Commission Regulation (EC) No 362/1999 of 18 February 1999 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the People's Republic of China, India, Mexico, South Africa and the Ukraine and accepting undertakings offered by certain exporters in Hungary and Poland
Date: 1999-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, steel, third country

L 45/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 2. 1999

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 362/1999

of 18 February 1999

imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables
originating in the People’s Republic of China, India, Mexico, South Africa and
the Ukraine and accepting undertakings offered by certain exporters in Hungary
and Poland

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(3)

(4)

(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
the European
of
not members
last amended by Regulation (EC)
Community (1), as
No 905/98 (2), and in particular Articles 7 and 8 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

(1)

(2)

On 20 May 1998, the Commission announced, by a
notice published in the Official Journal of the
European Communities (3),
the initiation of an
anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports
into the Community of steel ropes and cables
originating in the People’s Republic of China
(hereinafter
the Republic of
Korea (hereinafter ‘Korea'), South Africa and the
Ukraine.

‘the PRC'),

India,

On 30 July 1998 the Commission similarly
announced the initiation of an anti-dumping
same
proceeding concerning imports of
product originating in Hungary, Mexico and
Poland (4).

the

The proceedings were initiated as a result of two
complaints lodged in April and June 1998 by the
Liaison Committee of European Union Wire Rope
Industries
(EWRIS) on behalf of Community
producers representing a major proportion of the
Community production of steel ropes and cables.
The complaints contained evidence of dumping of
the said product and of material injury resulting
therefrom, which was considered sufficient, after
consultation,
a
proceeding.

initiation of

justify

the

to

It was subsequently considered appropriate for the
purposes of both dumping and injury analysis to
combine the two proceedings (see recital 6).

(1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 128, 30. 4. 1998, p. 18.
(3) OJ C 155, 20. 5. 1998, p. 11.
(4) OJ C 239, 30. 7. 1998, p. 3.

The Commission officially advised the complain-
ant Community producers, exporting producers
and importers, suppliers and users known to be
concerned as well as associations concerned and
representatives of the exporting countries. Inter-
ested parties were given the opportunity to make
their views known in writing and to request a
hearing within the time limit set in the notices of
initiation. All parties who so requested were
granted a hearing.

The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties
known to be concerned. In view of
the large
number of complainant Community producers and
the time limits established in Article 6(9) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Basic Regulation') the Commission decided to
investigate injury on the basis of a sample of
complainant Community producers in accordance
with Article 17 of
the Basic Regulation. The
Commission received replies from 21 exporting
producers in the countries concerned, three impor-
ters and three suppliers for the upstream industry.
No reply was received from the user industry.

The Commission sought and verified all the infor-
mation it deemed necessary for the purposes of a
preliminary determination of dumping, injury and
Community interest and carried out verification
visits at the premises of the following companies:

A. Complainant Community producers

(a) Denmark

Randers Rebslageri

(b) France

Trefileurope

(c) Germany

BTS Drahtseile GmbH

(d) Italy

Redaelli Tecnacordati SpA

(e) Spain

Trenzas y Cables SL

(f) United Kingdom

Bridon International Limited

19. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/9

B. Exporting producers

(a) Hungary

Drótáru és Drótkötél Ipari és Kereskedelmi
Rt, Miskolc

(b) India

Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd,
Calcutta

Mohatta & Heckel, Mumbai

(7)

(c) Korea

Kiswire Ltd, Seoul and Pusan

Manho Rope & Wire Ltd, Pusan

Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd, Pusan

Chun Kee Steel and Wire Rope Co., Ltd,
Suncheon

(d) Mexico

Aceros Camesa SA de CV, Mexico

Cablesa SA de CV, Queretaro

The latter was investigated but it was found
not to have exported the product concerned
during the investigation period and conse-
quently it is not concerned by the anti-
dumping proceeding.

(e) Poland

Drumet SA, Wloclawek

‘Linodrut' Group (1)

(f) South Africa

Haggie Rand Limited, Cleveland

C. Related importers in the Community

(a) India:

(b) Korea:

Usha Martin Europe Limited
(United Kingdom)
Usha Martin
(Denmark)

Scandinavia

Kiswire Europe BV (Nether-
lands)

(c) South Africa: Haggie Rand Europe (Bel-

gium)
Le Lis (Belgium)

(6) With regard to both proceedings,

the dumping
investigation covered the period 1 January 1997 to
31 March 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
investigation period' or ‘IP').

(1) The following companies of the group are concerned by the

anti-dumping proceeding:
— Slaskie Zaklady Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut' Spólka Akcyjna,
— Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Linodrut' Zabrze Spólka z organic-

— Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Falind' Spólka z organiczona odpo-

zona odpowiedzialnoscia,

wiedzialnoscia,

— Górnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut' Bytom Spólka

organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia,

— Dolnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut Linmet' spólka

z organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia.

The examination of injury covered the period 1
January 1994 to 31 March 1998 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘period considered').

B. PRODUCT

CONCERNED
PRODUCT

AND

LIKE

1. Product concerned

The product concerned is steel ropes and cables,
including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and
cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-
sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm (hereinafter,
using industry terminology, referred to as steel wire
ropes or ‘SWR'). They are currently classifiable
within CN codes
7312 10 84,
7312 10 86, 7312 10 88 and 7312 10 99.

7312 10 82,

SWR consist of three basic components: the steel
wire that forms the strand, the strands that are
wrapped around a core and the core itself. These
components vary in design depending on the phys-
ical requirement of the intended application of the
SWR. A single strand can in certain cases be used
as a SWR.

There are different qualities of steel wire, with
varying tensile strength and diameter. The steel
wire may be galvanised (i.e. zinc coated) or bright.

The strand is obtained by closely twisting together
arranged in different geometric
several wires
‘filler'
‘standard',
patterns or formations (e.g.
and ‘warrington'). The quantity, size and quality of
the steel wire and the specific construction estab-
lish the properties of each type of SWR.

‘seal',

The strands are usually assembled and wrapped
around a core which can be of fibre (natural or
synthetic), steel, or a combination of the two.

There are other specifications of SWR such as the
lay direction, whether there is pre-forming or other
special properties (e.g. compacted, cable laid, rota-
tion resistance). They are generally round in cross-
section but may also be rectangular. SWR may be
cut to length or fitted (hooks, rings), and may be
covered with plastic.

SWR are used in a variety of applications including
general purposes,
fishing, maritime/shipping, oil
and gas industries, mining, forestry, aerial transport,
elevator.
civil
Despite these different applications and minor
differences in their physical characteristics, these
products are considered as the same product.

construction and

engineering,

2. Like product

(8)

Although it was alleged by certain exporting produ-
cers that the products concerned from different
exporting countries were not all alike, the Commis-
sion found that there were no significant differ-
and technical
ences

in the basic physical

L 45/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 2. 1999

characteristics of the various types of SWR (see
description above). As concerns the application and
usage of SWR, although a wide range of user indus-
tries exists, all SWR were found to have essentially
the same use.

