Council Regulation (EC) No 1312/98 of 24 June 1998 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
Date: 1998-06-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, dumping, import, man-made fibre, manufactured goods

26. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 183/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1312/98

of 24 June 1998

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibre ropes
originating in India and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

itive anti-dumping duties and the definitive collec-
tion of amounts secured by way of provisional duty.
They were also granted a period within which to
make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

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

of

(6)

The oral and written comments submitted by the
interested parties were considered and, where
deemed appropriate,
in the
definitive findings.

taken into account

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

Whereas:

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

By Commission Regulation (EC) No 18/98 (2)
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the provisional duty
Regulation'), provisional anti-dumping duties were
imposed on imports of synthetic fibre ropes falling
within CN codes
5607 49 19,
5607 50 11 and 5607 50 19 originating in India.

5607 49 11,

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

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

The only cooperating Indian exporter, Garware-
requested and was granted a
Wall Ropes Ltd,
hearing.

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Parties were informed of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was
intended to recommend the imposition of defin-

(9)

(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 4, 8. 1. 1998, p. 28.

C. GROUNDS FOR THE INITIATION OF THE

PROCEEDING

(7)

The cooperating Indian exporter
objections to the opening of the proceeding.

reiterated his

However, this issue was already covered in recital 1
of the provisional duty Regulation. In this respect,
it should be noted that the submission made by the
Indian exporter concerned did not contain any
evidence or argument which would invalidate the
conclusions stated in recital 1 of the provisional
duty Regulation.

D. PRODUCT

CONCERNED
PRODUCT

AND

LIKE

(8)

In the absence of any new information, the provi-
sional findings, as stated in recitals 7 to 9 of the
provisional duty Regulation, are hereby confirmed.

E. DUMPING

1. Normal value

The cooperating exporting producer claimed and
demonstrated that the cost of production used in
order to examine whether or not domestic sales
were made in the ordinary course of
trade
contained trade discounts accounted for as selling
expenses, while the domestic sales prices used for

L 183/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26. 6. 98

these discounts. The
this purpose were net of
Commission accepted this claim and, accordingly,
amended both the constructed normal value and
that based on domestic prices.

(15)

(10)

The other findings made in recitals 10 to 12 of the
provisional duty Regulation concerning the deter-
mination of normal value are hereby confirmed.

2. Export price

(11)

In the absence of any new information, the find-
ings set out in recital 13 of the provisional duty
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

4. Dumping margin

In the absence of any new arguments concerning
the methodology used for the calculation of the
dumping margin, the methodology described in
recitals 16 and 17 of the provisional duty Regula-
tion is hereby confirmed. On this basis,
the
dumping margins are as follows:

(cid:190) in view of

the changes in the calculations
mentioned above,
the definitive dumping
margin calculated for the cooperating exporting
producer, expressed as a percentage of the CIF
price at Community frontier, is 87,5 %,

(cid:190) the definitive dumping margin established for
Indian exporting producers other than those
cooperating in this investigation, expressed as a
the CIF price at Community
percentage of
frontier, is 243,0 %.

3. Comparison

F. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(12)

(13)

The cooperating exporting producer claimed that
the method used by the Commission to grant
adjustments for duty drawback did not reflect the
amount of
import duties paid for the product
concerned sold on the domestic market. It argued
that the Commission should not have allocated the
duty drawback adjustment on the basis of domestic
turnover of the product concerned but on the basis
the quantity sold domestically. After further
of
examination,
this claim was accepted and the
calculations were modified accordingly.

The cooperating company reiterated its claim for
adjustments for the domestic market infrastructure
and for differences in physical characteristics of the
exported and the domestically sold products.
However, as the company did not supply any new
supporting evidence, the positions set out in recital
15 of the provisional duty Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

(14) As far as credit costs are concerned, the cooperating
company, which had already been granted adjust-
ments
for credit costs directly linked to the
domestic sales at the provisional stage, claimed that
the Commission should have granted an additional
adjustment taking into account the difference in
interest rates for financing domestic and export
working capital. This claim had to be rejected since
the company was not in a position to quantify
correctly these differences nor to show how they
could have affected price comparability. In this
context, it should be noted that a difference in
costs incurred for export sales and domestic sales
does not
justify an adjustment under
Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96,
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Basic Regulation').

in itself

(16)

In the absence of any new information, the provi-
sional findings, as stated in recital 18 of the provi-
sional duty Regulation, are hereby confirmed.

