Commission Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 of 2 February 2001 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey and accepting undertakings offered by certain exporters in the Czech Republic and Turkey
Date: 2001-02-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, dumping, import, metals, non-flat product, third country

L 34/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 230/2001

of 2 February 2001

imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in
the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey and accepting undertakings offered by certain
exporters in the Czech Republic and Turkey

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

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), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (2), and in partic-
ular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Initiation

On 5 May 2000,
the Commission announced by a
notice (hereinafter referred to as ‘notice of initiation’)
published in the Official Journal of the European Communi-
ties (3) the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with
regard to imports into the Community of certain iron or
steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic,
the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as ‘Korea’),
Malaysia, Russia, Thailand and Turkey.

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint
lodged in March 2000 by the Liaison Committee of
European Union Wire Rope Industries (EWRIS) (herein-
after referred to as the ‘complainant’) on behalf of
producers representing a major proportion, i.e. 76 % of
the Community production of the product concerned.
The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the
said product and of material injury resulting therefrom,
which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation
of a proceeding.

the representatives of

The Commission officially advised the exporting produ-
cers, exporters and importers known to be concerned as
well as their associations,
the
exporting countries concerned, the EU-Czech Republic
and EC-Turkey Association Councils, the complainant
and all known Community producers, raw material
suppliers
the
about
the
proceeding.
Interested parties were given the oppor-
tunity to make their views known in writing and to
request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice
of initiation.

initiation of

and users,

(4)

A number of exporting producers in the countries
concerned, as well as Community producers and impor-
ters made their views known in writing. All parties who
so requested within the above time limit and who

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2.
(3) OJ C 127, 5.5.2000, p. 12.

(5)

(6)

(7)

demonstrated that there were particular reasons why
they should be heard were granted the opportunity to be
heard.

The Commission sent questionnaires
to all parties
known to be concerned and to all other companies
which made themselves known within the deadlines set
out in the notice of initiation. Replies were received
from 19 Community producers, 11 exporting producers
in the countries concerned, as well as from their related
from one unrelated
in the Community,
importers
importer
in the Community and one raw material
supplier. No user responded to the questionnaire.

In order to allow exporting producers from Russia to
submit a claim for market economy status (MES) or
individual treatment if they so wished, the Commission
sent to Russian companies known to be concerned a
market economy status and an individual
treatment
claim form. No other companies made themselves
known within the deadline set out in the notice of
initiation. Two companies requested MES pursuant to
Article 2(7)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the basic regulation’) or individual treat-
ment should the investigation establish that they did not
meet the conditions for MES.

The Commission sought and verified all the information
it deemed necessary for the purpose of a preliminary
determination of dumping,
injury and Community
interest. Verification visits were carried out at the prem-
ises of the following companies:

(a) C o m m u n i t y p r o d u c e r s

— BTS Drahtseile GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany

— Randers Rebslaaeri A/S, Randers, Denmark

— Redaelli Tecna Cordati SpA, Gardone V.T., Italy

— Trefileurope, Bourg-en-Bresse, France

— Trenzas y Cables, SL, Barberà del Vallès, Spain

(b) E x p o r t i n g p r o d u c e r s

Czech Republic

— ŽDB a. s., Bohumín and its related exporter,

Prague

Korea

— Kiswire Ltd, Seoul and Pusan

— Chung Woo Rope Co., Pusan

— DSR Wire Corp., Suncheon

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/5

Malaysia

— Kiswire Sdn. Bhd., Johor Bahru

Russia (market economy status verification)

— Cherepovetsky Staleprokatny Zavod, Cherepo-

vets

Thailand

— Usha Siam Steel Industries plc

Turkey

— Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii A.S, Istanbul/Izmit

— Has Celik ve Halat Sanayi Ticaret A.S, Kayseri

(11)

(c) R e l a t e d i m p o r t e r s i n t h e C o m m u n i t y

United Kingdom

— Usha Martin UK Ltd, Clydebank

Denmark

— Usha Martin Scandinavia A/S, Vallensbaek Strand

Netherlands

— Kiswire Europe BV, Dongen.

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the
period from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 (herein-
after referred to as ‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The
examination of trends relevant for the assessment of
injury covered the period from 1 January 1997 up to
the end of the IP (hereinafter referred to as ‘period
considered’).

(12)

(13)

(8)

(9)

2. Product concerned and like product

(a) Product concerned

The product concerned is ropes and cables,
including
locked coil ropes, of iron or steel but not stainless steel,
with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding
3 mm, with attached fittings or not. These products are
often referred to by the industry as ‘steel wire ropes’
(SWR).
Indeed, the investigation established that iron
cannot be used as raw material for producing ropes and
cables. SWR are currently classifiable within CN codes
7312 10 82, 7312 10 84, 7312 10 86, 7312 10 88 and
7312 10 99.

(10)

form the strand,

SWR consist of three basic components: the steel wires
that
the strands that are wrapped
around a core, and the core itself. These components
vary in design depending on the physical requirement of
the intended application of the SWR. There are different

types of steel wire, with varying tensile strength and
diameter. The steel wire may be galvanised (i.e. zinc
coated) or bright. The strand is obtained by closely
twisting together several wires arranged in different
geometric patterns or formations (e.g. standard, seale,
filler, warrington). The quantity, size and quality of the
steel wire and the specific construction establish the
properties of each type of SWR. The strands are usually
assembled and wrapped around a core which can be of
fibre (natural or synthetic), steel, or a combination of the
two. There are other specifications of SWR such as the
lay direction, whether there is pre-forming or other
special properties (e.g. compacted, cable lay, rotation
resistance). They are generally round in cross-section but
may also be rectangular. SWR may be covered with
plastic and may be cut to length or fitted (hooks, rings).

and gas

SWR are used in a variety of industries including fishing,
maritime/shipping, oil
industries, mining,
forestry, aerial transport, civil engineering, construction
and elevator. All SWR were found to have the same
basic physical characteristics (i.e. the steel wires that
form the strand, the strands that are wrapped around the
core that form the ropes, and the core itself).

Several interested parties claimed that SWR should be
divided into two different products, general purpose
SWR and high performance SWR (including locked coil
ropes). It was alleged that high performance SWR or at
least locked coil ropes (4) should be excluded from the
scope of the proceeding on the ground that they differ
substantially from general purpose SWR in terms of
physical characteristics, production process, end-uses,
end-markets and prices.

The investigation revealed that SWR are produced in a
wide range of different types with a certain degree of
physical and technical differences and that various types
of SWR can be classified into a number of product
groups reflecting their physical and technical characteris-
tics. However, it was also found that all of them have
the same basic physical characteristics and the same
technical characteristics and while products
in the
bottom end and in the top end of the range are not
interchangeable, products in adjoining groups are. It was
therefore concluded that a certain degree of overlapping
and competition existed between SWR in different
groups. Moreover, products in the same group may have
different applications. In the absence of a clear dividing
line in the range of SWR and given that all of them have
the same basic physical and technical characteristics, all
SWR are considered as one product.

(b) Like product

(14)

Certain interested parties argued that the product under
consideration and that manufactured and sold by the
Community industry on the Community market are
different given that the former consists mostly of general
purpose SWR whereas the latter include mostly high
the reasons given in
In view of
performance ropes.
recital 13, this argument could not be accepted.

(4) A locked coil rope is made up of

interlocking wires
around a round-wire strand core. The special shape of the wires
prevents locked coil ropes from fraying if one wire breaks and
makes them technically part of the SWR family.

layers of

L 34/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

(15)

(16)

found that SWR were

The Commission found that there were no significant
differences in the basic physical and technical character-
istics of
the various types of SWR (see description
above). As concerns the application and usage of SWR,
although a wide range of user industries exists, all SWR
i.e. to
were found to have essentially the same use,
transmit force. Furthermore, within each product type it
was
interchangeable. SWR
produced and sold on the domestic market in the Czech
Republic, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and Turkey and
those exported to the Community from the countries
concerned as well as those produced and sold by the
Community industry were found to have the same phys-
ical and technical characteristics and uses. The same has
been found to be the case with the SWR exported to the
Community from Russia as well as those produced and
sold by the Community industry.

It was therefore concluded that the SWR produced and
sold by the Community industry on the Community
market were a like product to the SWR exported to the
Community originating in the countries concerned,
within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regula-
tion. It was also concluded, that the SWR produced and
sold on the domestic market in the Czech Republic,
Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and Turkey were alike to the
concerned and
SWR originating in the
exported to the Community. Similarly,
the SWR
produced and sold on the domestic market in Korea
were alike to the SWR originating in Russia and
exported to the Community.

countries

B. DUMPING

1. General methodology

(17)

The general methodology set out hereinafter has been
applied for all exporting countries concerned. The
presentation of the findings on dumping for each of the
six countries concerned therefore only describes what is
specific for each exporting country.

(a) Normal value

(18) As

far as

the determination of normal value

is
concerned, the Commission first established, for each
exporting producer, whether its total domestic sales of
SWR were representative in comparison with its total
export sales to the Community.
In accordance with
Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales were
considered representative when the total domestic sales
volume of each exporting producer was at least 5 % of
its total export sales volume to the Community.

construction, number of strands and wires per strand,
core, material of wire, rope characteristics, rope cover,
surface finishing, tensile strength, whether with fittings
attached or not were considered to be directly compar-
able. One exporting producer claimed that identification
of directly comparable types should also take into
consideration the following factors: breaking load, diam-
eter tolerance, application, elongation factor, corrosion
protection properties, extraordinary length and weight,
special wires. The alternative categorisation of
the
comparable product type proposed by this exporting
producer included only some of these additional factors
and the analysis of prices charged by this exporting
producer did not establish that the prices were influ-
enced by these additional factors. Accordingly, this claim
was rejected. No other interested party contested the
criteria proposed by the Commission.

(20)

For each of the types sold by the exporting producers on
their domestic markets and found to be directly compar-
able to types sold for export to the Community, it was
established whether domestic sales were sufficiently
representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the
basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type
were considered sufficiently representative when the
total domestic sales volume of SWR of that type during
the IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume
of SWR of
the comparable type exported to the
Community.

