Council Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 of 2 August 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey
Date: 2001-08-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, metals, non-flat product, third country

4.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 211/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1601/2001

of 2 August 2001

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping
duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech
Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1), and in
particular Article 9 thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

1. Provisional measures

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

By Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 (2) (‘provisional Regu-
lation’), the Commission imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel ropes
and cables (‘SWR’) originating in the Czech Republic,
Russia, Thailand and Turkey and accepted undertakings
offered by certain exporting producers in the Czech
Republic and Turkey.

No provisional measures were imposed on imports from
the Republic of Korea (‘Korea’) and Malaysia in view of
the de minimis dumping margins found.

2. Subsequent procedure

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
impose provisional
several
interested parties submitted comments in writing. The
parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to
be heard.

anti-dumping measures,

The Commission continued to seek and verify all infor-
mation deemed necessary for the establishment of defin-
itive findings.

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

(EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).

(2) OJ L 34, 3.2.2001, p. 4.

(5)

All parties were informed of
facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend:

the essential

(a) the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of SWR originating in the Czech Republic,
Russia, Thailand and Turkey and the definitive
collection of the amounts secured by way of the
provisional duty;

(b) the

termination of

the proceeding concerning
imports of SWR originating in Korea and Malaysia
without the imposition of measures.

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

They were also granted a period within which to make
representations subsequent to this disclosure.

The oral and written comments submitted by the inter-
ested parties were considered and, where appropriate,
the definitive findings have been modified accordingly.

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

The provisional Regulation described the product
concerned as 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 (referred to by the industry
as steel wire ropes or ‘SWR’).

Some interested parties repeated their claim that SWR
should be divided in two groups: some of them distin-
guished between so-called general purpose SWR (GP)
and high performance SWR (HP), while some others
distinguished between Standard General Purpose Ropes
It was alleged that they
and Special Purpose Ropes.
cannot be considered a single product if account is taken
of their distinct physical and technical characteristics,
distinct methods of production, absence of meaningful
interchangeability, separate target markets and the lack
of significant competition.

L 211/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.8.2001

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

In this respect, it should first be noted that, although
SWR are produced in a wide range of different types
with a certain degree of physical and technical differ-
ences, all of them have the same basic physical charac-
teristics (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) and the same basic technical
characteristics (all have a number of wires in a strand, a
number of strands in a rope, a certain diameter and a
certain construction). 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.
in the same group may have
Moreover, products
different applications.

Secondly, the distinction between GP and HP SWR is
based on the uses of the SWR, i.e. a SWR suitable for
various uses as opposed to a SWR that can only be used
for specific applications. It should be noted that inter-
ested parties were not able to show that a clear dividing
line existed between either of these two groups. More-
over, such differentiation does not take into account the
fact that there are adjoining groups in which general
purpose SWR compete directly with specific purpose
SWR and are therefore interchangeable.

the distinction between standard and special
Finally,
SWR refers to the fact
they are manufactured
that
according to a standard (ISO, DIN, etc.) or do not follow
the standard (‘special SWR’; these special SWR are some-
times a modification of the standard), irrespective of the
specific use of the SWR. It should be noted that the
basic physical and technical characteristics are common
to both, whether they are standard or special SWR.
Furthermore,
there are adjoining groups in which a
standard SWR competes with a special SWR, since they
can be used for the same purposes and are, therefore,
interchangeable.

the above,

findings as
In view of
described in recitals 9 to 13 of the provisional Regula-
tion are confirmed.

the provisional

(16)

(17)

SWR; therefore the proceeding should be limited to GP
SWR, if at all. It was also requested that project SWR be
excluded from the scope of measures as the Community
industry is virtually the exclusive supplier
in the
Community market.

It should be noted that in anti-dumping proceedings the
product concerned and the like product are defined by
reference to the basic physical, technical and/or chemical
characteristics and the basic use. Once the product
concerned is defined, i.e. the product produced in the
countries concerned and exported to the Community, it
has to be examined whether the product produced and
sold domestically in the countries concerned and the
product produced and sold by the Community industry
in the Community are alike to the product concerned. In
this respect, the fact that a certain product type is not
produced in the Community is irrelevant.

in particular, project SWR, which are
Regarding,
designed according to customer requirements and are
manufactured after the conclusion of contracts often
awarded following a tender, it should be noted that they
also share the same basic physical and technical charac-
teristics as the other SWR. In any event, even if the
Community industry has a clear advantage in terms of
proximity, it should be noted that exporting producers
are not prevented from participating in tenders.

(18)

It was therefore concluded that the basic physical and
technical characteristics and the basic use of the SWR
imported from the countries concerned and those
produced and sold by the Community industry in the
Community are alike.

(19)

In view of all the above, the findings in recitals 14 to 16
of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

C. DUMPING

1. General methodology

2. Like product

(20)

In the provisional Regulation it was concluded that the
SWR produced and sold by the Community industry on
the Community market were alike to the SWR exported
to the Community from the countries concerned and
those produced and sold on the domestic markets of the
countries concerned. 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.

Some interested parties argued that the SWR sold by the
Community industry in the Community were not alike
to those imported from the countries concerned.
In
particular it was argued that the SWR imported from the
countries concerned were mainly GP SWR whereas
those sold by the Community industry were mostly HP

(a) Normal value

Some cooperating exporting producers contested the
methodology used to establish the amounts for profit
added to the cost of manufacturing and to the selling,
general and administrative expenses (‘SG&A expenses’)
in case of recourse to constructed normal values. For the
Russian and Thai cooperating exporting producers, by
determining the total net profits only on the basis of the
sales made in the ordinary course of trade and not on
the total turnover of all domestic sales of the product
concerned, the Commission would unreasonably inflate
the profit margin. For the Czech cooperating exporting
producer,
excluded
the Commission should have
domestic sales of SWR types whose volume represented
less than 5 % of the volume of the same type exported
to the Community. As prices of such sales are usually
not considered for determining the normal value due to
their lack of representativeness,
they should also be
disregarded for the determination of the profit margin.

4.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 211/3

(21)

trade.