(10)

SWR produced and sold on the domestic market in
Hungary, India, Korea, Mexico, Poland and South
Africa, as well as those produced and sold by the
Community industry, were found to have the same
physical and technical characteristics and uses as
those exported to the Community from the coun-
tries concerned. Furthermore, within each product
type it was found that SWR imported into the
Community from the countries concerned were
interchangeable with those produced in the
Community. It was therefore concluded that all
SWR were like products within the meaning of
Article 1(4) of the Basic Regulation.

C. DUMPING

1. Normal value

(a) General method (PRC, Hungary, lndia, Korea,
Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Ukraine)

(9)

In order to establish normal value, it was first deter-
mined for each cooperating exporting producer of
the countries involved in the proceeding whether
the
the total volume of
product concerned was representative in accord-
ance with Article 2(2) of the Basic Regulation, i.e.
whether these sales represented more than 5 % of
the
concerned
exported to the Community.

the domestic sales of

the product

volume of

sales

It was then examined whether total domestic sales
of each product type constituted 5 % or more of
the sales volume of the same type exported to the
Community.

For those products meeting the 5 % test it was
examined whether sufficient sales had been made
in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with
Article 2(4) of the Basic Regulation.

Where, per product type, the volume of domestic
sales above unit cost represented at least 80 % of
sales, normal value was established on the basis of
the weighted average prices actually paid for all
domestic sales. Where, per product
the
volume of profitable transactions was lower than
80 % but not lower than 10 % of sales, normal
value was established on the basis of the weighted
average prices actually paid for the remaining prof-
itable domestic sales.

type,

those product

For
types where the volume of
domestic sales was lower than 5 % of the volume
exported to the Community, or where the volume
of profitable domestic sales was less than 10 %,
domestic sales of those product types were consid-
ered insufficient within the meaning of Article
2(2)(4) of the Basic Regulation and were therefore
disregarded. In these cases normal value was based
on the weighted average of the prices charged by
in the country concerned for
other producers
representative domestic sales of the corresponding
product type made in the ordinary course of trade
in accordance with Article 2(1) of the Basic Regula-
tion.

(11) Where, per product type, there were insufficient
sales or no such representative domestic sales by
other producers in the country concerned, normal
value was constructed on the basis of the costs of
manufacturing incurred by the exporting producer
concerned for the exported product type in ques-
tion plus a reasonable amount for selling, general
and administrative (SG&A) costs and for profits in
accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the Basic
Regulation. The SG&A costs were based on repres-
entative domestic sales and the profit margin on
representative sales made in the ordinary course of
trade

(b) Use of available

information (India and

Poland)

(12) One Indian and one Polish exporting producer
failed to provide adequate information concerning
normal value; in particular the information about
In these
costs of production was
circumstances, pursuant to Article 18(1) and (5) of
the Basic Regulation, the normal value of these
companies had to be established on the basis of the
facts available. It was provisionally decided that the
information on the normal value of the other co-
operating exporting producer
country
concerned constituted the most appropriate basis.

insufficient.

in the

(c) Analogue

country for non-market

economy

countries (PRC and Ukraine)

(13)

Since the PRC and Ukraine are considered to be
non-market economy countries, in accordance with
Article 2(7) of the Basic Regulation it was necessary
to establish a normal value by reference to a market
economy third country. Norway was suggested by
the complainant and mentioned in the notice of

19. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/11

initiation. Within the time limit specified in this
notice one exporting Chinese producer expressed
disagreement with this proposal and proposed
India as an alternative. One Ukrainian producer
also expressed disagreement and proposed Turkey.

(15)

(16)

After investigation it appeared that Norway was not
an appropriate analogue country as there was only
one producer and only limited imports, therefore
competition in this market was very limited;
furthermore, the size of the domestic market was
very small.

An investigation was made to establish the poss-
ibility of using the normal value in the United
States, where there is a wide range of products in a
competitive market. Only one of the companies
contacted in the United States agreed to cooperate.
However, during the investigation, it appeared that
the level of cooperation from this producer was not
sufficient to enable the Commission to verify satis-
factorily, for each product type, the level of prices
paid on the United States market and the cost of
production.

At
the same time the Commission examined
whether Thailand or Turkey were appropriate
choices. A number of companies were contacted
but, despite considerable efforts on the part of the
Commission, they refused to cooperate.

Under these circumstances it was decided to use
one of the market economy countries involved in
the proceeding. India was considered the most
appropriate analogue country in accordance with
Article 2(7) of
the
Indian domestic market is the largest in size, char-
acterised by a significant number of competing
local producers; second, Indian domestic sales of
the product concerned are the most representative
when compared with Chinese and Ukrainian
exports to the Community.

the Basic Regulation. First,

For the above reasons the normal value for Chinese
and Ukrainian exports to the Community was
established on the basis of prices actually paid or
payable by independent customers in the Indian
market.

2. Export price

for

In India, Korea and South Africa the export prices
were constructed on the basis of the prices at which
the imported products were first resold to indepen-
dent buyers in the Community, in accordance with
Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation. Adjustments
were made
incurred between
importation and resale,
including a reasonable
margin for SG&A plus profit. The level of profit
was determined on the basis of information on
profits submitted by the cooperating unrelated
importers of
concerned in the
Community where such information was consid-
ered both reliable and representative.

the product

costs

all

(b) Individual treatment (PRC)

Four exporting Chinese producers requested indi-
vidual treatment, i.e. the establishment of separate
export prices
a
dumping margin for each of them.

the calculation of

and thus

these four
The Commission verified whether
companies enjoyed, in fact and in law, a degree of
independence from the Chinese State comparable
to that which would prevail in a market economy
country. To this end detailed questions regarding
deter-
ownership, management,
mination of commercial and business policies were
addressed to the companies.

control

and

The four companies concerned failed to show to
the satisfaction of the Commission that they were
sufficiently independent of the Chinese authorities.
In particular,
these companies is
owned by the State, which also owns the produc-
tion facilities.

the capital of

With the exception of one company, where it was
clear from the company rules that the decision-
making power for all essential operations lay with
the State, the remaining three companies did not
provide copies of their ‘articles of association'.

It was therefore impossible to determine whether
or not these companies operated independent of
the Chinese authorities, if they were free to decide
on salaries, level of production and pricing policy
and in particular on the quantities sold on the
domestic or export markets.

It was therefore decided that individual treatment
was not appropriate for these four companies.

(a) General method

3. Comparison

(14) Where export sales to the Community were made
directly to independent customers export prices
were established on the basis of the prices actually
paid or payable by these customers in accordance
with Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation.

(17)

For the purpose of a fair comparison, due allow-
ance, in the form of adjustments, was made for
differences claimed pursuant to Article 2(10) of the
Basic Regulation: indirect taxes, charges for trans-
port, insurance, handling, loading, ancillary costs,
packing, credit, after-sales costs and commission.

L 45/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 2. 1999

(18)

(19)

companies

in Korea,

there was a direct

Three
the Hungarian
company and one company in India claimed an
allowance for import charges. This was accepted for
the Hungarian company and the Korean compa-
nies except in the case of one which was unable to
show that
link between the
imported raw materials used for the production of
the product concerned sold on the domestic
market and the allowance claimed for
import
charges. It was not granted for the Indian company
which failed to prove that some raw materials,
mainly zinc, were imported with payment of duties
and were physically incorporated in the product
concerned sold on the domestic market.