(21) An examination was also made as to whether the
domestic sales of each type could be regarded as having
been made in the ordinary course of trade, by estab-
lishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent
In cases
customers of the product type in question.
where the sales volume sold at a net sales price equal to
or above the calculated cost of production (also referred
to as ‘profitable sales’) represented 80 % or more of the
total sales volume and where the weighted average price
of that type was equal to or above cost of production,
normal value was based on the weighted average of the
prices of all domestic sales made during the IP, irrespec-
tive of whether all these sales were profitable or not. In
cases where the volume of profitable sales represented
less than 80 % but 10 % or more of the total sales
volume, normal value was based on the weighted
average price of profitable sales only.

(19)

The Commission subsequently identified, for the compa-
nies having representative domestic sales, those types of
SWR sold domestically that were identical or directly
comparable to the types
to the
Community. In general, types with the same diameter,

sold for export

(22)

In cases where the volume of profitable sales of any type
of SWR represented less than 10 % of the total sales
volume, it was considered that this particular type was
sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic price to
provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the
normal value.

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/7

(23) Wherever domestic prices of a particular type sold by an
exporting producer could not be used, normal value was
based on the weighted average of the prices charged by
other producers in the country concerned for repres-
entative domestic sales of the corresponding product
type made in the ordinary course of trade in accordance
with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation, whenever such
data were available.

(c) Comparison

(28)

For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between
the normal value and the export price, due allowance in
the form of adjustments was made for differences
affecting price comparability in accordance with Article
2(10) of the basic Regulation.

(24) Where, per product type, there were insufficient sales or
no such representative domestic sales by other produ-
cers
in the country concerned, normal value was
constructed, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic
Regulation, by adding to the manufacturing costs of the
exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable
percentage
and administrative
expenses (SG & A) and a reasonable margin of profit. To
this end, the Commission examined whether the SG & A
incurred and the profit realised by each of the exporting
producers concerned on the domestic market consti-
tuted reliable data.

selling, general

for

(25) Actual domestic SG & A expenses were considered reli-
able when the domestic sales volume of the like product
by the company concerned could be regarded as repres-
entative. The domestic profit margin was determined on
the basis of domestic sales of the product concerned
made in the ordinary course of trade as defined in recital
21.

(b) Export price

(26)

In all cases where SWR were exported to independent
customers in the Community,
the export price was
established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic
Regulation, namely on the basis of prices actually paid
or payable.

(27) Where the export sale was made to a related importer,
the export price was constructed pursuant to Article 2(9)
of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of the price
at which the imported products were first resold to an
independent buyer.
In such cases, adjustments were
made for all costs incurred between importation and
resale and for profits accruing, in order to establish a
reliable export price. Since information made available
from the only cooperating unrelated importer was
incomplete, the level of profit of the importers was
based on the information submitted by the cooperating
the product concerned in a
unrelated importers of
previous proceeding concerning the same product (5)
and considered to be reasonable for
the functions
performed by the parties concerned. On that basis the
level of profit was set at 5 %.

(5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 362/1999 of 18 February 1999
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes
and cables originating in the People's Republic of China,
India,
Mexico, South Africa and the Ukraine and accepting undertakings
offered
Poland,
O J L 45, 19.02.1999, p. 8.

exporters

Hungary

certain

and

by

in

(d) Dumping margin for the companies investigated

(29) According to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the
dumping margins were established on the basis of a
comparison between the weighted average normal value
per product type and the weighted average export price
at ex-factory level and at the same level of trade. When
there was a pattern of export prices differing among
purchasers, regions or time periods and the method
previously described did not reflect the full degree of
dumping, normal value established on a weighted
average basis was compared to prices of all individual
export transactions to the Community.

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(e) Residual dumping margin

For those exporting producers which neither replied to
the questionnaire nor otherwise made
themselves
known, the dumping margin was established on the
basis of the facts available, in accordance with Article
18(1) of the basic Regulation.

For all countries subject to the investigation, the volume
of exports to the Community reported by the cooper-
ating exporting producers was compared with the
equivalent import data reported by Eurostat in order to
establish the overall

level of cooperation.

For those countries with a high level of cooperation, it
was decided to set the residual dumping margin at the
level established for the cooperating exporting producer
with the highest dumping margin.

For those countries where the level of cooperation was
low or where there was evidence of known exporters
that deliberately did not cooperate in the investigation,
information from the cooperating exporting producer
with the highest dumping margin was also used.
However, in this case, the residual dumping margin was
set at the highest level of dumping found for repres-
entative types made by the said cooperating exporting
producer. This approach was taken, as there is no reason
to believe that any non-cooperating exporting producer
in the country concerned would have dumped at a lower
level than a cooperating exporting producer in the same
country.

(34)

The above approach with regard to non-cooperating
exporting producers was also considered necessary in
order to prevent non-cooperating exporting producers
benefiting from their non-cooperation.

L 34/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

(35)

2. Czech Republic

replied to the questionnaire

Two companies
for
exporting producers. However, the reply submitted by
one exporting producer in the Czech Republic was too
incomplete to enable the Commission to arrive at a
reasonably accurate finding. Notably, audited accounts
or other financial statements were not transmitted, no
information was submitted on costs of production, or,
apart from total figures, on exports to the Community
and domestic sales of the product concerned. In accord-
ance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, the
company was duly informed that the information was
insufficient to make any individual determination in its
respect and given an opportunity to provide further
explanations. None of
the major deficiencies noted
above were corrected and accordingly the company was
informed that provisional findings in its respect would
be based on facts available pursuant to Article 18(1) of
the basic Regulation. No verification visit was carried out
at the premises of this exporting producer in accordance
with Article 16(1) of
the basic Regulation. For this
company, a residual dumping margin was established as
described in recital 33.

(a) Normal value

(36)

(37)

For types sold in the Community and on the domestic
market in representative quantities and in the ordinary
course of trade, normal values were established on the
basis of the domestic sales prices in accordance with
Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation.

For most of the types, in the absence of representative
domestic sales of comparable models and of cooperation
on the part of another exporting producer in the Czech
Republic, normal values were calculated in accordance
with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. The company's
own SG & A expenses and the company's own profit on
domestic sales of the product concerned in the ordinary
course of trade were added to the manufacturing costs
of these exported types.

(b) Export price

(38) All sales for export to the Community of the product
concerned by the exporting producer, whether directly
or via its related exporter, were to independent impor-
ters in the Community. Consequently, the export price
was established according to Article 2(8) of the basic
Regulation as the price actually paid or payable for the
to the
product
Community.

concerned when sold for

export

(c) Comparison

(39) Allowances for differences in level of trade, transport,
insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing,
and credit have been made where applicable and justi-
fied.

(40) As the related exporter's functions can be considered
similar to those of a trader acting on a commission
basis, an adjustment of 5 % for SG & A expenses and
profit was also deducted from the prices charged by the
related trading subsidiary to independent customers in
the Community. This figure was estimated by reference
to the commissions paid for transactions on the product
concerned by two Korean exporting producers to an
unrelated agent and was considered reasonable given the
degree of the related trader's involvement in the selling
activities of the exporter.

(d) Dumping margin

(41)

Pursuant to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the
the
weighted average normal value of each type of
product concerned exported to the Community was
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned. Indeed,
although a
between
customers, regions and time periods had been declared,
this method reflected the full degree of dumping being
practised.

different pattern of prices

(42)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping in
respect of
the cooperating exporting producer. The
provisional dumping margin expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community frontier duty
unpaid is for:

— ŽDB a.s.:

47,1 %.

(43)

Since a known exporting producer deliberately did not
cooperate, the methodology followed to determine a
provisional residual dumping margin for the Czech
Republic was the one explained in recital 33 for coun-
tries where the level of cooperation was low. On this
basis, the residual dumping margin is 66,0 %.

3. Republic of Korea

(44)

In view of the large number of Korean exporting produ-
cers mentioned in the complaint and the time limits
established in Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation, the
Commission initially envisaged to investigate dumping
in
for Korea on the basis of a sample of exporters,
accordance with Article 17 of
the basic Regulation.
However, only three exporting producers contacted the
Commission and provided the information requested in
the notice of initiation within 15 days of its publication.
sampling techniques was
Consequently the use of
deemed unnecessary. These three companies replied to
the questionnaire for exporting producers. A related
importer of one of the exporting producers also sent in
a response to the questionnaire intended for related
importers.

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/9

(a) Normal value

(45) One Korean exporting producer which purchases the
raw material (wire) from a related company requested
the Commission to calculate the cost of production of
the product concerned by taking the cost of production
of the raw material from the related company. The claim
was rejected as those costs were entered into the
company accounts at the purchasing price which was
found to be at arms-length and thus considered to
reasonably reflect the cost associated with the produc-
tion of the product under consideration.

(46) Another exporting producer did not report all SG & A
expenses incurred for the production and sales of the
product concerned. However, given the fact that the
party had acted to the best of its ability, and that the
information submitted was verifiable, the Commission
was able to correct the figures reported in the question-
naire on the basis of the information obtained and veri-
fied on the spot.

(47)

(48)

For most of the types sold for export to the Community,
the
normal values were established on the basis of
domestic sales price of comparable types in accordance
with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation.

types

export

sold for

to the
For other product
Community, normal value was based on the weighted
average of the prices charged by other producers in the
country concerned for representative domestic sales of
the corresponding product type made in the ordinary
course of trade in accordance with Article 2(1) of the
basic Regulation.

(49)

For the remaining types normal value was constructed in
accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.

(b) Export price

(50) A major part of the sales for export to the Community
were made directly to independent customers. For these
sales the export price was established on the basis of the
prices actually paid or payable when sold for export to
the Community as provided for in Article 2(8) of the
basic Regulation.

(53)

(54)

the company asked the
export price. Alternatively,
Commission to disregard export sales in the Community
made through its related importer.

These claims could not be accepted. The involvement of
a related importer is not in itself a reason to make a
deduction on the normal value side. Rather, the deter-
mination of
the export price and the subsequent
comparison of this export price with normal value are
two separate steps governed by separate rules. The
provisional determination has not shown any differences
in the level of trade of export and domestic sales. It
should finally be noted that the amount of exports into
the Community market channelled through its related
importer is substantial.