Pursuant to the chapeau of Article 2(6) of Regulation
(EC) No 384/96 (the ‘basic Regulation’), the amount for
profits has to be based on data pertaining to production
and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like
product in the domestic market of the exporting country
where such data is available. There is consequently no
reason to express the reasonable profit margin on a set
of data including sales which have to be disregarded for
being outside the ordinary course of
It also
follows that once it is established that the domestic sales
of the like product are representative in accordance with
Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, it is proper to then
consider all sales made in the ordinary course of trade.
Furthermore, the profit used for the construction of the
normal value is established at company and like product
level. Domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade of a
given model may yield erratic results when these sales
were made in unrepresentative quantities vis-à-vis the
exported volume. Prices of these sales are thus disre-
garded as not representative for the purpose of estab-
lishing the normal value for a comparable model
exported. The influence of any potentially non-repres-
entative data is neutralised when the sales of all domesti-
cally sold models are aggregated at company level,
provided that the total domestic sales in the ordinary
course of
the exports to the
Community.

trade exceed 5 % of

(27)

in cases where an
It should finally be noted that
exporting producer exported more than one product
type to the Community, the weighted average overall
dumping margin was determined by computing the
dumping found on each type without zeroing negative
differences between normal value and export price
found on individual types.

(d) Dumping margin for non-cooperating companies

(28)

In the absence of any new information on the general
methodology for determination of the residual dumping
margins, the provisional findings as described in recitals
30 to 34 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

2. The Czech Republic

(29)

In the absence of any new information on the non-
cooperation of one exporting producer in the Czech
Republic, the provisional findings as described in recital
35 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

(22)

In addition, the Thai cooperating exporting producer
also questioned the reasonableness of the profit margin
resulting from the application of the above methodo-
logy. The profit margin established resulted from a
straight application of the appropriate methodology to
the data
cooperating exporting
producer.

submitted by the

(30) After provisional measures were imposed, ŽDB a.s.
submitted additional explanation on the allocation of
SG&A expenses. The SG&A expenses were revised by
deducting the items which were proven to the satisfac-
tion of the Commission to have no relation with the
production and sales of the product concerned.

(a) Normal value

(23)

These claims were therefore rejected.

(b) Export price

(24)

the above,

In view of
findings as
described in recitals 18 to 25 and 68 to 70 of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

the provisional

(b) Export price and comparison

(25)

In the absence of any new information on the general
methodology for determination of export price and
comparison between the normal value and the export
price, the provisional findings as described in recitals 26
to 28 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

(c) Dumping margins for the companies investigated

(26)

The general methodology for establishing the dumping
margins for the companies investigated as described in
recital 29 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

(31)

(32)

ŽDB a.s. claimed that exports to the Community via its
related exporter should be disregarded for establishing
its export price. This was based on the claim that this
related exporter would no longer export SWR to the
Community since ŽDB a.s. had dismantled one of its
plants in September 2000 (after the end of the IP),
which produced most of the SWR sold by the related
exporter during the IP.

This argument could not be accepted. Developments
occurring after the IP can be taken into account excep-
tionally provided that the imposition of an anti-dumping
duty based on the IP would be manifestly unsuitable.
Indeed, these developments could only be used if their
effects are manifest, undisputed,
lasting, not open to
manipulation and did not stem from a deliberate action
by interested parties. The simple fact that one of the
production plants has been closed does not prevent the
related exporter from selling SWR produced in the other
plant of ŽDB a.s. Indeed, it should also be noted that
this related exporter occasionally sold SWR produced in
that other plant during the IP. Therefore,
it was
concluded that conditions were not met for taking into
account the alleged cessation in SWR exports by the
related exporter for the determination of
the export
price of ŽDB a.s.

L 211/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.8.2001

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

the above,

findings as
In view of
described in recital 38 of the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.

the provisional

(c) Comparison

to independent customers

ŽDB a.s. contested the 5 % adjustment for the notional
commission deducted from the prices charged by the
in the
related exporter
Community since this would not relate to an actual
commission payment. It further claimed that the related
exporter should have been treated as the export sale
department of ŽDB a.s. Both companies being related
and forming a single economic entity, deduction of a
notional commission would not have been warranted.

The investigation established that the related exporter
does not replace the exporting department of ŽDB a.s.
Indeed,
the exporting department of ŽDB a.s also
handles exports itself without the involvement of the
related exporter. A fair comparison at ex-works level
requires a deduction from the prices charged by the
in the
related exporter
Community based on a notional commission corre-
sponding to the additional trading role of the related
exporter which can be considered similar to the role of a
trader acting on a commission basis. The 5 % adjust-
ment was consequently upheld.

to independent customers

ŽDB a.s. claimed an adjustment on constructed normal
values for packing costs since these costs were included
in the SG&A expenses and an adjustment for the cost of
the reels had been made on the export price. The
Commission established that the alleged differences in
the packing costs included in the export price and the
normal value at ex-works level did not exist. Indeed, the
amounts reported for transport, insurance and packing
costs in the SG&A expenses did not include any cost for
packing since they were equal to the amounts claimed as
adjustment for inland freight and insurance alone. Even
assuming that ŽDB a.s. had omitted to break down
transport, insurance and packing costs for claiming the
adjustments on normal value, the claim was not justified
since an adjustment was made in respect of the reported
amount for inland freight and insurance. This claim was
accordingly rejected.

The adjustment for transport costs on one transaction
was revised to use actual costs since at the provisional
stage it had been, in the absence of other information,
based on an estimation.

Therefore, and except where corrected as described
above, the provisional findings as described in recitals
39 and 40 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

(40) After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin
definitively established, expressed as a percentage of the
cif import price at the Community frontier customs duty
unpaid,

is for:

— ŽDB a.s.: 30,7 %

(41)

In the absence of any new information in this respect,
the methodology set out in recital 43 of the provisional
Regulation to determine the residual dumping margin is
confirmed. On this basis the definitive residual dumping
margin is 47,1 %.

3. The Republic of Korea

(a) Normal value

(42)

In the absence of any new information on the methodo-
logy for determination of normal value, the provisional
findings as described in recitals 45 to 49 of the provi-
sional Regulation are confirmed.

(b) Export price

(43)

In the absence of any new information on the methodo-
logy for determination of export price, the provisional
findings as described in recital 50 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

(c) Comparison

(44)

In the absence of any new information on the methodo-
as
logy for
described in recitals 51 to 54 of the provisional Regula-
tion are confirmed.

the provisional

comparison,

findings

(d) Dumping margin

(45)

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
the
weighted average normal value of each type of
product concerned was compared to the weighted
average export price of each corresponding type.

(46) After revision of the calculations, the dumping margins
definitively established, expressed as a percentage of the
cif import price at the Community frontier duty unpaid,
are for:

— Kiswire Ltd: 0 %

— Chung Woo Rope Co.: 0 %

— DSR Wire Corp.: 0 %.

(d) Dumping margin

(39)

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of
the
product concerned was compared to the weighted
average export price of each corresponding type.