The South African company and one Polish
company claimed an adjustment for differences in
level of trade. The South African company made
the claim on the grounds that on the domestic
market sales were made directly to independent
customers or through branches, while export sales
were made to large distributors which resold the
product. With regard to sales via branches, it was
alleged that
the functions they performed were
more extensive and the prices charged higher than
those involved when selling directly from the
factory. This claim was not granted since the
company was unable to demonstrate that there was
a consistent difference in prices on the domestic
market between sales to independent customers
and sales through branches.

(20) One Polish company claimed that export sales in
the Community were made to distributors and
wholesalers, who bought
large quantities, while
sales on the domestic market were made to distrib-
utors and end-users who bought small quantities.
However, the company neither demonstrated that
there was a difference in the functions performed
by the alleged various categories of customers, nor
that there was a consistent and distinct difference
in price between the different levels of trade on the
domestic market of the exporting country. Conse-
quently, the adjustment appeared not to be justi-
fied.

the credit costs rather

(21) One company in India claimed that the Commis-
sion should use the actual payment date in the
calculation of
than the
payment terms mentioned on the invoice. This
claim was rejected since it was considered that the
actual payment date was not a factor to be taken
into account in the determination of the prices
charged but rather the payment terms indicated on
the invoice.

(22)

(23)

The South African company claimed an allowance
for currency conversion pursuant to Article 2(10)(j)
of the Basic Regulation on the grounds that due to
the appreciation of the South African rand in rela-
tion to European currencies during the IP the
export prices should be adjusted. This claim was
rejected since the fluctuations in exchange rates did
not show a sustained movement.

to finance this

The abovementioned Polish company claimed an
adjustment to its normal value on the basis that its
domestic sales were made mainly from stock, there-
fore incurring expenses
stock,
whereas for the export market it produced to order.
This adjustment was requested pursuant to Article
2(10)(k). Since the company did not demonstrate
that the difference in financing expenses affected
price comparability and in the absence of evidence
showing that customers paid consistently different
prices on the domestic market because of this, the
request could not be granted.

4. Dumping margins

(a) Methodology

(24) Weighted average normal value per product type
was compared with the weighted average export
price on an ex-works basis and at the same level of
trade in accordance with Article 2(11) of the Basic
Regulation. This comparison showed the existence
of dumping for all countries concerned with the
exception of Korea.

(25)

For non-cooperating companies concerned by the
proceeding who did not reply to the Commission’s
questionnaire, did not make themselves known or
did not supply necessary information during the
investigation, the dumping margin was determined
on the basis of the facts available in accordance
with the provisions of Article 18(1) of the Basic
Regulation.

A comparison of Eurostat figures with the data on
the volume of exports to the Community supplied
by the cooperating exporting producers was made
in order to establish the level of cooperation in the
current investigation. As a result, for all countries
subject to investigation it was found that the overall
level of cooperation was high. The Commission
therefore considered it appropriate to set
the
dumping margin for the non-cooperating com-
panies at
the highest or the sole
dumping margin established for a cooperating
exporting producer in the country concerned, since
there was no reason to believe that a non-cooper-
ating exporting producer had dumped at a level
lower than the highest level found.

the level of

19. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/13

The above approach was also considered necessary
in order to avoid creating a bonus for non-coopera-
tion and an opportunity for circumvention.

during the period examined pursuant to Article
4(1)(a) and (2) of the Basic Regulation.

(b) Level of the dumping margins

(26)

The dumping margin provisionally established,
expressed as a percentage of
the cif price at
Community frontier level, is:

PRC:

(27) Hungary:

74,8 %.

— Dótarú és Drótkötél Ipari és

Kereskedelmi Rt:

33,9 %,
— Non-cooperating exporting producers: 33,9 %.

(28)

India:

— Usha Martin Industries &

39,8 %,
Usha Beltron Ltd:
40,2 %,
— Mohatta & Heckel:
— Non-cooperating exporting producers: 40,2 %.

(29) Korea:

1,2 %,
— Kiswire Ltd:
0,1 %,
— Manho Rope & Wire Ltd:
— Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd:
0,2 %,
— Chun Kee Steel and Wire Rope Co., Ltd: 0,4 %.

These margins are de minimis.

(30) Mexico:

95,6 %,
— Camesa SA de CV:
— Non-cooperating exporting producers: 95,6 %.

(31)

Poland:

35,0 %,
— Drumet SA:
— ‘Linodrut' Group:
56,1 %,
— Non-cooperating exporting producers: 56,1 %.

(32)

South Africa:

— Haggie Rand Limited:
— Non-cooperating exporting producers:

132 %,
132 %.

(33) Ukraine:

54,8 %.

D. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

1. Community production

(34) A number of exporting producers alleged that one
complainant Community producer
should be
excluded from the definition of Community
industry as it was related to an importer and a
chain of distribution/trading companies which had
imported
the
Community from the countries under investigation

concerned

product

into

the

should

be noted

complainant
It
Community producer in question had not itself
made any imports during the period investigated.

that

the

the Commission established that

As regards imports by the trading companies in the
group,
the
complainant Community producer in question was
indeed part of a group of companies that included
an importer and distribution companies, and that
these had imported SWR from the countries
concerned during the investigation period. The
structure of the group was found to have changed
between 1994 and the IP. However, throughout the
whole
complainant
Community producer in question and both the
importer and the distribution companies had had
common holdings and were therefore considered to
be related companies.

investigated,

period

the

The Commission examined the nature of the group
structure and found that it could not be excluded
that a certain degree of control may have existed
between the related companies either directly or
through the common holding company. The
Commission established that
volume of
dumped imports made by the related companies in
the IP represented 2 % of Community consump-
tion, 6 % of total third country imports and only
11 % of the complainant Community producer’s
volume of production. The principal activity of this
complainant Community producer was therefore
the production of SWR.

the

as

the

other

imports

producer

concerned

the complainant
As concerns the behaviour of
Community
the
on
Community market, the Commission found that
despite the possible existence of any such control,
the complainant Community producer in question
the
was suffering the same injurious effects of
dumped
complainant
Community producers investigated in the course of
the current proceeding. It should be noted in this
respect that the company concerned did not adopt
commercial behaviour on the Community market
that was significantly different from that of the
other complainant Community producers as a
result of the imports in question. The complainant
Community producer in question was found to
have suffered consistent and significant undercut-
ting by the imports originating in the countries
concerned during the IP (a weighted average under-
cutting of 75,8 % was found). It was therefore
complainant Community
considered that
producer in question did not benefit unduly from
the imports concerned and it had not been
shielded from the injurious effects of the dumping.

the

L 45/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 2. 1999

In view of the above the Commission considered
that there were no grounds to exclude the com-
plainant Community producer in question from
the total Community production.

(39)

The Community industry accounted for 97 % of
the total estimated Community production and
thus constituted a major proportion of Community
production pursuant to Article 5(4) of the Basic
Regulation.