(17)

(18)

G. INJURY

1. Sampling

The cooperating Indian exporter contested the
selection of Community producers made by the
Commission for the purposes of the investigation
of injury on the grounds that it was different from
the sample used in the previous proceeding
concerning imports of synthetic fibre ropes origin-
ating in India, which was terminated without the
adoption of measures. This exporter claimed that
failure to use the same sample of Community
producers would result in a biased analysis, since
the Commission would not be able to assess the
degree of any injury suffered by the Community
industry in the present proceeding, as compared
with that in the previous case.

if

those

companies were

Furthermore, the Indian exporter argued that four
of the companies in the sample had been inade-
quately selected for the examination of injury and
that,
consequently
excluded, the remaining Community producers in
the sample would not be representative of
the
Community industry any longer. The Indian
exporter alleged that the activities of one company
had been severely disrupted by a fire which had
destroyed its production facilities and that any
injury suffered by this company would be due to
this event. It was further claimed that a second
company had not provided complete information

26. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 183/3

on sales transactions. Finally, the Indian exporter
claimed that two of the companies in the sample
mainly manufactured high performance leisure
ropes, which could not be considered to compete
with the products sold by the Indian exporters in
the Community, i.e. simple, commodity type ropes,
at the lower end of the market.

consumption figures for the period considered (i.e.
the period between 1993 and 31 May 1997). On
this basis, Community consumption increased
from 21 820 tonnes in 1993 to 26 325 tonnes in
1995 and remained relatively stable thereafter,
reaching 26 773 tonnes in the investigation period,
which represents an overall increase of 23 % over
the period considered.

(19)

The selection of the sample of Community produ-
cers in the present investigation was based on levels
of production and sales and geographical location,
i.e.
the same methodology as in the previous
proceeding, which has not been disputed. It should
be noted, in this context, that some of the com-
panies selected in the previous proceeding no
longer produced the product concerned at the time
of the initiation of the present proceeding. The
companies in the sample accounted for 47 % of
production and 44 % of sales on the Community
market
the
by
Community industry during the
investigation
period. Moreover, the sample included large as well
as small companies and producers from several
Member States. These companies are therefore
representative of the Community industry, in the
meaning of Article 17 of the Basic Regulation.

concerned

product

the

of

(20) With regard to the allegations made in relation to
certain companies included in the sample, it was
found that one company had indeed suffered a fire.
However, the production facilities of this company
had not been damaged and any effects from the fire
on the financial performance of the company could
be identified in its accounts and were duly
excluded for the purposes of the injury findings.
Concerning the second company referred to by the
exporter and the allegation that it had provided
insufficient information, it should be noted that
this company provided all information requested
during the investigation. Finally, as to the allega-
tion concerning the two companies producing high
performance leisure ropes, it is noted that these
the product
ropes fall within the definition of
concerned by this proceeding. Moreover,
it was
found that these two companies had significant
production of standard ropes directly comparable
to those sold by the Indian exporter.

Therefore, it is considered that the inclusion of the
abovementioned Community producers
in the
sample is fully justified.

2. Community consumption

(21)

In determining total apparent consumption on the
Community market,
the
the
Community producers were added to the imports
into the Community.

sales

total

of

(22) As explained in more detail

the
volume of imports was, for the purposes of the
definitive findings, determined on the basis of
figures. This resulted in a change in
Eurostat

in recital 23,

3. Volume and market share of the dumped

imports

(23)

The volume of the imports originating in India was
determined, at the provisional stage, on the basis of
information on export sales to the Community
supplied by the cooperating Indian exporter as
verified by the Commission.

Subsequent to the imposition of provisional meas-
ures, the cooperating Indian exporter contested this
determination. It was claimed that part of the sales
for export to the Community were not released for
free circulation in the Community, but were put in
bonded warehouses on Community territory partly
to seagoing ships,
for
without clearing customs. Consequently,
it was
requested that Eurostat statistics, rather than the
sales volume reported by this company to the
Commission, be used to determine the volume and
market shares of the Indian imports.

subsequent export

sales

(24)

The Commission examined this issue. It should be
noted that the quantities reported by the cooper-
ating Indian exporter concerned as being sold in
the Community, exceeded the import quantities
reported by Eurostat,
in particular in 1996 and
during the investigation period. While at the provi-
sional stage no importer cooperated in the invest-
igation and the Commission based its conclusions
on the information submitted by the Indian
exporter, following the imposition of provisional
measures a number of importers made information
available to the Commission which showed that,
during the investigation period some quantities
purchased from the cooperating Indian exporter
had, indeed, not been released into free circulation
on the Community market.

