Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1600/99 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India
Date: 2004-05-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, steel, wire

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 19.5.2004 
COM(2004) 387 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION  

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1600/99 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on imports of stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

On  10  July  2003,  the  Commission  initiated  a  new  exporter  review  concerning  the  anti-
dumping  duty  imposed  on  imports  of  stainless  steel  wire  with  a  diameter  of  1  mm  or  more 
originating in India.  

The investigation revealed that a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports 
of the product concerned which are produced and exported by the applicant who requested the 
above mentioned review. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation which 
should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION  

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1600/99 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on imports of stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India  

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 Community1 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2026/972  of  6  October  1997  on  protection 
against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community, and in 
particular Article 20 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURES 

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1600/19993, imposed a definitive anti-dumping 
duty  on  imports  of  stainless  steel  wire  having  a  diameter  of  1  mm  or  more  (‘the 
product  concerned’)  falling  within  CN  code  ex  7223  00  19  originating  in  India.  The 
measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 0% and 55,6%. 

The  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1599/19994,  imposed  at  the  same  time  a 
definitive countervailing duty on imports of the same product originating in India. The 
measures  took  the  form  of  an  ad  valorem  duty  ranging  between  0%  and  35,4%  for 
individual exporters, with a rate of 48,8% for non-co-operating exporters. 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1,  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  461/2004  (OJ  L  77, 
13.3.2004, p. 12). 
OJ  L  288  21.10.1997,  p.1,  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  461/2004  (OJ  L  77, 
13.3.2004, p. 12). 
OJ L 189, 22.07.1999, p. 19. 
OJ  L  189,  22.7.1999,  p.  1,  Regulation  as  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  164/2002  (OJ  L  30, 
31.1.2002, p. 9). 

(1) 

(2) 

1 

2 

3 
4 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
B. CURRENT PROCEDURE 

Request for a new exporter review 

Subsequent  to  the  imposition  of  definitive  measures,  the  Commission  received  a 
request for the initiation of a ‘new exporter’ review of Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999, 
pursuant  to  Article  11(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  from  one  Indian  producer,  VSL 
Wires  Limited  (‘the  applicant’).  The  applicant  claimed  that  it  was  not  related  to  any 
other exporters of the product concerned in India. Furthermore, it claimed that it had 
not  exported  the  product  concerned  during  the  original  period  of  investigation  (i.e. 
from l April 1997 to 31 March 1998), but had exported the product concerned to the 
Community after that period. On the basis of the above, it requested that an individual 
duty rate be established for it, in case dumping would be found. 

Initiation of a review 

The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it 
sufficient  to  justify  the  initiation  of  a  review  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
Article  11(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  After  consultation  of  the  Advisory  Committee 
and  after  the  Community  industry  concerned  had  been  given  the  opportunity  to 
comment, the Commission initiated, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/20035, 
a ‘new exporter’ review of Council Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 with regard to the 
applicant and commenced its investigation. At the same time, the anti-dumping duty in 
force  was  repealed  with  regard  to  imports  of  the  product  concerned  produced  and 
exported to the Community by the applicant, and those imports were made subject to 
registration pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation. 

At the same time and on the same grounds, following a request from the applicant, the 
Commission  initiated  an  accelerated  review  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1599/19996 pursuant to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97. 

Product concerned 

The  product  covered  by  the  current  review  is  the  same  product  as  that  under 
consideration in  Council  Regulation  (EC) No 1600/1999, namely  stainless  steel wire 
having  a  diameter  of  1  mm  or  more,  containing  by  weight  2,5%  or  more  of  nickel, 
excluding wire containing by weight 28% or more but no more than 31% of nickel and 
20% or more but no more than 22% of chromium. 

Investigation Period  

The investigation covered the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 (‘the review 
investigation period’). 

Parties concerned 

The Commission officially advised the applicant and the Government of India (‘GOI’) 
of the initiation of the procedure. Furthermore, it gave other parties directly concerned 

1. 

(3) 

2. 

(4) 

(5) 

3. 

(6) 

4. 

(7) 

5. 

(8) 

5 
6 

OJ L 172, 10.07.2003, p. 6. 
OJ C 161, 10.07.2003, p. 2. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in  writing  and  to  request  a  hearing. 
However, no such views or any request for a hearing was received by the Commission. 

(9) 

The Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a full reply within 
the required deadline. 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 applicant. 

C. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW 

(10)  As  no  request  for  a  review  of  the  findings  on  injury  was  made  by  the  applicant,  the 

review was limited to dumping. 

D. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

(11)  The applicant was able to satisfactorily demonstrate that it was not related, directly or 
indirectly,  to  any  of  the  Indian  exporting  producers  subject  to  the  anti-dumping 
measures in force with regard to the product concerned. 

(12)  The investigation confirmed that the applicant had not exported the product concerned 
during the original investigation period, i.e. from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998. 

(13)  The Commission examined whether the applicant had exported the product concerned 
to  the  Community  subsequent  to  the  original  investigation  period.  In  this  respect,  it 
was  established  that  the  applicant  has  not  realized  any  sales  whatsoever  to  the 
Community  and  neither  has  it  entered  into  an  irrevocable  contractual  obligation  to 
export  a  significant  quantity  to  the  Community  of  the  product  concerned  during  the 
review investigation period. 