The same company claimed an adjustment on both
domestic and export sales for differences in other
factors, consisting of the costs incurred by the company
for the inspection fees and outside processing (cut to
length ropes or incorporation of fittings) of certain sales
in order to meet customers' requirements. It was consid-
ered more appropriate to grant this claim as an adjust-
for differences in physical characteristics. The
ment
amount of the adjustment corresponds to a reasonable
estimate of the market value of the difference established
by the Commission.

(d) Dumping margin

(55) As provided by Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the
weighted average normal value of each type of
the
prodcut concerned exported to the Community was
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned.

(56)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping in
respect of
the cooperating exporting producers. The
provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community frontier duty
unpaid are for:

— Kiswire, Ltd:

— Chung Woo Rope Co.:

— DSR Wire Corp.:

0,21 %

2,71 %

0,49 %.

(c) Comparison

(57)

charges,

(51) Allowances for differences in physical characteristics,
insurance,
import
handling,
loading, ancillary costs, packing, credit, and
commission have been made where applicable and justi-
fied.

transport,

charges

for

the

entirety of

The three exporting producers appear
to represent
(when compared to the import data reported by Euro-
stat)
to the
Community of the product concerned. In order to asses
whether, on a countrywide basis, the dumping margin
was de minimis, a weighted average dumping margin was
established. This margin amounted to: 1,2 %.

the Korean exports

(52) One exporting producer claimed an allowance for differ-
ences in levels of trade. The company considers that
indirect selling expenses incurred for domestic sales
should be deducted from the domestic price in the
calculation of normal value in a similar way as selling
expenses for its related importer in the Community are
deducted from the resale price in order to construct the

4. Malaysia

(58) One company replied to the questionnaire for exporting
producers. A company in the Community related to this
exporting producer also replied to the questionnaire
intended for related importers.

L 34/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

(a) Normal value

5. Thailand

(59)

For most of the types sold for export to the Community,
normal values were established on the basis of
the
domestic sales price of comparable types in accordance
with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation.

(67) One company replied to the questionnaire for exporting
producers. Two companies in the Community related to
this exporting producer also replied to the questionnaire
intended for related importers.

(60)

For the remaining types normal value was constructed in
accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.

(a) Normal value

(b) Export price

(61) A major part of the sales for export to the Community
were made to a related importer in the Community. For
these sales the Commission constructed the export price
according to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.

(c) Comparison

charges,

(62) Allowances for differences in physical characteristics,
insurance,
import
loading, ancillary costs, packing, credit, and
handling,
commission have been made where applicable and justi-
fied.

transport,

charges

for

(63)

The cooperating exporting producer claimed an allow-
ance for differences in levels of
trade on the same
ground as one of
the Korean cooperating exporting
producers. However, no differences in the level of trade
of export and domestic sales was found. This claim
could not be granted for the reasons explained in recital
53.

(d) Dumping margin

(64) As provided by Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the
the
weighted average normal value of each type of
product concerned exported to the Community was
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned.

(65)

(66)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping in
respect of
the cooperating exporting producer. The
provisional dumping margin expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community frontier duty
unpaid is for:

— Kiswire, Sdn. Bhd.:

0,56 %.

(when
The exporting producer appears to represent
compared to the import data reported by Eurostat) the
entirety of the Malaysian exports to the Community of
the product
the dumping
concerned. Accordingly,
margin provisionally established for this sole exporting
producer is valid for the whole country.

(68)

The Thai exporting producer, which also purchases its
raw material (wire rod) from a related company in India,
at a price higher than the prevailing market price,
requested the Commission to consider the arms-length
price for the calculation of the cost of manufacturing for
both the purpose of carrying out the normal course of
trade test and constructing normal value where appro-
priate. The claim was accepted as it was found that the
purchasing price was a transfer price and did not merely
reflect the costs associated with the production and sale
of the product concerned.

(69)

For most of the types sold for export to the Community,
normal values were established on the basis of
the
domestic sales price of comparable types in accordance
with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation.

(70)

For the remaining types normal value was constructed in
accordance with Article 2(3) of the Regulation.

(b) Export price

(71) All sales of SWR on the Community market were to
related importers
in the Community. Consequently,
export prices were constructed according to Article 2(9)
of the basic Regulation.

(c) Comparison

charges,

(72) Allowances for differences in physical characteristics,
insurance,
import
handling,
loading, ancillary costs, packing, credit, and
commission have been made where applicable and justi-
fied.

transport,

charges

for

(73)

The exporting producer claimed an adjustment to the
normal values for finance costs for value added tax
(VAT), pursuant to Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regula-
tion. The claim was based on the grounds that the
government refunds VAT with a significant delay and
therefore the company incurs additional finance costs on
the non-refunded VAT amount. The claim could not be
granted since the company did not demonstrate that this
factor affects price comparability and, in particular, that
customers consistently pay different prices on the
domestic market because of the difference in such a
factor. The finance costs for the VAT are,
in fact, a
normal operational overhead.

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/11

(d) Dumping margin

(c) Comparison

(74) As provided by Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the
comparison was made on the basis of a weighted
average normal value to a weighted average export price.

(75)

(76)

(77)

(78)

(79)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping in
respect of
the exporting producer. The provisional
dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the cif
import price at the Community frontier duty unpaid is
for:

— Usha Siam Steel Industries plc:

30,5 %

Since the level of cooperation was low (less than 80 % of
the exports of the product concerned to the Community
from Thailand), the residual provisional dumping margin
was set at the level of the highest dumping margin
established for representative transactions by the cooper-
ating exporting producer. Expressed as a percentage of
the free-at-Community frontier price, duty unpaid, the
margin is 42,8 %.

6. Turkey

Two companies
exporting producers.

replied to the questionnaire

for

(a) Normal value

In line with the general methodology, it was possible,
for some of the product types, to establish normal value
on the basis of the domestic price of comparable types
in accordance with Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation.
Representativeness and ordinary course of trade tests for
the domestic sales of comparable types were carried out
on a monthly basis given the high inflation in Turkey
during the IP.

For all other types of the product concerned sold for
export to the Community by the cooperating compa-
nies, normal value was constructed in accordance with
Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. The companies' own
domestic SG & A expenses and the profit margin realised
on the domestic market in the ordinary course of trade
were added to the manufacturing cost. To account for
the high inflation, constructed normal values were calcu-
lated for each month of the IP.

(b) Export price

(80) All sales of the product concerned made by the cooper-
ating companies on the Community market were to
independent customers
in the Community. Conse-
quently, the export price was established on the basis of
the prices actually paid or payable as provided for in
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(81) Allowances

for differences

in import charges and
indirect taxes, discounts, rebates and quantities, trans-
port,
loading and ancillary costs,
credit,
technical assistance, commissions have been
made where applicable and justified.

insurance, handling,

(82) One exporting producer claimed pursuant

the basic Regulation an adjustment

to Article
2(10)(b) of
to
normal values for a 3 % tax paid on imported raw
materials purchased on delayed payment terms as this
tax would not be collected in respect of raw materials to
be used in the manufacture of wire ropes to be eventu-
ally exported. The on-the-spot verification established
that companies obtain at the beginning of the year the
right to import free of this tax a quantity of raw mate-
rials based on the previous year's exports of finished
products, no matter whether these materials would be
incorporated in domestically sold or exported finished
products. There was consequently no means of estab-
lishing that the tax had been paid on imported raw
materials physically incorporated in SWR sold domesti-
cally. The claim was accordingly rejected.

in levels of

for differences

(83) One exporting producer claimed an adjustment to the
domestic prices
trade
pursuant to Article 2(10)(d)(i) of the basic Regulation on
the ground that all exports to the Community were to
retailers whereas domestic sales were to retailers and to
end-users. This adjustment was not granted since the
company was unable to demonstrate that there were
consistent and distinct differences in prices and func-
tions on the domestic market for the alleged different
levels of trade. The other exporting producer described
its distribution channels in the Community and on the
domestic market and submitted a claim for an allowance
without any explanation on how this affected price
comparability. Moreover, explanations received on the
spot established that
in the
Community could not be described as claimed. Accord-
ingly, no adjustment was made at this stage of the
investigation.

its distribution channel

(84)

(85)

The adjustment for differences in the direct costs of
providing warranties claimed by one exporting producer
the amount which
was partly rejected in respect of
corresponded actually to expenses incurred for bank
guarantees. These costs were a normal operational over-
head not eligible to an adjustment claim. This claim also
included returns on sales which were duly deducted
from the price of the relevant transactions.

Both exporting producers presented two claims under
the basic Regulation for currency
Article 2(10)(j) of
conversions allowance. The claims were as follows: (i)
the export prices set in euro or in currencies of the
Member States having adopted the euro should be
converted first to US dollars as domestic prices are set in

L 34/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

US dollars, using the exchange rate of 60 days prior to
the date of invoice (or preferably, for one, the exchange
rate at the beginning of the IP) due to the ‘sustained’
depreciation of the euro vis-a-vis the US dollar; (ii) then
export prices should be converted from US dollar to
the date of
Turkish lira using the exchange rate of
payment.

the Commission considered that

(86) As regards the first claim, it was established that even if
the US dollar was used to set the domestic price list to
avoid its on-going revision because of the high inflation,
the currency used for invoicing and settling the debts on
the domestic market was the Turkish lira. As price
comparison required a conversion from euro to Turkish
lira,
the relevant
exchange rate for comparing export and domestic prices
was the Turkish lira/euro rate and thus the first claim
could not be granted. The Commission could not grant
the second claim presented by the companies either.
Indeed, Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation grants
exporters time to adjust their export prices in order to
reflect sustained movement in exchange rates, but it
does not provide for an adjustment which takes into
account exchange rate variations that occur after the
date of sale.

(87)

(88)

to
Both exporting producers claimed an adjustment
normal values pursuant to Article 2(10)(k) of the basic
Regulation to cover the cost resulting from financing the
VAT payment from its due date (25th of the month
following the sale) to the due date of payment by the
domestic customer. The claim could not be granted
since the companies did not demonstrate that this factor
affects price comparability and,
that
customers consistently pay different prices on the
domestic market because of the difference in such a
factor. The finance costs for the VAT are,
in fact, a
normal operational overhead.

in particular,

Finally, pursuant to Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regula-
tion, one exporting producer claimed that the normal
value should be adjusted considering that unlike the
Community exports, domestic sales were irregular and
on small quantities. This claim was provisionally rejected
since the company did not quantify it and could not
demonstrate that this factor affected price comparability
and in particular
that customers consistently paid
different prices on the domestic market because of the
difference in such factors.