(47)

Recital 57 of the provisional Regulation established that,
when compared to data reported by Eurostat, the three
cooperating exporting producers appeared to represent
the entirety of the Korean exports to the Community of
the product concerned. The complainant claimed that
Korean producers which did not cooperate in the invest-
igation had actually exported to the Community during

4.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 211/5

(48)

(49)

the IP and therefore it claimed that a residual duty might
have to be imposed. The Commission could subse-
quently confirm that indeed at least one non-cooper-
ating producer had actually exported to the Community
during the IP.

Even though the level of cooperation was high, it was
found that one producer had deliberately not cooper-
ated, and therefore the residual dumping margin was
determined at the level of the highest dumping margin
established for representative transactions by cooper-
ating exporting producers.

Finally, a weighted average dumping margin for Korea
was also recalculated. For this purpose, the proportion
of exports to the Community from non-cooperating
exporters had to be estimated pursuant to Article 18 of
the basic Regulation. To that end data from a previous
proceeding on the same product were used. The
resulting dumping margin for Korea is less than 2 %
expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the
Community frontier customs duty unpaid. Therefore,
pursuant to Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation the
investigation in respect of the Republic of Korea should
be terminated.

4. Malaysia

(a) Normal value

(50)

In the absence of any new information on the methodo-
logy for determination of normal value, the provisional
findings as described in recitals 59 and 60 of the provi-
sional Regulation are confirmed.

(b) Export price

(51)

In the absence of any new information on the methodo-
logy for determination of export price, the provisional
findings as described in recital 61 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

(c) Comparison

(52)

In the absence of any new information on the methodo-
logy for
as
described in recitals 62 and 63 of the provisional Regu-
lation are confirmed.

the provisional

comparison,

findings

— Kiswire Sdn. Bhd.: 0 %.

(55)

(56)

The complainant claimed that Malaysian producers
which did not cooperate in the investigation might have
exported to the Community during the IP. Since no
evidence was submitted to back this claim, the Commis-
sion could not confirm that exports by non-cooperating
producers to the Community had actually taken place
during the investigation period.

The provisional findings set out in recital 66 of the
provisional Regulation are thus confirmed. Therefore,
pursuant to Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation the
investigation in respect of Malaysia should be termi-
nated.

5. Thailand

(a) Normal value

(57)

In the absence of any new information on the methodo-
logy for determination of normal value, the provisional
findings as described in recitals 68 and 70 of the provi-
sional Regulation are confirmed.

(b) Export price

(58)

The cooperating exporting producer claimed that the
Commission should have used data on profit margins
obtained by its related importers when constructing
export price in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic
Regulation. It submitted that the related importers also
acted as unrelated importers for imports of the like
product originating in third countries, and that the profit
margins obtained in that trade should be used.

(59) However, Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation requires
the profit margin used for the construction of export
price to be reasonable. It is to be noted that one of the
related importers concerned has no profit at all and that
the profit level of the other related importer concerned
only represents 0,8 % on turnover. These profit levels
could not be considered as reasonable, particularly when
compared with the profit margin obtained from cooper-
ating unrelated importers in a previous proceeding
concerning the same product.

(d) Dumping margin

(53)

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of
the
product concerned was compared to the weighted
average export price of each corresponding type.

(60) Moreover, it is questionable whether the profit margin
obtained by a related importer in its alleged role as
unrelated importer can be considered as reliable since it
will
likelihood be influenced by sales made at
transfer prices between related parties.

in all

(54) After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin
definitively established, expressed as a percentage of the
cif import price at the Community frontier duty unpaid,
is for:

(61)

the above,

In view of
findings as
described in recital 71 of the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.

the provisional

L 211/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.8.2001

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

(c) Comparison

The cooperating producer claimed that the methodology
utilised by the Commission in adjusting the normal
value of types suggested by the exporting producer as
closely resembling in order to bring them to a compar-
able level with the export price is not correct, since it
incorporates, in addition to the difference in manufac-
turing cost, an amount for SG&A and for profits which
should not be included.

In accordance with Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regula-
tion: the amount of the adjustment for differences in
‘physical characteristics’ corresponds to a reasonable esti-
the difference. Conse-
mate of
quently, the reasonable estimate cannot be limited to
differences in manufacturing costs, and it has to incor-
porate a reasonable amount
for selling, general and
administrative costs and for profits as well.

the market value of

the above,

In view of
findings as
described in recitals 72 and 73 of the provisional Regu-
lation are confirmed.

the provisional

(d) Dumping margin

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
the
weighted average normal value of each type of
product concerned was compared to the weighted
average export price of each corresponding type.

(66) After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin
definitively established, expressed as a percentage of the
cif import price at the Community frontier duty unpaid,
is for:
— Usha Siam Steel Industries Public Company Limited:

28,9 %.

(67)

In the absence of any new information on the methodo-
logy used to determine the residual dumping margin, the
provisional findings as described in recital 76 of the
provisional Regulation are thus confirmed and on this
basis the definitive residual dumping margin is 42,8 %.

6. Turkey

(a) Normal value and export price

(68)

In the absence of any new information on the normal
value and the export price, the provisional findings as
described in recitals 78 to 80 of the provisional Regula-
tion are confirmed.

(b) Comparison

the 3 % tax was borne by the raw materials incorporated
in SWR sold domestically while it had not been collected
in respect of the raw materials incorporated in SWR
when exported to the Community. The claim was conse-
quently accepted.

(70) One exporting producer reiterated its request for adjust-
ments to the normal value for differences in level of
trade on the ground that all exports to the Community
were to retailers whereas domestic sales were to retailers
and end-users. New explanations and evidence were
submitted which sought to establish that this exporting
producer performed different
functions in these two
distribution channels. The aforementioned information
was submitted at a very advanced stage of the invest-
igation and had never been mentioned before even
though questions on the differences
in functions
performed in respect of domestic end-users and retailers
had been asked after reviewing the reply to the question-
naire and again on-the-spot. The questionnaire reply, the
information and
answer to the request for additional
explanations received on-the-spot
justified the price
difference exclusively on the fact that retailers had to
resell the product and thus were not in a position to
accept prices at user level. Furthermore, the Commission
re-checked whether there was a consistent difference in
prices by comparing the prices charged to end-users and
retailers for the same type of SWR and in the same
month given the high inflation in Turkey during the IP.
This comparison showed large variation of prices within
the same category of domestic customers and did not
establish that prices to end-users were consistently
higher. Under these circumstances, the claim is rejected
and the provisional findings, as described in recital 83 of
the provisional Regulation, are confirmed.

(71)

Therefore, and except where corrected as described
above, the provisional findings as described in recitals
81 and 83 to 88 of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

(c) Dumping margin

(72)

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of
the
product concerned was compared to the weighted
average export price of each corresponding type.

