Council Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 of 12 August 1999 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 and Ukraine and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports originating in the Republic of Korea
Date: 1999-08-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, steel, third country

17. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 217/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1796/1999

of 12 August 1999

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 and 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 Community (1), and in
particular Articles 9 and 10(2) thereof,

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

the ‘provisional Regulation’)

By Regulation (EC) No 362/1999 (2) (hereinafter referred
to as
the Commission
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports
into the Community of steel ropes and cables origin-
ating 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.

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

Following 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 impo-
sition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and the defin-
itive 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.

(3)

The oral and written comments submitted by the inter-
ested parties were considered and, where deemed appro-

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 905/98 (OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18).

(2) OJ L 45, 19.2.1999, p. 1.

priate, the definitive findings have been changed accord-
ingly.

C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE

PRODUCT

1. 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.

two
the existence of
Contrary to the allegation of
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 itselfJ. All SWR
were also found to have the same basic technical charac-
teristics (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

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

L 217/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 8. 1999

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 Justice of the European Communities (1).

(12)

The provisional findings that Community-produced and
imported SWR are like products within the meaning of
Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter
referred to as
the ‘basic Regulation’) are therefore
confirmed.

(8)

(9)

(10)

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.

D. DUMPING

1. Normal Value

2. Like product

1.1. Determination of the normal value

It is to be recalled that in recital 8 of the provisional
Regulation, the Commission found that the imported
SWR from the countries concerned and the SWR
produced and sold in the Community by
the
Community industry 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.

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
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.

and 51 % of

sales

(1) Case C-175/87 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd v. Council,

[1992] ECR I, p. 1409.

(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 repres-
entative finding concerning dumping, an IP is selected
and the information analysed 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.
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 to the IP were considered representative and the
request was not, therefore, accepted.

In particular,

(14)

(15)

(16)

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 transac-
tions 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.

requested that

The Indian exporting producer
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.

17. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 217/3

(17)

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 constructing the normal value was therefore
correctly determined in 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 for the determination of the profit margin
pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation it is
irrelevant whether the product types in question were
also exported to the Community, as long as they consti-
tute 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 on the basis
only 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
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.

the exporting country.

(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.

investigation,

it was considered that Poland
current
represented the most reasonable choice of analogue
country for the calculation of normal value for China
and the Ukraine.

(23)

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 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
into the
which were comparable to the imports
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

(21)

(22)

1.2. Choice of analogue country for non-market economy

countries

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 selec-
tion of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as
‘South Korea’) because it had an open market.

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
to the
market economy third countries not subject

(27) One Polish exporting producer reiterated its claim for
adjustments to the normal value for differences in inven-
tory 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 adjust-
ments to the normal value for differences in level of
trade. In view of the new evidence submitted, the claims
were 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 compar-
ability.

L 217/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 8. 1999

(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 it 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 differ-
ences, i.e. none of the two approaches resulted in consis-
tently 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 prac-
tice of monthly average exchange rates.

(31)

(32)

The South African exporting producer claimed an allow-
ance 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 impor-
tant devaluation of the ecu.

In accordance with Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regula-
tion, 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 devalu-
ation 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)
the provisional Regulation are
and 21)
confirmed.

to 23) of

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)

the provisional

Following disclosure of
the
Indian exporting producer contested this approach. It
was requested that the dumping found for the export
expressed as
transactions
a
including those
percentage of the total cif price,

examined should be

findings,

i.e.

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

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 suffi-
cient as a basis for representative findings. Third, since
the export sales relating to products which had subse-
quently 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 artifi-
cially lowering the dumping margin.

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

the provisional

findings,

(36)

(37)

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 PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA:

60,4 %

— HUNGARY:

Drótáru és Drötkotél Ipari és Kereskedelmi
Rt

All producers/exporters:

28,1 %

28,l %

— INDIA:

Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd

23,8 %

Mohatta & Heckel

All producers/exporters:

— REPUBLIC OF KOREA:

Kiswire Ltd

Manho Rope & Wire Ltd

Chung Woo Rope Co. Ltd

Chun Kee Steel and Wire Rope Co. Ltd

30,8 %

30,8 %

1,2 %

0,1 %

0,2 %

0,4 %

17. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 217/5

— MEXICO:

Aceros Camesa SA de CV

All producers/exporters:

— POLAND:

Drumet SA

95,6 %

95,6 %

27,9 %

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
scia

z organiczona odpowiedzialno-
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:

132 %

51,8 %

E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

1. Community production

(40)

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

— 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 SL (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)

(44)

(45)

Certain interested parties have questioned the calculation
of
imports made by the Community
industry.

the level of

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 estab-
lished as representing 4,4 % of consumption in the
investigation period.