(d) Dumping margin

(89)

Pursuant to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the
the
weighted average normal value of each type of
product concerned exported to the Community was
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned. Indeed,
although both exporting producers declared that there
was a different pattern of prices between customers,

regions and time periods, this method reflected the full
degree of dumping being practised.

(90)

This comparison shows the existence of dumping for the
dumping
cooperating
margins expressed as a percentage of the cif import price
at the Community frontier duty unpaid are for:

companies. The provisional

— Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii A.S:

— Has Celik ve Halat San Tic A.S:

58,1 %

19,2 %

(91)

the exports of

Since the level of cooperation was high (more than 80 %
of
the product concerned to the
the residual provisional
Community from Turkey),
dumping margin was set at the same level as the highest
established for the cooperating companies, i.e. 58,1 %.

7. Russia

(a) General aspects

(i) Analysis of market economy status

Two Russian companies requested market economy
status (MES), pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic
Regulation. For one of these Russian companies, the
reply to the questionnaire for producers/exporters in the
countries concerned was submitted beyond the deadline
without giving any acceptable reason for this delay after
having been granted twice an extension of one week. In
addition the reply was clearly insufficient. Notably, the
company submitted no listings of its export sales to the
Community or its domestic sales, nor did it provide the
requisite information regarding the cost of production.
The company was therefore considered as non-cooper-
ating in the investigation and informed that findings in
its respect (as part of the ‘residual determination’) would
be based on facts available in accordance with Article
18(1) of
Its market economy
status/individual treatment claim was therefore rejected.
Furthermore, it did not reply to the request for addi-
tional information and clarification critical to its market
economy status/individual treatment application.

the basic Regulation.

The Commission sought all information deemed neces-
sary and verified on the spot all information submitted
in the MES application of the other applicant.

It was established that
this company did not meet
several of the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the
basic Regulation, notably that
it had several contra-
dicting and irreconcilable sets of basic accounting
records, some costs did not substantially reflect market
values and some payments were made via compensation
of debts.

after

Consequently,
the Advisory
Committee, both companies were informed that their
MES applications could not be granted.

consultation of

(92)

(93)

(94)

(95)

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/13

(ii) Choice of analogue country

(96)

(97)

In the absence of any companies fulfilling the require-
ments of MES, it was necessary to compare the export
prices of the Russian exporting producers with a normal
value established in an appropriate market economy
country, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regula-
tion.

The Czech Republic was suggested by the complainant.
The Commission envisaged in the notice of initiation the
Czech Republic or Brazil. Within the required time limit,
two Russian exporting producers provisionally expressed
their agreement with the countries envisaged and indi-
cated that they could also accept the choice of South
Korea as a possible analogue country. The complainant
expressed some concerns about the choice of Brazil in
particular given the high level of custom duties. The
complainant confirmed that the Czech Republic was an
appropriate choice in its opinion and also suggested
Canada as an alternative.

(98) None of the contacted Brazilian producers replied to the
for cooperation. The Commission also tried
request
without success to obtain cooperation from Canadian
producers. Other known producing countries were not
envisaged as either imports of the product concerned
originating in these countries were currently under anti-
dumping measures or the previous investigation estab-
lished they were not an appropriate choice on grounds
which had remained unchanged (i.e. limited competition
in Norway, non-cooperation in the USA) (6).

(99)

The cooperating exporting producer
in the Czech
Republic sold on the domestic market mostly types of
the product concerned different from those exported by
the Russian producers to the Community.

(100) Under these circumstances, the Commission have inves-
tigated the appropriateness to use one of
the other
countries involved in the proceeding. The Republic of
Korea was considered the most appropriate analogue
country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic
Regulation. First, the South Korean domestic market is
the largest in size, characterised by a significant number
of competing local producers; second, South Korean
domestic sales of the product concerned are the most
representative in terms of
types and volume when
compared with Russian exports to the Community.
Interested parties were informed, pursuant to Article
2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, that the Republic of
Korea was envisaged as analogue country and no objec-
tions were received.

in a market
comparable to that which would prevail
economy country and which would justify a departure
from the determination of a single countrywide duty. To
this end, detailed questions were included in the MES
claim form sent to the parties concerned upon the initia-
tion of the proceeding.

(102) The two exporting producers that requested MES also
asked for individual treatment, should their claim for
MES be rejected.

(103) The individual treatment claim of one company was
rejected since, due to its non-cooperation in the invest-
igation, findings in its respect (as part of the ‘residual
determination’) are based on facts available in accord-
ance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation (see
recital 92).

(104) The Commission sought all information deemed neces-
sary, verified on the spot all information submitted in
the application of the other applicant and analysed it on
the basis of the following criteria for individual treat-
ment (7):

— the first criteria (freedom to repatriate capital and
profits) is not relevant in the present case, the Joint
Stock Company Cherepovetsky Staleprokatny Zavod
(JSC CHSPZ) being a wholly Russian owned
company,

— no restrictions in the determination of export prices
and quantities were identified; the majority of the
shares of the applicant company and of the parent
companies up to two levels belongs to private
persons,

— JSC CHSPZ carries operations

foreign
exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Russian
Federation, which is the market rate determined at
Moscow International Foreign Exchange,

the

at

— no State interference was established in the manage-
ment of the company, of the parent company or of
the major shareholder of this parent company.

(105) Consequently,
company.

individual treatment is granted to this

(b) Normal value

(iii) Individual treatment

(101)

In accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation,
it is the Community Institutions' practice to calculate a
countrywide duty for non-market economy countries,
except in those cases where exporting producers can
demonstrate a degree of legal and factual independence

(106) Normal value for the Russian exporting producers was
calculated on the basis of the normal values established
for the cooperating Korean companies by using the
methodology described in recitals 47 to 49.
In this
context, the types sold on the Korean domestic market
which were found to be comparable to the Russian
types exported to the Community were used.

(6) Regulation (EC) No 362/1999 (See footnote 5) and Council Regula-

(7) Review of the anti-dumping regime applicable to China and Russia,

tion (EC) No 1796/1999 (OJ L 217, 17.8.1999, p. 1).

(COM (2000) 363 final).

L 34/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

(c) Export price

C. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(107) For the cooperating exporting producer, the export price
was established by reference to the prices paid or
payable.

1. Community production

(d) Comparison

(108) Where applicable, adjustments were made on the export
price to take account of differences relating to transport,
insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing,
credit, commissions. Given that costs in non-market
economy countries cannot be taken into account in
determining prices on the basis of which the compar-
ison between export prices and normal value is made,
the adjustment on export prices for transport costs and
related costs (handling loading and ancillary costs) as far
as they were incurred in Russia, was based on the
analogue country costs.

(109) To allow a fair comparison at an ex-work level, adjust-
ments were also made on the normal value established
on the basis of the normal values of the cooperating
Korean companies in respect of physical characteristics
(including the estimated market value of the general
differences in quality between the product manufactured
and sold on the Korean market and the product manu-
factured in Russia and exported to the Community),
import charges, transport, insurance, handling, loading,
ancillary costs, packing, credit, and commission where
applicable and justified.

(e) Dumping margin

(110) As provided by Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the
weighted average normal values of each type of the
product concerned exported to the Community were
compared to the weighted average export price of each
corresponding type of the product concerned.

(111) The provisional dumping margin expressed as

a
percentage of the cif import price at the Community
frontier duty unpaid has been established for
the
company granted individual treatment as follows:

— Cherepovetsky Staleprokatny Zavod:

35,8 %

(112) Since a known exporting producer did deliberately not
cooperate, the methodology followed to determine a
provisional residual dumping margin for Russia was the
one explained in recital 33 for countries where the level
of cooperation was low. On this basis,
the residual
dumping margin is 50,7 %.

(114) The product

concerned is manufactured in the

Community by the following:

— producers who lodged the complaint or supported it
and cooperated in the investigation (see recital 118),

— producers who lodged the complaint and were
considered non-cooperators in the current invest-
igation (see recital 120),

— other producers who were not complainants, who
either provided general information or not but did
not oppose the proceeding.

(115) The Commission found

that

eight

in the IP. However,

complainant/
supporting Community producers purchased SWR from
various sources outside the Community, including the
the total
countries concerned,
volume of these imports represented a negligible share
of total production (i.e. less than 1 % of their production
in the IP). In particular, the imports from the countries
the
concerned during the IP were below 0,5 % of
complainant/supporting Community producers' produc-
tion of SWR. The Commission therefore considered that
these purchases were in accordance with standard
commercial practice of producers who had to supple-
ment their own range of products with small purchases.
In view of the above, it was concluded that there were
no grounds to exclude any of these Community produ-
cers from the total Community production.

(116) The SWR produced by all these companies constitute
the Community production within the

therefore
meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

2. Definition of Community industry

(117) The Commission examined whether the cooperating
complainant or supporting Community producers repre-
sented a major proportion of
the total Community
production of the product concerned and arrived at the
conclusion that they accounted for 70,6 % of the total
Community production of SWR in the IP. The Commis-
cooperating/
sion
supporting
the
Community industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1)
and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. They are hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Community industry’.

that
producers

Community

considered

represent

therefore

the

8. Conclusion on dumping

(118) The following Community producers made up the

Community industry:

(113) The Commission established

dumping
margins for all cooperating companies in the Czech
Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey. In the case of the
Republic of Korea and Malaysia the dumping margins
found were de minimis.

substantial

— Bridon International, Retford, United Kingdom

— BTS Drahtseile GmbH, Germany

— Cables y Alambres Especiales, SA, Spain

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/15

— CASAR Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH, Germany

2. Collection of injury data

— Cordoaria Oliveira Sá — Manuel Rodrigues de

Oliveira Sá & Filhos, SA, Portugal

— Drahtseilerei Gustav Kocks GmbH & Co., Germany

— Drahtseilwerk GmbH, Germany

— Drahtseilwerk Hemer GmbH & Co. KG, Germany

— Hamburger Drahtseilerei A.

Steppuhn GmbH,

Germany

— Metal Press SRL, Italy

— Randers Rebslaaeri A/S, Denmark

— Redaelli Tecna Cordati SpA, Italy

— Trefileurope, France

— Trenzas y Cables, SL, Spain

— Vereinigte Drahtseilwerke GmbH, Germany

— Voest-Alpine Austria Draht GmbH, Austria

— Wadra GmbH, Germany.