(73) After revision of the calculations, the dumping margins
definitively established, expressed as a percentage of the
cif import price at the Community frontier customs duty
unpaid, are for:

— Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii A.S: 55,2 %

— Has Celik ve Halat San Tic A.S: 17,8 %.

(69) New evidence was submitted in respect of the adjust-
ment to the normal value claimed by one exporting
producer for a 3 % tax paid on imported raw materials
purchased on delayed payment terms and which would
not be collected in respect of raw materials to be used in
the manufacture of SWR to be eventually exported. It
was proved to the satisfaction of the Commission that

(74)

In the absence of any new information in this respect,
the methodology set out in recital 91 of the provisional
Regulation to determine the residual dumping margin is
confirmed. On this basis the definitive residual dumping
margin was set at the same level as the highest margin
established for the cooperating companies, i.e. 55,2 %.

4.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 211/7

7. Russia

(a) General aspects

(i) A n a l y s i s o f M a r k e t E c o n o m y S t a t u s

(77) Although it is not disputed that the Commission was
unable to complete its determination of MES within
three months of the initiation of the investigation, the
findings were disclosed to the company as soon as it
was in a position to do so in accordance with the
principle of sound administration. The company's rights
of defence and its expectations that it would be able to
comment on any such proposal and to submit relevant
information in view of this determination were in no
way prejudiced as it was invited to present its views and
any counter arguments on the proposed MES deter-
mination and given a reasonable period of time in which
to do so. It was also invited to comment on the choice
of the analogue country. As stated above, the comments
received in response to the disclosure of the MES deter-
mination did not raise any new facts or considerations
which could invalidate the Commission's findings.

(78)

(79)

(75)

(76)

In the absence of any new information in this respect,
the finding that one Russian exporting producer was
considered as non-cooperating in the investigation is
confirmed. After publication of the provisional Regula-
tion,
the cooperating exporting producers submitted
comments on the market economy status (‘MES’) deter-
mination mainly reiterating comments made earlier,
following disclosure on the proposed determination on
the MES claims and answered together with disclosure
on provisional findings. It should be noted that as JSC
ChSPZ had already had an opportunity to comment
following disclosure of the proposed MES determination
and as those comments did not raise any new facts or
considerations which invalidated the Commission's find-
ings,
in force
throughout the investigation in accordance with Article
2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. In any event, the objec-
tions raised following publication of
the provisional
Regulation, would not have affected the MES deter-
mination either.

determination remains

that MES

The cooperating exporting producer contested the rejec-
tion of its MES application on three main grounds. The
company alleged that: (i) non-respect of the three month
time limit for determination breached its legal expecta-
tions,
its rights of defence and the principle of good
administration; (ii) the request for a full reply to the
dumping questionnaire (including on data relevant to
the normal value determination) put an unnecessary
workload on the company; and (iii)
the MES deter-
mination was based on a wrong interpretation of Article
2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and on an incorrect inter-
pretation or analysis of the factual situation of the appli-
cant. Notably, costs identified as not reflecting substan-
tially market values were not major inputs in its views; it
did have one clear set of basic accounting records
(namely the set made according to Russian legislation);
its accounting records had been independently audited
in line with international accounting standards and
existing differences between the Russian and the inter-
national accounting standards could lead to an adjust-
ment or a reconciliation rather than to a rejection of the
MES claim; payments via compensation of debts during
the IP had been exceptional, made in accordance with
real market values, concerned small cost factors not
related to the product concerned and did not qualify as
barter/counter trade or compensation trade.

It was considered desirable to request a full question-
naire reply in order to enable the Commission to
proceed to establish normal value on the basis of the
data submitted by the company in the event that MES
was justified. As regards the workload for replying to the
the information required for
questionnaire, some of
questionnaire reply should also have formed part of the
MES claim form. In any event, due account was taken of
the particular
the
company, which received two extensions of one week
each to the initial deadline.

encountered by

circumstances

Contrary to the company's submissions, the on-the-spot
verification and explanations submitted by the company
actually revealed that for several important inputs the
cost did not substantially reflect market values.
It is
important to note that the company had more than one
set of financial statements. It submitted (i) financial state-
ments in US dollars prepared in line with international
accounting standards but not audited and (ii) financial
statements audited in line with Russian standards which
differed from the International Accepted Accounting
Standards. Though asked several times, the company did
not provide any explanation on how to reconcile the
discrepancies found between these different sets of
financial statements, thus it failed to prove the existence
of a single set of accounts. In addition no evidence was
provided that any of these accounts had been indepen-
dently audited in line with international accounting stan-
dards. The existence of numerous ‘triangular’ transac-
tions was mentioned in the 1998 US dollars financial
statements. The company could not submit such finan-
cial statements for 1999 to establish whether this prac-
tice had ceased during the IP, and the Commission
found for a significant amount of transactions (charge
for land use in 1999, water supply i.e. general expenses
which concern all products) that the payments had been
made partly by another company or mutually settled, a
practice which the company itself admitted to exist.

L 211/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.8.2001

(ii) C h o i c e o f a n a l o g u e c o u n t r y

Therefore,
request.

it was not possible to comply with this

(80)

(81)

Following publication of the provisional Regulation, the
complainant questioned the choice of Korea as an
analogue country instead of the Czech Republic. The
latter country was envisaged (together with Brazil) as an
appropriate analogue country in the notice of initiation.
The complainant claimed that the selection of Korea
favoured Russian exporting producers as shown by the
difference in the provisional dumping margins between
Russia and the Czech Republic. The fact that the cata-
logues of the Czech and Russian producers propose the
same range of SWR for domestic and export sales would
also invalidate the reasoning set out in recital 99 of the
selecting the Czech
provisional Regulation for not
Republic.

The reasons for envisaging Korea as an appropriate
market economy third country were disclosed to all
interested parties in due time during the investigation.
Comments were only received from the exporting
producers concerned, which agreed with the selection. In
the absence of any objection, Korea was selected as an
appropriate analogue country. Moreover, the fact that
the catalogues of
the Czech and Russian producers
contained the same types of SWR is quite irrelevant in
this case since there was only a small overlap between
the SWR types exported by the Russian exporting
producers to the Community and the SWR types sold by
the Czech cooperating exporting producer on its
domestic market types during the IP. No other argu-
ments were put
forward which would question the
appropriateness of Korea as analogue country.

(82) Under these circumstances, the decision to use Korea as
an appropriate analogue country was upheld.

(iii) I n d i v i d u a l

t r e a t m e n t

(83)

In the absence of any new information on individual
treatment, the provisional findings as described in reci-
tals 101 to 105 of
the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.