(35)

The Commission found that during the invest-
igation period certain complainant Community
producers had purchased SWR from various
sources outside the Community,
including the
countries concerned. However, the volume of these
imports represented a negligible share of
total
production (i.e. less than 1 % of the complainant
Community producers’ total production of SWR).
The Commission therefore considered that these
purchases were in accordance with the standard
commercial practice of producers who had to
supplement their own range of products with a
small proportion of imports. These imports were
necessary in order to be able to offer a full range of
products
to compete on the
Community market.

and be

able

(36)

Based on the above, the Commission considered
Community production to consist of all companies
producing SWR in the Community at the time of
the investigation. These companies are hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Community producers'.

2. Community industry

(37) A number of small producers that supported the
complaint did not provide responses
to the
Commission’s questionnaires. In accordance with
Article 4(1) the scope of the Community industry
was defined as the remaining cooperating produ-
cers.

(38) On this basis

the following 20 complainant
Community producers made up the ‘Community
industry', i.e. Bremer Drahtseilerei Lüling GmbH
(Germany), Bridon International Limited (United
Kingdom), BTS Drahtseile GmbH (Germany),
Cables Y Alambres Especiales Sa.
(Spain), Casar
Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH (Germany), Cordoaria
Oliveira SA (Portugal), Drahtseilerei Gustav Kocks
GmbH (Germany), Holding Ficadi (France), Iscar
Funi Metalliche (Italy), D. Koronakis SA (Greece),
Metalcalvi Wire Ropes
(Italy), Midland Wire
Cordage Co., Ltd (United Kingdom), Randers
Rebslageri (Denmark), Redaelli Tecnacordati SpA
(Italy), Trefileurope (France), Trenzas Y Cables SL
GmbH
(Spain),
(Germany), Voest-Alpine Austria Draht GmbH
(Austria), Vornbäumen-Stahlseile GmbH and
Wadra GmbH (both Germany).

Drahtseilwerke

Vereinigte

E. INJURY

1. Preliminary remarks

(40) As indicated above, for the purposes of establishing
injury in the present proceeding the Commission
has analysed data relating to the period considered.
It should be noted however, that as regards the
development of
the
period considered, the Commission has, for the
purposes of a year-to-year comparison used the
figures relating to the full 15 months of the invest-
igation period (1997 and three months of 1998) as a
basis for extrapolating the figures for a 12-month
IP.

the injury indicators over

2. Collection of injury data

(41)

The Commission requested and obtained informa-
tion from the Community industry with respect to
sales,
production, capacity, capacity utilisation,
stocks and employment (‘global information'). In
view of
the large number of producers in the
Community industry, and in accordance with
Article 17 of the Basic Regulation, the Commission
based the findings concerning the remaining injury
indicators on a sample of companies
in the
Community industry, i.e., prices, profitability, cost
of production and investments (‘sampled informa-
tion').

(42)

The sample was made according to geographical
location and the size of the companies in terms of
production. In this context, the sample includes
large as well as small companies. Furthermore, it
should be noted that the Commission included six
producers from six Member States in their sample.

The sampled companies accounted for 61 % of
production of
the product concerned by the
Community industry during the IP.

3. Community consumption

(43) Community consumption was based on the ques-
the
of
tionnaire
information
Community
(volume of
(non-
complaining Community producers’ level of sales).

imports) and the complaint

of
Eurostat

industry),

(volume

replies

sales

19. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/15

On the above basis, the Community consumption
increased slightly over
the period going from
141 000 tonnes in 1994 to 147 500 tonnes in the
IP, which represents an overall increase of 5 %. It
should be noted that between 1994 and 1995
consumption increased (7 %) and declined from
1995 to 1996 (7 %). Consumption increased
slightly in 1997 compared to 1996.

4. Imports into the Community from the

countries concerned

(a) Imports from Korea

(44) As the dumping margins of imports of SWR from
Korea were found to be de minimis, the following
injury analysis does not include an assessment of
the impact of imports from Korea.

(b) Imports from Mexico

(45)

It was alleged by the complainants that the Euro-
stat statistics concerning imports from Mexico were
significantly lower than the actual level of imports
made in the period considered. The reason given
was that SWR were being imported as steel wires
under two incorrect CN codes.

The Commission contacted the customs officials in
the Member State concerned, who after invest-
igation, confirmed that SWR were being imported
under the CN codes alleged by the complainants.
In the light of the above results, the Commission
decided to include Eurostat statistics available for
the two CN codes
that had been used for
importing SWR from Mexico.

(c) Cumulation

The Commission examined whether imports of
SWR originating in the PRC, Hungary, India,
Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Ukraine should
be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article
3(4) of the Basic Regulation.

(51)

(46)

(47)

the cumulation of

In this respect, one of the exporting producers
argued against
the imports
originating in Hungary claiming that the evolution
imports originating in Hungary in terms of
of
volume could not be compared with the evolution
of
imports originating in the other countries
concerned.

The Commission examined these arguments and
found that the volume of imports from Hungary
was significant at all times, having increased from
1 407 tonnes in 1994 to 2 121 tonnes in the IP. It
is to be noted that the evolution of imports from
individual countries is not in itself a justification
for non-cumulation. In any event the evolution of
imports from Hungary was found to correspond to
the trend of imports of the countries concerned

together. The Commission

taken
therefore
concluded that the imports from Hungary should
be cumulated.

(48) A second exporting producer argued that

the
imports from Mexico were de minimis and there-
fore Mexico should be excluded from the scope of
the investigation and that in any event the imports
originating in Mexico should not be cumulated
with those of the other countries concerned.

the

concerns

As
from Mexico the
imports
Commission concluded that the imports were more
than de minimis (see imports from Mexico above)
since
represented 3 % of Community
consumption during the IP.

they

(49) As stated above the dumping margins found for all
the countries concerned ranged from 34 to 132 %
and therefore are above the de minimis level.
Import volumes from the countries concerned are
comparable both in absolute and relative terms.
Furthermore, the volume of imports from the seven
countries concerned could not be considered as
negligible.

(50) As

regards

the conditions of competition,

the
investigation has found that SWR imported from
the countries concerned, considered on a type-by-
type basis, were alike in all their essential physical
and technical characteristics. Furthermore these
types of SWR were interchangeable with other
types imported from the countries concerned and
those produced in the Community and they were
marketed in the Community during the same
period through comparable sales channels under
similar commercial conditions. The imported SWR
were therefore considered to compete with each
other
and with the SWR produced in the
Community.

i.e.,

In the light of the above, the Commission consid-
ered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the
Basic Regulation were met,
the margin of
dumping from each exporting country was more
than de minimis, the volume of imports from each
country was not negligible and the conditions of
competition between the imported products as well
as between the imported products and the like
comparable. The
Community products were
imports from the seven countries concerned were
therefore examined cumulatively.

(d) Volume and market share of dumped imports

(52)

The volume of
the dumped imports into the
Community originating in the countries concerned
increased from 17 429 tonnes in 1994 to 33 668
tonnes in the IP, which represents an overall
increase of 93 %.

