2000/242/EC: Commission Decision of 24 March 2000 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding on imports of ferro-chrome with a carbon content by weight of maximum 0,5 % (low carbon ferro-chrome) originating in Russia and Kazakhstan (notified under document number C(2000) 798)
Date: 2000-03-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Kazakhstan, USSR, anti-dumping legislation, chromium, dumping, ferro-alloy

25.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 76/23

COMMISSION DECISION

of 24 March 2000

terminating the anti-dumping proceeding on imports of ferro-chrome with a carbon content by
weight of maximum 0,5 % (low carbon ferro-chrome) originating in Russia and Kazakhstan

(notified under document number C(2000) 798)

(2000/242/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to the Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 (2), and in particular
Articles 9 and 11(2) thereof,

Having consulted the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

(1)

(2)

(3)

1. Measures in force

By Regulation (EEC) No 2717/93 (3)
the Council
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of ECU 0,31
per kg net on imports of ferro-chrome with a carbon
content by weight of maximum 0,5 % originating in
Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine.

2. Request for a review

Following the publication, in April 1998, of a notice of
the impending expiry of the measures in force (4), the
Commission received a request for a review of the anti-
dumping measures applicable to imports of low carbon
ferro-chrome (hereinafter referred to as ‘LCFC’) origin-
ating in Kazakhstan and Russia, lodged by the Comité de
Liaison des Industries de Ferro-Alliages (CLIFA or Euro-
alliages) on behalf of the only Community producer of
the product
‘applicant
concerned (hereinafter
Community producer’).

the

The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of
the measures would be likely to result in the continua-
tion or
recurrence of dumping and injury to the
Community industry. The evidence contained in the
request was considered sufficient to justify the opening
of a review investigation. On 2 October 1998 the

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18.
(3) OJ L 246, 2.10.1993, p. 1.
(4) OJ C 100, 2.4.1998, p. 6.

(4)

(5)

(6)

Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee,
announced the initiation of an investigation (5) pursuant
to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, (herein-
after referred to as ‘the basic Regulation’).

3. Investigation

advised

applicant
The Commission officially
Community producer,
the exporting producers and
importers known to be concerned as well as their asso-
ciations, the representatives of the exporting countries,
the end-users known to be concerned and their associa-
tions of the initiation of the review.

the

Interested parties were given the opportunity to make
their views in writing and to request a hearing within
the time limit set in the notice of initiation.

The Commission sent questionnaires
to all parties
In addition, a producer in
known to be concerned.
Zimbabwe, which was chosen as the analogue country,
was likewise advised of the initiation and sent a ques-
tionnaire. The Commission received questionnaire
replies from the applicant Community producer, all
the Zimbabwean
three Russian exporting producers,
producer, one related importer, two unrelated importers
and three users of the product concerned. One associa-
tion of users made its views known in writing and two
further users provided certain information, even though
not replying to the questionnaires. No replies were
received from the Kazakh producers. All parties which
so requested were granted a hearing.

The Commission sought and verified all information it
deemed necessary for the purposes of a determination of
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injurious
dumping and of Community interest. Verification visits
were carried out at the premises of the following compa-
nies:

Community producer

— Elektrowerk Weisweiler GmbH, Eschweiler-Weis-

weiler, Germany

(5) OJ C 303, 2.10.1998, p. 4.

L 76/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.3.2000

Producer in the analogue country

— Zimbabwe Alloys Limited, Harare, Zimbabwe

therefore be considered a like product within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

Unrelated importers

— Nococarbon, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

— Syncret BV, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Users

— AB Sandvik Steel, Sandviken, Sweden

— Acciaierie Venete SPA, Padova, Italy

— ALZ NV, Genk, Belgium

(7)

The investigation of the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of dumping was based on information
pertaining to the period from 1 January 1998 to 30
September 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IP’).

