Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the People's Republic of China, Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa, Ukraine and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports originating in the Republic of Korea
Date: 1999-07-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, steel, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 28.07.1999
COM(1999) 397 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the
People's Republic of China, Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa,
Ukraine and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports
originating in the Republic of Korea

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

On 20 May 1998 and on 30 July 1998,
the Commission opened anti-dumping
investigations in respect of imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the
People's Republic of China, Hungary, India, Korea, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and
Ukraine.

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) N° 362/1999 imposed provisional anti-
dumping duties on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in People's Republic
of China, India, Mexico, South Africa and the Ukraine and accepting undertakings
offered by certain exporters in Hungary and Poland.

In the same Regulation, it was provisionally concluded that no anti-dumping duty
should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the Republic of
Korea covered by the same investigation, due to the dumping margins established
which were de minimis.

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on
injury, causation and Community interest which confirmed that anti-
dumping,
dumping measures are warranted in respect of the countries concerned with the
exception of the Republic of Korea.

As regards the Republic of Korea, since the definitive findings confirmed the de
minimis dumping margins found, the proceeding should be terminated without the
imposition of measures.

The form of the measures proposed are ad valorem duties with the exception of
Hungary, Poland, India, Mexico, South Africa and Ukraine for which undertakings
are applicable.

It is, therefore, proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation
which should be published in the Official Journal no later than 18 August 1999.

2

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the
People's Republic of China, Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa,
Ukraine and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports
originating in the Republic of Korea

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European
Community1, and in particular Articles 9 and 10(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the
Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A

(1)

B

(2)

PROVISIONAL MEASURES

By Regulation (EC) No 362/992 (hereinafter referred to as the “provisional
Regulation”) the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on
imports into the Community of steel ropes and cables originating in the
People's Republic of China (PRC), India, Mexico, South Africa and the
Ukraine and accepted undertakings offered by certain exporters in Hungary
and Poland.

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

Subsequent to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, the interested
parties which so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Parties
were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it
was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty
and the definitive collection, at the level of these duties, of amounts secured by
way of provisional duties. They were also granted a period within which to
make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

1 OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p.1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 of 27 April 1998, OJ L 128,

30.04.1998, p.18.

2 OJ L45, 19.02.1999, p.1.

3

(3)

C

1

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

2

(9)

The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were
considered and, where deemed appropriate, the definitive findings have been
changed accordingly.

PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT

Product under consideration

It is to be recalled that recital 7 of the provisional Regulation described the
product concerned as 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)”.

It has been alleged that SWR should be divided into two separate products
according to what has been described as two distinct areas of application or
use, i.e. general purpose ropes for general applications and special purpose
ropes for use in specific industries.

Contrary to the allegation of the existence of two different separate products,
i.e. general purpose ropes and special purpose ropes, it was found that SWR
were produced in a wide range of different types by the exporting producers
and that all SWR had the same basic physical characteristics (i.e. the steel
wires that form strands, the strands that are wrapped around the core that form
the rope and the core itself). All SWR were also found to have the same basic
technical characteristics (all have a number of wires in a strand, a number of
strands in a rope, a certain diameter and a certain construction).

The various types of SWR can be classified into a number of product groups
reflecting their physical and technical characteristics. While SWR in groups in
the top end and in the bottom end of the range are clearly not interchangeable,
SWR in adjoining groups have been found to be interchangeable. It was
concluded that a certain degree of overlapping and competition existed
between SWR in different groups. Given this overlap between the groups, no
clear dividing line could be established at any point in the range of SWR. This
conclusion is in line with the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice3.

In conclusion, given that all SWR were found to have the same basic physical
and technical characteristics and use, even if differences existed between SWR
in the top end and bottom end of a range, since competition exists between
SWR in adjacent groups, it was concluded that all products in the range
formed one single product and therefore all SWR were considered to be one
product.

Like product

is to be recalled that

It
the
Commission found that the imported SWR from the countries concerned and
the SWR produced and sold in the Community by the Community industry

in recital 8 of the provisional Regulation,

3 Case C-175/87 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Council, [1992] ECR I, p. 1409.

4

were alike in their basic physical and technical characteristics. Both the
Community produced and imported SWR were also found to have essentially
the same use and to be competing with each other.