(b) Normal value

(84)

The cooperating exporting producer argued that the use
constructed normal values unduly inflated its
of
dumping margin.
It suggested to extend the use of
domestic sales prices by relaxing some characteristics
used to define various models and types of SWR and, in
this way, increasing the number of types sold on the
Korean market that are comparable to the types it had
exported to the Community.

(85) Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation provides that in
the case of
imports from countries such as Russia,
normal values be established on the basis of the price or
constructed value in a market economy third country
unless an exporting producer meets the criteria set out
in subparagraph (c) of the aforementioned provision.

(86)

the above,

In view of
findings as
described in recital 106 of the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.

the provisional

(c) Export price

(87)

In the absence of any new information on export price,
the provisional findings as described in recital 107 of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

(d) Comparison

(88)

(89)

(90)

The cooperating exporting producer contested the use of
analogue country costs in order to determine the adjust-
ments to export prices with regard to transport and
related costs (handling, loading and ancillary costs). It
argued that its own costs should be used since they are
paid to independent forwarders and insurers and there-
fore follow market prices. Such an approach would also
be consistent with the approach taken by the Commis-
sion with regard to adjustments concerning commission,
packing and credit costs. Alternatively, the cooperating
exporting producer asked for a check of the transport
cost allowance, which it considered unreasonable.

The request to base the adjustment on the transport and
related costs incurred by the Russian exporting producer
could not be accepted. Indeed, this producer did not
economy treatment. Moreover, no
receive market
evidence was submitted that these costs reflected market
signals. The transport costs allowance was based on data
collected and verified in the analogue country. As
requested, the result was re-checked and confirmed.

Following the abovementioned claim, and in view of the
conclusions set out
the
Commission reviewed its approach with regard to pack-
aging costs and based the adjustment on data obtained
from the analogue country producer.

in the preceding paragraph,

(91) Adjustments on export prices for credit and commission
remained unchanged since they were not likely to be
distorted by the non-market economy environment.

(92)

Therefore and except where corrected as described
above, the provisional findings as described in recitals
108 and 109 of
the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.

(e) Dumping margin

(93)

In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
weighted average normal value of each type of
the
product concerned was compared to the weighted
average export price of each corresponding type.

(94) After revision of the calculations, the dumping margin
definitively established, expressed as a percentage of the
cif import price at the Community frontier customs duty
unpaid,
— Cherepovetsky Staleprokatny Zavod: 36,1 %.

is for:

4.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 211/9

(95)

In the absence of any new information in this respect,
the methodology set out in recital 112 of the provi-
sional Regulation to determine the residual dumping
margin is confirmed. On this basis the definitive residual
dumping margin is 50,7 %.

D. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(96)

(97)

(98)

In the absence of any new information on the
Community
as
described in recitals 114 to 120 of the provisional Regu-
lation are confirmed.

the provisional

industry,

findings

E. INJURY

1. Collection of injury data

Some interested parties disagreed with the methodology
information
adopted by the Commission to request
from the whole Community industry relating to the
product concerned with respect to production, capacity,
capacity utilisation, sales, stocks and employment and
basing the analysis of the remaining injury indicators on
a sample of companies from the Community industry.
They alleged that this methodology was allegedly insuffi-
cient
to satisfy the Commission's obligations under
Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

In arriving at its provisional findings, the Commission
evaluated all
relevant economic factors and indices
having a bearing on the state of the industry in accord-
ance with Article 3(5) of
the basic Regulation and
applied the sampling methodology described in Article
17 of the basic Regulation. Sampling, which is fully
compatible with the requirements of Article 3(5) of the
basic Regulation, was necessary in view of the number
of complainant/supporting Community producers and
the need to limit
the investigation to a reasonable
number of parties which could reasonably be investi-
gated within the time available (a sample of five compa-
nies). It should be noted that neither the selection of the
sample nor its representativity were contested by any
interested party.

(99)

In view of the above, the methodology described in
recitals 123 to 125 of the provisional Regulation is
confirmed.

2. Apparent Community consumption

(100) One interested party contested the statement in recital
128 that the decrease of apparent consumption in 1999
could be explained by sales of stock built up in 1998 by
importers/traders. It argued that the reasons behind the
decrease in apparent consumption were the decisions
taken by the Community shipping and fisheries sectors
to buy SWR in third countries without clearing customs
in the Community and by a certain number of importers
to increase sales of SWR to off-shore oil rigs located

outside the Community in order to avoid the effects of
the imposition of anti-dumping measures.

(101) Firstly,

it is important to note that no evidence was

provided to substantiate this allegation.

(102) Secondly, it is recalled that apparent consumption, i.e.
the volume of sales made by Community producers and
the volume of imports into the Community originating
in third countries, does not necessarily reflect the real
consumption of the users concerned.

(103) Finally, given the low percentage of the users' total costs
represented by SWR, as found in the context of the
previous investigation, it is unlikely that the fishing and
shipping sectors would decide on their purchases of
SWR according to their routes.

(104)

the above,

findings as
In view of
described in recitals 126 to 128 of the provisional Regu-
lation are confirmed.

the provisional

3. Cumulative assessment of

the effects of

the

imports concerned

(105)

In the absence of any new information on the cumula-
tive assessment of the effects of the imports concerned,
the provisional findings as described in recitals 129 to
132 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

4. Imports from the countries concerned

(a) Volume and market share of dumped imports

(106) The Thai exporting producer argued that its exports to
the Community were negligible throughout the period
considered.

(107)

(108)

Imports of SWR originating in Thailand represented
1,5 % in 1999 and 2 % in the IP and were therefore not
negligible according to Article 9(3) of the basic Regula-
tion. Furthermore,
the
the product
Community's volume of
concerned originating in third countries in 1999 and
6,5 % in the IP and were thus also above the 3 %
threshold established in the WTO Anti-dumping Agree-
ment.

they represented 4,6 % of
imports of

the above,

In view of
findings as
described in recitals 133 and 134 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

the provisional

(b) Prices of the dumped imports

(i) P r i c e e v o l u t i o n

(109)

In the absence of any new information on the price
evolution, the provisional findings as described in recital
135 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

L 211/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.8.2001

(ii) P r i c e u n d e r c u t t i n g

(110) One interested party stated that the double conversion
carried out by the Commission — from the currency of
the invoice to the national currency of the exporting
country and then to the EUR — contravened Article
2.4.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

(111)

In this respect it should be noted that Article 2.4.1 of
the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement is not relevant for
the price undercutting calculation, but only for the
determination of dumping. However, in order to elimi-
nate any inaccuracy resulting from two currency conver-
sions, the calculations of all exporting producers were
revised as requested. The cif values in the currency
provided by the exporting producers were directly
converted into EUR using the appropriate exchange
rates.

