

that

The Council confirms
the price of SSFs
originating in the Philippines decreased between
1995 and 1996. However,
the investigation has
shown that, having decreased, prices were still
significantly (and consistently) higher than those of
the countries concerned by the present
invest-
igation. Furthermore,
the Commission has no
evidence that the prices of the product concerned
originating in the Philippines were being dumped.

It has been alleged that the decrease in apparent
Community consumption in 1996, following three
years in which consumption increased, had an
effect on the situation of the Community industry
as the industry concerned was expecting a contin-
uous increase in consumption, had invested heavily
in machinery and had increased production in the
light of this expectation. Attention was drawn to
Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation which states
that a ‘contraction of demand' is one of a number
of elements which may be considered when
assessing whether factors other than the dumped
imports have caused injury to the Community
industry.

The investigation has shown that, between 1992
and 1995, Community consumption increased
from 47 187 tonnes to 86 472 tonnes (an increase
of 83 %) while it shows a slight decrease in 1996
to 82 352 tonnes (a decrease of 4,7 %). This small
decrease in consumption can not by itself explain
the substantial deterioration of the economic situa-
tion of the Community industry during the invest-
the
in particular
igation period,
decrease in the market share of this industry.

in terms of

It has also been alleged that any injury suffered is
partly due to a ‘frivolous' pricing policy adopted by
the Community producers. It was alleged that
between 1992 and 1994 the Community industry
reduced its sales prices by 10 %, but in compensa-
tion its production increased by 48 %, its volume
of sales by 44 % and its profitability improved by
7,7 %.
in 1995 the
then alleged that
Community industry radically changed its policy
and increased its prices which resulted in a
decrease in sales volume and loss of market share.

It was

shown that while

This allegation should be seen in the context of
the overall results of the investigation. Essentially,
the
the
investigation has
weighted average prices
the Community
industry decreased between 1992 and 1994 and
increased in 1995, prices decreased again substan-
tially during the investigation period. Over the
entire period considered prices only show an
increase of 1 %.

of

Specifically, between 1994 and 1995, the prices
and profits of the Community industry increased
(at a time when, under pressure from the imports
concerned,
the Community industry maintained
profits at the expense of market share). However,
after 1995, the cumulated effect of the dumped
imports led to an oversupply on the Community
market forcing the Community industry to lower
prices and profits in the investigation period, while
losing further market share. This shows that in
spite of fluctuations in prices, aimed at dealing
with the pressure from the dumped imports
concerned, the Community industry was unable to
either retain market share or sustain reasonable
levels of profit during the period considered.

(98)

It was furthermore alleged that the Community
industry adopted anti-competitive behaviour and
that there was collusion between the complaining
Community producers concerned.

(99) No evidence has been provided or

found in
support of these allegations. This submission could
not, therefore, be accepted.

3. Conclusion on causation

(100) Based on the findings as explained above, and in
accordance with recitals 74 to 82 of the provisional
duty Regulation, it is confirmed that the combined
low-priced dumped imports originating in the
People’s Republic of China, India, Malaysia, the
Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, taken in
isolation, have caused material
injury to the
Community industry.

(101)

(102)

(103)

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. Impact of the measures

In the provisional duty Regulation the Commis-
sion indicated why the Community interest calls
for intervention and why no compelling reasons
existed for not imposing measures.

be

can

expected

the Commission concluded that
In particular,
measures
the
Community industry the opportunity to regain lost
market share and restore profitability, with conse-
quent beneficial effects on competitive conditions
on the Community market.

afford

to

it

In spite of the detailed analysis given in recitals 84
to 98 of the provisional duty Regulation it has
been alleged that
in the Community
is not
interest to impose anti-dumping measures in the
present proceeding. In particular, it was claimed
that far more people are employed by importers/
traders in the product concerned than by the
Community
importers/traders
would be forced to buy at artificially high prices by

producers,

that

20. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 50/11

Community producers as a result of a foreseen
reduction in the volume of
imports and that
importers/traders would be forced to cut back on
employment.

concluded that, on balance, it is in the Community
interest to impose definitive measures.

(104)

In addition,
it was alleged that the downstream
industry would be affected if definitive measures
were imposed, because it would suffer significant
price increases and that the user industry would be
deprived of certain products (i.e. nuts).

as

(105) The investigation has shown that the Community
industry is unable to cater for demand on the
Community market and that there is a continuing
need for imported products. Based on the results of
the past
the analysis and taking into account
behaviour of the Community industry, it appears
reasonable to conclude that the prices of SSFs will
in all likelihood increase as a result of measures.
the importers/traders have
However, given that
supply
sources of
regards
many options
(including being supplied by the Community
industry as seen during the investigation period)
and that
importers/traders have
been good throughout the period, it is considered
that the effect of measures could be minimised by
a combination of a small
reduction in profit
margins and slight price increases to the user
industry. Given the continued need for imported
and given that both imported and
product
Community produced product
is sold to users
through a well established network of traders it is
considered that employment of importers/traders
will not be adversely affected by the imposition of
measures.

the margins of

that

(106) As regards the users of the product concerned, it is
considered, as stated in recitals 95 to 97 of the
provisional duty Regulation,
to
whicht SSFs have an impact on the cost of finished
product
therefore, any
increase in these costs is unlikely to have a signi-
ficant effect on users’ costs. It is further noted that
the imposition of an anti-dumping duty will still
permit traders to import the product concerned
(i.e. including nuts).

is negligible and that,

the extent

(107)

In the absence of further arguments with regard to
the interests of raw material suppliers the conclu-
sions as stated in recitals 86 and 87 of the provi-
sional duty Regulation are confirmed.