(10)

It has been alleged that SWR produced and sold by the Community producers
were not alike to those imported from the countries concerned. In particular it
was argued that the product produced in the exporting countries was mainly
commodity SWR whereas the product produced in the Community was
specialised SWR. It was further argued that the Community producers had
included more so-called specialised product types in their range of SWR over
the period examined as could be seen from the increase in their unit prices.

(11)

The following was concluded:

--

--

The Community producers were found to be engaged in the production of the
whole range of SWR as were the exporting producers, i.e. the production of
the more specialised SWR as well as the more commodity type of SWR.

The overlap between the products produced by the Community producers and
the exporting producers is evidenced by volume of sales where matching SWR
models were found (75% of the exporting producers’ volume of sales and 51%
of the Community industry’s volume of sales). This overlap can also be seen
from the fact that Community produced SWR and those imported cover all CN
codes concerned.

(12)

The provisional findings that Community produced and imported SWR are
like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 384/964 (hereinafter referred to as the "basic Regulation") are therefore
confirmed.

D

1

DUMPING

Normal Value

1.1

Determination of the normal value

(13) One Indian exporting producer claimed that the costs of production for the
investigation period (1 January 1997 to 31 March 1998, hereinafter referred to
as the "IP"), should be established on the basis of data relating to the period
preceding the IP. However, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation,
for the purpose of a representative finding concerning dumping, an IP is
selected and the information anlysed is normally limited to the IP. No reasons
have been forwarded which would make it more appropriate to use the cost of
production relating to a period prior to the IP. In particular, it should be noted
that the exporting producer continued to produce and to sell the product types
in question also during the IP. Thus the findings based on information relating

4 OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 of 27 April 1998, OJ L 128,

30.04.1998, p.18.

5

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

to the IP were considered representative and the request was not, therefore,
accepted.

The South African exporting producer and one Indian exporting producer
objected to the method used to determine the constructed normal value of the
product concerned.

The South African exporting producer claimed that the calculation of the profit
margin on domestic sales was inappropriate since it was based on all domestic
transactions including domestic sales of mining SWR. Due to the specific
properties of the mining SWR not exported to the Community, which
constitutes a specific product requiring sophisticated equipment and which is
sold with a substantial profit margin, it claimed that the profit margin made on
domestic sales of mining SWR should not be taken into consideration in the
calculation of the constructed normal value of the other types of ropes.

The Indian exporting producer requested that the domestic sales of certain
high-value product types be excluded from the constructed normal value
calculations on the grounds that these products were not exported, or only
rarely, during the IP and that the domestic sales of these product types yielded
abnormally high profits that distorted the determination of the average profit
of the product concerned.

It was found that the South African mining SWR and Indian high value
product types were "like products" to the product under consideration within
the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. The profit margin used in
therefore correctly determined in
constructing the normal value was
accordance with Article 2(3) (4) and (6) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the
basis of all domestic market sales of the like product made in the ordinary
course of trade. In this context, it should be noted that it is irrelevant for the
determination of the profit margin pursuant
to Article 2(6) of the basic
Regulation, whether the product types in question were also exported to the
Community, as long as they constitute a like product within the meaning of the
basic Regulation.

(18)

These claims were therefore rejected.

(19) As an alternative to the above it was requested by the Indian company that the
average profit be calculated on the basis of all domestic sales, i.e. sales of both
profitable and unprofitable product
types, and not only on the basis of
domestic sales of profitable product types. In this respect it should be noted
that, pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the amount for profits
has to be based on data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary
course of trade, of the like product in the domestic market of the exporting
country. In this context sales below cost of a particular product type can only
be taken into account for the determination of the profit margin if the volume
of non-profitable sales of such type is not higher than 20% of all sales of this
type in question or if the weighted average selling price is not below the
weighted average unit cost. This rule was respected when determining the
profit margin and consequently the alternative requested could not be accepted
either.

6

(20)

Since no other comments concerning normal value were presented the findings
set out in recitals (9) to (13) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

1.2

Choice of analogue country for non-market economy countries

(21) Chinese and Ukrainian exporting producers contested the choice of India as
analogue country and asked that the provisional choice of analogue country be
reviewed. The Ukrainian exporting producer proposed the selection of the
Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "South Korea") because it had an
open market.