(112) One Turkish exporting producer argued that the adjust-
ment for level of trade was based on an inappropriate
choice of
importer because the latter was neither a
customer of the exporting producer nor an importer of
SWR from Turkey. Furthermore, it claimed that the level
of the adjustment was too low. In support of this claim
the exporting producer provided a sample of its sales
invoices for certain types of SWR issued to an unrelated
importer
sales
invoices issued to customers in the Community. At a
later stage,
the unrelated
the financial statements of
importer were also submitted to support this claim. The
margin thus obtained, which reflected the overall differ-
ence between purchases and re-sales, was higher than
the one used by the Commission at the provisional
stage.

in the Community and the latter's

(113)

It should firstly be noted that, in the absence of substan-
tiated information on this point from the sole cooper-
ating unrelated importer, the prices of the exporting
producers were adjusted for differences in level of trade
on the basis of the information available, i.e. the data

importers

in the
provided by an association of
Community and supported by evidence presented by
one of its members. In this respect it is worth noting
that the unrelated importer proposed by the Turkish
exporting producer was contacted by the Commission at
the outset of the investigation, but did not reply to the
questionnaire or provide any information. The impor-
ters' association was given disclosure of the adjustment
and did not raise any objection. Furthermore, the adjust-
ment took into account all relevant costs incurred by
unrelated importers between importation and sales ex-
works and thus it did not reflect the overall margin
between purchases and re-sales, as claimed by the
Turkish exporting producer. In view of the above, it is
considered that the adjustment made at the provisional
stage adequately reflects the differences in the level of
trade. The request was thus rejected.

(114) Some interested parties argued that the tensile strength,
contrary to the Commission's statement in recital 137 of
the provisional Regulation, was a main price driver and
requested the use of this criterion to avoid inflating price
undercutting margins.

(115) Though the analysis of tensile strength on a type by type
basis at company level did not show a discernible
pattern in prices, a comparison of the exporting produ-
cers' prices with those of
the Community industry's
showed that tensile strength was indeed a factor that
affected price. Price undercutting was thus recalculated
including tensile strength as a criterion for the product
categorisation.

(116) Based on the methodology explained in recitals 136 to
the provisional Regulation, and taking into
139 of
account
the modifications mentioned above and the
correction of clerical errors, the difference 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 A.Ş.

Has Celik ve Halat San Tic A.S.

24,1

41,8

14,2

16,4

27,0

5. Situation of the Community industry

(a) Investments and ability to raise capital

(117) Some interested parties argued that the impact of investments cannot only be considered in terms of
depreciation and the interest paid to finance the investment, but the analysis should also cover the
creditworthiness, goodwill and the cost/benefit of the use of financial resources.

4.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 211/11

(118)

It should be noted that the analysis of creditworthiness is made in recital 153 of the provisional
Regulation.

(119) Goodwill can be defined as the excess amount that has to be paid to acquire a part or the whole of a
business as a going concern, over and above the value of the net assets owned by the business
(purchased goodwill is capitalised as an asset). As such, it would only be analysed if depreciation of
goodwill had influenced profitability, which is not the case.

(120) Finally, a cost/benefit analysis of the Community industry's investments that goes beyond the
analysis made on the impact of investments in profitability is beyond the scope of the proceeding.

(121) The same interested parties argued that the Commission had found in the course of the investigation
in the previous anti-dumping proceeding that the Community industry's investments had increased
significantly between 1994 and 1998 and that their impact in terms of depreciation and interest paid
in the period considered should also be analysed.

(122) Though depreciation in the period considered increased by 9 %, depreciation of plant and machinery
actually decreased 3 %, which shows that investments have not been excessive, but were needed to
replace old machinery already fully depreciated. The depreciation figures also reflect the depreciation
charges due to investment made before the period considered. As stated in recital 152 of the
provisional Regulation, the impact in profitability of the increase in depreciation is minor.

(123)

In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in recitals 151 to 153 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

(b) Other factors

(124)

In the absence of any new information on other relevant injury factors, the provisional findings as
described in recitals 141 to 150 and 154 to 157 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

(c) Conclusion on injury

(125) On the basis of the above it is confirmed that 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 stagnated and stocks remained largely at the same level.
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, effective competition from the coun-
tries subject to anti-dumping measures. The Community industry's sales prices also remained
basically at the same level, despite the imposition of anti-dumping measures in 1999.

(126) Regarding the profitability of the Community industry, although it improved slightly from a loss of
– 1,4 % to break even over the period considered, it still remained at such a low level that the long
term viability of the Community industry cannot be ensured.

(127) 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.

(128)

In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in recitals 158 to 161 of the provisional
Regulation, i.e. that the Community industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of
Article 3 of the basic Regulation, are confirmed.

L 211/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.8.2001

F. CAUSATION

(129) Following disclosure of the provisional findings, some interested parties argued that no causal link
existed between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Community industry and that
injury, if any, should be attributed to a combination of the following factors: a decline in apparent
consumption; self-inflicted injury through the erroneous decisions made by the Community industry
regarding its investments and production capacity; and imports from other third countries, including
those originating in Korea and Malaysia for which no dumping was found.

(130) As no new information was submitted on the situation of the other Community producers and
evolution of raw material prices, the provisional findings as described in recitals 172, 173 and 180
to 182 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

1. Development of apparent consumption

(131) Some interested parties argued that the Community industry's falling sales and production followed
the trend of apparent consumption, which proved that the latter, and not the dumped imports from
the countries concerned, was the cause of any injury suffered by the Community industry.

(132) On the development of apparent consumption, it is useful to recall the findings in recitals 126 to

128 and 169 to 171 of the provisional Regulation.

(133) While apparent consumption substantially increased in 1998 (9 %),

it hardly benefited the
Community industry (2 % rise in sales to unrelated customers in the Community), though the
countries concerned saw their exports to the Community rise by 42 % in the same year, at a time
when there were no anti-dumping measures in force. The sharp contraction of apparent consump-
tion in 1999 (–14 %), coinciding with the imposition of anti-dumping measures, did not affect the
countries concerned, which registered a further 89 % rise of exports to the Community. This clearly
shows that it is not the decline in consumption that is causing injury to the Community industry,
but other factors such as the sustained, high growth of dumped imports originating in the countries
concerned.

(134)

In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in recitals 169 to 171 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

2. Self-inflicted injury through erroneous decisions on investments

(135) Some interested parties argued that the Community industry's low level of profitability in the IP
(0 %) was due to the erroneous decisions made by the Community industry to increase investments.