In these circumstances, Eurostat appears to be a
more reliable source of
information for deter-
mining the volume of the Indian imports for the
period examined than the
export quantities
reported by the cooperating Indian exporter.
However, it was also found that, in the investigation
period, part of the volumes stored in bonded ware-
houses on Community territory had not yet been
resold and that these volumes could potentially be
released for free circulation in the Community at
very low prices.

L 183/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26. 6. 98

the

Indian

indicate

exporter

In any event, it should be noted that both Eurostat
figures and the sales volume reported by the coop-
erating
same
increasing trend in volume and market share for
the Indian imports over the period considered.
Overall, the revised volume of dumped imports
increased by 107 % between 1993 and the invest-
igation period (from 440 tonnes in 1993 to 1 089
tonnes in 1995 and then a decrease to 911 tonnes
in the investigation period). The market share of
these imports rose from 2 % in 1993 to 4,1 % in
1995, then decreased to 3,4 % in the investigation
period. It should be noted that this relative decrease
after 1995 coincided with the previous anti-
dumping proceeding concerning this product.

4. Prices of the dumped imports

(27)

(25)

(26)

The following comments were submitted with
regard to the determination of price undercutting.

The cooperating Indian exporter claimed that the
determination of price undercutting should not
have been made on the basis of the detailed export
to the
listing provided by this exporter
sales
Commission since a significant part of these export
sales had not been released for free circulation in
the Community. The exporter claimed that the
average Eurostat prices should have been used
instead. This claim also applied to the determina-
tion of the injury margin, which was based on the
same export prices as those used for the undercut-
ting assessment.

However, according to the information available
(Eurostat), around 70 % of the total volume of sales
made by the Indian exporter to the Community
during the investigation period were released for
free circulation in the Community. The prices of
these export sales, which were verified by the
Commission, were therefore considered to be
representative of the actual prices of the imports
concerned in the Community. Furthermore, no
differences in export prices between individual
transactions, whether or not destined for free circu-
lation, could be determined.

In addition, given the existence of various types of
ropes falling within the definition of the product
concerned, average Eurostat prices would not have
permitted a proper comparison of prices as they
would have consisted of average values for greatly
varying types of ropes.

cutting and injury elimination level assessments, as
these types of ropes were only sold to seagoing
ships and therefore were never released for free
circulation in the Community.

However, it was found that, in the investigation
period, a significant volume of these types of ropes
exported from India to the Community had subse-
quently been released for free circulation in the
Community. Moreover, no sufficient information
was submitted to the Commission to identify,
among the total export
transactions concerning
these types of ropes, those which resulted in ropes
being subsequently released in the Community.
This argument could therefore not be taken into
account.

The cooperating Indian exporter also claimed that
the method used by the Commission to differen-
tiate between the various types of synthetic fibre
ropes sold on the Community market,
for the
purposes of determining undercutting and the
injury margin, did not take full account of the
differences between high value and lower value
commodity products.

In this respect, it is noted that the method used
enabled a distinction to be made between the ropes
on the basis of the type of raw material used, the
number of strands, the diameter of the rope and
the construction (braided or twisted). These were
found to be the main identifiable and objective
criteria on the basis of which the prices of the
product concerned were determined, both by the
sampled Community producers and by the Indian
exporter concerned.

Therefore, the approach used at the provisional
stage in order to determine price undercutting was
also used for definitive findings.

(28) On this basis, as already indicated in recital 24 of
the provisional duty Regulation, it was found that,
during the investigation period, price undercutting
margins,
the
Community industry’s average selling prices of
comparable product
types, ranged from 0 % to
38 %, with an overall weighted average of 16 %.

a percentage

expressed as

of

5. Situation of the Community industry

Therefore, the claim was not considered to be justi-
fied.

(29)

It was further argued that, in any event, the export
sales transactions concerning large polypropylene
mooring ropes should be excluded from the under-

The cooperating Indian exporter submitted that the
decline in employment observed during the period
injury
considered could not be an indicator of
because it was compensated for by an improvement
in productivity. It was also argued that, according to

26. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 183/5

in the previous
findings
the Commission’s
proceeding concerning imports of synthetic fibre
ropes originating in India, any decrease in employ-
ment up to 1995 was due to factors other than the
dumped Indian imports.