(22)

(23)

The arguments put forward against the choice of India as analogue country
were carefully analysed and for the reasons set out below it was decided to
abandon India as analogue country. In the absence of any cooperating market
economy third countries not subject
it was
considered that Poland represented the most reasonable choice of analogue
country for the calculation of normal value for China and the Ukraine.

to the current

investigation,

to provisional disclosure,

Further
the Chinese and Ukrainian exporting
producers also questioned the choice of Poland as analogue country, it was
claimed that South Korea would be more appropriate in terms of level of
import duty, size of domestic market and the existence of competition on the
domestic market. Poland was, however, considered to be appropriate given its
low level of import duty, the openness and size of its domestic market, the
existence of competition between local producers, and the fact that Polish
SWR provided, overall,
the most representative comparison in terms of
matching models with those of China and the Ukraine.

(24) As far as the South Korea is concerned, it was noted that although this country
also had a low level of import duty, it had a much lower percentage of
domestic sales which were comparable to the imports into the Community
from the PRC.

(25)

It was therefore considered that Poland was the most reasonable choice of
analogue country both for the Ukraine and for the PRC.

2

Export price

(26)

Since no comments concerning export price were presented the findings set
out in recitals (14) to (17) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

3

Comparison

(27) One Polish exporting producer reiterated its claim for adjustments to the
normal value for differences in inventory financing and warehousing between
the domestic and the export sales. However, in the absence of any new
evidence on the effect of the above factors on price comparability as required
by Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation, the claim was not accepted.

(28)

The same Polish exporting producer and one Hungarian exporting producer
reiterated their request for adjustments to the normal value for differences in
level of trade. In view of the new evidence submitted the claims were

7

reconsidered and accepted as it was proved that the export price and the
normal value were at a different level of trade and this difference affected
price comparability.

(29) One Indian exporting producer submitted a request for an adjustment for
differences in the level of trade on the grounds that export sales were made
exclusively at wholesaler level, while domestic sales were made at both
wholesaler and end-user levels. An adjustment was granted to the extent that
the request was merited.

(30) One Polish exporting producer contested the use of monthly average exchange
rates to convert the export price into domestic currency for the determination
of provisional findings. This exporting producer claimed that the exchange
rates effectively applied should have been used. In this respect, it should be
noted that
is normal practice to use monthly average exchange rates.
Moreover both approaches were tested and it was found that the differences
were only marginal and that any positive differences were balanced out by
negative differences, i.e. none of the two approaches resulted in consistently
higher or lower exchange rates and the impact of this issue on the final
dumping margin was not material. It was consequently decided to apply the
normal practice of monthly average exchange rates.

it

(31)

(32)

The South African exporting producer claimed an allowance for currency
conversion on export prices on the grounds that a comparison between the
lowest exchange rate of the currency and the ECU during the IP, and that of
the highest exchange rate in 1999 showed an important devaluation of the
ECU.

In accordance with Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation this claim was
rejected since the fluctuations in exchange rates did not show a sustained
movement during the IP that would have justified an adjustment. Moreover, it
should be noted that the average devaluation of the ECU versus the South
African Rand was very small during the IP.

(33)

Since no other comments concerning the comparison were presented the
findings set out in recitals (17) to (19) and (21) to (23) of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

4

Dumping margins

4.1 Methodology

(34) At the provisional stage, export sales of SWR by an Indian exporting producer
which were made to its related importer in the Community and which were
subsequently transformed by the related importer were excluded from the
determination of dumping.

(35)

Following disclosure of
the Indian exporting
producer contested this approach. It was requested that the dumping found for
the export transactions examined should be expressed as a percentage of the
total CIF price, i.e. including those export transactions relating to products

the provisional

findings,

8

which had been subsequently transformed as described above. In support of
this request,
that any anti-dumping
the exporting producer pointed out
measures would be applied to all imports of the product concerned.

(36)

This request could not be accepted. First, it would have been difficult to
construct a reliable export price for those imported products which had
subsequently been resold in a transformed state. Secondly, the export sales
taken into consideration for the determination of a dumping margin accounted
for 80% of all export resales to the Community made by the exporting
producer during the IP. This was considered largely sufficient as a basis for
representative findings. Third, since the export sales relating to products which
had subsequently been transformed could not be used for the calculation of
dumping, they could not be taken into consideration for the calculation of the
dumping margin since this would have distorted the findings by artificially
lowering the dumping margin.

(37)

Therefore, the methodology used for the establishment of the provisional
findings, including the residual margins, as set out in recitals (24) to (26) is
confirmed.

4.2

Level of dumping margins

(38)

The 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.