The analysis in the provisional Regulation that the prin-
cipal 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.

2. Community industry

F. INJURY

(41)

(42)

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

four Community

The following 16 complainant Community producers
and
the
complaint and which cooperated in the investigation,
made up the ‘Community industry’ in the meaning of
Article 4 of the basic Regulation,

supporting

producers

i.e.:

— Bremer Drahtseilerei Lüling GmbH (Germany),

— Bridon International Limited (UK),

— BTS Drahtseile GmbH (Germany),

1. Preliminary remark — the investigation period

(46)

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.

— Cables Y Alambres Especiales SA (Spain),

(47)

— Casar Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH (Germany),

— Cordoaria Oliveira SA (Portugal),

— Drahtseilerei Gustav Kocks GmbH (Germany),

— Holding FICADI (France),

— Iscar Funi Metalliche (Italy),

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 irrele-
vant whether 1994 or 1995 has been taken as a starting
point for the purpose of establishing trends.

L 217/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 8. 1999

(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,

industry

resulted in a

— the impact of these imports on the situation of the
Community
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
the Community
in the provisional Regulation,
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,

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
imports
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.

from Mexico. Consequently,

(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 the IP, and also the allegation
that Mexican imports are de minimis is rejected.

— 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.

3. Prices of the dumped imports

(49) On the basis of the above, the allegation concerning the
starting point of the analyses of the trend is therefore
rejected.

3.1. Comparison between Community prices and those of the

dumped imports

(50)

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

(55)

2. Cumulation

2.1. Imports from Hungary

It has been alleged that the elements used in the categor-
isation 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. galvanisa-
tion, 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 influence on prices. It has also been
alleged that the same product categorisation should be
used for both dumping and injury calculations.

(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 decu-
mulation of
from Hungary. Therefore the
grounds for cumulation as set out in recital 47 of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

imports

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
these
Mexican imports should be considered to be de minimis.
In this respect it was claimed that most of the imports

that

(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 SWR. Other elements not
included in the undercutting analysis (i.e. galvanisa-
tion, 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 repres-
entative result,

17. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 217/7

— 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,

— 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 dumping categorisation was, for the most part, a
comparison of one 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
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: while
this
the main price drivers,
taking into account
approach covered the largest volume of sales,

calculation however, was

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

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

the Community

that

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

(57)

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

(63)

The finding that the increase in capacity noted in the
provisional Regulation (+ 11 %) resulted from invest-
ments made in higher performance replacement machi-
nery, as outlined in recitals 59 and 65 of the provisional
Regulation,

is confirmed.

3.2. Level of trade

4.3. Profitability

(58)

(59)

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 whole-
salers/distributors.

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

(60)

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

(64)

(65)

to calculate profitability of

Certain exporting producers questioned the use of
audited accounts
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.

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 inves-
tigated. In the absence of this information, it was consid-
ered that the audited accounts provided reliable informa-
tion 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 compa-
nies (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.

L 217/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 8. 1999

(66)

(67)

The use of profitability relating to 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.

for the reasons given above,

In conclusion,
it was
considered that the audited accounts provided a repres-
entative 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 profit-
ability for the Community industry has been recalculated
to be – 0,3 % in 1997 which as mentioned above is
representative of
the
Community industry therefore went from + 1,3 % in
1994 to – 0,3 % in 1997.

IP. The profitability of

the

4.4. Conclusion on situation of the Community industry

(69)

(70)

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.

It is to be recalled (see Section F.1 ‘Preliminary Remark’),
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, employ-
increased.
ment and investments decreased. Stocks
Market share remained stable (going from 65,26 % to
65,64 %) and profitability remained negative (– 0,3 %).

(71)

the analysis of

In any event in accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic
Regulation,
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

(75)

(76)

(77)

(78)

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST

Certain parties have raised queries concerning the assess-
ment of the impact of anti-dumping measures on user
industries.

It is to be recalled that no replies were received to the
from the user
Commission services' questionnaires
industries concerned by this proceeding (recital 87 of
the provisional Regulation). Furthermore, no informa-
tion has been received following the publication of the
provisional Regulation. It is to be noted that the conclu-
sions 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 diam-
eter SWR and that the effect of the anti-dumping meas-
ures would result in a shortage of 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.

is

to be recalled that

It
the Community industry
produces the full range of SWR including the small
diameters. It is concluded that the imposition of meas-
ures 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. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

(73)

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

1. Termination of
South Korea

the proceeding in respect of

G. CAUSATION

(74)

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

(80)

In view of the conclusions set out in recitals 24 et seqs/.
of the provisional Regulation that the dumping margin
for South Korea is de minimis and that no new argu-
ments 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.

17. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 217/9

2. Injury elimination level

calculated above, the definitive duties have been limited
to the dumping margin established.

(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 short-
fall and a reasonable level of profit. It is to be noted that
as the profitability of the Community industry has been
recalculated to be – 3 % in 1997 (see Point 4.3 ‘Profita-
bility’ in Section F), the element for profit shortfall in the
underselling calculation has been amended accordingly.
Otherwise the methodology used for establishing the
injury margin as described in recital 110 of the provi-
sional Regulation is confirmed.

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 compa-
nies in these countries were granted individual treat-
ment 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.

(83)

It will be recalled from recital 112 et seg. of the provi-
sional 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
in the country
found for a cooperating exporter
concerned should be applied. For
those companies
which have offered acceptable price undertakings, the
definitive measures take the form of undertakings.

(87)

(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

(86)

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

— THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA:

All producers/exporters:

60,4 %

— HUNGARY:

Drótarú és Drótkötél Ipari és Kereskedelmi
Rt

All producers/exporters:

28,1 %

28,1 %

— INDIA:

Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd

23,8 %

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

30,8 %

30,8 %

56,1 %

56,1 %

27,9 %

Fabryka Lin i Drutow ‘Linodrut’
Zabrze Spólka z organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia

Fabryka Lin i Drutow ‘Falind’ Spólka z
organiczona odpowiedzialnoscia

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

Dolnoslaska Fabryka Lin i Drutu ‘Linodrut Linmet’
48,3%
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 %

the situation found during that

anti-dumping investigation. Therefore,

The individual duty rates specified in this Regulation
were established on the basis of the findings of the
they
present
reflect
investigation.
These duty rates are thus exclusively applicable to
countries
imports of products originating in the
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.

L 217/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 8. 1999

(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 relevant information, in particular any modifica-
tion in the company's activities linked to production,
domestic and export sales associated with that name
change.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

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
the injury caused to the Community
seriousness of
industry,
it is considered necessary that the amounts
secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties
under the provisional Regulation 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,

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 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)
code
7312 10 99*10) and originating in the People's Republic of
China, Hungary, India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa, Ukraine.

ex 7312 10 99

(TARIC

and

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
(%)

TARIC additional
code

The PRC

Hungary

India

Mexico

Poland

South Africa

Ukraine

All companies

All companies

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

All other companies

All companies

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

All other companies

All companies

All companies

60,4

28,1

23,8

30,8

56,1

27,9

48,3

38,6

51,8

—

8900

8613

8900

8900

8614

8900

8900

8900

3.

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

Article 2

1.
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 listed in paragraph 3, from which price undertakings have been accepted by
the Commission under Decision 1999/572/EC of 13 August 1999 accepting undertakings offered in
connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel ropes and cables originating in
the People's Republic of China, Hungary, India, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and
Ukraine (1).

(1) See page 63 of this Official Journal

17. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 217/11

2. When the request for release for free circulation pursuant to an undertaking is presented, exemption
from the duty shall be conditional on presentation to the relevant Member State's customs services of a
valid undertaking invoice, in the form set out in the Annex to the provisional Regulation, 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

3.
following TARIC additional codes:

Country

Company

TARIC additional
code

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 odpowied-
zialnoscia 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

India

Ukraine

Aceros Camesa SA de CV
Margarita Maza de Juárez No. 154,
Col. Nueva Ind. Vallejo
México D.F. C.P. 07700
México

Haggie
Lower Germiston Road
Jupiter
PO Box 40072
Cleveland
South Africa

Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd.
Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, 700071 India

Joint Stock Company, Silur, 343700 Khartsyzsk, Donetsk Region,
Ukraine

8616

8617

8619

A022

A023

A024

A025

Article 3

As regards imports of the product described in Article 1(1) originating in the PRC, Hungary, India, Mexico,
Poland, South Africa and Ukraine, the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty
imposed by the provisional Regulation 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.

The proceeding concerning imports of the product described in Article 1(1) originating in the Republic of
Korea is hereby terminated.

Article 4

L 217/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 8. 1999

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

Article 5

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

Done at Brussels, 12 August 1999.

For the Council

The President

T. HALONEN

17. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 217/13

ANNEX

ELEMENTS TO BE INDICATED IN THE EXPORT LICENCE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2(2)

1. The product reporting code number (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 (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 kilograms),

— minimum price applicable.

3. The invoice number.

4. The export licence number and issue date.

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