It should be remembered that, in accordance with
Article 3(5) of
the Basic Regulation, no single
injury factor can necessarily give decisive guidance
on the impact of the dumped imports on the situ-
ation of the Community industry.

the industry. However,

In this respect, it is not contested that in the early
1990s the decline in employment may have been
due to factors other than dumped imports, such as
the restructuring of
it
should also be noted that after a slight increase in
1996, employment levels were again on the decline
in the investigation period. Moreover, in spite of
the increase in productivity over the period consid-
ered, the Community industry suffered a significant
loss in market share at a time when Community
consumption had increased by 23 %. Furthermore,
the Community industry showed a significant de-
terioration in its
from 1995
financial
onwards, resulting in a weighted average loss of
–7,1 % of net sales in the investigation period,
and suffered significant price pressure from the
Indian imports throughout the period considered,
with price undercutting of up to 38 % during the
investigation period.

results

6. Conclusion on injury

the Indian imports. In addition, it was stated that,
in any event, the Community producers lacked the
necessary production capacity to meet the growing
demand of the Community market.

In this respect it should be noted that, although the
Community industry was found to be developing
production of ropes at the upper end of the market
in terms of added-value and specialisation, the bulk
of the production of the Community industry at
the end of the investigation period still consisted of
commodity type ropes.

Moreover, the Commission examined the evolution
of the exports of the sampled Community produ-
cers over the period considered. It was found that
this volume remained stable between 1993 and the
investigation period, at around 1 900 tonnes, rep-
resenting some 15 % of the total production of the
sampled companies.

As regards the production capacity of the whole
Community industry, it exceeded total Community
consumption throughout
the period considered
(during the investigation period, total consumption
was 26 700 tonnes, while total capacity was 36 000
tonnes).

The Community industry’s loss of market share
could not, therefore, be attributed to an increase in
export sales, an insufficient offer of commodity
type ropes nor to insufficient production capacity.

(30)

(31)

(32)

the above,

In the absence of any other arguments concerning
the situation of the Community industry and in the
the
light of
Community industry has suffered material injury
within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Basic
Regulation, as stated in recitals 25 to 35 of the
provisional duty Regulation, is hereby confirmed.

the conclusion that

H. CAUSATION OF INJURY

1. Effects of the dumped imports

injury

The cooperating Indian exporter argued that any
material
the Community
suffered by
industry could not be attributable to imports
originating in India. The following arguments were
put forward.

The overall loss of market share suffered by the
Community producers was not due to the imports
originating in India, but resulted from a shift by
Community producers towards the production of
specialised ropes, with a higher
added-value,
destined primarily for export markets. It was argued
that, in this way, these producers created a vacuum
in the
commodity ropes on the
Community market which was filled, inter alia, by

supply of

cooperating

(33) Concerning the decrease in profitability suffered by
the Community industry between 1995 and the
investigation period,
Indian
the
exporter argued that the decrease in raw material
prices between 1995 and the investigation period
should have resulted in increased profitability for
the Community producers during this period. They
therefore claimed that any decline in profitability
in this period was due to increased overheads, in
particular
interest
expenses, as a result of the important investments
made by the Community industry. In any event, it
was argued that the drop in profitability could not
be due to the Indian imports, which declined
between 1995 and the investigation period.

depreciation

charges

and

It was found that between 1995 and the invest-
igation period, the average prices of raw materials
declined by approximately 11 %. Considering that
raw materials account for approximately 50 % of
the total costs of production of
the product
concerned,
this decrease in raw material costs
enabled the Community producers to reduce their
costs of production by 5 %. However, over the
the
same period,
Community producers, under
strong downward
pressure from the prices of the Indian imports,
declined by 16 %.

the average sales prices of

L 183/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26. 6. 98

Furthermore, as regards the impact of the invest-
ments made by the Community industry on profit-
ability,
it was found that these had a marginal
impact on the Community producers’ costs of
production during the period considered, mainly
because any costs related with these new invest-
ments were compensated for by gains in produc-
tivity and by an overall reduction in other general
and administrative expenses.