(39) After revision of the calculations, in particular due to the fact that for the PRC
and the Ukraine the normal values have been based on the domestic market
sales of the Polish producers, the dumping margins definitively established,
expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at Community frontier level, are as
follows,

--

--

The PRC:

Hungary:

Drótáru és Drótkötél Ipari és Kereskedelmi Rt

All producers/exporters:

--

India:

Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd

Mohatta & Heckel

All producers/exporters:

--

Republic of Korea:

Kiswire Ltd

Manho Rope & Wire Ltd

9

60.4%

28.1%

28.1%

23.8%

30.8%

30.8%

1.2%

0.1%

Chung Woo Rope Co, Ltd

Chun Kee Steel and Wire Rope Co, Ltd

--

Mexico:

Aceros Camesa SA de CV

All producers/exporters:

--

Poland:

Drumet SA

Slaskie Zaklady Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut’ Spólka Akeyjna
Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Linodrut’ Zabrze Spólka z
organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia
Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Falind’ Spólka z organiczona
odpowiedzialnoscia
Górnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut’ Bytom Spólka
organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia
Dolnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut Linmet’ Spólka z
organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia

0.2%

0.4%

95.6%

95.6%

27.9%

48.3%

All producers/exporters:

48.3%

--

South Africa:

Haggie Rand Ltd. (the company has changed name and is now called Haggie) 132%

All producers/exporters:

Ukraine:

COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

Community production

--

E

1

132%

51.8%

(40)

In the absence of any new information the provisional findings as described in
recitals 34 to 36 of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.

2

Community industry

(41)

(42)

Following comments received by interested parties the Community industry is
as follows:

The following 16 complainant Community producers and 4 Community
producers supporting the complaint and which cooperated in the investigation,
made up the "Community industry" in the meaning of Article 4 of the basic
Regulation, i.e.:

Bremer Drahtseilerei Lüling GmbH (Germany),

Bridon International Limited (UK),

10

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 (UK),

Randers Rebslaareri (Denmark),

Redaelli Tecnacordati SPA (Italy),

Trefileurope (France),

Trenzas Y Cables S.L. (Spain),

Vereinigte Drahtseilwerke GmbH (Germany),

Voest-Alpine Austria Draht GmbH (Austria),

Vornbäumen-Stahlseile GmbH (Germany),

Wadra GmbH (Germany).

3

Imports made by the Community industry.

(43) Certain interested parties have questioned the calculation of the level of

imports made by the Community industry.

(44)

(45)

It is to be noted that the information on imports has been based on data
supplied by the exporters in their export sales listings and duly verified.
Imports made by the Community industry has in this manner been established
as representing 4.4% of consumption in the investigation period.

The analysis in the provisional Regulation that the principal activity of the
Community industry remained the production of SWR given the low level of
its imports is confirmed. Furthermore, this low level was not such as to shield
the Community producers from the injurious effects of the dumping, nor did it
allow them to unduly benefit from the imports concerned.

11

F

1

(46)

(47)

INJURY

Preliminary remark - the investigation period

It has been argued that the inclusion of 1994 distorts the injury analysis given
that the largest part of the imports took place between 1994 and 1995 and that
thereafter the level of the imports from the countries concerned remained
stable. It has also been argued that the situation of the Community industry has
remained stable from 1995 to the IP. As a result, it was requested to start the
injury investigation period in 1995.

The purpose of the investigation is to evaluate the effect of the dumped
imports on the economic situation of the Community industry during the IP. In
order to make such an analysis,
trends are established for a number of
indicators on the basis of information relating to a number of years preceding
the IP. It is therefore irrelevant whether 1994 or 1995 has been taken as a
starting point for the purpose of establishing trends.

(48)

In any event it is to be noted that:

--

--

--

--

Although the biggest part of the imports from the countries concerned took
place between 1994 and 1995, contrary to what has been alleged, these
imports have continued to increase after 1995 (+12% between 1995 and the
IP).

Prices of these imports remained significantly below those of the Community
industry throughout the whole period.

The impact of these imports on the situation of the Community industry
resulted in a significant decrease in profitability between 1994 and 1995 (from
1.3% to -0.3%), coinciding with a loss of market share (-10 percentage points).
As explained in the provisional Regulation, the Community industry attempted
to regain market share by decreasing prices between 1995 and 1996, only to
incur further losses (-0.3% to –0.7%). In order to reduce these losses, the
Community industry again increased its prices between 1996 and 1997.
However, this was at the expense of market share, which suffered a further
decline.