(14) 

It  was  established  that  the  applicant  had  only  realised  one  sale  to  the  Community 
which  actually  took  place  in  August  2001,  i.e.  after  the  original  investigation  period 
but well before the review investigation period. 

(15)  The applicant requested the Commission to extend the review investigation period to 
cover  the  period  in  which  the  sale  mentioned  in  recital  (14)  was  realised.  In  this 
respect, the applicant argued that it had requested the ‘new exporter’ review in August 
2001 and proposed an investigation period from 1 July 2001 to 31 March 2003. 

In  that  respect,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  pursuant  to  Article  6(1)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, for the purpose of a representative finding, the Commission shall select an 
investigation  period which, in the case of dumping, shall normally cover a period of 
not less than six months immediately prior to the initiation of the proceeding. The fact 
that  it  took  almost  two  years  and  numerous  exchanges  of  correspondence  before  the 
applicant  submitted  a  satisfactory  review  request  does  not  justify  departing  from  the 
rule set out in Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation. Moreover, the acceptance of such 
an  extended  investigation  period,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  it  would  only  cover  that 
export  transaction,  could  lead  to  a  situation  where  outdated  data  and  accounting 
information would be used and considerably undermine the accuracy of the findings of 
the investigation in relation to the current situation of the applicant. 

Furthermore, it should be noted that, even if such a long review investigation period 
was selected and the single  sale of  August 2001 included, this single sale would not 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
constitute a representative basis for the assessment of dumping and the establishment 
of an individual dumping margin. The single transaction represented only around 0,2% 
of the applicant’s annual production of the product concerned and its price was double 
the  export  price  of  the  same  product  to  all  other  third  countries  during  that  period. 
Consequently,  such  a  sale  could  not  be  used  for  a  representative  dumping 
determination for the applicant. 

(16) 

In reply to the questionnaire, the applicant identified a contract that had been signed 
during the review investigation period, but on spot confirmed that the sale had never 
been materialized. It is therefore established that the applicant has not entered into an 
irrevocable obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community and that the 
applicant’s statement of “intent to continue the export to EC” following the 2001 sale 
has not been materialized. For the above reasons, it is considered that in the absence of 
any  export  transaction  to  the  Community  or  any  irrevocable  contractual  obligation 
during  the  review  investigation  period,  no  individual  dumping  margin  can  be 
established for the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(4) of the 
basic  Regulation.  Thus,  the  dumping  margin  found  in  the  original  investigation  for 
parties not individually investigated, i.e. 76,2% (see recital (23) of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1600/1999), should apply. 

E. THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY 

(17)  Given that the highest injury elimination level of 55,6% established during the original 
investigation is lower than the 76,2% dumping margin set for the applicant (see recital 
(16) above), the anti-dumping duty rate for the applicant should not be higher than this 
injury elimination level in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(18)  Despite the lack of exports to the Community during the review investigation period, 
an individual countervailing duty rate based on the export subsidy amount (ad valorem 
14,1%), was calculated for the applicant in the parallel accelerated review of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999, pursuant to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 
2026/97 (see recital (5) above). 

(19) 

In accordance with Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation and Article 24(1) of Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2026/97,  no  product  shall  be  subject  to  both  anti-dumping  and 
countervailing  duties  for  the  purpose  of  dealing  with  one  and  the  same  situation 
arising from dumping or from export subsidization. 

(20)  On the basis of the above, the definitive anti-dumping duty rate imposed for imports 
into the Community of stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1 mm or more produced 
and exported by VSL Wires Limited, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community 
frontier price (customs duty unpaid) and taking into account the results of the parallel 
accelerated  review  of  the  countervailing  measures  in  force,  should  be  41,5%,  i.e. 
55,6%  minus  14,1%.  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1600/1999  should  therefore  be 
amended accordingly. 

F. RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY 

(21)  The  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  VSL  Wires  Limited  shall  also  be  levied 
retroactively on imports which have been subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/2003. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
G. DISCLOSURE AND DURATION OF THE MEASURES 

(22)  The  Commission  informed  the  applicant  and  the  GOI  of  the  essential  facts  and 
considerations  on  the  basis  of  which  it  was  intended  to  propose  that  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 be amended. They were also given a reasonable period 
of time to comment. 

(23) 

In its response to the disclosure, the applicant claimed that the Commission failed to 
consider other available alternatives for establishing export price and in particular the 
use of the applicant’s export prices to other third countries for the purpose of dumping 
margin calculations. In this respect, it should be noted that in accordance with Article 
2(8)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  export  price  in  a  dumping  calculation  shall  be  the 
price actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export from the exporting 
country to the Community. There is no provision whatsoever that the export price can 
also be established on the basis of exports from the exporting country to destinations 
other than the Community. The claim should therefore be rejected and the conclusions 
set out in recitals (11) to (16) above confirmed. 

(24)  This review does not affect the date on which Council Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 

will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

The  table  in  Article  1(2)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1600/1999  is  hereby  amended  by 
adding the following:  

Article 1 

VSL Wires Limited, 
G-1/3  MIDC, 
Tarapur 
Boisar 
Industrial  Area, 
District,  Thane,  Maharashtra, 
India 

41,5 

A444 

Article 2 

1. 

2. 

The anti-dumping duty hereby imposed shall also be levied retroactively on imports 
of  the  product  concerned  which  have  been  registered  pursuant  to  Article  3  of 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/2003. 

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

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Article 3 

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

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

8 

   EN