Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/2004 of 12 July 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India
Date: 2004-07-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, originating product, steel, wire

16.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1294/2004

of 12 July 2004

amending Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 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
Community,

establishing the European

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (2) 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,

(4)

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURES

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 (3),
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more
(the product
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 %.

concerned)

The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 (4),
the same time a definitive countervailing
imposed at
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-cooperating
exporters.

B. CURRENT PROCEDURE

1. 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’
(EC) No
1600/1999, pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regu-
lation, from one Indian producer, VSL Wires Limited (the

review of

Regulation

(1) 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).

(2) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 461/2004.
(3) OJ L 189, 22.7.1999, p. 19.
(4) 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).

it claimed that

applicant). The applicant claimed that it was not related
to any other exporters of the product concerned in India.
Furthermore,
it had not exported the
product concerned during the original period of investi-
gation (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.

2. Initiation of a review

and after

the Advisory Committee

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 consul-
the
tation of
Community industry concerned had been given the
opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/2003 (5), a ‘new
exporter’ review of 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 regis-
tration pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 14(5) of the basic
Regulation.

(5)

(6)

At the same time and on the same grounds, following a
request from the applicant, the Commission initiated an
accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 (6)
pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97.

3. Product concerned

The product covered by the current review is the same
product as that under consideration in 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.

(5) OJ L 172, 10.7.2003, p. 6.
(6) OJ C 161, 10.7.2003, p. 2.

L 244/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.7.2004

4. Investigation period

(7)

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

neither has it entered into an irrevocable contractual
significant quantity to the
obligation to export
Community of
concerned during the
review investigation period.

a
the product

(8)

(9)

5. Parties concerned

India (GOI) of

The Commission officially advised the applicant and the
Government of
the
procedure. Furthermore,
it gave other parties directly
concerned 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.

the initiation of

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
limited to

the review was

made by the applicant,
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,
from 1 April 1997 to 31
March 1998.

i.e.

(13)

The Commission examined whether the applicant had
exported the product concerned to the Community
investigation period. In this
subsequent to the original
respect,
the applicant has not
realised any sales whatsoever to the Community and

it was established that

(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.

exchanges of

immediately prior

to the initiation of

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
in the case of dumping,
investigation period which,
less than six
shall normally cover a period of not
months
the
proceeding. The fact that it took almost two years and
numerous
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 investi-
the
gation in relation to the current
applicant.

correspondence before

situation of

and the

establishment of

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
constitute a representative basis for the assessment of
dumping
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
to all other third
countries during that period. Consequently, such a sale
could not be used for a representative dumping determi-
nation for the applicant.

the same product

16.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/3

(16)

In reply to the questionnaire, the applicant identified a
contract that had been signed during the review investi-
gation 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 obli-
gation 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
transaction to the
any export
in 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 inves-
tigated, i.e. 76,2 % (see recital 23 of Regulation (EC) No
1600/1999), should apply.

absence of

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), 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 Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999,
pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97
(see recital 5).

(19)

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

(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 counter-
vailing measures in force, should be 41,5 %, i.e. 55,6 %

minus 14,1 %. 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 Article 3 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/2003.

to registration pursuant

(22)

(23)

G. DISCLOSURE AND DURATION OF THE MEASURES

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

it should be noted that

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 calcu-
lations.
in
In this respect,
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
the
Community. There is no provision whatsoever that the
export price can also be established on the basis of
from the exporting country to destinations
exports
other than the Community. The claim should therefore
be rejected and the conclusions set out in recitals 11 to
16 confirmed.

from the

exporting

country

export

to

(24)

This review does not affect the date on which Regulation
(EC) No 1600/1999 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2)
of the basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

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

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

41,5

A444’

L 244/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

Article 2

Unless otherwise

2.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

16.7.2004

in force

The anti-dumping duty hereby imposed shall also be
the product concerned
to Article 3 of

1.
levied retroactively on imports of
which have been registered pursuant
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/2003.

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, 12 July 2004.

For the Council
The President

B. BOT