This deterioration in the situation of the Community industry was therefore the
result of pressure from both the volume of imports from the countries
concerned and the low level of the prices of these imports.

(49) On the basis of the above, the allegation concerning the starting point of the

analyses of the trend is therefore rejected.

(50)

Therefore the period during which the economic situation of the Community
industry was analysed has allowed a proper assessment of its situation and
accurately reflects the evolution of the market of SWR in the Community.

12

2

Cumulation

2.1

Imports from Hungary

(51) One exporting producer repeated its claim that the imports from Hungary
should be decumulated from imports from the other countries concerned.
However, no new arguments were presented supporting the decumulation of
imports from Hungary. Therefore the grounds for cumulation as set out in
recital 47 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

2.2

Imports from Mexico

(52) One exporting producer has argued that

imports from Mexico should be
decumulated from imports from the other countries concerned on the basis that
these Mexican imports should be considered to be de minimis. In this respect it
was claimed that most of the imports from Mexico were made by an importer
related to a Community producer and that these imports should not be taken
into account when establishing the level of
from Mexico.
Consequently the remaining Mexican imports would be de minimis and
therefore imports from Mexico should be decumulated from the other imports
concerned for the purposes of the injury analysis.

imports

(53)

(54)

It is to be noted that in assessing whether imports from a country concerned
are considered to be de minimis in accordance with Article 9(3) of the basic
Regulation, the total volume of imports originating in the country concerned is
calculated.

The level of the imports described in recitals 45 and 48 of the provisional
Regulation is therefore confirmed, i.e. 3% of consumption in IP, and also the
allegation that Mexican imports are de minimis is rejected.

3

Prices of the dumped imports

3.1

Comparison between Community prices and those of the dumped imports

(55)

It has been alleged that the elements used in the categorisation of SWR for the
undercutting calculations do not allow a meaningful and proper price
comparison. In particular, it has been argued that the elements not included in
the undercutting calculations (i.e. galvanisation, tensile strength, core and
cover), and additional elements not foreseen in the questionnaire (i.e. tolerated
diameter variance, elongation factor and breaking load) have a significant
the same product
It has also been alleged that
influence on prices.
categorisation should be used for both dumping and injury calculations.

(56)

The following has been concluded:

--

For the undercutting calculations SWR were grouped according to the number
of wires and the number of strands in a rope, the construction type of the rope
and its diameter. These elements were found to be the main price drivers of
included in the undercutting analysis (i.e.
SWR. Other elements not

13

--

--

galvanisation, tensile strength, core and cover), were found to have only a
secondary impact on prices in the Community market.

The undercutting calculations grouping SWR as described above, resulted in a
reasonable volume of sales being covered for both the exporting producers and
the Community industry and were therefore considered to provide a
meaningful and representative result.

The inclusion of additional elements not foreseen in the questionnaire (i.e.
tolerated diameter variance, elongation factor and breaking load), was
considered to be unnecessary given that these elements were largely the result
of a combination of the main elements of SWR already included in the product
categorisation. Their inclusion was not considered to provide a more accurate
pricing comparison and therefore their request would have been unduly
burdensome on all interested parties.

for

The product categorisation for the calculation of the dumping margin was not
considered to serve as a good model in calculating undercutting given that the
the most part, a comparison of one
dumping categorisation was,
company’s product range, i.e. the same or similar products produced by one
and the same producer and sold on two different markets. The undercutting
calculation however, was a comparison made between a larger number of
SWR sold by a larger number of parties. It was therefore considered that the
methodology already used in the provisional Regulation provided a more
reasonable basis for the analyses of price undercutting: whilst taking into
account the main price drivers, this approach covered the largest volume of
sales.

--

Finally no significant price differentials were found to exist for the various
types of SWR within one group.

(57)

In conclusion, the arguments concerning the product categorisation for the
undercutting calculations are rejected.

3.2

Level of trade

(58) Certain interested parties have argued that an adjustment should be made to
sales prices to reflect an alleged difference in levels of trade on the basis that
sales made by the Community industry were to end users whereas the
imported products were generally sold to wholesalers/distributors.

(59)

The Community industry's sales were found to have been made through
various sales channels including both wholesalers/distributors and end users.
Furthermore no consistent and/or significant price differential were found to
exist according to the different sales channels.