L 45/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 2. 1999

(53)

The market share held by these countries increased
from 12 % in 1994 to 23 % in the IP, which
represents an increase of 11 percentage points over
the period considered. In the investigation period
the countries
the market shares from each of
concerned ranged from 1,4 to 7,8 %.

(e) Prices of the dumped imports

(54) As regards price undercutting,

and the

the analysis was
made for each type of SWR. For each of these
the Commission compared the exporting
types,
complaining Community
producers’
producers’ weighted average selling prices free of
all rebates and taxes, calculated on the basis of sales
to the first unrelated customer. The average selling
price of the complainant Community producers
was weighted in relation to the sales volume of
each type of SWR. This was then compared to the
corresponding figure for each exporting producer
concerned on the basis of their resale prices in the
Community and weighted in respect of
sales
volume.

(55)

In order to arrive at a comparable level of trade
with the sales of
the complainant Community
producers, the import prices from the countries
concerned have been adjusted to take into account
handling costs and customs duty payable. The
adjustments were based on information received
from importers.

(56) As a result of

this comparison the following
weighted average price undercutting, expressed as a
percentage of the Community producers’ prices,
was found:

— PRC: 60,1 %,

— Hungary: 47,3 %,

— India: from 40,1 to 41,2 %,

— Mexico: 31,9 %,

— Poland: from 38,7 to 43,7 %,

— South Africa: 21,6 %,

— Ukraine: 54,0 %.

(57)

It should be noted that the prices of imports from
the countries concerned have been consistently and
significantly lower than the Community industry’s
prices over the period 1994 to the IP.

(59) Capacity of the Community industry increased by
11 %. As regards the increase in capacity, it should
be noted that rope-making machinery has a long
effective life span (more than 20 years in certain
the
cases) and consequently it was found that
replacement of old machinery inevitably led to an
increase in capacity given the improved per-
formance of the modern machines. The significant
investments made in 1995 can, for the most part,
be attributed to one Community producer which
replaced outdated machinery. In the same period
capacity utilisation levels decreased, going from
64 % in 1994 to 58 % in the IP.

(60)

(61)

(62)

(b) Stocks

The Community industry’s stocks increased signi-
ficantly over the period, going from 30 607 tonnes
in 1994 to 39 780 tonnes in the IP, which rep-
resents an increase of 30 %. Stocks increased in
particular between 1994 and 1995 (24 %).

(c) Volume of sales and market share

industry’s

the
The Community
Community market decreased from 106 042 tonnes
in 1994 to 96 776 tonnes in the IP, representing a
decrease of 9 266 tonnes (9 %).

sales

on

The development of sales volume compared to that
of consumption, shows that the market share held
by the Community industry decreased over the
period considered. The market share held by the
Community industry went from 75 % in 1994 to
66 % in the IP, representing a loss of 9 percentage
points over the period considered.

(d) Prices

(63)

The weighted average selling price of SWR sold by
the Community industry on the Community
market showed a small overall increase between
1994 and the IP (going from ECU 1,34 to ECU
1,46 per kilogram).

It should be noted that the prices of the imports
remained significantly below
concerned always
those of the Community industry.

5. Situation of the Community industry

(a) Production, capacity and utilisation rates

(e) Profitability

(58)

volume of production of

The
the product
concerned produced by the Community industry
remained stable throughout the period considered,
going from 144 484 tonnes in 1994 to 145 192 in
the IP, which represents an overall increase of less
than 1 %.

(64)

It should be noted that information on the profit-
ability of SWR was not available for all the compa-
nies included in the sample (certain companies’
separately
cost
identify SWR). Consequently, in accordance with
Article 3(8) of the Basic Regulation, the Commis-
sion has used the profitability of the nearest sector

accounting system could not

19. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/17

to

the

represent

situation of

available
the
Community industry. The profitability at a total
company level was considered to be representative
of SWR given that SWR represented a significant
proportion of total company turnover for all the
companies concerned.

The average profitability of the sampled complain-
ant Community producers went from +1,3 % in
1994 to –0,6 % in 1997. The investigation has
shown that despite a moderate increase in average
sales
the
Community industry’s sales and subsequently its
market share have fallen (by 9 % and 9 percentage
points respectively).

production

volume,

prices

and

(f) Investments

(65)

Investments increased overall by 24 %, going from
ECU 7 094 000 in 1994 to ECU 8 826 000 in the
IP. Investments have in general been in replace-
ment machinery.

(g) Employment

(66)

The number of personnel employed by the
Community industry decreased over the period
considered, going from 2 710 persons employed in
1994 to 2 559 in the IP (representing a decrease of
6 %).

(h) Productivity

(67)

Productivity (volume produced per employee) of
the Community industry increased over the period
considered (an increase of 6 % was found between
1994 and the IP).

6. Conclusion on injury

(68)

in

the

originating

The Commission concluded that the Community
industry had suffered significant price pressure
from imports
countries
concerned over the period considered which were
entering the Community market in growing quant-
ities and were found to significantly undercut the
Community industry’s prices in the investigation
period. The Community industry lost significant
market share at a time when consumption in the
market had slightly increased (5 % increase). It
should also be noted that although production
levels were stable, sales fell throughout the period
and stock levels increased continuously and signi-
ficantly.

Furthermore, the Community industry’s financial
situation deteriorated during the period going from
a profit of 1,3 % in 1994 to losses in 1997
(– 0,6 %).

As a result of the information described above, the
Commission has provisionally concluded that the
Community
injury
within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Basic
Regulation.

suffered material

industry

(69)

(70)

F. CAUSATION OF INJURY

The Commission examined whether the material
injury suffered by the Community industry had
been caused by the dumped imports from the PRC,
Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and
Ukraine and also examined other factors in order to
ensure that injury caused by other factors was not
attributed to the dumped imports in accordance
with Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation.

(a) Effects of the dumped imports

the

There is a clear coincidence between, on the one
hand,
significant price undercutting and
increased import volume and market share of the
dumped imports found during the period consid-
ered and, on the other, the deterioration in the
situation of
is
evidenced in particular by a decrease in the market
share held by the Community industry and the
deterioration in their profitability in the period
investigated.

the Community industry. This

More specifically, with regard to market shares, it
should be noted that from 1994 to the IP imports
from the countries concerned increased by more
than the rate of consumption (an overall increase of
93 %). This represents an overall increase in their
market share of 11 percentage points, while the
the Community producers
market
decreased by 9 percentage points. In particular, the
significant increase in imports between 1994 and
1995 (an increase of 73 %) coincided with the loss
the
in market share (10 percentage points) of
Community industry in this period.

shares of

The Commission therefore concluded that the loss
of market
share suffered by the Community
industry coincides with the gain in market share
held by the countries concerned.

(71)

Furthermore, the Community industry’s financial
situation deteriorated significantly during the
period considered going from a profit to a loss-
making situation in a market in which demand
the period considered. In
increased throughout
particular
financial
the Community industry’s
situation deteriorated between 1994 and 1995
(going from + 1,3 % to – 0,3 %), this occurred at
a time when they suffered a significant loss of
market share (10 percentage points).