Finally, it should be noted that, despite the small
decline in the imports originating in India between
1995 and the investigation period, these imports
increased overall by 107 % during the period
considered. Moreover, it was found that the prices
of these imports undercut the Community produ-
cers’ prices
the whole
significantly throughout
period considered, including the period from 1995
onwards, thus exerting downward pressure on the
sales prices of the Community producers, which
declined dramatically, between 1995 and the
investigation period, by 16 %.

The decline in profitability experienced by the
Community producers between 1995 and the
investigation period was therefore clearly linked to
a major reduction in sales prices over that period,
which in turn occurred at a time of significant
price undercutting by the Indian imports in this
commodity product market.

The cooperating Indian exporter also argued that
the Community producers suffered an inherent
competitive disadvantage, because they purchased
their raw materials at significantly higher prices
than the Indian exporters. However, it should be
noted that, if the Indian importers had not sold the
product concerned at dumped prices, they would
not have undercut the prices of the Community
industry. The argument is therefore not relevant. In
any event, it was found that the purchase prices of
the cooperating Indian exporter’s raw materials
were approximately 14 % lower than those of the
Community industry. Since raw materials account
for 50 % of the full cost of production, this differ-
ence could only explain, at best, a difference in
sales prices of up to 7 %, which is largely below
the level by which the Indian imports undercut the
Community producers’ prices, i.e. up to 38 %, with
a weighted average undercutting of 16 %.

(34)

(35)

Finally,
it was argued that, compared with the
negative finding on causation made in the previous
proceeding concerning imports of synthetic fibre
ropes originating in India, there were no changed
circumstances to explain a different finding in the
present proceeding on the causal
link between
dumping and injury.

(36)

should be

It
in the previous
proceeding, dumping by the Indian exporters and
injury to the Community industry were established.

recalled that,

However, the information available at the time did
not permit the determination of a clear causal link
between the dumped imports and the injury
suffered by the Community industry.

In the present case, in accordance with the consis-
tent practice of the Community institutions, the
injury examination covered a period of time of
nearly five years, from 1993 to May 1997. It should
be noted that this period partly coincided with the
period examined in the previous proceeding.

the previous and present

However, compared with the previous proceeding,
the present investigation has examined the impact
of the imports over a longer period of time after
the Indian imports appeared in significant volume.
Indeed,
investigation
periods ended respectively in March 1996 and in
May 1997 and the increase in the imports
concerned was particularly apparent after 1994.
Moreover, reliable information on the development
of profitability of the Community industry for the
whole period considered, which was lacking in the
previous case, was received in the present case.

Contrary to the previous investigation, it has there-
fore been possible to establish a causal
link
between the imports concerned and the material
injury suffered by the Community industry.

2. Effects of other factors

Imports from other non-member countries

the prices of

The cooperating Indian exporter
argued that
imports from countries other than India were the
injury suffered by the
cause of any material
Community industry. It was claimed, in particular,
that the prices of imports of synthetic fibre ropes
originating in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia
and Tunisia had undercut
the
the period
Community producers
considered. Moreover, the Indian exporter claimed
that the prices of these imports were lower than the
Indian prices for the types which represented the
majority of
imports of synthetic fibre
ropes originating in India to the Community, i.e.
polyethylene and polypropylene ropes and that,
therefore, any price pressure suffered by the
Community industry was largely attributable to
these imports and not to the Indian imports.

throughout

the total

The Commission analysed the evolution of
the
imports of polyethylene and polypropylene ropes
originating in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia
and Tunisia, as compared to Indian imports of the
same types of ropes. This analysis showed that the
average prices of the imports originating in Slo-
venia and Tunisia were at approximately the same

26. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 183/7

level of the Indian export prices throughout the
whole period considered. Moreover, it was found
that
the imports originating in Slovenia and
Tunisia, although increasing in the period consid-
ered, accounted for only 0,8 % and 1,3 % respec-
tively of
total Community consumption in the
investigation period. Any impact of these imports
should therefore be considered less significant as
compared to the impact of Indian imports. As
regards Poland, the average prices of the imports
originating in Poland were found, at times, to be
slightly lower
than the Indian import prices.
However, the overall market share held by these
imports decreased from 2,6 % in 1993 to 2 % in
the investigation period. As regards the Czech
Republic, the market share held by the imports
originating in this country went from 0,8 % in
1993 to 2 % in the investigation period. However,
it was only in 1993 that the prices of these imports
were found to be significantly lower than the prices
of the imports originating in India. During the
investigation period, the imports originating in the
Czech Republic entered the Community market at
the Indian
approximately the same prices as
imports.