(60)

The request for a level of trade adjustment was therefore rejected.

4

Situation of the Community industry

(61) Certain exporting producers have alleged that the Community industry had not
suffered material injury in the sense of Article 3 of the basic Regulation, on

14

the Community industry’s production, capacity, prices,
the basis that
investments and productivity remained stable or improved between 1994 and
the IP.

4.1

Production

(62)

Production levels were found to have remained stable over
the period
examined (+1%), this should be seen in conjunction with the increasing levels
of stocks (+30%) and the decrease in sales volume (-9%), as outlined in
recitals 58 to 60 of the provisional Regulation. It
is also recalled that
consumption increased by 5% over the period.

4.2

Capacity and investments

(63)

The finding that the increase in capacity noted in the provisional Regulation
(+11%) resulted from investments made in higher performance replacement
machinery, as outlined in recitals 59 and 65 of the provisional Regulation, is
confirmed.

4.3

Profitability

(64) Certain exporting producers questioned the use of audited accounts to
calculate profitability of the Community industry as set out in recital 64 of the
provisional Regulation. It was argued that the audited accounts included sales
of products not covered by the investigation and did not cover the full IP.

(65)

(66)

(67)

it was considered that

It was found that although some companies were able to provide information
specific to the product concerned, some others did not have a cost accounting
system allowing the separate identification of the product investigated. In the
absence of this information,
the audited accounts
provided reliable information on the narrowest group of products, including
the product concerned, for which the necessary information on profitability
was available. For all six companies in the sample, the production of SWR
represents its main activity. Other products manufactured by these companies
(e.g. stainless steel wire ropes, SWR of less than 3 mm, steel wires, and pre-
stressed strands) were broadly found to be related to this main activity and
generally used the same raw material, machinery and personnel.

The use of profitability relating to the 1997 in place of the IP was considered
to be reasonable given that 1997 largely covers the IP, which runs from
January 1997 to March 1998.

In conclusion, for the reasons given above, it was considered that the audited
accounts provided a representative and reliable picture of the profitability of
the product concerned, in accordance with Article 3(8) of the basic Regulation.

(68) At the time of the provisional Regulation one Community producer, whose
financial year ended in March, only had provisional profitability data
available. Final information has since been received and the profitability for
the Community industry has been recalculated to be –0.3% in 1997 which as

15

the IP. The profitability of
mentioned above is representative of
Community industry therefore went from +1.3% in 1994 to –0.3% in 1997.

the

4.4

Conclusion on situation of the Community industry

(69) Certain exporting producers argued that

the Community industry had
performed well in the period subsequent to 1995 and that therefore a finding of
material injury was unjustified.

(70)

It is to be recalled (see “preliminary remarks” above), that whether 1994 or
1995 is taken as a starting point for the injury analysis, the situation of the
Community industry has deteriorated. Even if 1995 were to be taken as a
starting point, production,
sales volume, employment and investments
decreased. Stocks increased. Market share remained stable (going from
65.26% to 65.64%) and profitability remained negative (-0.3%).

(71)

In any event in accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the
analysis of injury suffered by the Community industry relates to the overall
assessment of these economic indicators and none of these indicators can in
isolation give decisive guidance.

(72)

This argument is therefore rejected.

4.5

Conclusion on injury

(73)

The conclusion that the Community industry has suffered material injury as set
out in recital 68 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

G

CAUSATION

(74)

In the absence of any new information the provisional findings as described in
recitals 69 to 85 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

H

COMMUNITY INTEREST

(75) Certain parties have raised queries concerning the assessment of the impact of

anti-dumping measures on user industries.

(76)

(77)

It is to be recalled that no replies were received to the Commission services’
questionnaires from the user industries concerned by this proceeding (recital
87 of the provisional Regulation). Furthermore no information has been
received following the publication of the provisional Regulation. It is to be
noted that the conclusions outlined in the provisional Regulation indicated that
users would not be significantly affected by the imposition of measures. This
conclusion has not been contested by users, therefore it is hereby confirmed.