2. Conclusion on Community interest

(108)

In summary, after an appreciation of all the various
interests, and for the reasons given in recitals 84 to
is
98 of

the provisional duty Regulation it

H. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(109) Based on the above conclusions on dumping,
injury, causal link and Community interest, it was
level and form the anti-
then considered what
dumping measures should take in order to remove
the trade-distorting effects of injurious dumping
and to restore effective competitive conditions on
the Community market.

(110) After publication of the provisional duty Regula-
tion, new information (as previously stated) on
export sales and prices was supplied by representa-
tives of three exporters (two Indian and one Tai-
wanese). Revised injury elimination levels were
established on the basis of this new data.

(111)

In addition, as a consequence of individual treat-
ment being granted to a second cooperating
exporter in China an individual injury elimination
level was calculated for the exporter concerned and
a revised injury elimination margin calculated for
the other five exporters in China.

(112) Furthermore, adjustments to the cif export price
granted to all exporters (to take account of post-
importation expenses incurred) were recalculated
and resulted in changes to the margins provision-
ally established. Otherwise, the basis of calculation
of the injury elimination level
is as set out in
recital 99 of the provisional duty Regulation.

(113) The revised injury elimination levels are expressed,
as in the provisional duty Regulation, as a percent-
age of the weighted average free-at-Community-
frontier price of the imported product.

(114) The injury elimination levels established were

greater or equal to the following:

The People’s Republic of China

74,7 %

India:

cooperating producers
non-cooperating producers

Malaysia

Republic of Korea

Taiwan

Thailand

41,3 %
54,0 %
37,7 %

38,6 %

34,1 %

48,3 %.

L 50/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20. 2. 98

2. Duty

(115) The injury elimination margin established for non-cooperating producers in India
and for companies in the People’s Republic of China which were not granted
individual treatment were, in each case, less than the dumping margins established.
The duty should, therefore, be based on the injury margins, in accordance with the
provisions of Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.

(116) Since the injury elimination levels established were, in all other cases, in excess of
the dumping margins the duty should be based on the dumping margins pursuant
to Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.

(117) The definitive anti-dumping duties, applicable to the net, free-at-Community-fron-

tier price, before duty should therefore be as follows:

China

India

Malaysia

Country

Company

Ningbo Shyechang Metal Products
Power Van Industrial Co. Ltd
All other companies

Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd
Kundan Industries Ltd/Tata Export Ltd, Mumbai
Audler Fasteners
All other companies

Tigges Stainless Fasteners (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Tong Heer Fasteners Co. Sdn. Bhd.
All other companies

Republic of Korea

Daegil Trading Co. Ltd
All other companies

Taiwan

Thailand

Arrow Fastener Co. Ltd
Sen Chang Industrial Co. Ltd
Tong Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd
Rodex Fasteners Corp.
CLC Industrial Co. Ltd
Min Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd
All other companies

A.B.P. Stainless Fastener Co. Ltd
Dura Fasteners Co. Ltd
All other companies

Rate
of duty

24,2 %
13,6 %
74,7 %

19,8 %
47,4 %
11,2 %
54,0 %

5,7 %
7,0 %
7,0 %

24,0 %
26,7 %

5,3 %
11,1 %
10,2 %
8,8 %
5,4 %
10,2 %
23,1 %

8,4 %
2,7 %
8,4 %

I. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY

(118)

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting produ-
cers and in the light of the seriousness of the injury caused to the Community
industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional
anti-dumping duty pursuant
to Regulation (EC) No 1732/97 be definitively
collected. Amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty shall be
definitively collected at the rate of duty definitively imposed,

20. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 50/13

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports into the Community
of stainless steel
falling within CN codes 7318 12 10,
7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61, 7318 15 70 and 7318 16 30 originating in
the People’s Republic of China, India, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and
Thailand.

fasteners and parts thereof

The rate of

2.
Community-frontier price, before duty, shall be as follows:

the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net

free-at-

Country

Company

China

India

Malaysia

Ningbo Shyechang Metal Products
Power Van Industrial Co. Ltd
All other companies

Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd
Kundan Industries Ltd/Tata Export Ltd, Mumbai
Audler Fasteners
All other companies

Tigges Stainless Fasteners (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Tong Heer Fasteners Co. Sdn. Bhd.
All other companies

Republic of Korea

Daegil Trading Co. Ltd
All other companies

Taiwan

Thailand

Arrow Fastener Co. Ltd
Sen Chang Industrial Co. Ltd
Tong Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd
Rodex Fasteners Corp.
CLC Industrial Co. Ltd
Min Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd
All other companies

A.B.P. Stainless Fastener Co. Ltd
Dura Fasteners Co. Ltd
All other companies

Rate
of duty

24,2 %
13,6 %
74,7 %

19,8 %
47,4 %
11,2 %
54,0 %

5,7 %
7,0 %
7,0 %

24,0 %
26,7 %

5,3 %
11,1 %
10,2 %
8,8 %
5,4 %
10,2 %
23,1 %

8,4 %
2,7 %
8,4 %

Taric
additional
code

8757
8333
8900

8415
8416
8417
8900

8334
8335
8900

8418
8900

8336
8337
8338
8408
8409
8414
8900

8419
8420
8900

3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duty shall
apply.

Article 2

1.
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regula-
tion (EC) No 1732/97 shall be definitively collected at the rate of the duty definitively
imposed.

2. Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duty shall be
released.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official
Journal of the European Communities.

Article 3

L 50/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20. 2. 98

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 16 February 1998.

For the Council

The President

G. BROWN