(13)

(12)

Furthermore, the investigation has shown that the LCFC
produced in Zimbabwe and sold on the Zimbabwean
market is alike in all respects to the LCFC exported to
the Community from the countries concerned and the
LCFC produced by the Community industry. It should
therefore also be considered as a like product within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

C. CONTINUATION OF DUMPING

1. Preliminary remarks

In order to ascertain whether there were grounds for a
of
likelihood
recurrence
dumping,
verified whether
dumping had continued during the IP.

continuation
of
the Commission first

and/or

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE

PRODUCT

1. Product under consideration

2. Russia

2.1. Analogue country

(8)

(9)

(10)

It

is an alloy of

The product under consideration is ferro-chrome with a
carbon content in weight of maximum 0,5 % (herein-
after ‘LCFC’).
iron and chromium
produced by reducing chromium ores with silicon and/
or carbon in an electric furnace. It is produced in a
two-stage (sometimes three-stage) process and the chro-
mium content of the alloy varies according to the type
of ores used. The carbon content is determined by the
materials added during the second stage of the produc-
tion process and its percentage may vary significantly.
There are two grades of LCFC: normal grade with a
carbon content of more than 0,05 % but less or equal to
0,5 % and special grade with a carbon content of less or
equal to 0,05 %.

The prices of LCFC are normally expressed in a value
per kg of chromium contained in the alloy and vary
according to the carbon content: the lower the carbon
content the higher the price.

The product under consideration is mainly used for the
production of high-tensile structural and heat and acid
resistant steel containing a high chromium content. It is
also used to adjust the chromium content in stainless
steel and its use is necessary for steel where, for plant
reasons, removal of carbon is not possible during steel
manufacturing. These uses are independent of precise
carbon contents, so that products with different grades
of carbon content are to a large extent interchangeable.

2. Like product

(11)

The investigation has confirmed that the product manu-
factured by the applicant Community producer and sold
on the Community market is alike in all respects to the
LCFC imported from the countries concerned. It should

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

In establishing normal value, account was taken of the
fact that Zimbabwe was envisaged in the notice of initia-
tion of this review as an appropriate market economy
third country. One importer suggested Turkey as an
alternative market economy third country. The Commis-
sion sought cooperation in Turkey and sent a question-
naire to the only known producer. However, the sole
Turkish producer of LCFC, although it declared its will-
ingness to cooperate, did not finally provide sufficient
information for the determination of normal value.

Therefore, it was decided to maintain Zimbabwe as an
appropriate market economy third country because the
production was sizeable, the production process was
similar
the company
produced the two grades involved in the investigation,
the domestic sales were representative as compared to
the imports concerned to the EC and Zimbabwe was
used as an analogue market in the original investigation.

to that practised in Russia,

2.2. Normal value

In order to establish normal value, in a first step, it was
determined that the total volume of domestic sales of
the product under consideration was representative in
accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e.
that these sales represented more than 5 % of the sales
volume of the product under consideration exported
from Russia to the Community.

In a second step, it was then found that for each grade
of the product under consideration, domestic sales of the
corresponding grade in Zimbabwe were representative,
as they constituted 5 % or more of
the volume of
exports of the product under consideration originating
in Russia.

25.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 76/25

(18)

Furthermore, it was determined that all sales had been
made in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with
Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

2.3. Export price

D. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF DUMPING

(25)

Further to the previous analysis demonstrating that
dumping did not occur during the IP, the Commission
recurrence of dumping,
examined the likelihood of
should the measures applicable to the imports in ques-
tion be removed.

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

Export sales of LCFC to the Community from Russia fell
sharply following the imposition of the anti-dumping
duties, to a nearly insignificant level.

1. Russia

In the responses to the questionnaires, only one Russian
exporter declared some export sales of special grade
LCFC to the Community. Furthermore, it was found that
the Russian exporting producers sold to unrelated non-
Russian traders and consequently did not know the final
destination of their exports. In light of the fact that
Eurostat data appeared more complete as they showed
imports of both grades of LCFC,
it was considered
appropriate to use these data for the determination of
the export price. It should be noted that the information
gathered from the one Russian exporting producer who
had declared exports to the Community confirmed the
price level determined by Eurostat.

(26)

(27)

2.4. Comparison

The weighted average normal value for each grade was
compared to the weighted average export price of the
corresponding grade of LCFC, in accordance with Article
2(11) of the basic Regulation, at fob exporting country
port level.

For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between
normal value and export price, account was taken of
differences in factors, which were claimed and demon-
strated to affect comparability in accordance with Article
2(10) of the basic Regulation. In this respect, adjust-
ments were made for differences in the carbon and
chromium content. Adjustments also were made for
inland and ocean freight,
loading,
ancillary and other costs.

insurance handling,

2.5. Dumping margin

(23)

The comparison between the normal value and the
export price for both grades of LCFC did not reveal the
existence of dumping.