(136) As already explained in recital 122 above depreciation of plant and machinery decreased by 3 % in
the period considered, which shows that investment has not been excessive, but was needed to
replace old machinery already fully depreciated. This investment has obviously increased capacity,
but it was necessary to maintain the competitiveness of the Community industry. The low profit-
ability of the Community industry is mainly the result of lower sales volumes and the fact that it had
to align its prices with those of the low-priced, dumped imports originating in the countries
concerned.

(137) The same interested parties also alleged that certain Community producers failed to reposition
themselves in the face of competition as they failed to invest in new production technology, to
innovate in terms of research and development in their product line, and to rationalise their overall
operations.

(138)

It was found that the Community industry did invest in new production technology, was able to
innovate and did rationalise its operations. On this last point it is useful to mention the reorganisa-
tions of the manufacturing and sales activities of many Community producers.

(139)

It is therefore concluded that the situation of the Community industry in the IP cannot be attributed
to any erroneous decisions made by the Community industry regarding its investments.

4.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 211/13

3. Imports from other third countries

(140) Regarding other third countries, some interested parties requested that care be taken to ensure that
the impact of imports from other third countries was not attributed to the imports from the
countries concerned. The Russian exporting producers claimed that imports originating in Romania
not only undercut the Community industry's prices, but also their prices.

(a) Korea and Malaysia

(141)

Imports from Korea and Malaysia registered a significant increase during the period considered
(288 %) and increased their market share from 2,4 % in 1997 to 10 % in the IP. Their prices were
also found, with the exception of one Korean exporting producer, to undercut the selling prices of
the Community industry in the IP.

(142) Although the growth of imports originating in the countries concerned was lower in the period
considered (215 %), their market share in the IP (10,8 %) was still higher than that of Korea and
Malaysia. Furthermore, the overall price undercutting margin in the IP found for Korea and Malaysia
was substantially lower than that found for the countries concerned.

(143) Thus, the Community industry would in all likelihood have been able to increase its sales volume if
there were no dumped imports from the countries concerned despite the competition from imports
originating in Korea and Malaysia. Therefore the impact of the latter was not such as to break the
link between the dumped imports and the situation of the Community industry.
causal

(b) Other third countries excluding Korea and Malaysia

(144) The sales volume of third countries other than those included in the current investigation decreased
by 63 % during the period considered, mainly due to the decrease in imports from the countries
subject to anti-dumping measures.
In this context, the market share of other third countries
(excluding the countries concerned, Korea and Malaysia) decreased from 24,6 % in 1997 to 9,7 % in
the IP. Among the countries mentioned by interested parties as having caused injury to the
Community industry only Poland and Romania held a market share of at least 1 % in the IP.

(145) Regarding Poland, during the period considered its market share declined from 3,3 % to 2,9 % and
its selling prices per kg rose by 23 %. In this context, it cannot be argued that Poland contributed to
the material

injury suffered by the Community industry.

(146) Concerning Romania, its market share remained stable during the period considered (0,9 % in 1997,
1,1 % in 1998, 0,9 % in 1999 and 1 % in the IP), while imports originating in this country increased
by 8 % from 1 398 tonnes in 1997 to 1 510 tonnes in the IP. During the period considered, the
prices per kg of Romanian SWR were, with the exception of 1998, consistently higher than those of
the Russian exporting producers and consistently lower than those of the Community industry. It
can be assumed that, taking into account Romania's stable market share (which was negligible in
1997 and 1999), its impact on the Community industry was not such as to break the causal link
between the imports concerned and the situation of the Community industry.

(147)

In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in recitals 174 to 179 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

L 211/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.8.2001

4. Conclusion

(148)

It is confirmed that, although other factors, namely the imports from Korea, Malaysia and Romania,
may have had a negative impact on the situation of the Community industry in the IP, this impact
was 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 taken in isolation have
been found to cause material injury to the Community industry as described in recitals 164 to 168
of the provisional Regulation.

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. Collection of information and interest of the Community industry

(149)

In the absence of any new information on the collection of information and interest of the
Community industry, the provisional findings as described in recitals 186 to 196 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

2. Interest of the supplier industry

(150) One interested party argued that the imposition of measures would negatively affect raw material
suppliers as the Commission did not take into account the detrimental effect of the anti-dumping
measures in force on the situation of those suppliers of wire rod exporting to producers in third
countries subject to measures.

(151) The only cooperating raw material supplier (producer of steel wire) indicated that the imposition of
measures would be beneficial for its business. This company also exported to third countries,
including countries subject to the previous and the current investigations. Furthermore, the conclu-
sions reached in the provisional Regulation on the interest of the supplier industry were not
contested by any raw material supplier.

(152)

In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in recitals 197 to 201 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

3. Interest of importers/traders

(153) One importers' association argued that since SWR represent the main business for most importers, it
is thus essential for them to maintain a sufficient volume of sales in order to remain viable. It further
alleged that Community producers have their own integrated channels of distribution and refuse to
sell through independent traders. The situation of importers will thus become increasingly precarious
taking into account the number of countries subject to anti-dumping measures.

(154) Firstly, interested parties did not provide any new element on these points that could change the

findings reached at the provisional stage.

(155) Furthermore,

it was found that alternative sources of supply not subject to measures existed,
including the Community industry. Though it is true that many Community producers have their
own integrated channels of distribution, the information provided by the Community industry shows
that they also sell to unrelated importers/traders in the Community. The argument should therefore
be rejected.

(156) Another interested party argued that the measures would eliminate competition from imports to the
benefit of Korean and Malaysian SWR, which will flood the Community market. This will result in
further injury to the Community industry,
limit the sources of supply and discriminate against
customers of SWR originating in the countries concerned.

4.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 211/15

(157) Although it is likely that Korean and Malaysian exporting producers will increase their market shares,
it is unlikely that they will flood the Community market given their current high capacity utilisation
and the fact that the level of price undercutting found for these countries is lower (or even none in
the case of a Korean exporting producer) than those found for the countries concerned. Regarding
discrimination, it is important to note that discrimination does not take place in this respect since
imports from Korea and Malaysia, unlike the other countries concerned, have not been found to be
dumped. The argument should therefore be rejected.

(158)

In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in recitals 202 to 207 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

(159)

In the absence of any new information on the interest of users, the provisional findings as described
in recitals 208 to 211 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

4. Interest of users

5. Conclusion on Community interest

(160)

In view of the above, the provisional findings as described in recitals 212 to 215 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed, i.e. that no compelling reasons exist on grounds of Community interest
for not imposing anti-dumping measures.

H. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(161) Based on the methodology explained in recitals 216 to 219 of the provisional Regulation, and taking
into account the modifications mentioned in recitals 111 and 115 above and the correction of
clerical errors, the weighted average export prices of SWR were compared with the selling prices
charged by the Community industry in the Community market — adjusted to reflect a profit margin
of 5 %. The difference was then expressed as a percentage of the exporting producers' export prices
on a cif Community frontier level.

2. Definitive anti-dumping measures

(162)

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed
at the level of the dumping margins found, except for two companies — one in Thailand and the
other in Turkey — for which the duty should be imposed at the level of the injury margin, which is
lower,

in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

Country

Company

Definitive Duty
(%)

Czech Republic

ŽDB a.s.

All other companies

Russia

Cherepovetsky Staleprokatny Zavod

All other companies

Thailand

Usha Siam Steel Industries Plc.

All other companies

Turkey

Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii A.Ş,

Has Celik ve Halat San Tic A.S.

All other companies

30,7

47,1

36,1

50,7

24,8

42,8

31,0

17,8

31,0

L 211/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.8.2001

3. Termination of the proceeding in respect of Korea and Malaysia without imposition of

measures

(163)

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 Regulation, the proceeding should be terminated without the imposition of
anti-dumping measures in respect of imports of the product concerned originating in Korea and
Malaysia. The proceeding concerning imports originating in Korea and Malaysia has been terminated
by Commission Decision 2001/602/EC of 26 July 2001 accepting undertakings offered in connec-
tion with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables
originating in the Czech Republic, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Thailand and Turkey and
terminating the proceeding in respect of
imports originating in the Republic of Korea and
Malaysia (1).

4. Undertakings

(164) The undertakings offered by the exporting producers in the Czech Republic and Turkey were
accepted at the provisional stage. The minimum prices established have been changed to reflect the
definitive findings of the investigation.

(165) Following the disclosure of the provisional findings, exporting producers in Russia and Thailand
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. Furthermore, the nature of the product, the structure of
the companies and their sales patterns is such that the risk of them circumventing the agreed
undertaking is limited.

(166)

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.

(167) To further enable the Commission to effectively monitor the compliance of the companies with their
undertakings, 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 information is
also necessary to enable customs authorities to ascertain with sufficient precision that shipments
correspond 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.

(168)

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.

(169) Furthermore, in accordance with Article 8(6) of the basic Regulation, the investigation of dumping,
injury and Community interest was completed in respect of the countries concerned notwithstanding
the acceptance of undertakings in the course of the investigation. The undertakings offered by two
exporting producers in Thailand and in Russia were accepted by Decision 2001/602/EC,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of iron or steel ropes and cables,
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.

(1) See page 47 of this Official Journal.

4.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 211/17

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

2.
before duty, of the products originating in the countries listed below shall be as follows:

Country

Rate of duty
(%)

TARIC additional code

Czech Republic

Russia

Thailand

Turkey

47,1

50,7

42,8

31,0

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

Czech Republic

ŽDB a.s.
Bezručova 300, 735 93 Bohumín,
Czech Republic

Rate of duty
(%)

TARIC additional
code

30,7

A216

Russia

Thailand

Turkey

Open Joint Stock Company Cherepovetsky
Staleprokatny Zavod, Russia, 162600,
Cherepovets, Vologda Region, ul. 50-letia Oktiabria, 1/33

36,1

A217

Usha Siam Steel Ind. Public Company Limited
888/116 Mahatun Plaza Building,
Ploenchit Road, Bangkok 10330,
Thailand

Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii A.Ş.
Fahrettın Kerım Gokaı Cad. No 14
Denızcıler iş Merkezı A. Blok Kat. 1

Has Çelik ve Halat Sanayi Ticaret A.S.
Hacilar Yolu 8. Km Kayseri
Turkiye

24,8

A218

31,0

A219

17,8

A220

4.

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

Article 2

Imports under one of the following TARIC additional codes which are produced and directly exported
1.
(i.e. shipped and invoiced) by a company named below to a company in the Community acting as an
importer shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1 provided that they are
imported in conformity with paragraph 2.

Country

Company

TARIC additional code

Czech Republic

ŽDB a.s.
Bezručova 300, 735 93 Bohumín,
Czech Republic

Russia

Open Joint Stock Company Cherepovetsky
Staleprokatny Zavod, Russia, 162600,
Cherepovets, Vologda Region, ul. 50-letia Oktiabria, 1/33

A216

A217

L 211/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.8.2001

Country

Company

TARIC additional code

Thailand

Turkey

Usha Siam Steel Ind. Public Company Limited
888/116 Mahatun Plaza Building,
Ploenchit Road, Bangkok 10330,
Thailand

Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayii A.Ş.
Fahrettın Kerım Gokaı Cad. No 14
Denızcıler iş Merkezı A. Blok Kat. 1

Has Çelik ve Halat Sanayi Ticaret A.S.
Hacilar Yolu 8. Km Kayseri
Turkiye

A218

A219

A220

2.

Imports mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be exempt from the duty on condition that:

(a) a commercial invoice containing at least the elements listed in the Annex is presented to Member States
customs authorities upon presentation of the declaration for release into free circulation; and

(b) the goods declared and presented to customs correspond precisely to the description on the commercial

invoice.

Article 3

As regards imports of the product described in Article 1(1) originating in the Czech Republic,
1.
Thailand and Turkey, the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 of 2 February 2001 shall be collected at the rate of the duty
definitively imposed. Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be
released.

2.
As regards imports of the product described in Article 1(1) originating in Russia, the amounts secured
by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 shall be collected
at the rate of the duty provisionally imposed.

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 August 2001.

For the Council

The President

L. MICHEL

4.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 211/19

ANNEX

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

1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS SUBJECT TO AN UNDERTAKING’.

2. The name of the company mentioned in Article 2(1) issuing the commercial

invoice.

3. The commercial

invoice number.

4. The date of issue of the commercial

invoice.

5. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice is to be customs-cleared at the Community frontier.

6. The exact description of the goods,

including:

— the product code number (PCN) (as established in the undertaking offered by the exporting producer in question);
— the number of strands; the number of wires per strand; the arrangement of wires per strand (e.g. standard, seal,

warrington etc); rope characteristics (rotation resistant, compacted etc);

— the company product code number (CPC) (if applicable);
— CN code;
— quantity (to be given in kg and length).

7. The description of the terms of the sale,

including:

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

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

9. 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 Decision 2001/602/EC. I declare that the information provided on this invoice is
complete and correct.’