L 45/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 2. 1999

(72)

(73)

(74)

Finally, in terms of sales prices it should be noted
that the Community industry increased its prices in
the period 1994 to 1995. This increase coincided
with increases
raw materials.
in the costs of
However, due to the pressure caused by the massive
increase in low priced imports in 1995 (+73 %),
which were made at prices which significantly
undercut those of the Community industry, the
latter was unable to cover its costs despite the price
increase.

In an attempt to regain its market position in 1996
the Community industry reduced prices
and
regained some lost market share. However profit-
In 1997 the
ability only deteriorated further.
Community industry was able to retain its position
on the market by improving productivity and
increasing prices, however its financial situation
remained negative (– 0,6 %).

(b) Effect of other factors

The Commission examined whether the injury
suffered by the Community industry could have
been caused by factors other than the dumped
imports. In particular the Commission looked at
the evolution
the development of consumption,
and impact of imports from other third countries,
the effect of increases in the cost of raw materials
and whether the injury suffered could have resulted
from imports made by the Community industry.

(i) C o n s u m p t i o n

is

The Commission considered whether the develop-
ment of consumption affected the situation of the
Community industry.
to be noted that
It
although there was a decrease in consumption
between 1995 and 1996 (8 %), the overall level of
consumption increased over the period considered
by 5 %. It is therefore unlikely that the injury
could be attributed to the evolution in consump-
tion.

Korea

(76)

Imports from Korea were examined in the context
of
this investigation and de minimis dumping
margins were found. The Commission examined
the volume of imports during the period consid-
ered and found that it had remained stable. The
prices of imports from Korea were found to be
comparable with the Community industry’s prices,
therefore the injury suffered by the Community
industry could not be attributed to imports origin-
ating in Korea.

Czech Republic

(77) As regards the imports from the Czech Republic,
while their unit price remained below that of the
Community industry in the IP, their volume of
imports decreased over the period.

Romania

(78) Although there was a significant

increase in
imports from Romania, at the beginning of the
period considered these were at an extremely low
level (only 217 tonnes in 1994) and at the end of
the period the level of these imports remained very
low (0,9 % in the IP).

Russia

(79) As regards the imports from Russia despite fluctu-
ations over the period considered, Russia’s market
share in the IP represented only 0,3 %.

Turkey

(80) As regards the imports from Turkey the invest-
igation found that although imports from Turkey
increased over
the period, with a consequent
increase in market share (1,7 % in the IP), unit
prices were significantly higher than those of the
to the investigation for which
countries subject
dumping and injury margins have been established.

(ii) I m p o r t s
t r i e s

f r o m o t h e r

t h i r d c o u n -

(75) As regards imports from other third countries not
concerned by this proceeding,
the Commission
found that although these imports represented a
significant share in the Community market (9 % in
the investigation period), they decreased during the
period considered, going from 10 % in 1994 to
9 % in the IP.

(81)

In this context, the Commission, based on Eurostat
the trends in
statistics, examined in particular
volumes and prices of imports from Korea, and the
trends in relation to imports from the Czech
Republic, Romania, Russia and Turkey.

Conclusion

The Commission considered that imports from the
abovementioned third countries not concerned by
this proceeding may have contributed to the injury
in particular imports from the Czech
suffered,
Republic and Turkey. However, this alone was not
found to be sufficient
link
established between the dumped imports and the
material
the Community
suffered by
industry, particularly in view of the market share
held by these third countries and the development
of this market share over the period considered
(going from 5,9 % in 1994 to 6,7 % in the IP).

to break the causal

injury

19. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/19

Other third countries

(c) Conclusion on causation

(82)

The Commission found that the total market share
held by other third countries decreased during the
period considered (going from 4 % in 1994 to
2,7 % in the IP) and that
these
imports were found to be distinctly higher than
those of the dumped imports.

the prices of

(iii) R a w m a t e r i a l s

(83)

The Commission also considered whether
the
injury suffered by the Community industry could
have been caused by increases in the costs of raw
materials during the period considered.

In this regard the Commission considered that
given the limited substitutability of SWR by other
the Community industry should have
products,
been able to pass on increases in costs of raw
materials. In this regard, the Commission found
that the price increases made by the Community
industry in 1994/1995 when faced with the
increase in low-priced imports were insufficient to
cover the increases in costs of raw materials.

from other
the
to

(85) Although it cannot be excluded that some of the
third countries may have
imports
the
suffered
injury
contributed
Community industry, the investigation has shown
that these factors in themselves were not such as to
break the causal link between the imports subject
to the investigation and the material injury suffered
by the Community industry.

by

In the light of
the Commission
the above,
concluded that the imports from the seven coun-
tries concerned taken together have caused material
injury to the Community industry.

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. Preliminary remarks

(86)

the

The Commission provisionally examined, on the
basis of
information submitted, whether,
despite the dumping and injury findings, compel-
ling reasons exist which would lead to the conclu-
sion that it is not in the Community interest to
impose measures in the present case.

For this purpose, the Commission has considered
the impact of the imposition and non-imposition
of measures
involved in the
all parties
proceeding.

for

(iv) I n j u r y c a u s e d b y t h e C o m m u n i t y

i n d u s t r y ’ s o w n i m p o r t s

2. Collection of Community interest data

(87)

(88)

(84) A number of exporters alleged that the Community
industry had caused injury through its own imports
of the product concerned from the countries under
investigation during the period examined.

In this respect, as explained in the section on the
definition of Community production above,
the
Commission found that
these purchases corres-
ponded,
in general, to the standard commercial
practice of producers who had to supplement the
range of products manufactured by themselves with
a small proportion of imports. These imports were
necessary in order to be able to offer a full range of
products
to compete on the
Community market. With regard to the relation-
ship of one complainant Community producer
with an importer and certain distributors, which
was specifically investigated, it was concluded that
this company had not behaved any differently to
other Community producers investigated. Conse-
quently, the effect of the imports made by these
companies cannot be attributed to the Community
producer.

and be

able

The Commission therefore concluded that
the
Community industry had not caused injury by its
own imports of SWR.

In order to assess the impact of the imposition of
measures, the Commission requested information
from all interested parties known, including parties
in the upstream industries,
complainant
Community producers, importers/wholesalers and
the users. It should be noted that no replies were
received from the user industries. On the basis of
the information received from the cooperating
parties,
following
conclusions.

the Commission made

the

the

3. Impact on upstream industries

The principal raw material used in the production
of SWR is industrial steel wire, in particular high-
carbon steel wire that may be galvanised or other-
wise coated. It is to be noted that there are signi-
ficant other raw materials used in the production of
SWR including synthetic fibres, grease and pack-
aging (in particular drums/reels). The steel wire
used by the Community industry is principally
produced by the major steel-makers in Europe.
There are a number of qualities and diameters of
steel wire that can be used in this type of produc-
tion, however,
in the
Community produce the full range necessary for
the production of SWR.

the steel wire makers

L 45/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 2. 1999

(89)

Two companies producing raw materials cooper-
ated with the Commission’s investigation. These
two companies employed some 1 417 people in
1997. Total turnover in 1997 was ECU 312 million
of which ECU 54 million related to the raw ma-
terials concerned (representing some 17 % of total
turnover). As regards the profitability of the com-
panies concerned it was approximately 5 % in
1997.

4. Impact on Community industry

(a) Nature and structure of

the Community

industry

(90)

(91)

(92)

States

(Austria, Denmark,

The Community industry is composed of small and
medium-sized companies located in nine of the
Member
France,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the
United Kingdom). It should be noted that produc-
tion of SWR is capital intensive and that significant
research and development has to be made in order
to continue improving the product range, in partic-
ular the special SWR used for projects (see below).
SWR often undergo further transformation by the
Community industry and/or its related companies,
(i.e. cutting, splicing and the fitting of fittings or
the transformation into other articles such as slings,
etc.). It is clear that any negative impact on SWR
would significantly impair this activity.

The total Community production employs some
2 600 people (IP).

In addition to the production of standard SWR, the
Community industry also produces a wide range of
special SWR on a project basis, for instance SWR
used in the construction of suspension bridges or
suspended roofs. This project production is usually
for a fixed quantity and a fixed term (i.e.
the
volume needed for the project and the duration of
the project). It should be noted that over the years
project work has become an important source of
revenue for the Community industry. As project
orders usually require close technical cooperation
with the customers (often necessitating advanced
technology and machinery) and additional services
(not only in the installation of the SWR but also in
the longer term repair and maintenance work), it
should be noted that the Community industry is
the principal supplier of project SWR on the
Community market.

(93)

It was found that project SWR could be produced
on the same machinery and by the same labour
force as standard SWR of equivalent dimension,
and that the production of project SWR therefore
depended very much on the production of standard

for instance in order to spread overhead

SWR,
costs.

(b) Viability of the Community industry

(94)

It should be noted that the situation of the SWR
industry in the Community over the past decade
has deteriorated, mainly as a result of closures in
the user industries, such as mining, and reductions
in fishing fleets
following the introduction of
quotas. As a result, this industry has had to undergo
major restructuring and consolidation. During the
time period considered in the present investigation,
the
industry had consolidated and faced an
increasing demand, as shown in recital 43.

(95) Nevertheless, during the period investigated the
Community industry went from a profit-making
situation to a loss-making one, suffering its most
significant loss in profits in 1995 at a time when
the imports from the countries concerned came
into the Community market in massive volumes.
Furthermore, given the low prices of these dumped
imports the Community industry had been unable
to increase prices in line with cost increases, thus
suffering from both the volume of the imports as
well as from their low value.

(96)

The Commission considered that
given the
previous restructuring and improvement in produc-
tivity, the Community industry would be struc-
turally viable provided that
fair conditions of
competition could be restored on the Community
market.

(c) Effects of the imposition or non imposition of

measures

(97)

(98)

imposition of measures,
the prices

is
Following the
SWR on the
expected that
Community market will
rise. This increase in
prices would enable the Community industry to
recover profitability and to a certain extent increase
sales volume.

of

it

Should measures not be imposed, it is likely that
the negative trend in the Community industry will
continue, leading in the long term to the closure of
companies. It was found that
the Community
industry had a number of production plants oper-
ating almost at a loss. These plants would in all
likelihood close in the short term with immediate
job losses. The Community industry is particularly
likely to continue losing further market share and a
continued worsening financial situation is expected
to occur. As explained above, should the negative
trend continue, not only would the production of
standard SWR be affected but also the production
of project SWR, which are not exported in signi-
ficant volumes by the countries concerned.

19. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/21

(99)

In conclusion,
it is expected that measures will
enable the Community industry to recover from
the injury suffered. It is therefore considered to be
in the interests of
the Community industry to
impose measures.

5. Impact on importers/wholesalers

(100) Four importers/wholesalers in the Community, not
related to exporters, cooperated in the proceeding.
They submitted that the imposition of measures in
the current proceeding would have detrimental
effects on the importers/wholesalers of the product
concerned in the Community.

(101) The investigation showed that, for two of the un-
related importers, the SWR business represented a
significant proportion of their activities, in terms of
turnover (between 40 to 80 %) and profit contribu-
tion (overall profits
ranged from 3 to 18 %).
However it is to be noted that all the importers/
wholesalers (with the exception of one) also act as
traders for other product ranges including fibre
ropes, wire, cable, chain, hardware and fittings. An
important part of the business is the transformation
of the SWR (i.e. cutting, splicing and the fitting of
fittings or the transformation into other articles
such as slings, etc.). It was also found that the
importers/wholesalers acted as traders for SWR
produced in the Community.

(102) Although the imposition of measures is likely to
have an effect on importers/wholesalers, given the
transforming business of SWR, the range of trading
activities in other products and the fact that they
the
also trade in Community-produced goods,
Commission concluded that the impact resulting
from the imposition of measures in the present
proceeding would not be significant.

6. Impact on users

(103) SWR are used in a wide variety of applications
therefore a large number of user industries are
concerned by this proceeding. The Commission
found that SWR were mainly consumed by the
following user
list):
general purposes,
fishing, maritime/shipping, oil
and gas industries, mining (deep-shaft and surface
mining), forestry, aerial transport (including ski-lifts
and cable cars), civil engineering (suspension
bridges, towers, guy masts, covered roof structures),
construction (cranes), elevator.

(non-exhaustive

industries

(104) The Commission’s

the

reflects

large
analysis
number of user industries concerned and the wide
range of applications within each sector. On the
basis of the information available the Commission
found that the total costs of the user industries
ranged from ECU 50 000 to ECU 18 million,
reflecting the vast differences in the size of the
companies concerned. Furthermore, the proportion
of the costs that related to the product concerned
ranged from 0,01 to only 3 %, showing that SWR
do not represent a major concern for these com-
panies.

(105)

In examining the possible effect of the imposition
of measures on users, the Commission concluded
that given the negligible incidence of the cost of
SWR on the user industries, any increase in these
costs was unlikely to have a significant effect.
Furthermore, it should be noted that there are a
number of alternative sources of SWR not subject
to anti-dumping measures that will remain avail-
able for the user industries concerned.

7. Conclusion on Community interest

(106) Given the rate of increases of imports from the
countries concerned over the period considered
and the exporter’s behaviour on the Community
market to constantly and significantly undercut the
prices of the Community industry, there is a likeli-
hood that, in the absence of measures, this trend
will continue and further aggravate the injury
caused to the complainant Community producers.

closures

and consequential

(107) The effects of the imposition of measures can be
expected to assist
the Community industry to
improve profitability, with consequent beneficial
effects on the competitive conditions on the
Community market and the reduction of the threat
in
of
employment. The Commission has taken special
consideration of
the Community
industry might be forced to shut a number of
production sites if correction to the unfair trading
is not
practices by the
provided and the medium-term advantages for the
user industry of being supplied at
lower prices
might then disappear.

exporting producers

reductions

the fact

that

(108) As regards the user industries, any expected price
increase would only have a marginal impact.

(109) The Commission has concluded that,

in the
circumstances there are no compelling reasons not
to impose measures.

