Council Regulation (EC) No 298/2001 of 12 February 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel bars originating in India
Date: 2001-02-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: India, bar, countervailing charge, import, originating product, steel

15.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 44/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 298/2001

of 12 February 2001

amending Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of
stainless steel bars originating in India

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Initiation of an accelerated review

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

(3)

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6
October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1), and in
particular Articles 15 and 20 thereof,

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

Whereas:

The Commission examined the evidence submitted by
the Indian exporting producer concerned and considered
it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accord-
ance with the provisions of Article 20 of the basic
Regulation. After
the Advisory
consultation
Committee and after the Community industry concerned
had been given the opportunity to comment,
the
Commission initiated, by a notice in the Official
Journal (3), an accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No
2450/98 with regard to the company concerned and
commenced its investigation.

of

A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE

Product concerned

(1)

(2)

By Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 (2), the Council imposed
a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless
steel bars (hereafter referred to as ‘the product concer-
ned’)
ex 7222 20 11,
7222 20 21, 7222 20 31 and 7222 20 81 originating in
India. The measures took the form of ad valorem duties
between 0 and 25,5 %, with a residual duty of 25,5 %.

falling within

CN codes

B. CURRENT PROCEDURE

Request for review

Subsequent to the imposition of definitive measures, the
Commission received a request for initiation of an accel-
erated review of Regulation (EC) No 2450/98, pursuant
to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the basic Regulation’), from an Indian
exporter, Hindustan Stainless, located in Bombay. The
company claimed that it was not related to any other
exporters of the product concerned in India, and that it
had not
concerned to the
Community during the original period of investigation
(1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997). The company stated that
it intended to begin exporting to the European Union in
the near future.

exported the product

(4)

(5)

(6)

The product covered by the current review is the same
product as that under consideration in Regulation (EC)
No 2450/98.

Parties concerned

advised

The Commission officially
company
concerned and the Government of India of the initiation
of the review. Furthermore, it gave other parties directly
concerned the opportunity to make their views known
in writing and to request a hearing.

the

The Commission sent a questionnaire to the company
concerned and received a full reply within the deadlines.
The Commission sought and verified all information it
deemed necessary for the purpose of the investigation
and carried out a verification visit at the premises of the
company concerned.

Investigation period

(7)

The investigation of subsidisation covered the period 1
October 1998 to 30 September 1999 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the investigation period’).

(1) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 304, 14.11.1998, p. 1.

(3) OJ C 311, 29.10.1999, p. 2.

L 44/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.2.2001

Methodology

rent should also have been paid in four equal
ments.

instal-

(8)

The same methodology as that used in the original
investigation was applied in the current investigation.

C. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

(9)

(10)

As no request for a review of the findings on injury was
made in this investigation, this review was limited to
subsidisation.

The Commission examined the same subsidy schemes
which were analysed in the original investigation, along
with the possible usage by Hindustan Stainless of any
subsidy schemes established after the end of the original
investigation period, together with any ad-hoc subsidies
received after this date.

(11)

It was also examined whether
the company under
investigation could be considered as a newcomer for the
purpose of Article 20 of the basic Regulation.

D. RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION

New exporter qualification

(12)

The investigation confirmed that Hindustan Stainless
had not exported the product concerned during the
original period of investigation but had subsequently
exported the product to other third countries and had
also received requests for prices from companies in the
European Union.

(13) A number of family and economic links were established
between Hindustan Stainless, Venus Wire Industries Ltd,
and Venus Metal Corporation. Venus Wire Industries Ltd
participated in the original investigation period and was
given a countervailing duty of 16,1 %.

(14)

(15)

From the documents obtained on-the-spot and on the
basis of information from the Venus Wire Industries Ltd
questionnaire submitted in the original investigation, the
following family links were established. Three directors
of Venus Wire Industries Ltd, who are also partners in
Venus Metal Corporation, are respectively the father and
uncles of the sole owner of Hindustan Stainless.

The warehouse premises used by the company under
investigation is rented from Venus Metal Corporation.
The rental contract for the warehouse was signed in
1998 for one year and stipulates that payment has to be
made quarterly in equal instalments. The contract was
signed by the owner for Hindustan Stainless and by his
uncle for Venus Metal Corporation.

(17)

(18)

the offices. Subsequent

The investigation established that no payment had been
made by Hindustan Stainless either for the warehouse or
for
the
company paid rent for the period 1998 to 1999 and
provided evidence to the Commission of the same after
the on-the-spot investigation

to the verification,

It was also established that a director of Venus Wire
Industries Ltd, and the father of
the
company under investigation, was the guarantor for
banking facilities used by Hindustan Stainless for an
import of raw material.

the owner of

(19) Given the circumstances outlined in recitals 13 to 18, it
is concluded that Hindustan Stainless cannot be consid-
ered as a new exporter, but rather is related to an
exporter which received individual treatment during the
original investigation (Venus Wire Industries Ltd), either
through Venus Metal Corporation. The
directly or
request
therefore, be
status
rejected and Hindustan Stainless, as a related company,
should be subject to the same countervailing duty rate as
Venus Wire Industries Ltd.

for newcomer

should,

E. DISCLOSURE OF FINDINGS

(20)

(21)

(22)

The company concerned was informed of the facts and
considerations on the basis of which it is intended to
propose the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 2450/
98, and was given the opportunity to comment.

Following disclosure of the essential facts, the company
under investigation accepted the family relationships but
denied any financial assistance from either Venus Wire
Industries Ltd or Venus Metal Corporation. The
company pointed out that rent for the year 1998 had
now been paid and submitted that the bank guarantee
involved no monetary contribution.

It is accepted that the warehouse and office rentals for
1998 have now been paid, albeit a year late and only
following the on-the-spot verification visit. However, the
argument concerning the bank guarantee should be
rejected. Without the guarantor, the interest rate payable
may have been higher or the banking facility may not
have been granted at all. Therefore the guarantee repre-
sents a benefit to Hindustan Stainless.

(16) Hindustan Stainless also rents two offices in Mumbai,
which belong respectively to two directors of Venus
Wire Industries Ltd and who are also uncles of the
owner of the company under investigation. Similarly,

(23) As there are close family relationships and economic
links between Hindustan Stainless and three of the direc-
tors of Venus Wire Industries Ltd,
the conclusion
reached in recital 19 is confirmed.

15.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 44/3

F. AMENDMENT AND DURATION OF THE MEASURES BEING REVIEWED

(24)

(25)

(26)

Based on the findings made during the investigation,
imports into the
Community of stainless steel bars produced and exported by the company concerned should be
subject to the same rate of countervailing duty as Venus Wire Industries Ltd, i.e. 16,1 %, since they
are related companies.

is considered that

it

Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 should therefore be amended accordingly.

The review carried out does not affect the date on which Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 will expire
under Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 is hereby amended by adding the following to the list
of companies subject to measures:

Manufacturer

Rate of duty
(%)

TARIC additional code

‘Hindustan Stainless, Plot No 165, Road No 1, Kalomboli Ware-
housing Complex, Kalamboli, Taluka — Panvel, Dist — Raigad, India.

16,1

8407’

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

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 12 February 2001.

For the Council

The President

B. RINGHOLM