Finally, it should be noted that, the comparison
between the prices of the Indian imports and the
prices of imports originating in Poland and the
Czech Republic for all
types of synthetic fibre
ropes falling within the definition of the product
concerned, i.e. not only polyethylene and polypro-
the Indian import
pylene ropes,
prices were the lowest on the Community market
for the whole period considered, except for 1993.
This comparison is all
the more representative,
since it concerns the whole product concerned by
the definition.

indicated that

Therefore,
the findings and conclusions on the
effect of imports from countries other than India
the Community
situation of
on the injurious
industry, as stated in recital 41 of the provisional
duty Regulation, are hereby confirmed.

3. Conclusion on causation

(37)

In the light of the above, although it cannot be
excluded that some of the imports originating in
countries other than India may have had a negative
the Community
situation of
impact on the
industry, this impact was not such as to break the
causal
link between the injury suffered by the
Community industry and the dumped imports
originating in India. Therefore and in the absence
of any new information, the conclusion that the
imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in
India,
taken in isolation, have caused material
injury to the Community industry, as stated in

(38)

(39)

recitals 36 to 43 of the provisional duty Regulation,
is hereby confirmed.

This conclusion is drawn in particular given the
loss in market share of the Community industry,
combined with a deterioration in profitability,
which coincided with an increase in the volume
and market share of Indian imports, at prices
which
the
Community industry.

constantly

undercut

those

of

I. COMMUNITY INTEREST

claimed that

It was
conclusion on the
the
Community interest in the provisional duty Regu-
lation was not supported by factual evidence. In
particular, it was argued that the Commission had
not sought sufficient information on the impact of
measures on the users,
its
conclusions concerning the Community interest.

in order to support

It should be noted that the Commission contacted
all known associations of users, in particular ship-
ping and fishing vessel associations and all known
distributors of
the product concerned in the
Community, as well as all known significant
upstream industries. Only limited and general
replies were received. Moreover, no additional
substantiated comments were submitted from the
abovementioned parties after the adoption of provi-
sional measures.

(40)

In the absence of any new information, the find-
ings set out in recitals 44 to 52 of the provisional
duty Regulation concerning Community interest,
are hereby confirmed.

J. DEFINITIVE DUTY

1. Injury elimination level

(41)

The cooperating Indian exporter argued that their
export prices had to be adjusted for the purposes of
the injury elimination level assessment,
to take
account of the difference in raw material prices
between the Indian and the Community producers.

However, as stated in recital 53 of the provisional
duty Regulation, the injury elimination level was
determined on the basis of the costs of production
of
the Community industry plus a reasonable
amount of profit. Any considerations of differences
in costs of production between the Indian and
Community producers are therefore irrelevant in
this respect.

(42)

Therefore, the method used by the Commission to
establish the injury elimination level, as stated in
recital 53 of the provisional duty Regulation,
is
hereby confirmed.

L 183/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26. 6. 98

the weighted average, net,

On this basis, the injury margin was found to be
53 % of
free-at-
Community frontier price, before duty. For com-
panies which did not cooperate in the invest-
igation, the injury margin was 82 %, as stated in
recital 55 of the provisional duty Regulation.

Since the amount of duty adequate to remove the
injury sustained by the Community industry is
lower than the dumping margins found, the anti-
dumping duty to be imposed should be based on
the former, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the
Basic Regulation.

2. Type of definitive anti-dumping duty

(43) An ad valorem duty appears to be the most appro-
priate measure given the high number of types of
ropes involved.

K. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY

(44) Considering the conclusions on dumping and
injury definitively established and that the rate of
definitive duty is equal to that provisionally deter-
mined, the amounts secured by way of the provi-
sional anti-dumping duty should be definitively
collected,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed
on imports of synthetic fibre ropes falling within CN
codes 5607 49 11, 5607 49 19, 5607 50 11 and 5607 50 19
originating in India.

The rate of duty applicable to the net,

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

Products manufactured by:

(cid:190) Garware Wall Ropes Ltd: 53,0 % (additional TARIC

code 8755),

(cid:190) other manufacturers: 82,0 % (additional TARIC code

8900).

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

Article 2

The amount secured by way of provisional anti-dumping
duty pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 18/98 shall be de-
finitively collected at the duty rate definitively imposed.

Article 3

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

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

Done at Luxembourg, 24 June 1998.

For the Council

The President

J. CUNNINGHAM