(119) Drahtseilwerk Hemer GmbH & Co. KG only started
production of SWR in January 2000. Therefore the
company could not provide information for the period
considered. In view of the above, the data provided by
this company has not been taken into account.

In view of

(123) The Commission requested information from the whole
Community industry relating to the product concerned
with respect to production, capacity, capacity utilisation,
sales, stocks and employment.
the large
number of producers in the Community industry and
the time limits established in Article 6(9) of the basic
Regulation, the Commission based the analysis of the
remaining injury indicators on a sample of companies
from the Community industry. Whenever the injury
indicators mentioned refer to information from the
sample, it will be expressly stated in this Regulation. In
the absence of such reference, the injury indicators refer
to the information obtained from all of the Community
producers that form the Community industry.

(124) The sample was made according to geographical loca-
tion and the size of the companies in terms of produc-
tion. In this context, the sample includes medium and
Iarge Community producers from six Member States:
BTS Drahtseile GmbH, Randers Rebslaaeri A/S, Redaelli
Tecna Cordati SpA, Trefileurope, Trenzas y Cables, SL.
and Teufelberger Seil GmbH. The latter failed to coop-
erate and was therefore excluded from the sample.

(125) The cooperating sampled companies accounted for 51 %
of the production volume of the product concerned
manufactured by the Community industry in 1999.

3. Other Community producers

3. Apparent Community consumption

(120) Five producers who belonged to the complainant organ-
isation EWRIS but failed to cooperate (Iscar SRL, Metal-
calvi Wire Ropes SRL, Midland Wire Cordage Co. Ltd,
Teufelberger Seil GmbH and Westfalische Drahtindustrie
GmbH — Seilfabrik Zwickau) as well as the other
producers who were not complainants, who either
provided general information or not but did not oppose
to the proceeding, are hereinafter referred to as the
‘other Community producers’.

D. INJURY

1. Preliminary remarks

(121) Since the margins of dumping found for Korea and
injury and
Malaysia are de minimis,
causality refers to the remaining countries under invest-
igation,
i.e. the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and
Turkey (hereinafter referred to as the ‘countries concer-
ned’).

the analysis of

(122) The analysis of injury should be seen in the light of the
anti-dumping measures
imposed on the product
concerned by Council Regulation (EC) No 1796/
1999 (8). The latter imposed a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of the product concerned originating in
the People's Republic of China, Hungary, India, Mexico,
Poland, South Africa and Ukraine.

(8) See footnote 6.

(126) Apparent Community consumption was based on the
questionnaire replies (volume of sales of the Community
industry), Eurostat information (volume of imports) and
the complaint (other Community producers' volume of
sales).

(127)

(important

It should be noted that the development of apparent
consumption is largely influenced by the behaviour of
importers/traders
stockholders) on the
Community market because they act as intermediaries
between producers of SWR on one hand and users on
the other hand. The apparent consumption figures there-
fore reflect to a large extent the purchases made by
importers/traders during the period considered and not
necessarily those made by users.

(128) On the above basis, the apparent Community consump-
tion decreased 6 % during the period considered from
156 658 tonnes in 1997 to 147 963 tonnes in the IP.
Taking into account that it had increased 9 % in 1998
the decrease in 1999 to
reaching 170 922 tonnes,
147 104 tonnes can be explained by sales of stock built
up in 1998 by importers/traders. In 1998, imports from
the countries that were subject to anti-dumping duties in
the following year increased 28 % before decreasing
significantly in 1999 and the IP. This explanation also
seems to be in line with the fact that the sectors that are
the main users of SWR (fisheries, mining and the
offshore oil and gas industry, construction including
lifts) have registered low and, in the case of fisheries,
negative, growth throughout the period considered.

L 34/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

4. Cumulative assessment of

the effects of

the

imports concerned

from certain other
proceeding.

third countries

in a previous

(129) The Commission examined whether imports of SWR
originating in the
concerned should be
assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of
the basic Regulation.

countries

(130)

It was found that the margin of dumping established in
the countries
relation to the imports from each of
concerned was found to be more than de minimis as
defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and the
volume of imports from each of these countries was not
negligible.

(131) As regards the conditions of competition, the invest-
igation showed that SWR imported from the countries
concerned, considered on a type-by-type basis, were
alike in all their essential physical and technical charac-
teristics. Furthermore, on that basis, these SWR were
interchangeable and were marketed in the Community
during the period considered through comparable sales
channels under similar commercial conditions. It should
be noted that the imported SWR were therefore consid-
ered to compete with each other and with the SWR
produced in the Community.

(132)

In the light of the above, the Commission considered
that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic
Regulation were met and that imports from the coun-
tries concerned should therefore be examined cumula-
tively.

5. Imports from the countries concerned

(a) Volume and market share of dumped imports

(133) The volume of the dumped imports into the Community
of SWR originating in the countries concerned increased
continuously from 5 100 tonnes in 1997 to 7 233
tonnes in 1998, 13 644 tonnes in 1999 and 16 052
tonnes in the IP, i.e. a 215 % growth during the period
considered.

(134) The market share held by these countries increased by
7,5 percentage points over the period considered, from
3,3 % in 1997 to 4,2 % in 1998, 9,3 % in 1999 and
10,8 % in the IP. The greatest increase took place in
1999 (+5,1 percentage points), coinciding with the
imposition of anti-dumping measures against imports

(b) Prices of the dumped imports

(i) Price evolution

(135) The prices of imports from the countries concerned in
EUR per kg as reported by Eurostat decrease 16 %
between 1997 and 1998 and stabilised thereafter.

(ii) Price undercutting

(136) As regards price undercutting, the Community industry
and the exporting producers concerned were requested
to provide information on sales prices of SWR categor-
ised in models according to the following criteria:
number of strands, number of wires per strand, arrange-
ment of wires in strand, core, material of the wire,
tensile strength, wire characteristics, rope characteristics,
rope cover and diameter of the rope.

(137)

In view of the large number of Community producers in
the sample and the large number of models sold by both
the exporting producers concerned and the Community
industry on the Community market, the Commission
grouped the models according to those criteria that were
considered to be the main price drivers on the
Community market. In this context, the tensile strength
was not taken into account since it was found not to
have a separate impact on sales prices.

(138) Furthermore,

the

exporting producers' prices were
adjusted for post-importation costs (customs duties,
incoming freight and handling costs), on the basis of the
substantiated information provided by one unrelated
further
importer.
adjusted for differences in level of trade to take into
account
incurred by unrelated importers
between importation and sales ex works.

those prices were

Furthermore,

the costs

(139) For each type of SWR, the Commission compared the
exporting producers' and the Community industry's
average selling prices net of all rebates and taxes, calcu-
lated on the basis of sales to the first unrelated customer
at the same level of trade.

(140) Based on the

the difference
above methodology,
between the prices, expressed as a percentage of the
Community industry's weighted average price
(ex
works), i.e. the price undercutting margin, is shown in
the table below.

Country

Company

Undercutting margin
(%)

Czech Republic

ŽDB a.s.

Russia

Thailand

Turkey

Cherepovetsky Staleprokatny Zavod

Usha Siam Steel Industries plc

Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii AŞ

Has Celik ve Halat San Tic AŞ

30,4

51,4

26,1

16,4

30,8

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/17

6. Situation of the Community industry

(a) Production,
utilisation

installed

capacity

and

capacity

(141) The production of the Community industry decreased by
8 % over the period considered from 107 735 tonnes in
1997 to 99 588 tonnes in the IP. In 1998, production
increased by 6 % but sales expectations were above
actual sales and stocks built up (+19 %) as importers
increased significantly their imports, especially those
from the countries now subject to anti-dumping meas-
ures. In 1999, production decreased by around 15 000
tonnes to cope with the stock built-up and a decrease in
sales. After the imposition of anti-dumping measures in
1999, production stabilised at around 100 000 tonnes.

(142) The installed capacity of

the Community industry
increased by 7 % in the period considered, going from
203 319 tonnes in 1997 to 209 313 tonnes in 1998,
213 984 tonnes in 1999 and 216 904 tonnes in the IP.
The increase in capacity was due to investment in new
machinery.

(143) The acquisition of new machinery, coupled with the
existence of old, but still usable machinery (in some
cases already fully depreciated) and optimum set-up
times and number of shifts resulted in a low capacity
utilisation rate throughout the period considered (53 %
in 1997, 55 % in 1998 and 46 % in 1999 and the IP).
Even if the Community industry were to produce also
what is currently being sold on the Community market
by the countries concerned, its capacity utilisation would
remain at around 55 %.

(146) The Community industry's sales to unrelated customers
on the Community market decreased by 5 % over the
period considered from 71 125 tonnes in 1997 to
67 671 tonnes in the IP (they had increased to 72 676
tonnes in 1998 before falling to 66 331 tonnes in
1999), though they showed signs of recovery after the
imposition of anti-dumping measures in 1999.

(147) The market share held by the Community industry
decreased by 0,6 percentage points over the period
considered, going from 55,2 % in 1997 to 50,5 % in
1998 and remaining stable in 1999 and the IP (54,3 %
and 54,6 % respectively) — a period which registered a
further growth of the market share of the countries
concerned. The Community industry's
in
market share in 1999 is largely attributable to a decline
in consumption following the stock built-up which
occurred just before the imposition of anti-dumping
measures in 1999.

increase

(d) Sales prices and factors affecting sales prices —

information from sample

(148) The weighted average selling price of SWR sold by the
Community industry on the Community market
to
unrelated customers increased by 8 % during the period
considered. This increase took place mostly in 1999
when it grew by 6 %. The 1 % price increase in the IP is
the anti-
modest
dumping measures imposed in 1999. The price of the
main raw material (steel wires), which represents up to
50 % of the manufacturing costs, declined in 1999 and
remained stable in the IP.

taking into account

the level of

(b) Stocks

(e) Profitability, return on investment and cash flow

— information from sample

(144) The Community industry's closing stocks increased by
13 % over the period considered from 26 136 tonnes in
1997 to 29 660 tonnes in the IP. Stocks have, however,
decreased after reaching 31 208 tonnes in 1998, falling
to 30 050 tonnes in 1999.