It has been argued by a number of interested parties that the Community
producers do not produce small diameter SWR and that the effect of the anti-
dumping measures would result
these SWR on the
Community market. It was also argued that this would have a negative impact
on the employment situation of importers currently importing small diameter
SWR in the Community.

in a shortage of

16

(78)

It is to be recalled that the Community industry produces the full range of
SWR including the small diameters. It is concluded that the imposition of
measures would not lead to a price increase such as to cause a shortage of
supply of small diameter SWR on the Community market. It is also confirmed
that a number of alternative sources of supply of SWR exist that are not
subject to anti-dumping measures (recital 105 of the provisional Regulation).

(79) Given the above it is concluded that the imposition of definitive measures
would not have a significant negative impact on the economic operators in the
Community.

I

1

(80)

ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

Termination of the proceeding in respect of South Korea

In view of the conclusions set out in recitals 24 et seq. of the provisional
Regulation that the dumping margin for South Korea is de minimis and that no
new arguments have been presented against the termination of the proceeding
for South Korea, the proceeding concerning imports originating in South
Korea is hereby terminated without the imposition of measures.

2

Injury elimination level

(81)

For the purposes of establishing the level of measures definitively to be
imposed, it was considered that the prices of the dumped imports should be
increased to a non-injurious level. For the purposes of calculating the
necessary price increase, i.e. the injury margin, the prices of the dumped
imports were compared with the selling prices of the Community industry plus
the profit shortfall and a reasonable level of profit. It is to be noted that as the
profitability of the Community industry has been recalculated to be –0.3% in
in the
1997 (see “profitability” above),
underselling calculation has been amended accordingly. Otherwise the
methodology used for establishing the injury margin as described in recital
110 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

the element for profit shortfall

3

Undertakings

(82) At a late stage in the investigation several exporting producers in the PRC,
Mexico and Ukraine offered undertakings. Furthermore in the case of India
and South Africa the exporting producers submitted revised offers of price
undertakings.

--

--

As concerns the PRC, given that none of the companies in these countries
were granted individual treatment and that no guarantees were contained in the
offers on the part of the Chinese authorities to allow for adequate monitoring,
the offers of undertakings were not considered to be acceptable.

As concerns India (Usha Martin Industries&Usha Beltron Ltd.), Mexico,
South Africa and the Ukraine, the exporting producers concerned offered price
undertakings which are considered acceptable.

17

(83)

It will be recalled from recital 112 et seq. of the provisional Regulation that
undertakings had been offered by the exporting producers in Hungary and
Poland, and accepted by the Commission. These undertakings have been
adjusted to reflect the definitive findings of the investigation with respect to
the minimum prices provided therein.

4

Form and level of the definitive measures

(84) Definitive measures should take the form of ad valorem duties, the rates of
which have been fixed individually for cooperating companies. As far as other
exporting producers are concerned in view of the high level of cooperation
found, the highest company-specific duty found for a cooperating exporter in
the country concerned should be applied. For those companies which have
offered acceptable price undertakings, the definitive measures take the form of
undertakings.

(85) According to Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, where the margins of
dumping found in respect of a particular exporting producer were below the
corresponding increases in import prices necessary to remove injury, as
calculated above, the definitive duties have been limited to the dumping
margin established.

(86)

These duties, expressed as a percentage of the CIF net, free-at-Community-
frontier price, before duty amount to:

--

--

The PRC:

All producers/exporters:

Hungary:

Drótarú és Drótkötél Ipari és Kereskedelmi Rt

All producers/exporters:

--

India:

Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd

Mohatta & Heckel

All producers/exporters:

--

Mexico:

Aceros Camesa SA de CV

All producers/exporters:

--

Poland:

Drumet SA

Slaskie Zaklady Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut’ Spólka Akeyjna
Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Linodrut’ Zabrze Spólka z

18

60.4%

28.1%

28.1%

23.8%

30.8%

30.8%

56.1%

56.1%

27.9%

48.3%

organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia
Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Falind’ Spólka z organiczona
odpowiedzialnoscia
Górnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut’ Bytom Spólka
organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia
Dolnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut Linmet’ Spólka z
organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia

All producers/exporters:

--

South Africa:

Haggie

All producers/exporters:

--

Ukraine:

All producers/exporters:

48.3%

38.6%

38.6%

51.8%

(87)

The individual duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the
basis of the findings of the present anti-dumping investigation. Therefore, they
reflect the situation found during that investigation. These duty rates are thus
exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the countries
concerned and produced by the specific legal entities mentioned. Products
produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative
part of this Regulation, including related entities, cannot benefit from these
rates and shall be subject to the residual duty.

(88) Any claim requesting the application of these individual duty rates (e.g.
following a change in the name of the entity) should be addressed to the
Commission forthwith with all
in particular any
relevant
modification in the company’s activities linked to production, domestic and
export sales associated with that name change.

information,

J

COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES

(89)

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting
producers, and in the light of the seriousness of the injury caused to the
Community industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by
way of provisional anti-dumping duties under Regulation (EC) No 362/99
should be definitively collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed
unless the provisional duty rates are lower in which case the latter should
prevail.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of steel ropes
and cables, currently classifiable within CN codes ex 7312 10 82 (TARIC

19

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) and originating in
the People's Republic of China, Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South
Africa, Ukraine.

2.

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the CIF net, free-
at-Community-frontier price, before duty, of the products manufactured by
the companies listed below shall be as follows:

Country

Company

Rate of duty

The People’s
Republic of China

All companies

Hungary

All companies

India

Mexico

Poland

Usha Martin Industries &
Usha Beltron Ltd,
Shakespeare Sarani,
Calcutta - 700 071 India

All other companies

All companies

Drumet S.A.

87-880 Wloclawek, ul.
Polna 26/74, Polska

All other companies

South Africa

All companies

Ukraine

All companies

(%)

60.4

28.1

23.8

30.8

56.1

27.9

48.3

38.6

51.8

TARIC
additional
code

__

8900

8613

8900

8900

8614

8900

8900

8900

3.

1.

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

Article 2

Notwithstanding Article 1, the definitive duty shall not apply to imports of
the product described in Article 1(1) above produced and directly exported
and invoiced to an importing company in the Community by the companies

20

listed in paragraph 3, from which price undertakings have been accepted by
the Commission5.

2.

3.

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 State’s customs services of a valid undertaking invoice,
in the form set out in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 362/99,
issued by one of the companies listed in paragraph 3. In the case of the
company in the Ukraine, the undertaking invoice shall be accompanied by a
valid export licence delivered by the Ukrainian authorities, in the form set
out in the Annex.

Imports made within the context of the undertakings offered and accepted
shall be declared under the following TARIC additional codes:

TARIC
additional
code

8616

8617

8619

A022

A023

Country

Company

Hungary

Poland

Drótáru és Drótkötél Ipari és Kereskedelmi Rt.
Besenyöi utca 18, 3527 Miskolc, Hungary
Drumet SA
87-880 Wloclawek, ul. Polna 26/74, Polska

Slaskie Zaklady Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut’ Spólka
Akeyjna
Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Linodrut’ Zabrze Spólka z
organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia PL-41-800 Zabre,
Sobieskiego Street No 1,
Fabryka Lin i Drutów ‘Falind’ Spólka z organiczona
odpowiedzialnoscia PL-41-201 Sosnowiec, Niwecka
Street 1
Górnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut’ Bytom
Spólka organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia, 41-906 Bytom,
Ks. Jerzago Popieluszki Street 1
Dolnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut Linmet’
Spólka z organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia, 58-309
Walbrzych, Sluga Street 2

Mexico

South
Africa

Aceros Camesa S.A. de CV
Margarita Maza de Juárez No 154,
Col. Nueva Ind. Vallejo
México D.F. C.P. 07700
México
Haggie
Lower Germiston Road
Jupiter
P O box 40072
Cleveland

5 Commission Decision (EC) No /99, of August 1999, OJ L , .8.1999, p

21

India

Ukraine

South Africa
Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd,
Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta – 700 071 India
Joint Stock Company, Silur, 343700 Khartsyzsk,
Donetsk Region, Ukraine

A024

A025

Article 3

As regards imports of the product described in Article 1(1) above originating
in the People's Republic of China, Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South
Africa, Ukraine, the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 362/99 shall be collected at the rate of
the duty definitively imposed. Amounts secured in excess of the definitive
rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.

Article 4

The proceeding concerning imports of
originating in the Republic of Korea is hereby terminated.

the product described in Article 1(1)

Article 5

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of 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 Brussels,

For the Council
The President

22

ANNEX

Elements to be indicated in the export licence referred to in Article 2(2)

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.

The exact description of the goods, including:

- the ‘company product code’ (CPC),

- CN code,

- the TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice may be

customs cleared at the Community borders

- quantity (to be given in kilos),

- minimum price applicable.

The number of invoice

The export licence number and issue date

The name of the importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the
company.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

23