L 45/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 2. 1999

H. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

3. Undertakings

1. Injury elimination level

(110) Having established that the dumped imports under
consideration have caused material injury to the
Community industry and that there are no compel-
ling reasons not to take action, the measures envis-
aged should be imposed at a level sufficient to
eliminate the injury caused by these imports
without exceeding the dumping margins found.

such injury requires

the
The removal of
industry should be put in a position where the
prices of imports of the product concerned origin-
ating in the
concerned should be
increased to a non-injurious level.

countries

that

For the purposes of calculating the necessary price
increase, i.e. the injury margin, the Commission
considered that the prices of the dumped imports
had to be compared with the selling prices of the
Community industry plus the profit which the
industry might be expected to make in the absence
of
injurious dumping from the countries under
investigation.

On this basis, the weighted average export prices
for those product types used in the determination
of price undercutting were compared, for the IP, at
a cif Community-frontier level, adjusted to take
account of customs duty paid and handling costs,
with the actual weighted average selling prices
charged by the sampled complainant Community
producers concerned increased to cover the profit
shortfall plus a profit margin of 5 %. For the
purposes of a preliminary determination this profit
margin was considered to be the minimum profit
level necessary to make this sector viable.

(112) The exporting producers in Hungary and Poland
have offered price undertakings in accordance with
Article 8(1) of the Basic Regulation. The Commis-
sion considers that the undertakings offered by the
exporting producers concerned can be accepted.

The acceptance of the price undertakings should be
conditional on the presentation to the Member
States’ customs services of a valid undertaking
invoice
and
containing the information listed in the Annex.
Where no such invoice is presented, the appro-
priate rate of anti-dumping duty will be payable.

identifying the producer

clearly

(113)

It should be noted that in the event of a breach or
the undertaking an anti-dumping
withdrawal of
duty may be imposed, pursuant to Articles 8(9) and
10 of the Basic Regulation.

(114) Furthermore, it should be noted that, in accordance
the
with Article 8(6) of
investigation of dumping, injury and Community
interest will be completed, notwithstanding the
acceptance of undertakings in the course of the
investigation.

the Basic Regulation,

I. FINAL PROVISIONS

(115)

In the interests of sound administration, a period
should be fixed in which the parties concerned
may make their views known in writing and
request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated
that all findings made for the purposes of this
Regulation are provisional and may have to be
reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive
measures which the Commission may propose,

2. Provisional duties

(111) According to Article 7(2) of the Basic Regulation
the provisional anti-dumping duty should be equal
to the dumping margin found or the amount
necessary to remove injury, whichever is the lower.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For all companies in the PRC, Hungary, India,
Poland and Ukraine the injury margins were in all
than the dumping margins.
instances higher
the
Consequently,
companies in the abovementioned countries were
based on the dumping margins found.

the provisional duties

for

For the Mexican and South African companies the
than the dumping
injury margins were lower
margins. Therefore the provisional duties for the
companies in these two countries were set at the
level of the injury margins.

7312 10 82

1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is imposed on
imports of steel ropes and cables, including locked coil
ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a
maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm,
with fittings attached or not, classifiable within CN codes:
ex
ex
7312 10 84 (TARIC code 7312 10 84*10), ex 7312 10 86
(TARIC code 7312 10 86*10), ex 7312 10 88 (TARIC code
(TARIC code
7312 10 88*10)
7312 10 99*10), originating in the People’s Republic of
China, Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and
Ukraine.

(TARIC code

7312 10 82*10),

7312 10 99

and

ex

19. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/23

2.
The rate of the provisional duty applied to the net free-at-Community-frontier prices
of imports of the product concerned manufactured by the companies listed below, before
duty, shall be as follows:

Country

Company

Rate of duty
(%)

TARIC addi-
tional code

PRC

All companies

Hungary

All companies

India

Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd

All other companies

Mexico

All companies

Poland

Drumet

All other companies

South Africa

All companies

Ukraine

All companies

74,8

33,9

39,8

40,2

56,4

35,0

56,1

33,9

54,8

—

8900

8613

8900

—

8614

8900

—

—

3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the provisional duty shall not apply to imports of the
product concerned manufactured and directly exported and invoiced to an importing
company in the Community in conformity with Article 2(2) by the companies listed in
Article 2(3).

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

The release for free circulation in the Community of the product referred to in
5.
paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the
provisional duty.

Article 2

1.
The undertakings offered by the companies listed in paragraph 3 in connection with
the anti-dumping proceeding concerning steel ropes and cables, including locked coil
ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional
dimension exceeding 3 mm, with fittings attached or not, classifiable within CN codes: ex
7312 10 82 (TARIC code 7312 10 82*10), ex 7312 10 84 (TARIC code 7312 10 84*10), ex
7312 10 86 (TARIC code 7312 10 86*10), ex 7312 10 88 (TARIC code 7312 10 88*10) and
ex 7312 10 99 (TARIC code 7312 10 99*10), originating in the People’s Republic of China,
Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Ukraine are hereby accepted.

2. When the request for release for free circulation pursuant to an undertaking is
presented, exemption from the duty shall be conditional upon presentation to the relevant
Member States’ customs services of a valid undertaking invoice issued by one of the
companies listed in paragraph 3. The essential elements of the undertaking invoice are
listed in the Annex.

L 45/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 2. 1999

Imports accompanied by an undertaking invoice shall be declared under the following

3.
TARIC additional codes:

Country

Company

Hungary

Drótarú és Drótkötél Ipari és Kereskedelmi Rt

Poland

Drumet SA

TARIC additional
code

8616

8617

Slaskie Zaklady Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut' Spólka Akeyjna

Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Linodrut' Zabrze Spólka z organic-
zona odpowiedzialnoscia

Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Falind' Spólka z organiczona odpo-
wiedzialnoscia

8619

Górnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut' Bytom Spólka
organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia

Dolnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut Linmet' spólka
z organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia

Article 3

Pursuant to Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and without prejudice to
1.
Article 20(2) and (3) of that Regulation interested parties may make their views known in
writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of
entry into force of this Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 the parties which made
2.
themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation concerned
may comment on the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its
entry into force.

Article 4

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

Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.

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

Done at Brussels, 18 February 1999.

For the Commission
Leon BRITTAN

Vice-President

19. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/25

ANNEX

Elements to be indicated in the undertaking invoice referred to in Article 2(2)

1. The product reporting code number (PRC) (as established in the undertaking offered by the producing
exporter in question), including type, number of strands, number of wires per strand and CN code.

2. The exact description of the goods, including:

— the ‘company product code'
— CN code,
— the TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice may be customs-cleared at

(CPC),

Community borders (as specified in the Regulation),

— quantity (to be given in kilos),
— minimum price applicable.

3. The description of the terms of the sale, including:

— price per kilo,
— the applicable payment terms,
— the applicable delivery terms,
— total discounts and rebates.

4. Name of the importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the company.

5. The name of the official of the company that has issued the undertaking invoice and the following signed

declaration:

‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community of the goods covered
the undertaking offered
by this invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of
by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[company], and accepted by the European Commission through Regulation
(EC) No 362/1999. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.'