(c) Growth, volume of sales and market share

(145) Growth prospects on the Community market are influ-
enced by the modest growth prospects of the sectors
that use SWR and the ability of the Community industry
to compete with low-priced imports from third coun-
tries. The Community industry was unable to benefit
fully from the virtual withdrawal from the market of the
imports from the countries subject
to anti-dumping
measures in 1999, which were largely replaced by the
dumped imports from the countries included in the
current proceeding.

(149) The Community industry has consistently registered a
pre-tax loss over the period considered on its sales to
unrelated customers on the Community market (– 1,4 %
in 1997, – 1,5 % in 1998 and – 0,6 % in 1999), with the
exception of the IP, a period in which it broke even. This
poor financial result coincided with the presence of
dumped imports throughout the period considered.

(150) The figures concerning the return on investment and
cash flow were only available for the total company in
respect of each sampled company. Taking into account
that the product concerned is only one among other
products produced by the sampled Community produ-
cers,
these indicators are not considered to provide
guidance as to the situation of the Community industry
regarding the product concerned. It is, however, clear
that the poor profitability of the product concerned did
not contribute positively either to the low return on
investment registered or a cash inflow from operating
activities.

L 34/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

(f) Investments and ability to raise capital — informa-

(k) Conclusion on injury

tion from sample

(151)

Investments increased over the period considered from
EUR 5,8 million in 1997 to EUR 11,6 million in 1998,
EUR 22,3 million in 1999 and EUR 21,5 million in the
IP. The part of investment made in plant and machinery
is responsible for a large share of
investment,
ranging from around 95 % in 1997 to 44 % in the IP.
the
During the period considered,
remaining investments was made in buildings. Invest-
ment
the
Community industry to remain competitive in the long
term. The investment effort needs thus to be maintained
even during periods of low profitability.

in plant and machinery is essential

the majority of

total

for

(152) The impact of these investments on the profitability of
the Community industry is mostly taken into account in
the form of depreciation and interest paid.
In this
respect, given that most investment has been made in
plant and machinery (depreciated over a period of
around 10 years) and buildings (depreciated over a
period of around 25 years), the impact of these invest-
ments on the profitability of the Community industry in
the period considered is minor.

(153) The Community industry does not appear to have been
hampered in its ability to raise capital either from the
parent companies or from the banking system.

(g) Employment

(154) Employment decreased continuously going from 2 226
persons in 1997 to 2 045 in the IP, i.e. 8 % over the
period considered. This decrease in employment was
mainly the result of the restructuring effort made by the
Community industry.

(158) During the period considered, the volume of dumped
imports from the countries concerned increased by
215 % and their market share went
from 3,3 % to
10,8 %.

(159) Following the imposition of anti-dumping measures in
1999, the situation of the Community industry stabilised
in the IP but was still weak: production remained largely
stable, capacity utilisation was kept at the same level and
stocks decreased slightly from 30 050 to 29 660 tonnes.
Although sales increased modestly from 66 331 in 1999
to 67 671 tonnes in the IP, the Community industry's
market share did not increase despite the restored, effec-
tive competition from the countries subject
to anti-
dumping measures.

(160) Regarding the profitability of the Community industry,
although it improved slightly from – 1,4 % to 0 % over
the period considered, it still remained at a level which is
insufficient for the long-term viability of the Community
industry. Furthermore, in the IP, the Community indus-
try's prices did not increase as expected following the
anti-dumping measures imposed in 1999. Therefore the
Community industry could hardly benefit
from the
imposition of anti-dumping measures in 1999 due to
the increase in the volume of imports from the countries
concerned at prices which significantly undercut those
of the Community industry.

(161)

In view of the above, it has been provisionally concluded
that
the Community industry has suffered material
injury within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic
Regulation.

E. CAUSATION

(h) Productivity

1. Preliminary remarks

(155) Productivity of the Community industry, measured in
tonnes per employee, improved only by 1 % over the
period considered. In 1998, productivity increased due
to an increase in production, whereas productivity
decreased in 1999 because production decreased faster
than employment. Productivity improved slightly in the
IP since production improved whereas employment fell
slightly.

(i) Wages — information from sample

(156) The Community industry's labour costs per unit of
output, measured in euro per kg, remained stable over
the period considered.

(j) Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping

(157) As concerns the impact on the Community industry of
the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping, given
the volume and the prices of the imports from the
countries concerned, this impact cannot be considered
to be negligible.

(162)

to reach its provisional conclusion as to
In order
whether there is a causal
link between the dumped
imports and the injury suffered by the Community
industry, the Commission examined the impact of the
dumped imports from the countries concerned on the
situation in that industry.

(163) Pursuant to Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, other
known factors, such as the development of consump-
tion, the situation of other Community producers, the
the
export performance of
evolution and impact of imports from third countries
and the effect of changes in the cost of raw materials are
analysed below in order to examine whether any causal
link between the dumped imports and the injury
suffered by the Community industry could have been
broken by factors other than the dumped imports.

the Community industry,

2. Impact of the imports concerned

(164) At

the outset,

in the SWR
it should be noted that
market, where the bulk of the products are highly stan-
dardised, competition takes place to a great extent in
terms of prices.

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/19

(165) There is a clear coincidence between the increase in
imports from the countries concerned and the impossi-
bility for the Community industry to reasonably benefit
from the anti-dumping measures imposed in 1999.
Furthermore, the imports from the countries concerned
the
were
Community industry's prices in the IP.

significantly

undercut

found

have

to

(166)

Indeed, following the imposition of anti-dumping meas-
ures in 1999 on imports originating in the People's
Republic of China, Hungary,
India, Mexico, Poland,
South Africa and Ukraine, the Community industry was
able to stabilise or slightly improve the situation in
terms of production, capacity utilisation, stocks and
sales while the development of market share was unsat-
isfactory and the development of profitability was clearly
inadequate.

(167) The imports from the countries concerned increased
significantly in 1999 and the IP. Indeed, the imports
from the countries concerned have not only largely
substituted the imports from the countries under meas-
ures but have also been able to grow at the expense of
the other
the Community industry (and also of
Community producers). These
significantly
undercut the prices of the Community industry. All this
can be directly linked to the fact that the Community
industry could not significantly benefit from the imposi-
tion of the aforementioned measures by using its spare
capacity and improving its sales volume thus reversing
its bad financial situation (during the IP, the Community
industry was only at break even point).

imports

(168)

It can therefore be concluded that the imports from the
countries concerned have largely undermined the effects
of the anti-dumping measures adopted in 1999 and that
the Community industry's market
the stagnation of
share, its level of prices and its poor situation, in partic-
ular in terms of profitability, can be attributed to the
dumped imports from the countries concerned.

3. Effect of other factors

stock built-up by importers of SWR. In 1999, apparent
consumption contracted, coinciding with the imposition
of anti-dumping measures in the previous proceeding
and with sales out of stocks by importers. During this
period, the Community industry's sales volume to unre-
lated customers in the Community decreased signifi-
cantly (from 72 676 in 1998 to 66 331 tonnes in
1999), while the imports from the countries concerned
continued to grow despite the contraction in apparent
consumption.
IP consumption
remained largely at the same level, whereas the volume
of imports from the countries concerned increased from
13 644 to 16 052 tonnes and the
the
Community industry recovered slightly from 66 331 to
67 671 tonnes.

In 1999 and the

sales of

(171)

It is therefore unlikely that the development in apparent
consumption has contributed to the deterioration of the
situation of the Community industry.

(b) Situation of the other Community producers

(172)

In the course of the investigation it was also considered
whether the situation of the other Community produ-
cers, which represented 29,4 % of the total Community
production in the IP, had been the cause of the injury
suffered by the Community industry. For this purpose, it
is recalled that the Commission based their conclusions
on the information contained in the complaint and addi-
tional information provided by some other Community
producers on their overall production and sales volume.
Both their sales volume and production declined over
the period considered (4 % and 5 % respectively)
following a similar pattern as that of the Community
industry.

(173)

It cannot therefore be argued that the performance of
the other Community producers was the cause of the
stagnation in the volume of production and sales of the
Community industry.

(a) Development of apparent consumption

(174)

(169) The Commission considered whether the development
of apparent consumption was a material cause of the
deterioration of
the Community
industry.

situation of

the

(170)

It should be noted that while apparent consumption
strongly increased in 1998 (by 9 %), the volume of sales
of the Community industry remained almost the same.
That increase only benefited the countries now subject
to anti-dumping measures, the countries concerned as
well as Korea and Malaysia. These countries saw their
market shares rise, while the Community industry lost
4,7 percentage points in market share in the same
period. This coincided with the initiation of the previous
anti-dumping proceeding and it may be explained by a

(c) Imports from other third countries

Imports from other third countries, including those from
third countries not concerned by this proceeding as well
as those originating in Korea and Malaysia, lost market
share, which deced from 27 % in 1997 to 19,7 % in the
IP.

(i) Korea

(175) The investigation has

shown that

the margins of
dumping found for exporting producers in Korea were
de minimis. Nonetheless, imports from this country regis-
tered a significant increase during the period considered
(299 %) and increased their market share from 1,9 % in
1997 to 8,2 % in the IP. The prices of imports origin-
ating in Korea were found to undercut the selling prices
of the Community industry in the IP.

L 34/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

(176)

It is therefore considered that imports from Korea have
had a negative
the
impact on the
Community industry.

situation of

taken in isolation have been found to cause material
injury to the Community industry.

(ii) Malaysia

(177) The investigation has

shown that

the margin of
dumping found for the exporting producer in Malaysia
was de minimis. Nonetheless, imports from this country
registered a significant increase during the period consid-
ered (244 %) and increased their market share from
0,5 % in 1997 to 1,8 % in the IP. The prices of imports
the
originating in Malaysia were found to undercut
selling prices of the Community industry in the IP.

F. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. General considerations

(184) The Commission provisionally examined, on the basis of
the information submitted, whether despite the dumping
and injury findings, compelling reasons exist which
would lead to the conclusion that
in the
Community interest to impose measures in the present
case.

is not

it

(178)

It is therefore considered that imports from Malaysia
have had a negative impact on the situation of the
Community industry.

(185) For this purpose, the Commission considered the impact
of possible measures for all parties involved in the
proceeding and also the consequences for those same
parties of not taking provisional measures.

(iii) Other third countries excluding Korea and Malaysia

2. Collection of information

(179) The Commission found that the market share held by
third countries other than those included in the current
proceeding decreased by 63 % during the period consid-
ered, mainly due to the decrease in imports from the
countries subject to anti-dumping measures. Given the
fact
to anti-
these imports are mostly subject
dumping measures and in view of the sharp decline in
it cannot be concluded that they have
their volume,
contributed to the material
injury suffered by the
Community industry.

that

(186)

In order to assess the impact of possible measures, the
Commission sent Community interest questionnaires to
interested parties known to be concerned in the
all
upstream and downstream industries at the time of the
initiation of
the proceeding. The Commission also
requested information on Community interest from the
Community industry. Only one raw-material supplier,
two non-complainant Community producers, one
importer and the Community industry responded to the
questionnaires. No users replied to the questionnaire.

(iv) Raw materials

3. Interest of the Community industry

(180) The Commission has examined whether

the injury
found to be suffered by the Community industry could
be attributed to an increase in the costs of raw materials.

(181)

the price of

the raw materials
It was found that
commonly used in the production of
the product
concerned (steel wire rod and steel wire, depending on
the Community producers' structure) decreased during
the period considered.

(182)

In view of the above, the Commission considered that
the price of the raw material did not contribute to the
injury suffered by the Community industry.

4. Conclusion

(183)

In the light of the above, it is concluded that, although
factors, namely the imports from Korea and
other
Malaysia, may have had a negative impact on the situa-
tion of the Community industry in the IP, this impact is
not such as to break the causal link between the dumped
imports and the situation of the Community industry.
Therefore, the imports from the countries concerned

(a) Nature and structure of the Community industry

(187) The Community industry is composed of small and
medium-sized companies as well as two large compa-
nies, loacted in the Member States (Austria, Denmark,
France, Germany,
Italy, Portugal, Spain and the UK).
Substantial competition exists in the Community market
due to this large number of Community producers.

(188) Production of SWR is

capital

intensive

and the
Community industry needs to invest in new machinery
and carry out R & D to maintain a comparative advan-
tage in the upper segment of the market, in particular to
improve the product offer of custom-made SWR. SWR
produced by the Community industry are often subject
to operations that add value to them, sometimes carried
out by related trading companies, such as cutting and
the attachment of fittings. It should be noted that SWR
are used by a variety of end-user industries that incor-
porate them into various applications. The Community
industry employed around 2 000 people in the IP and
bought its raw materials from Community suppliers,
thus having an impact on the employment levels of raw
material suppliers.

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/21

(189)

the construction of

suspension bridges or

In addition to the production of standard SWR, the
Community industry also produces a wide range of
special SWR, including some on a project basis such as
for
the
offshore oil industry. The manufacturing of project SWR
has the advantage of higher profit margins, lower costs
of stocking (the SWR is produced on order) and a more
efficient use of capacity since the set-up of machinery
does not need to be altered so frequently as when small
volumes are produced. It needs sophisticated machinery,
in R & D (often carried out by related
investment
companies) and good planning so that the project SWR
is completed within the deadlines usually established by
contract. It is to be noted that project work has over the
years become an important source of revenue for the
Community industry. Given that project orders usually
require close technical cooperation with the customers
and additional services, not only in the installation of
the SWR but also in repair and maintenance work, the
Community industry is virtually the exclusive supplier in
the Community market of project SWR.

(190) However, with the exception of project SWR and other
upper segments of the market, the range of SWR is
highly standardised and both the Community industry
and the exporting producers in the countries concerned
produce SWR to agreed norms. Given this high degree
of standardisation and the bargaining power of
the
major importers/traders in the Community, some of
which act both as importers of SWR produced in third
countries and SWR produced in the Community,
competition mostly takes place on the basis of prices of
SWR. The most common types are thus extremely sensi-
tive to dumped imports.

(191) Furthermore, the Community industry produces special
SWR on the same machinery and using the same labour
force as for standard SWR of equivalent dimension, and
therefore the production of special SWR is linked to the
production of standard SWR to the extent that the latter
are needed to spread fixed costs. These standard and
special SWR, and not project SWR, constitute the bulk
of the Community industry's production.

(b) Effects

of

the

imposition/non-imposition

of

measures on the Community industry

Community market might also rise. This would enable
the Community industry to reach an acceptable level of
profitability. However,
the Community
industry are unlikely to increase by the full amount of
the duty, due to the conditions of competition among
Community producers and the presence of other low-
priced imports not subject to anti-dumping measures.

the prices of

(193)

It should be noted that the Community industry's poor
profit margins are to a large extent the result of its
difficulty to compete with the dumped,
low-priced
It is
imports originating in the countries concerned.
likely that the imposition of measures will allow the
Community industry to increase its sales volume and
thus get higher contributions to cover its fixed costs.
The types of SWR produced by the countries concerned
that can be economically produced by the Community
industry in the absence of dumped imports have been
estimated to represent above 70 % of the total imports
from the countries concerned. In view of the expected
gains in productivity and the prospects regarding the
growth of consumption, the imposition of measures is
unlikely to result in an increase in the level of employ-
ment.

(194)

It should be noted, however, that the benefit to the
Community industry from the imposition of anti-
dumping measures is unlikely to result from an increase
in sales in the lowest segment of the product range.
Given the cost structure of the Community industry, in
particular its variable costs, exporting producers will
continue to have a comparative advantage in that
segment. This segment has been found to represent
slightly less than 30 % of the total
imports from the
countries concerned.

(195) Should measures not be imposed,

the Community
industry's situation is likely to deteriorate since it will
not be able to compete with the dumped,
low-priced
imports from the countries concerned. In this respect
the restructuring efforts undertaken by the Community
industry in recent years could be frustrated. The closure
of some companies in the medium term may become
inevitable, resulting in a further decrease in the level of
employment. Furthermore, the injury suffered by the
Community industry on the types of SWR exported
from the countries concerned could have a negative
impact on its ability to produce project SWR if it led
major producers of these types of SWR to close down.

(192) Given that the injury found has taken the form of an
insufficient increase both in the volume of sales and
sales prices, which in turn resulted in the Community
industry's poor profitability, it is expected that, following
the imposition of anti-dumping duties, the volume of
SWR sold by the Community industry might increase
and, to a certain extent, the prices of SWR on the

(196)

In conclusion,
it is expected that measures would be
effective in giving the industry the opportunity to fully
recover from the injurious dumping found in this invest-
igation and in the previous investigation

L 34/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

4. Interest of the supplier industry

5. Interest of importers/traders

(a) Situation of the raw material suppliers

(197) The principal raw material used in the production of
SWR is industrial steel wire (produced from steel wire
rod), in particular high-carbon steel wire that may be
galvanised or otherwise coated. Some Community
producers of SWR manufacture their own steel wire and
the raw material they buy is thus steel wire rod. It is to
be noted that there are other inputs, such as synthetic
fibres and grease, which are also important
in the
production of SWR. The steel wire comes in reels. The
steel wire rod and the steel wire used by the Community
industry are produced by the major steel makers in
Europe, who supply the entirety of the raw materials
consumed by the sampled Community producers. There
are a number of qualities and diameters of steel wire that
can be used in this type of production. The steel wire
makers in the Community produce the full range neces-
sary for the production of SWR.

(198) Only one cooperating raw material supplier (producer of
steel wire), which employed a total of 589 persons in
1999, responded to the questionnaire.
Its volume of
sales in the Community of the raw material concerned
to Community producers of SWR decreased (between
24 % and 26 % ) (9) over the period considered. The
profit margin of
the total company increased by
(between 1 and 2 percentage points) between 1997 and
1999 and the turnover of the raw material concerned
represented (between 22 % and 26 %) of the company's
turnover in 1999.

(b) Effect of imposition/non-imposition of measures

(199) On the basis of

the information provided by this
company, it can be concluded that Community suppliers
of the raw materials concerned sell more than two thirds
of their production on the Community market to produ-
cers of SWR.

(200) Taking into account that total Community production
of
the raw materials concerned represents (between
15 % and 20 %) of the total turnover and employment
of raw material suppliers, it can be considered that in
the event of the imposition of measures they could
benefit from higher sales volumes.

(201) On the other hand, should measures not be imposed,
the downward trends in the sales volumes and turnover
of the raw material concerned are likely to continue.

(9) Data is given in a range to preserve confidentiality.

(a) Structure of the import and distribution channels

(202) The distribution of SWR in the Community is character-
ised by the existence of a significant number of impor-
the product
that hold large stocks of
ters/traders
concerned. In essence, the importers/traders act between
producers (Community and non-EU) and users of SWR
and their behaviour on the market strongly influences
the prices of SWR. Importers are able to control the
levels of apparent consumption and thus prices through
their access to dumped imports and their bargaining
power over third-country suppliers and the Community
industry. It was found that the Community industry still
relies on this well established distribution network for
around 15 % of its sales in the Community.

(b) Economic situation of importers

(203) The only importer

the profitability of

responding to the questionnaire
reported low pre-tax profit margins over the period
considered, though it is not possible to know from the
reply what was
the product
concerned (SWR accounted for 32 % of its total sales in
1999). This importer accounted for around 6,5 % of
imports from the countries included in this proceeding.
It is recalled that the previous investigation showed that
the overall profit margin of importers ranged between
3 % and 18 %.

(c) Effect of imposition/non-imposition of measures

(204)

Indeed,

It should be noted that importers trade also in a large
number of other items that are not concerned by this
the Commission found in the
proceeding.
previous anti-dumping investigation that
the product
concerned represented between 40 % and 80 % of the
importers' total turnover. Furthermore, alternative third
country sources of supply not subject to measures exist
and they represented around 15 % of the Community
consumption in the IP.

(205) The Commission also examined the impact of anti-
dumping measures on the economic situation of impor-
ters in the light of the measures already imposed in the
previous anti-dumping proceeding. In this context, it is
worth noting that only one importer responded to the
questionnaire in the present proceeding, which could
indicate that
the anti-dumping measures imposed in
1999 did not have a significant impact on them. In any
the impact of any anti-dumping duty on the
event,
situation of importers should also be seen in the light of
the fact that these parties trade in other products. It is
also important
they obtain additional
revenues from the sale of SWR produced according to
customers requirements such as length and fittings.

to note that

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/23

(206) Should

be

in all

imposed,

anti-dumping measures

the dumped imports will

the
Commission considers
that prices of SWR on the
Community market will probably increase. Although the
prices of
likelihood
increase to the full extent of the duty, prices of the
Community SWR are not expected to increase to the
same extent. This increase in prices is likely to have a
negative impact on importers and their margins will
probably decrease. However, it should be noted that the
importers, who also act to a large extent as traders, may
choose to increase their purchases from the Community
industry or from sources not subject to measures and
may obtain discounts for larger volumes. Furthermore, it
should also be noted that importers/traders may also
for whom the
pass increases in prices on to users,
product concerned represents a negligible part of their
total costs.

(211) Furthermore,

should

anti-dumping measures

be
imposed,
it is unlikely that supply constraints would
occur, given the existence of alternative sources of
supply not
the
covered by measures,
Community industry.

including

7. Conclusion on Community interest

(212) The investigation has shown that

the imposition of
measures can be expected to allow the Community
industry to increase prices and volumes and therefore to
improve profitability, with consequent beneficial effects
on the competitive conditions on the Community
market. The imposition of anti-dumping duties is also
expected to benefit raw material suppliers.

(207)

it was considered by the
In the light of the above,
Commission that if measures are imposed, it is unlikely
that the situation of importers will significantly worsen.

(213) Whilst any negative effects are likely to result for the
importers in price increases, the extent of these may be
reduced by decreasing margins or by increasing the
prices charged to the user industry.

6. Interest of users

(a) Nature and structure of user industries

(208)

In the absence of any cooperation from users in the
present proceeding, the effects of the imposition of anti-
dumping measures on users have been analysed on the
basis of the findings in the previous investigation.

(deep-shaft

(209) SWR are used in a wide variety of applications: fishing,
maritime/shipping, mining
and surface
mining) and offshore oil and gas industry, forestry, aerial
transport (including skilifts and cableways), civil engin-
eering (suspension bridges, towers, covered roof struc-
tures), construction (cranes and lifts). In view of the type
of user industry involved, and in accordance with the
information submitted by users
in the previous
it is not incorrect to conclude that SWR
proceeding,
represent a small percentage of the costs of the final
products. It was found during the previous investigation
that the proportion of user's turnover related to the
product concerned ranged from 0,01 % to only 3 %
showing that SWR had a minimal impact on the overall
activities of users.

(b) Effect of imposition/non-imposition of measures

(210) Given the lack of cooperation from users in the present
proceeding, the supply channels and the type of users
concerned, the impact of any anti-dumping duty on
users is likely to be very marginal as the prices of SWR
represent a marginal proportion of the cost of produc-
tion of
the final product as shown in the previous
investigation.

(214) The user industry, in turn, is unlikely to suffer serious
consequences from such an increase given the low inci-
dence of SWR on their final products.

(215)

In the light of the above, the Commission considers that
no compelling reasons exist for not imposing measures
and that the application of anti-dumping duties would
be in the interests of the Community.

G. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(216) Having established that

the dumped imports under
consideration caused material injury to the Community
industry and that there are no compelling reasons not to
take action, the measures envisaged should be imposed
at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused by
these imports without exceeding the dumping margins
found.

(217) When calculating the amount of duty necessary to
remove the effects of the injurious dumping,
it was
should allow the
considered that
Community industry to cover
its costs and obtain
overall a profit before tax that could be reasonably
achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in
the absence of dumped imports, on the sales of the like
product in the Community.

any measures

(218) On the basis of the information provided by interested
parties, it was preliminarily found that a profit margin of
5 % of turnover could be regarded as an appropriate
minimum which the Community industry could be
expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping.
It is also considered that this profit margin would allow
the Community industry to make the necessary invest-
ments.

L 34/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

(219) On this basis, the weighted average export prices of
SWR, adjusted according to the methodology described
in recitals 138 and 139, were compared with the selling
prices charged by the Community industry, adjusted to
reflect a reasonable profit margin of 5 %. The result was
then expressed as a percentage of the exporting produ-
cers' export prices on a cif Community frontier level, i.e.
the injury margin.

2. Provisional anti-dumping measures

(220)

In the light of the foregoing,
it is considered that a
provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the
for a
level of
company in Turkey for which the duty should be
imposed at the level of the injury margin which is lower,
in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation.

the dumping margins found, except

(221) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates speci-
fied in this Regulation were established on the basis of
the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they
reflect the situation found during that investigation with
respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed
to the residual duty applicable to ‘all other companies’
are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products
originating in the country concerned and produced by
the companies and thus by the specific legal entities
mentioned. Imported products produced by any other
company not specifically mentioned in the operative
part of
this Regulation with its name and address,
including entities related to those specifically mentioned,
cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to
the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

(222) Any claim requesting the application of these individual
company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g.
following a
change in the name of the entity or following the setting
up of new production or sales entities) should be
addressed to the Commission (10) forthwith with all rele-
vant information, in particular any modification in the
company's activities linked to production, domestic and
for example that name
export sales associated with,
change or that change in the production and sales enti-
ties. The Commission, if appropriate, will, after consulta-
tion of the Advisory Committee, amend the Regulation
accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting
from individual duty rates.

3. Non-imposition of provisional measures

in

respect of Korea and Malaysia

(223)

In view of the results of the investigation concerning
Korea and Malaysia, and considering that the dumping
margin found in the case of these two countries is below
the 2 % threshold set in Article 9(3) of the basic Regula-
tion, no provisional measures should be imposed in
respect of Korea and Malaysia. The Commission will
any further
continue

to investigate

and consider

(10) European Commission

Directorate-General Trade
Directorate C
TERV 0/12
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels

evidence submitted. Should the provisional findings be
confirmed at the definitive stage, the proceeding would
be terminated as regards these imports.

4. Undertakings

(224) The exporting producers in the Czech Republic and
Turkey have offered price undertakings in accordance
with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. By doing so,
they have agreed to sell the product concerned at or
above price levels which eliminate the injurious effects
of dumping. The companies will also provide the
Commission with regular and detailed information
concerning their exports to the Community, meaning
that the undertakings can be monitored effectively by
the Commission. In addition, the nature of the product,
the structure of the companies and their sales patterns is
such that the risk of circumvention of the undertakings
is also minimised.

(225)

In view of this, the offers of undertakings are therefore
considered acceptable and the companies concerned
have been informed of the essential facts, considerations
and obligations upon which acceptance is based.

(226) To further enable the Commission to effectively monitor
the compliance of the companies with their undertak-
ings, when the request for release for free circulation is
presented to the relevant customs authority, exemption
from the anti-dumping duty shall be conditional on the
presentation of a commercial invoice containing at least
the elements listed in the Annex. This level of informa-
tion is also necessary to enable customs authorities to
ascertain with sufficient precision that shipments corre-
spond to the commercial documents. Where no such
invoice is presented, or when it does not correspond to
the product presented to customs, the appropriate rate
of anti-dumping duty will

instead be payable.

(227)

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

(228) Furthermore, in accordance with Article 8(6) of the basic
Regulation, the investigation of dumping,
injury and
Community interest will be completed in respect of the
countries concerned notwithstanding the acceptance of
undertakings in the course of the investigation.

H. FINAL PROVISION

(229)

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

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/25

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of iron or steel ropes and cables,
1.
including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional
dimension exceeding 3 mm, with fittings attached or not,
falling within CN codes 7312 10 82,
7312 10 84, 7312 10 86, 7312 10 88 and 7312 10 99, originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thai-
land and Turkey.

The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price,

2.
before duty, shall be as follows for products originating in:

Country

Provisional duty
(%)

TARIC additional code

Czech Republic

Russia

Thailand

Turkey

66,0

50,7

42,8

32,1

A999

A999

A999

A999

The above rates shall not apply to the products manufactured by the companies listed below, which

3.
shall be subject to the following anti-dumping duty rates.

Country

Company

Provisional duty
(%)

TARIC additional code

Czech Republic

ŽDB a.s

Russia

Cherepovetsky Staleprokatny Zavod

Thailand

Usha Siam Steel Industries plc

Turkey

Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii AS

Has Celik ve Halat San Tic AS

47,1

35,8

30,5

32,1

19,2

A216

A217

A218

A219

A220

Notwithstanding Article 1(1), the provisional duty shall not apply to imports released for free

4.
circulation in accordance with Article 2.

5.

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

The release for free circulation in the Community of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be

6.
subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.

1.

The undertakings offered by the companies listed below are hereby accepted.

Article 2

Country

Company

TARIC additional code
(%)

Czech Republic

ŽDB a.s.

Turkey

Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii A.S.

Has Celik ve Halat San Tic A.S.

A216

A219

A220

L 34/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

Imports declared for release into free circulation under TARIC additional codes A216, A219, A220
2.
shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1 if they are produced and directly
exported (i. e. invoiced and shipped) by a company mentioned in Article 2(1) to a company acting as an
importer in the Community. Such imports shall also be accompanied by a commercial invoice containing
at least the elements listed in the Annex.

Exemption from the duty shall be conditional on the goods declared and presented to customs

3.
corresponding precisely to the description on the commercial

invoice.

Article 3

1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96,
interested parties may request
disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted,
present their views in writing and request a hearing from the Commission within one month of the date of
entry into force of this Regulation.

2.
Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the parties concerned may request a hearing
concerning the analysis of the Community interest and may comment on the application of this Regulation
within one month of the date of its entry into force.

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

Article 4

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

Done at Brussels, 2 February 2001.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission

3.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/27

ANNEX

Necessary information for commercial invoices accompanying sales made subject to an undertaking

1. The invoice number.

2. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice may be customs-cleared at the Community frontier.

3. The exact description of the goods,

including:

— the product code number (PCN) (as established in the undertaking offered by the exporting producer in question),
— CN code,
— quantity (to be given in kg).

4. The description of the terms of the sale,

including:

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

5. Name of the company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the company.

6. The name of the official of the company that has issued the invoice and the following signed declaration.

‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community of the goods covered by this
invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the undertaking offered by… [company], and accepted
by the European Commission through Regulation (EC) No 230/2001. I declare that the information provided in this
invoice is complete and correct.’