Exports to third countries were assessed, in particular to
the United States of America, where the Russian
exporting producers export
significant quantities of
LCFC. On the basis of the information supplied by the
Russian exporting producers and official USA statistics,
it was found that the Russian export prices to the USA,
adjusted to ensure a fair price comparison (including
adjustments for differences in carbon and chromium
content), were higher
in
Zimbabwe compared on an fob exporting country port
basis and for both grades.

than the normal value

it appeared that

In addition, the Commission examined the likely pricing
followed by the Russian
strategy which may be
exporting producers in case of a resumption of imports
towards the EC market if measures were removed. In
this respect,
the Russian exporting
producers have a significant spare capacity which could
eventually be used and the resulting production may be
directed to the Community by reason of geographical
proximity and the need to acquire foreign currency.
However, as shown above,
the small quantities of
Russian LCFC exports during the IP have been found not
to be dumped. In these circumstances, in particular in
light of the present applicable significant anti-dumping
duty,
following the
removal of these duties, the Russian exporting producers
would lower their export prices to a degree that they
would be dumped. More to the contrary, the Russian
exporting producers would have scope for increases in
their export prices.

it would appear unlikely that,

(28)

Indeed, if any resumption of Russian exports were to
take place, it is, given the quality of the Russian prod-
ucts, more likely to be in competition with imports from
Turkey, Zimbabwe, South Africa and the People's
Republic of China, which cover the middle segment of
the market, rather than the upper segment where the
Community industry is present. The prevailing prices in
this segment are on average higher than the normal
value and no dumping would be likely to occur at this
level on sales aimed at this segment.

3. Kazakhstan

2. Kazakhstan

(24)

The information available to the Commission did not
indicate
the
Community market during the IP. As a result, no
dumping determination has been undertaken.

that Kazakhstan

exported

had

to

(29)

The available information for Kazakhstan indicates the
existence of massive capacities of chromium ore reserves
and important LCFC production capacities.

L 76/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.3.2000

(30) Nevertheless,

the potential

for LCFC production is
strongly reduced because of outdated equipment and the
failure to privatise,
restructure and modernise the
industry. Moreover, the bulk of the remaining produc-
tion concentrates on medium and high carbon ferro-
to the present
chrome, which are not
proceeding. For sales of
the
available price information from US import statistics
regarding Kazakh exports to the US market indicates
that the likelihood of recurrence of dumping on the
Community market is rather remote.

the product concerned,

subject

It, therefore, appears unlikely that the Kazakh industry
would resume imports to the EC in significant quantities
and that injurious dumping would reoccur, were the
measures allowed to lapse.

3. Conclusion

(31) On the basis of the above facts and considerations, it is
concluded that dumping is unlikely to reoccur for both
Russia and Kazakhstan, should the measures in force be
removed.

E. CONTINUATION AND RECURRENCE OF INJURY

AND COMMUNITY INTEREST

(32)

In view of the conclusion concerning dumping, it was
not considered necessary to develop the aspects relating
to the likelihood of continuation and/or recurrence of
injury and the Community interest arising from the
investigation.

(34) All parties concerned were informed of the essential
facts and considerations on the basis of which the
termination of the existing measures would be based.
They were granted a period within which to make repre-
sentations subsequent to the disclosure.

(35)

(36)

Representations received further to the disclosure did
not however provide any new elements which could
affect the above analysis.

In view of the findings set out above, the Commission
therefore considers
the anti-dumping measures
imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2717/93 and currently
in force should be repealed for Kazakhstan and Russia,

that

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The anti-dumping review proceeding concerning imports in the
Community of ferro-chrome with a carbon content by weight
of maximum 0,5 % falling within CN codes 7202 49 10 and
7202 49 50 and originating in Kazakhstan and Russia is
hereby terminated.

F. CONCLUSION

Done at Brussels, 24 March 2000.

(33) Given the above findings,

it was concluded that the
proceeding concerning imports of LCFC originating in
Russia and Kazakhstan should be terminated and that
the anti-dumping duty in force should be allowed to
lapse.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission