Commission Regulation (EC) No 771/2005 of 20 May 2005 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam
Date: 2005-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, manufactured goods, originating product, steel

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/19

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 771/2005

of 20 May 2005

imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts
thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped
(the ‘basic Regulation’), and in
imports from countries not members of the European Community (1)
particular Article 7 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

1. Initiation of the present proceeding

A. PROCEDURE

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

In August 2004, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the
European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the
Community of stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China
(the PRC), Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam and commenced an
investigation.

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by the European Industrial Fasteners
Institute (EIFI), on behalf of Community producers representing a major proportion, in this case more
than 50 %, of the total Community production of stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof. The
complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material
injury resulting
therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.

2. Parties concerned and verification visits

their association, other
The Commission officially advised the applicant Community producers,
Community producers,
importers, suppliers and users known to be
the exporting producers,
concerned and the representatives of the exporting countries of the initiation of the proceeding.
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a
hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.

Given the large number of known exporting producers in the PRC and Taiwan, Community
producers and importers, sampling for the determination of dumping and injury was envisaged in
the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

In order to allow exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam to submit a claim for market
economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT),
if they so wished, the Commission sent
claim forms to the exporting producers known to be concerned and the authorities of the two
countries.

The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and received replies from
five sampled exporters in Taiwan, four sampled Community producers, two Community producers
not selected in the sample, from two exporting producers in the PRC, two in Indonesia, two in
Malaysia, two in the Philippines, four in Thailand, one in Vietnam, from four sampled importers, one
Community user and from one upstream supplier in the Community.

(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 C 212, 24.8.2004, p. 2.

L 128/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

(7)

(8)

A German importer/distributor association (Fachverband des Schrauben-Großhandels e.V.) also made
their views known in writing. All parties who so requested within the set time limit and indicated
that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.

The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the
preliminary determination of dumping, resulting injury and Community interest and carried out
investigations at the premises of the following companies:

Community producers

— Bontempi Vibo SpA, Brescia, Italy

— Bulnava Srl, Milano/Suello, Italy

— Inox Viti Snc, Grumello Del Monte, Italy

— Reisser Schraubentechnik GmbH, Ingelfingen-Criesbach, Germany.

Exporting producers and related companies in the exporting countries

PRC

— Tong Ming Enterprise (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd, Zhejiang.

Indonesia

— PT. Shye Chang Batam Indonesia, Batam.

Malaysia

— Tigges Stainless Steel Fasteners (M) Sdn. Bhd, Ipoh, Chemor

— Tong Heer Fasteners Co. Sdn., Bhd, Penang.

The Philippines

— Rosario Fasteners Corporation, Cavite

— Philshin Works Corporation, Cavite.

Taiwan

— Arrow Fasteners Co. Ltd and its related company Header Plan Co. Inc., Taipei

— Jin Shing Stainless Ind. Co. Ltd, Tao Yuen

— Min Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd, Pingtung

— Tong Hwei Enterprise, Co. Ltd and its related companies Tong Jou Enterprise Co. Ltd and Winlink

Fasteners Co., Ltd, Kaohsiung

— Yi Tai Shen Co. Ltd, Tainan.

Thailand

— A.B.P. Stainless Fasteners Co. Ltd, Ayutthaya

— Bunyat Industries 1998 Co. Ltd, Samutsakorn

— Dura Fasteners Company Ltd, Samutprakarn

— Siam Screws (1994) Co. Ltd, Samutsakorn.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/21

Related importer in the Community

— Tigges GmbH & Co. KG, Wuppertal, Germany.

(9)

The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 (investigation
period or IP). The examination of injury covered the period from 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2004
(period considered).

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. General

Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof (SSF) are bolts, nuts and screws of stainless steel which are
used to mechanically join two or more elements. Screws are fastener products with an external
threading on the shank. They can either be used without any other part and fixed into the wood
(wood screws) or metal sheets (self-tapping screws) or be combined with a nut and washers to form a
bolt. Screws may have a variety of head shapes (cup, socket, flat, hexagonal, etc.), shank lengths and
diameters. The shank may be totally or partially threaded. SSF are used by a variety of consumer
industries and in a wide range of final applications where resistance to both atmospheric and
chemical corrosion is necessary and where hygiene may also be essential, such as equipment for
processing and storing food products, plants in the chemical
industry, manufacture of medical
equipment, public lighting equipment, shipbuilding, etc.

2. The product concerned

SSF, i.e. bolts, nuts and screws of stainless steel which are used to mechanically join two or more
elements,
are normally declared within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30,
7318 15 51, 7318 15 61, 7318 15 70 and 7318 16 30. There are many types of SSF, each one
being defined by its specific physical and technical characteristics and by the grade of stainless steel
from which it is made.

In the course of the investigation, it was alleged by importers and by a German importer/distributor
association that nuts should be excluded from the scope of the investigation, because of an alleged
lack of production in the Community.

This issue was considered. In the course of the provisional investigation, doubts arose as to whether
nuts could indeed be regarded as a single product with other SSF. In this respect, a number of aspects
need to be explored further, e.g. whether and to what extent bolts and nuts are marketed together as
a system, to what extent these types are developed together etc. Further examination will also be
needed to what extent the producers in the Community are able to offer these systems. On this basis,
it was provisionally decided not to include nuts normally declared within CN code 7318 16 30 in the
definition of the product concerned.

In this respect, it is pertinent to note that virtually all imports from the Philippines appear to consist
of nuts. Therefore, should it be decided at the definitive stage of the investigation that nuts are to be
excluded from the product scope, the proceeding will have to be terminated with regard to the
Philippines.

It was further claimed by importers and the German importer/distributor association that the product
scope should be limited to CN codes 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70, i.e. hexagon socket head screws
of stainless steel and hexagon bolts of stainless steel, because there is no sufficient production of all
other kinds of SSF in the Community. However, the investigation confirmed that these other types of
SSF are produced in the Community. Thus, the claim could not be accepted.

(16)

It was found that all types, other than nuts, fall under the broad definition of fasteners and have the
same basic physical and technical characteristics, the same basic uses and the same distribution
channels.

L 128/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

(17)

Consequently, all different types of SSF, with the exception of nuts, normally declared within CN
codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70 originating
in the PRC, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam form provisionally one product for
the purpose of the present investigation (the product concerned).

3. Like product

(18)

The Commission found that any SSF produced and sold on the respective domestic markets in the
PRC, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam and those exported to the Community from
the countries concerned as well as those produced and sold in the Community by the Community
industry have the same physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses.
It is therefore
provisionally concluded that all are like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic
Regulation.

1. Sampling for exporting producers in the PRC and Taiwan

C. SAMPLING

(19)

In view of the large number of exporting producers in the PRC and Taiwan, sampling was envisaged
in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation.

(20)

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to
select a sample, exporting producers were requested to make themselves known within 15 days from
the date of the initiation of the investigation and to provide basic information on their export and
domestic sales, their precise activities with regard to the production of the product concerned and the
names and activities of all their related companies involved in the production and/or selling of the
product concerned. The authorities in the PRC and Taiwan were also consulted.

1.1. Pre-selection of cooperating exporting producers

(21) Only two exporting producers in the PRC came forward and provided the requested information
within the three weeks period set by Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation. In these circumstances, the
Commission decided that sampling was not necessary for exporting producers in the PRC.

(22)

Forty nine companies in Taiwan came forward and provided the requested information within the
given deadline set by Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation. However, only 37 exporting producers
reported exports to the Community during the investigation period. Those exporting producers that
exported the product concerned to the Community during the investigation period and expressed a
wish to participate in the sample, were initially considered as cooperating companies and were taken
into account in the selection of the sample. Eleven out of the 12 remaining companies were either
traders or exporting producers without exports to the Community during the investigation period.
Therefore, these companies cannot be taken into account for the purposes of a dumping calculation.
It should finally be noted that one of the remaining 12 companies was an exclusive exporting
producer of nuts and is consequently not concerned by the provisional measures.

(23)

The cooperating exporting producers represented around 78 % of total exports of the product
concerned from Taiwan to the Community.

(24)

Exporting producers which did not make themselves known within the aforesaid period were
considered as non-cooperating with the investigation.

1.2. Selection of the sample

(25) According to Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the selection was based on the largest represen-
tative volume of exports, which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. On this
basis, five Taiwanese exporting producers were selected for the sample. The selected companies
represented around 47 % of Taiwanese exports to the Community and around 57 % of domestic
sales in Taiwan. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Taiwanese authorities
were consulted and raised no objection.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/23

(26)

The thirty two cooperating exporting producers, which were not finally retained in the sample, were
informed through the Taiwanese authorities that any anti-dumping duty on their exports would be
calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.

(27) Questionnaires were sent for completion to all five sampled companies and replies from all of them

were received within the given deadlines.

(28)

(29)

(30)

1.3. Individual examination

Two exporting producers in Taiwan which have not been included in the sample have claimed an
individual dumping margin and duty rate, if any, with a view to the application of Articles 9(6) and
17(3) of the basic Regulation. In view of the large number of countries and parties involved and the
time constraints, the Commission concluded that no individual examination of exporting producers
in Taiwan could be granted because this would be unduly burdensome and would prevent
it should be noted that one of the
completion of the investigation in good time. Furthermore,
exporting producers requesting such individual examination was only producing nuts, which, as
stated above, are provisionally excluded from the scope of this proceeding.

2. Sampling of Community producers

In view of the large number of Community producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of
the
initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of
Commission requested Community producers to provide information concerning production and
sales of the like product.

the basic Regulation. For

these purposes,

Eight Community producers came forward and provided the requested information within the given
deadline set by Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic
Regulation, the Commission selected four companies in two Member States, three in Italy and one in
Germany, for the sample as they represented the largest representative volume of production in the
Community (around 50 %), which could be reasonably investigated within the time available. In
accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the association of Community producers
was consulted and raised no objection.
the remaining four producers, situated in
In addition,
Belgium, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, were requested to provide certain general data
for the injury analysis. All sampled Community producers and two other Community producers
cooperated and sent questionnaire replies within the deadlines. However, one of the two non-sampled
cooperating companies was an exclusive producer of certain special nuts which have provisionally
been excluded from the scope of the investigation and, therefore, this company was not considered
further for the provisional findings.

3. Sampling of Importers

(31)

In view of the large number of importers in the Community, sampling was envisaged in the notice of
the
initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of
these purposes,
Commission requested importers to provide information concerning imports and sales of
the
product concerned.

the basic Regulation. For

(32) On the basis of the information received, the Commission selected five importers in four Member
States, two in Germany, one in Italy, one in Sweden and one in the United Kingdom, for the sample.
Two known associations of importers were consulted. These importers represented the largest repre-
sentative volume of sales of known importers in the Community (around 37 %), which could be
reasonably investigated within the time available. Four importers cooperated and sent questionnaire
replies. The Swedish importer failed to cooperate further and only two importers provided complete
replies with all information requested.

L 128/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

1. Market economy treatment (MET)

D. DUMPING

(33)

Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports
originating in the PRC and Vietnam, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs
1 to 6 of the said Article for those exporting producers which were found to meet the criteria laid
down in Article 2(7)(c) of
is shown that market economy
conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product. Briefly, and for ease
of reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form below:

the basic Regulation,

i.e. where it

1. business decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions, and without significant

State interference;

2. accounting records are independently audited,

in line with International Accounting Standards

(IAS) and applied for all purposes;

3. there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;

4.

legal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws;

5. currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.

(34)

Two Chinese producers and one Vietnamese producer requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of
the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form for exporting producers within the given
deadlines.

(35) One Chinese producer was in a start-up phase and did not have either audited or any other sort of
financial accounts. The Commission concluded that the lack of such accounts prevents the determi-
nation on whether criteria 2 and 3 are met. Consequently, it was concluded that the company did
not meet the requirements for MET. The company was informed accordingly and raised no objection.

(36)

For the other Chinese exporting producer, the Commission sought all information deemed necessary
and verified all information submitted in the MET claim at the premises of the company in question.

(37)

The verification established that the company did not have one clear set of basic accounting records
which are prepared and audited in line with IAS. Even though the accounts had been audited by
independent external auditors, numerous problems and discrepancies persisted. Throughout
the
investigation, the company submitted diverging versions of their accounts, all of which contained
significant errors like closing and opening balances of consecutive financial years that did not
correspond (IAS 1), or alleged changes in accounting policy that were not properly substantiated
by any kind of disclosure in the accounts (IAS 8). It has not been possible to reconcile important
the company reported
figures such as sales turnover with other company records. Moreover,
losses and the accounts
significant profits when it actually appeared to be making significant
presented did not contain proper consolidated turnover figures covering all
its operations. The
reports of the auditors were completely silent on all the problems identified above.

In view of the above, criterion 2 was not fulfilled. Consequently, it was concluded that the company
did not fulfil the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.

(38)

For the Vietnamese producer the Commission sought all information deemed necessary.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/25

(39) As far as criterion 1 is concerned,

it was concluded that this was not met. In particular,

it was
established that there was a certain quantity restriction on export and domestic sales. This restriction
existed in the business investment licence, the application for the issuance of the licence as well as in
the company’s charter. Finally, all decisions on matters involving the lease of land policy are explicitly
determined by the State in the company’s business investment licence. The company also enjoys a
waiver on the payment of land lease until its basic construction plans will be completed, as well as an
additional waiver from the payment of the land lease for a number of years. Under these circum-
stances, it was found that the company had not demonstrated that its business decisions and costs
were made in response to market conditions, and without significant state interference.

(40) As far as criterion 2 is concerned, it was concluded that it was not met because contrary to IAS 1 the
financial statements of 2002 were not published in good time and they were not properly audited.

(41)

It was consequently concluded that the company did not fulfil the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c)
of the basic Regulation.

(42)

The exporting producers concerned in China and Vietnam as well as the Community industry were
given an opportunity to comment on the above findings.

(43)

Two exporting producers contested the determination and argued that they should be granted MET.

(44)

The Chinese exporting producer argued that the accounting policies followed were in line with the
Chinese corporate accounting rules and practice.

(45)

In this respect, it is noted that according to the criteria of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, the
Commission shall examine whether the accounts of the companies are prepared and audited in line
with the IAS. The compliance or non-compliance with the Chinese standards is not decisive in the
context of a MET assessment. Furthermore, the findings of the verification constitute either non-
compliance with basic accounting principles or significant accounting changes that need to be
documented and explained properly.

(46) Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the Chinese Accounting System for Business Enterprises,
in its Article 155, requires companies to present complete and detailed notes to accounting
statements. Given the absence of any meaningful notes or explanations in the accounts of the
company, it appears that the audit was not only breaching the IAS but it was also not in compliance
with the Chinese standards.

(47)

(48)

(49)

Consequently,
justified and MET could not be granted.

it was concluded that the comments of the Chinese exporting producer were not

The Vietnamese exporting producer argued that the export/domestic sales ratio, which appears in the
is not binding and only mirrors the special tax incentives that the
business investment licence,
Vietnamese Government has introduced in order
to encourage investments. Hence, no state
authority allegedly prescribes how much the company can sell on the export and domestic market.

In this respect, it is noted that no direct correlation exists between the provisions concerning the
issuance of a licence and the provisions concerning tax and financial issues. Furthermore, the business
investment licence itself did not contain any indication that the export sales ratio would be set purely
for taxation purposes.

L 128/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

(50) As regards the lease of land, the company argued that the land lease procedure followed in Vietnam
was not contrary to the market economy principles and that all special provisions in relation to the
land lease policy were merely incentives used by the Vietnamese Government to attract foreign
investments. The exporting producer alleged that the lease amount itself was a kind of ‘tax’ and
that it had bought the land from another company which was the ‘original landlord’.

(51)

It is noted that there is no free market of land in Vietnam. According to a government circular
submitted by the company, the price of land is set by the State. As regards the argument concerning
the purchase of land from the ‘original landlord’, this term is rather misleading since there is no
private ownership of land in Vietnam. In fact, the company referred to compensation for the right to
use the land paid to the previous tenant, which was determined unilaterally by the State. Moreover,
no evidence was submitted which could support the allegation that the land lease is a kind of ‘tax’. In
any event, as set out in recital 39, the company has not been paying any land lease for a number of
years.

(52) As regards criterion 2, the company argued that the auditors had spotted that it had published its
Financial Statements for 2002 later than the IAS prescribed, but it received an approval from the
Ministry of Finance to ignore this discrepancy.

(53)

It is noted that this allegation was not confirmed by the auditor’s report. On the contrary, the
auditors stated that the audit was concluded in accordance with the IAS and no reservation on
the accounts or explanation in a form of a note were included on why the company deviated from a
clearly defined IAS practice. Moreover, the fact that a letter issued by the Ministry of Finance can
allegedly change or relax a clearly stipulated law policy proves that the IAS were not applied properly
in practice.

(54)

Consequently, it was concluded that criteria 1 and 2 were not met and, therefore, MET should not be
granted.

2. Individual treatment (IT)

(55)

Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for
countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate
that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.

(56) As far as the PRC is concerned, both cooperating exporting producers which requested MET had also

claimed IT in the event that they were not to be granted MET.

(57) On the basis of information available, it was found that the two companies met all the requirements

for IT as set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.

(58)

It was therefore concluded that IT should be granted to the following exporting producers in the
PRC:

— Tengzhou Tengda Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd, Tengzhou City,

— Tong Ming Enterprise (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd, Zhejiang.

(59) As far as Vietnam is concerned, the exporting producer who requested MET also claimed IT in the

event that it was not to be granted MET.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/27

(60) On the basis of

information available,

it was found that

this company did not meet all

the

requirements for IT as set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.

In particular, it was established, as set out under the analysis of MET above, that the export sales
quantities were not freely determined by the company, but were fixed by the State in the company’s
business licence. Therefore, it was found that the company did not meet the conditions for being
granted IT.

(61)

Two other Vietnamese exporting producers also claimed IT within the given deadlines. However, one
submitted an incomplete reply to the questionnaire and the other did not submit any reply to the
questionnaire.

The two companies did not provide the requested information or any other explanation. Conse-
quently, the Commission concluded that these companies had not demonstrated that they met the
conditions for being granted IT.

3. Normal value

3.1. Analogue country

(62) According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, in economies in transition normal value for
exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed
value in an analogue country.

(63)

In the notice of initiation, India was proposed as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of
establishing normal value for the PRC and Vietnam. The Commission invited all interested parties to
comment on this.

Various interested parties submitted comments proposing as analogue country Taiwan, Thailand, the
Republic of Korea or Italy. The Commission contacted known companies in India, which was initially
envisaged as an appropriate analogue country. However, no questionnaire replies or any meaningful
comments were received from producers in India. With regard to the Republic of Korea and Italy, the
parties which have suggested them did not provide any specific information. Therefore, they have not
been considered further as alternative analogue countries.

As regards Thailand, it is noted that during the course of the investigation it became apparent from
the cooperating producers that there were no domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade in
Thailand and, therefore, it could not be considered as an analogue country.

However, Taiwan, which is one of the biggest worldwide producers of the product concerned, was
found to have a representative domestic market, where a wide range of products and a large number
of suppliers ensured a sufficient level of competition. The investigation established that significant
domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade were made by four cooperating sampled exporting
producers in Taiwan.

(64)

In view of the above, it is concluded that Taiwan constitutes an appropriate analogue country in
accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.

L 128/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

3.2. Methodology applied for the determination of normal value

3.2.1. G l o b a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s

(65)

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined in each
exporting country whether the domestic sales of the product concerned to independent customers by
each exporting producer were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to
or greater than 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Community.

3.2.2. P r o d u c t

t y p e c o m p a r a b i l i t y

(66)

The Commission subsequently identified those product types sold domestically by the companies
having overall representative domestic sales, which were identical or directly comparable with the
types sold for export to the Community. The criteria used are the following: CN code, type of raw
material used, DIN number (i.e. code number under which the product is classified within the DIN
nomenclature), diameter in millimetres, length in millimetres.

3.2.3. P r o d u c t

t y p e s p e c i f i c r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s

(67) Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered as sufficiently representative when the
volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the
investigation period represented 5 % or more of the total volume of the comparable product type
sold for export to the Community.

3.2.4. O r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f

t r a d e t e s t

(68)

The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each company in each
exporting country could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to
Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

(69)

This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers, of each
exported product type, sold at a loss on the domestic market during the investigation period.

(a) For those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market were
not below unit costs and where the weighted average sales price was equal to or higher than the
weighted average production cost, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted
average of all domestic sales prices of the type in question.

(b) For those product types where at least 10 %, but no more than 80 %, by volume of sales on the
domestic market were not below unit costs, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the
weighted average of domestic sales prices which were found equal to or above unit costs only, of
the type in question.

(c) For those product types where less than 10 %, by volume, was sold on the domestic market at a
price not below unit costs, it was considered that the product type concerned was not sold in the
ordinary course of trade and therefore, normal value was constructed.

3.2.5. N o r m a l v a l u e b a s e d o n a c t u a l d o m e s t i c p r i c e

(70)

For the types sold for export to the Community by investigated companies where the requirements
set out in sections 3.2.3 to 3.2.4(a) and (b) above were met, normal value was based, for the
corresponding product types, on the actual prices paid or payable, by independent customers in
the domestic market of the country under investigation, during the IP, as set out in Article 2(1) of the
basic Regulation.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/29

3.2.6. N o r m a l v a l u e b a s e d o n c o n s t r u c t e d v a l u e

(71)

For product types falling under section 3.2.4(c) above, as well as for the product types which were
not sold by the exporting producer in representative quantities on the domestic market of the
countries under investigation, as mentioned in Section 3.2.3 above, normal value had to be
constructed.

To construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the selling, general and
administrative (SG & A) expenses incurred and weighted average profit realised by the cooperating
exporting producers concerned on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade,
during the IP, was added to their own average cost of manufacturing during the IP. Where necessary,
the manufacturing costs and SG & A expenses reported were corrected, before being used in the
ordinary course of trade test and in constructing normal values.

In the countries under investigation where no exporting producers having domestic sales of the like
product or of the same general category of products in the ordinary course of trade during the IP
existed, normal value was constructed using the cost of manufacturing of the exporting producer
concerned, if necessary corrected where appropriate. To this cost of manufacturing, it was provi-
sionally considered appropriate to add the weighted average SG & A expenses incurred and profit
realised by four Taiwanese cooperating sampled exporting producers on their domestic sales of the
like product during the IP, pursuant to Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.

3.2.7. E c o n o m i e s i n t r a n s i t i o n

(72)

Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the PRC and Vietnam was
established on the basis of verified information received from the producers in the analogue
country, i.e. on the basis of prices paid or payable on the domestic market of Taiwan for comparable
product types, where these were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade, or on constructed
normal values, where no domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade for comparable product types
were found.

As a result, normal value was established as the weighted average domestic sales price to unrelated
customers or constructed value per type by the four cooperating sampled producers in Taiwan.

3.3. Determination of normal value

(a) P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a

(73)

Since no MET was granted, normal value for the PRC was established as set out in recital 72.

(74)

(75)

(b) I n d o n e s i a

For the sole Indonesian cooperating exporting producer, it was established that no domestic sales of
the like product existed. Therefore, normal value had to be constructed in accordance with the
provisions set in recital 71.

It is noted that another Indonesian exporting producer had initially replied to the questionnaire sent
by the Commission, but later on it terminated its business activities thus making any verification of
its questionnaire response impossible. It was therefore concluded that this particular company did not
cooperate anymore with the investigation. The company and the Indonesian authorities were
informed accordingly and made no comment on this development.

(c) M a l a y s i a

(76)

For the two cooperating Malaysian exporting producers, which were based in free trade zones, it was
established that the sales of the like product reported as domestic were mainly made to free trade
zones or to bonded warehouses, i.e. sales for export by other independent parties.

L 128/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

Consequently, it was concluded that no representative domestic sales existed during the IP for these
exporting producers and therefore normal value had to be constructed in accordance with the
provisions set in recital 71.

(d) T a i w a n

(77)

For four exporting producers normal value was established in line with the methodology set out in
recitals 65 to 71.

(78)

In the course of the investigation it was established that, of these four cooperating exporting
producers, two were related. These companies sold the like product on the domestic market both
through a related selling company and directly to unrelated customers. It is noted that, pursuant to
the third paragraph of Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation where the product types are sold to a
related selling company, these sales may be considered as not made in the ordinary course of trade.
For this reason, and in order to establish normal value, the two companies were requested well in
advance of the on-the-spot verification to submit the prices charged by the related reselling company
to the first independent customer. It was established on the spot that the two cooperating producers
could not provide such information. The reselling company purchased the product concerned from
various sources, including the two exporting producers and sold it to end-users, retailers and distri-
the reselling company was not in a position to demonstrate through its
butors. Nevertheless,
accounting records which products were bought from the two cooperating producers and hence
could not give resale prices for such products when sold to independent customers.

Based on the above, the Commission provisionally concludes that sales of the product concerned
made on the domestic market through the related reselling company should be disregarded in the
calculation of normal value, as the remaining domestic sales could still be considered as represen-
tative.

(79)

For the fifth sampled exporting producer in Taiwan, it was established that no domestic sales of the
like product existed. Therefore, normal value was constructed as set out in recital 71. However,
serious discrepancies were found during the course of the investigation in the submitted information.
Firstly, the company did not classify the different types of the product concerned according to the
clear specifications given by the Commission and, therefore, no comparisons with domestic sales of
other producers in Taiwan for a significant number of product types could be established. Secondly,
it was not possible during the on-the-spot verification to reconcile the cost of production for the
product concerned, as reported in the questionnaire response, with the cost of goods sold in the
profit and loss table of the reply to the questionnaire or any accounting record of the company. Nor
could a link be established between the purchases of raw materials and the reported cost of
production per product type. The company submitted new cost of production following the verifi-
cation visit which could not be supported by verified information.

Due to the aforesaid developments and pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the company
was informed that certain information could not be used for the dumping calculations and that
provisional findings would be partially established on the basis of facts available. Consequently, in
order to determine constructed normal value, the Commission used an adjusted cost of production
for the exported product types which could be clearly identified on the basis of the available
specifications. To this cost of production was added, the weighted average SGA expenses and
profit on domestic sales of the other four cooperating exporting producers in Taiwan.

(e) T h a i l a n d

(80)

For the four Thai cooperating exporting producers, it was established that no representative domestic
sales in the ordinary course of trade for the like product existed. Therefore, normal value had to be
constructed in accordance with the provisions set in recital 71.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/31

(f) V i e t n a m

(81)

Since no MET was granted to any Vietnamese exporting producer, normal value for Vietnam was
established as set out in recital 72.

4. Export Price

(a) People’s Republic of China

(82)

Exports of the two cooperating exporting producers granted IT were made directly to independent
customers in the Community. Export prices were therefore based on prices actually paid or payable
for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(b) Indonesia

(83)

Exports of the sole cooperating exporting producer were made directly to independent customers in
the Community. The export price was therefore based on prices actually paid or payable for the
product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(84)

(85)

(c) Malaysia

For one exporting producer which made export sales to the Community directly to independent
customers, the export price was established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the
product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

The other Malaysian exporting producer made exports of the product concerned to independent
customers and to one related party in the Community. For the former exports, the export price was
established on the basis of
the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in
accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. For the exports made to the related party,
the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, on the basis
of prices at which the imported products were first resold to an independent buyer. For this purpose,
adjustments were made to take account of all costs, including duties and taxes, incurred between
importation and resale, and of profits normally accruing by independent cooperating importers, so
that a reliable export price could be established.

(d) Taiwan

(86)

The exporting producers made export sales to the Community either directly to independent
customers or through trading companies located in Taiwan.

(87) Where export sales to the Community were made directly to independent customers, the export
prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned
in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(88) Where export sales to the Community were made through trading companies, export prices were
established on the basis of the prices of the product when sold for export to the trading companies
by the producers concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(89) One exporting producer, which was also selling the product concerned via trading companies in
Taiwan, was not in a position to present any supporting documentation which could clarify the
destinations of its products sold via traders. Such sales were therefore disregarded and the export
price was based only on direct exports to independent customers in the Community.

(e) Thailand

(90)

The exports of
the four cooperating exporting producers were made directly to independent
customers in the Community. The export price was therefore based on prices actually paid or
payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

L 128/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

(f) Vietnam

(91) As was explained under the analysis of IT above, only one company cooperated in Vietnam, but it
was not granted IT. Furthermore, this company was operating as a subcontractor of a Taiwanese
related company, which cooperated with the investigation. The Taiwanese company was the owner of
the raw materials and it was performing all functions related to export sales. However, it was not able
to demonstrate through its accounts that the export prices to independent customers, as reported in
the reply to the questionnaire of the Vietnamese subcontractor, concerned products manufactured in
Vietnam and exported to the Community. Therefore, such prices cannot be used as export prices
from Vietnam to the Community. The company was informed accordingly. Since no other source
was available, export prices were provisionally based on Eurostat import statistics for all exporting
producers.

5. Comparison

(92)

The comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-factory basis.

(93)

For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due
allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price compar-
ability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. For all
investigated exporting
producers, allowances
in transport costs, ocean freight and insurance costs,
handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, warranty and guarantee costs and
commissions have been granted where applicable and justified.

for differences

6. Dumping margins

6.1. General methodology

(94)

(95)

(96)

(97)

Pursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) dumping margins were established on the basis of a comparison
of a weighted average normal value by product type with a weighted average export price by product
type as established above.

The dumping margin for cooperating exporting producers, who made themselves known in
accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, but were not examined individually, has been
established on the basis of the weighted average of the dumping margins of the companies in the
sample pursuant to Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.

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

In order to determine the dumping margin for non-cooperating exporting producers, the level of
non-cooperation was first established. To this end, the volume of exports to the Community reported
by the cooperating exporting producers was compared with the equivalent Eurostat import statistics.

(98) Where the level of non-cooperation was high, i.e. more than 20 %, it was considered appropriate to
set the dumping margin for the non-cooperating exporting producers at a level higher than the
highest dumping margin established for the cooperating exporting producers. Indeed, there is reason
to believe that
the high level of non-cooperation results from the non-cooperating exporting
producers in the investigated country generally having dumped at a higher level than any cooperating
exporting producer. In such cases, the dumping margin was therefore established at a level which
corresponds to the weighted average dumping margin of the most sold representative product types
of the cooperating exporting producers with the highest dumping margins.

(99) Where the level of cooperation was high, it was considered appropriate to set the dumping margin
for any non-cooperating exporting producers at the level of the highest dumping margin found for a
cooperating exporting producer in the country concerned, since there was no reason to believe that
any non-cooperating exporting producer had dumped at a lower level.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/33

(100)

It has been the consistent practice of the Commission to consider related exporting producers or
exporting producers belonging to the same group as one single entity for the determination of a
dumping margin and thus establish one single dumping margin for them. This is in particular
because calculating individual dumping margins might encourage circumvention of anti-dumping
thus rendering them ineffective, by enabling related exporting producers to channel
measures,
their exports to the Community through the company with the lowest individual dumping margin.

In accordance with this practice, the two related exporting producers in Taiwan belonging to the
same group were regarded as one single entity and attributed one single dumping margin. For these
exporting producers, it was decided to first calculate a dumping margin per company and then to
establish a weighted average of these dumping margins which was attributed to the group as a whole.

6.2. Dumping margins

(a) P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a

(101) There was significant non-cooperation of exporting producers in the PRC (around 85 %).

(102) The provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of

the cif

import price at

the

Community border, duty unpaid, are the following:

— Tengzhou Tengda Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd, Tengzhou City 21,5 %

— Tong Ming Enterprise (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd, Zhejiang 12,2 %

— all other companies 27,4 %.

(b) I n d o n e s i a

(103) There was significant non-cooperation of exporting producers in Indonesia (around 60 %). The
provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the Community
border, duty unpaid, are the following:

— PT. Shye Chang Batam Indonesia, Batam 9,8 %

— all other companies 24,6 %.

(c) M a l a y s i a

(104) There was 100 % cooperation of exporting producers in Malaysia. No provisional dumping margins
were found for both cooperating exporting producers (Tigges Stainless Steel Fasteners (M) Sdn. Bhd.,
Ipoh, Chemor and Tong Heer Fasteners Co. Sdn., Bhd, Penang) and, therefore, no provisional
measures should be imposed on imports from Malaysia. Should these findings be confirmed in
the further course of the investigation, the proceeding shall be terminated as regards Malaysia.

(d) T h e P h i l i p p i n e s

(105) As stated in recital 14, it was found that virtually all exports from the Philippines to the Community
appear to consist of nuts. Since it was provisionally concluded that nuts should be excluded from the
product scope, no dumping margin has been established and no provisional measures should be
imposed on imports from the Philippines.

(e) T a i w a n

(106) For one sampled Taiwanese exporting producer, the dumping margin was established by using
partially facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. Therefore,
in
accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation, its dumping margin has been disregarded in
calculating the weighted average dumping margin for the non-sampled cooperating exporting
producers.

L 128/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

(107) Two sampled exporting producers were related and, therefore, one dumping margin was calculated

for them.

(108) There was significant non-cooperation of exporting producers in Taiwan (around 22). The provisional
dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the Community border, duty
unpaid, are the following:

— Arrow Fasteners Co. Ltd, Taipei 15,2 %

— Jin Shing Stainless Ind. Co. Ltd, Tao Yuan 18,8 %

— Min Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd, Pingtung 16,1 %

— Tong Hwei Enterprise, Co. Ltd, Kaohsiung 16,1 %

— Yi Tai Shen Co. Ltd, Tainan 11,4 %

— cooperating exporting producers not in the sample 15,8 %

— all other companies 23,6 %.

(f) T h a i l a n d

(109) There was 100 % cooperation of exporting producers in Thailand. The provisional dumping margins,
expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the Community border duty unpaid, are the
following:

— A.B.P. Stainless Fasteners Co. Ltd, Ayutthaya 15,9 %

— Bunyat Industries 1998 Co. Ltd, Samutsakorn 10,8 %

— Dura Fasteners Company Ltd, Samutprakarn 14,6 %

— Siam Screws (1994) Co. Ltd, Samutsakorn 11,0 %

— all other companies 15,9 %.

(g) V i e t n a m

(110) The provisional dumping margin for all companies in Vietnam, expressed as a percentage of the cif

import price at the Community border duty unpaid, is 7,7 %.

1. Community production

E. INJURY

(111) The investigation established in the framework of the sampling exercise that the like product was
manufactured by seven producers in the Community during the investigation period (see recital 30).
However, two of them have not cooperated further with the investigation. Furthermore,
in the
context of the complaint there was a number of other small producers in the Community, which
are also not cooperating with the investigation.

(112) Hence, the volume of Community production for the purpose of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation
has been provisionally calculated by adding the production of the seven producers known from the
sampling exercise plus the volume of production of the other small non-cooperating producers
known from the complaint.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/35

2. Definition of the Community industry

(113) The five cooperating producers referred to in recital 30 represented 54 % of the total Community
production of the like product. These companies, therefore, constitute the Community industry
within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation and are referred to as such hereafter.
Four of these companies, representing the largest representative volume of production, have been
sampled in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. They are referred to as the ‘sampled
Community producers’.

(114) Due to the use of sampling, the injury indicators have been established partially for the Community
industry as a whole and partially for the sampled Community producers only. The injury analysis
with regard to market share, production, capacity and capacity utilisation, sales volume and value,
growth, stocks, employment and productivity is based on data of the Community industry as a
whole. Otherwise, data with regard to the sampled Community producers have been used (trans-
action prices, investment & return on investment, wages, profitability, cash flow and ability to raise
capital).

3. Analysis of the situation on the Community market

3.1. Introduction

(115) The relevant Eurostat statistics for CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51,
7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70 together with data obtained from the verified questionnaire responses
of the Community industry were used in the evaluation of volume and price trends. It should be
recalled that nuts are, at this provisional, stage not considered as part of the product scope. Therefore,
data relating to this item (CN code 7318 16 30) have not been integrated in the present analysis.

(116) Community industry data were obtained from the verified questionnaire responses of the cooperating

Community producers.

(117) From September 1997 until February 2003 anti-dumping measures with regard to SSF imports from

the PRC, India, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand were in place (1).

3.2. Community consumption

(118)

In calculating the apparent Community consumption of the product concerned and the like product,
the Commission added:

— the volume of total imports of the product concerned and the like product into the Community

as reported by Eurostat,

— the volume of sales of the like product in the Community produced by the Community industry,

— and, on the basis of the information contained in the complaint, the estimated volume of sales of

the like product in the Community by the other known Community producers.

As shown in the table below, the Community consumption of the product concerned and the like
product increased by 24 % over the period considered.

Consumption in kg

2001

2002

2003

IP

Product concerned and like product

63 907 918

70 113 833

75 854 601

79 427 756

Index

100

110

119

124

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98 (OJ L 50, 20.2.1998, p. 1).

L 128/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

3.3. Imports of the product concerned into the Community

3.3.1. C u m u l a t i o n

(119) The dumped imports of SSF originating in the PRC, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam (the
countries concerned) have been assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic
Regulation. It is recalled that imports from Malaysia were not found to be dumped and imports from
the Philippines concerned only nuts, which have been provisionally excluded from the scope of this
proceeding. Therefore, these imports have not been considered with the dumped imports. The
margins of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country concerned are more
than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation, i.e. 2 % of the export prices, and the
volume of imports from each country concerned is above the threshold of 1 % market share set by
Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation. Average import prices from all countries concerned constantly
dropped over the period considered. Furthermore, the SSF imported from the countries concerned
were alike in all respects, they are interchangeable and are marketed in the Community through
comparable sales channels and under similar commercial conditions, thus competing with each other
and with the SSF produced in the Community. Therefore,
it is provisionally concluded that a
cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate.

3.3.2. V o l u m e , p r i c e a n d m a r k e t

s h a r e o f

i m p o r t s

f r o m t h e c o u n t r i e s

c o n c e r n e d

Imports (in kg)

2001

2002

2003

IP

Product concerned

13 988 700

14 303 000

22 428 600

27 399 700

Index

100

102

160

196

(120) The volume of imports of the product concerned increased significantly throughout the period

considered. Imports in the investigation period were 96 % greater than in 2001.

Average import price per kg
(in EUR)

Product concerned

Index

2001

3,53

100

2002

2,90

82

2003

2,50

71

IP

2,41

68

(121) The average import price of

the product concerned decreased continuously over

the period

considered. Overall price levels in the investigation period were 32 % lower than in 2001.

EC market share

Product concerned

Index

2001

21,9 %

100

2002

20,4 %

93

2003

29,6 %

135

IP

34,5 %

158

(122) The share of the countries concerned on the Community market fell from 2001 to 2002 by 7 %.
However, starting in 2003, the countries concerned increased their activities strongly and rapidly on
the Community market, overall resulting in 58 % growth of their market share in the period
considered.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/37

3.3.3. P r i c e u n d e r c u t t i n g

(123) For the determination of price undercutting, price data referring to the investigation period was
analysed. To this end, sales prices of the Community industry to their unrelated customers on an
ex-works basis have been compared with sales prices of the exporting producers of the countries
concerned to their first independent customers in the Community on a cif import basis, in both cases
after deduction of discounts, rebates, commissions and taxes.

(124) The Community industry's sales prices and the cif import prices of the exporting producers were
compared at the same level of trade, namely traders/distributors within the Community market, on
the basis of weighted average prices. The comparison was made separately per type of SSF and
stainless steel used. During the investigation period, virtually all sales of the exporting producers in
the Community were made via traders/distributors.

(125) The results of the comparison, when expressed as a percentage of the Community industry's sales
prices during the investigation period, showed significant price undercutting margins (up to 59,2 %).
These price undercutting margins indicate price pressure exerted by the imports from the countries
concerned on the Community market.

(126) Per country concerned the undercutting margins were as follows:

Country

Undercutting margin

PRC

from 8,6 to 59,2 %

Indonesia

from 28 to 31,9 %

Taiwan

Thailand

Vietnam

from 7 to 38,9 %

from 13,1 to 44,4 %

28,2 %

3.4. Economic situation of the Community industry

3.4.1. P r o d u c t i o n , c a p a c i t y a n d c a p a c i t y u t i l i s a t i o n

Production (kg)

Index

Capacity (kg)

Index

Capacity utilisation

Index

2001

2002

2003

IP

18 808 577

24 601 594

21 672 591

21 688 461

100

131

115

115

36 210 417

45 866 665

43 931 762

45 081 275

100

51,9 %

100

127

53,6 %

103

121

49,3 %

95

124

48,1 %

93

(127) After an increase in output of 31 % in 2002, surpassing growth of Community consumption in
relative terms, the production of the Community industry subsequently declined to remain since
2003 stable on a level 15 % higher than in 2001. It is noted that this level of increase lags behind the
24 % growth of Community consumption over the period considered.

(128) The production capacity of the Community industry, again with a peak in 2002, has increased by

24 %, reflecting the investments made by the sampled Community producers.

L 128/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

(129) The capacity utilisation rate of the Community industry, after a slight improvement in 2002, subse-

quently decreased, overall by 7 % over the period considered.

3.4.2. S a l e s v o l u m e , s a l e s p r i c e , m a r k e t s h a r e a n d g r o w t h

Sales in the Community of the like
product

2001

2002

2003

IP

Volume (kg)

Index

Average sales price (EUR/kg)

Index

Market share

Index

20 691 876

25 326 440

23 362 418

22 115 591

100

2,83

100

32,4 %

100

122

2,47

87

36,1 %

112

113

2,67

94

30,8 %

95

107

2,99

106

27,8 %

86

(130) The sales volume of the Community industry increased by 7 % over the period considered. However,
it should be noted that, after an increase by 22 % in 2002, the sales volume of the Community
industry constantly decreased. Moreover, this increase is significantly lower than the 24 % growth of
Community consumption and by far lagging behind the 96 % increase of imports from the countries
concerned over the period considered.

(131) Average sales prices of the Community industry increased by 6 % over the period considered. After a

decrease by 13 % between 2001 and 2002, prices have been constantly increasing.

(132) Over the period considered market share of the Community industry decreased by 14 %. After an
increase by 12 % between 2001 and 2002, the market share has been constantly decreasing. A
comparison of the situation in the IP with 2002 reveals even a 26 % decline. At the same time, the
share of imports from the countries concerned increased strongly.

(133) As can be seen by the trends for production and sales volume in absolute terms, the Community
industry experienced growth over the period considered, but still a decline since 2002. Furthermore,
market share declined over the period considered, indicating that in relative terms, i.e. compared with
competitors, the Community industry did not grow.

3.4.3. P r o f i t a b i l i t y

Profitability Community industry

Index

2001

2,0 %

100

2002

– 2,7 %
– 134

2003

– 0,7 %
– 37

IP

4,3 %

214

(134) Over the period considered profitability of the sampled Community producers improved. After
making small profits in 2001, profitability decreased resulting in a loss-making situation in 2002.
Between 2002 and 2003 profitability improved, but the Community industry still remained loss-
making. In the period 2003-IP the Community obtained its best profitability result over the period
considered and achieved on average a profit margin of 4,3 %. This might appear at first sight positive
but requires further evaluation in its proper context.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/39

(135)

In fact, even in the IP the sampled Community producers on average did not achieve the minimum
profit margin considered adequate and achievable in the absence of dumping, i.e. 5 % (see recital 178)
and were remote from the profitability level the Community industry reached in 1995, i.e. 9,1 % (1)
achieved before dumped imports arrived on the market.

(136)

In addition, it is pertinent to consider that such improved profitability in the IP was (i) achieved at the
expense of decreasing market share and (ii) essentially the result of a strong speculative increase of
the price for the main cost driver, i.e. stainless steel. The anticipated increase of stainless steel prices,
enabled the Community industry to achieve higher prices for the like product, by using temporarily
in their production stocks of comparatively cheap stainless steel procured before the speculative
increase in price. However, this cost advantage was brought to an end once the existing stocks of
raw material were used up and new steel had to be procured at significantly increased price levels.
Furthermore, such speculative phase is generally not of a lasting nature and customers, notably large
distributors with strong negotiating power, restart exercising severe price pressure again, once a
stagnation or downturn of steel prices is perceived. Consequently, the increased profitability is
essentially due to very benevolent market conditions for the Community industry mainly in the
second phase of the IP and not of a sustainable nature.

3.4.4. S t o c k s

2001

2002

2003

IP

Stocks (kg)

Index

7 965 825

6 425 035

4 194 493

3 800 389

100

81

53

48

(137) The Community industry’s year-end stock levels strongly dropped by 52 % over
(i)

the period
increased ‘on demand’ production (in that case stocks

considered. This can be explained by:
becomes of limited relevance) and (ii) a decrease in production since 2002.

3.4.5. I n v e s t m e n t s ,
r a i s e c a p i t a l

r e t u r n o n i n v e s t m e n t , c a s h f l o w a n d t h e a b i l i t y t o

Investments

Index

Return on investment

Index

Cash flow

Index

2001

2002

2003

IP

1 595 223

1 977 279

2 776 586

1 039 989

100

8,6 %

100

7 170 700

100

124

– 11,1 %
– 129

– 979 445
– 14

174

– 3,0 %
– 34

65

19,3 %

224

3 178 050

4 602 063

44

64

(138) From 2001 to 2003 the sampled Community producers continually increased their investments, in
particular because of replacement of obsolete machinery and equipment. In the investigation period
investment decreased by 35 % as compared to the beginning of the period considered. However, this
decline in the IP can partially be explained by significant investments in previous years. Investments
for the manufacture of the like product are necessary to maintain and improve competitiveness and
improve environmental and security standards.

(1) OJ L 243, 5.9.1997, p. 17, recital 69.

L 128/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

(139) Return on investment improved over the period considered. This (i) confirms the appropriateness of
investment decisions taken by the management; and (ii) reflects the improved profitability levels of
the sampled Community producers during the IP. However, as already set out in the context of the
profitability analysis, the improved profitability can largely be explained by special, non-lasting
circumstances (speculative steel price development during the IP). Furthermore, the fact that part
of the sampled Community producers increasingly used leased machinery for their production
explains the relatively better performance of the return on investment indicator compared with
the profitability indicator.

(140) Although the cash flow of the sampled Community producers generated by the sales of the like

product improved since 2002, over the period considered it decreased by 36 %.

(141) The sampled Community producers did not experience any significant difficulty to raise capital as

demonstrated by their ability to make investments during the period considered.

3.4.6. E m p l o y m e n t , p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d w a g e s

Employment

Index

Productivity (in kg per worker)

Index

2001

266

100

70 643

100

2002

285

107

86 463

122

2003

269

101

80 427

114

IP

252

95

86 159

122

Labour cost EUR

7 429 616

8 347 464

8 266 487

7 870 657

Index

100

112

111

Labour cost EUR per employee

Index

33 887

100

34 704

102

36 341

107

106

37 350

110

(142) The Community industry increased employment
constantly decreased, overall by 5 % over
coincides with the reduced production since 2002.

in 2002. However, subsequently employment
the period considered. This negative development

(143) Productivity, as expressed in kg of production per worker,

improved by 22 % over the period

considered, indicating a determination and capability to maintain and improve competitiveness.

(144) Wages per worker increased by 10 % over the period considered. Such increase reflects rewards for
improved productivity and compensation for inflation with regard to employees’ remuneration.
Furthermore, in absolute terms labour costs decreased since 2002.

3.4.7. M a g n i t u d e o f d u m p i n g a n d r e c o v e r y f r o m p a s t d u m p i n g

(145) Given in particular the volume of dumped imports from the countries concerned, the margins of

dumping found cannot be considered to be negligible.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/41

(146) Until the beginning of 2003, anti-dumping measures were in place with regard to imports of the
product concerned from the PRC, India, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.
However,
fully recover from past dumping, as in particular
shown by the evolution of market share, sales volume and employment. This became particularly
apparent after the expiry of the previous anti-dumping measures.

the Community industry did not

3.4.8. C o n c l u s i o n o n i n j u r y

(147) Over the period considered the Community industry increased production and sales volume, was able
to reduce its stocks and it continually invested. It did not experience difficulties to raise capital and
improved productivity. Labour costs in absolute terms decreased. Furthermore, the Community
industry was able to increase its prices in the IP so as to improve its profitability and return on
investment.

(148) Yet, these positive aspects require evaluation in their context. Higher prices and improved profitability
were gained at the expense of significant losses in market share for the Community industry, i.e.
14 % over the period considered and even 26 % since 2002. In particular, due to the availability of
cheap dumped imports, customers opted for alternative sources of supply and the Community
industry was not able to keep track.

(149) Furthermore, and in line with the findings on market share, over the period considered, growth in
production (15 %) and sales volume (7 %) of the Community industry did not keep pace with the
significantly more favourable development of consumption on the Community market
(24 %).
Employment in the Community industry dropped by 5 %, which,
is the explanation for
reduced labour costs. In addition, the profitability situation for the sampled Community producers
cannot, overall, be considered to be satisfactory. For the most part of the period considered, it was
clearly insufficient
the sampled
Community producers improved in the IP (4,3 % profit margin), this (i) is still lagging behind the
minimum margin of 5 % that the Community industry could be expected to obtain in the absence of
injurious dumping and (ii) can largely be attributed to non-lasting effects of rising steel prices. The
negative situation of the Community industry is further reflected in the picture displayed by the trend
for cash flow.

(losses or insufficient profit margin). Although profitability of

in fact,

(150) As a result, overall the negative trend indicators outweigh the positive trends and it is provisionally
concluded that the Community industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article
3(1) of the basic Regulation.

1. Introduction

F. CAUSATION

(151) According to Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission has examined whether the
dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the countries concerned have caused
material injury to the Community industry. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which
could at the same time be injuring the Community industry, were also examined to ensure that
possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.

2. Effect of the dumped imports

(152) The countries concerned have, since 2003, strongly improved their market position. It can clearly be
observed that their increase in market share by 58 % coincides with a decrease for the Community
industry. Moreover, the import volume from the countries concerned (96 % increase) grew much
stronger than the consumption on the Community market (24 %). Finally, the average import price
of the countries concerned was since 2003, as a consequence of unfair trade in the form of dumping
following the expiry of the anti-dumping measures, significantly lower than the price level of the
Community industry, thus exercising price pressure.

It was therefore provisionally established that the dumped imports from the countries concerned had
a considerable negative impact on the situation of the Community industry during the period
considered, in particular in terms of market share and sales volume.

L 128/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

3. Impact of other factors

3.1. Imports from other third countries

Third country imports

2001

2002

2003

IP

Volume (in 000 kg)

Switzerland

Index

Japan

Index

Malaysia

Index

India

Index

Norway

Index

Republic of Korea

Index

Philippines

Index

Rest of the world

Index

3 901

100

2 825

100

1 242

100

35

100

681

100

40

100

89

100

3 218

82

2 600

92

437

35

21

61

384

56

36

89

28

31

2 833

100

2 011

71

Average import price per kg (EUR)

Switzerland

10,48

11,47

Index

Japan

Index

Malaysia

Index

India

Index

Norway

Index

Republic of Korea

Index

Philippines

Index

Rest of the world

Index

100

5,52

100

3,20

100

6,20

100

2,33

100

5,04

100

3,38

100

11,70

100

109

4,68

85

3,15

98

10,69

172

1,61

100

5,61

111

4,06

120

12,37

106

3 971

102

3 062

108

1 057

85

701

2 021

406

60

109

271

59

66

2 150

76

9,82

94

3,99

72

2,62

82

1,76

28

2,36

100

2,65

53

3,45

102

10,23

87

3 970

102

1 612

57

1 456

117

1 148

3 307

438

64

221

549

80

89

2 574

91

9,90

94

7,55

137

2,70

84

1,91

31

2,89

100

2,72

54

3,47

103

8,34

71

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/43

(153)

Imports of the product under consideration from countries, other than the countries concerned,
decreased overall. In fact, the market share of such other imports declined by 20 % over the period
considered. Furthermore, on average the import price of those other countries was significantly
higher as compared with the price levels from the countries concerned.

(154) Two exporters submitted that imports from India, the Republic of Korea and Norway would break
any causal link that may exist between the material injury that might be sustained by the Community
industry and the dumped imports from the countries concerned.

(155) However, on the basis of the facts at hand, imports from the Republic of Korea (IP: 221 tonnes at
2,72 EUR/kg on average) and Norway (IP: 438 tonnes at 2,89 EUR/kg on average) can both in terms
of their small volume and their price levels not explain the injury caused to the Community industry.
It is further noted that imports from Norway decreased during the period considered by 36 %.

(156) With regard to India though, it can be observed that starting in 2003 imports increased considerably
(IP: 1 147,6 tonnes) at low prices (average 1,91 EUR/kg). It cannot be ruled out that in the IP those
imports from India could have had a certain negative impact, in particular in terms of price pressure
on the state of the Community industry. Yet, given the relatively small amount of the Indian import
volume in comparison to the import volume from the countries concerned (27 400 tonnes on
average at 2,41 EUR/kg), it was concluded that the impact of the Indian imports (market share in
the IP 1,4 %) was not such as to break the causal link of the dumped imports and the material injury
suffered by the Community industry. Imports from India in isolation cannot explain the significant
loss of market share sustained by the Community industry and,
in relation to the growth in
consumption, its much less favourable increase of sales.

(157) Furthermore, despite the allegations of two exporters,

it is not discriminatory in the meaning of
Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation that imports from India were not subject to the present inves-
tigation. In this context, it should be recalled that over the period considered imports from India have
been until the IP negligible in the meaning of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation. Only in the IP have
imports increased but even then, they remain relatively minor (1,4 % market share). Furthermore, it
should be noted that the Commission had no prima facie evidence that such imports from India were
dumped when this proceeding was initiated.

(158) Since imports from the Philippines and Malaysia are now excluded from the present investigation, it
was further considered if those imports have broken the causal link between dumped imports and the
material injury suffered by the Community industry. However, after the exclusion of nuts from the
product scope, imports from the Philippines of other SSF were clearly negligible (IP market share
0,1 %) and at a rather high price level (3,47 EUR/kg). On this basis, no relevant injurious impact
could have been asserted. Imports from Malaysia were also lower in volume and on average higher in
prices (IP: 1 456 tonnes at 2,70 EUR/kg)
in comparison to the imports from the countries
concerned. Furthermore, the market share of Malaysian imports decreased by 6 % over the period
considered. Consequently, although Malaysian imports could have had a negative impact on the state
of the Community industry, it is provisionally concluded that this was not such as to neutralise the
injurious effects caused by dumped imports from the counties concerned.

(159)

It was therefore provisionally concluded that
concerned have not broken the causal
Community industry and the dumped imports from the countries concerned.

imports from countries other than the countries
injury suffered by the

link between the material

L 128/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

3.2. Development of consumption of the Community market

(160) Consumption of the product under investigation on the Community market increased by 24 %
during the period considered. Thus, the injury suffered by the Community industry cannot be
attributed to a contraction of demand on the Community market.

3.3. Competitiveness of the Community industry

(161) The Community industry is an important competitor for the like product as demonstrated by its
market share and has constantly invested to maintain the state-of-the-art of its production. Indeed,
productivity per worker even improved by 22 % over the period considered. Contrary to the alle-
gations made by four exporters, this improved productivity of the Community industry, which
coincides with its investments, shows that its investment policy cannot explain the material injury
it suffered. To the contrary, in view of the improved productivity, the investments contributed to
minimise injury. Consequently, no evidence was found that lack of competitiveness could have
broken the causal link between imports from the countries concerned and the injury suffered by
the Community industry.

4. Conclusion on causation

(162) Overall, it was therefore provisionally concluded that the imports from the five countries concerned
taken together have caused material injury to the Community industry. No other factor has been
established which has broken this causal link.

1. Introduction

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(163)

It was examined whether compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is
not in the Community interest to provisionally impose measures in this particular case. For this
purpose, and pursuant to Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the likely impact of measures on all
parties concerned in the investigation was considered. In order to assess whether it is in the interest
of the Community to introduce measures, questionnaires were sent to users and importers of the
product concerned and to upstream suppliers of raw materials used in producing the like product.

2. Interest of the Community industry

(164) The investigation has shown that the Community industry is viable and able to compete under fair
market conditions. As set out above, the Community industry has significant spare capacity to
produce the like product. Usage of this spare capacity would be beneficial for improving its sales
and market share, for increased employment and, by means of augmented economies of scale,
eventually for a sustainable adequate profitability. However, such improvements are prevented, in
particular, by the continuous price pressure exerted by the dumped imports of the product concerned
on the Community market. The imposition of anti-dumping measures would alleviate the effects of
such unfair price pressure.

(165)

It is considered that without measures to correct the negative effects of the dumped imports, the
Community industry will continue to face price undercutting and thus price depression with its
adverse effects, in particular, on the industry’s market share and sales volume. Eventually, this could
even put the viability of the Community industry at risk. Consequently, it is considered that the
imposition of measures would be in the interest of the Community industry.

3. Interest of the importers/distributors

(166)

Importers/distributors have a virtually exclusive role as intermediaries between producers (in and
outside the Community) and users of SSF. Their negotiating power and their capacity to stock large
quantities of SSF have a strong impact on the prices of SSF.

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/45

(167) Four of the sampled importers/distributors sent questionnaire replies. Only two importers, though,
provided complete replies. These two importers accounted for around 14 % of Community imports
of the product concerned during the IP. In addition, a German importer/distributor association made
comments. Further, a hearing with importers/distributors and this association was held.

(168)

Importers/distributors in the Community are not in favour of the imposition of measures. The
cooperating importers and their association argued that the imposition of measures will
increase
prices for users whilst allegedly the product concerned and the like product produced by the
Community industry is not always comparable. Furthermore, such measures would be to the
detriment of their business and their employees.

(169) However, on the basis of the information received, it appears that importers/distributors purchase the
product under investigation from a variety of sources in and outside the Community, including from
the Community industry. Since there are no fundamental quality or product type differences between
the product imported from the countries concerned and the like product obtained from any other
sources, it is provisionally considered that the importers/distributors in the Community would have
no difficulty in obtaining the product if anti-dumping measures are imposed, in particular, in view of
the significant number of alternative suppliers. Furthermore, the importers did not substantiate their
claim that
impact on
the imposition of anti-dumping measures would have any significant
employment, especially that import activities are not labour intensive. Concerning the increase in
prices that would result from the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, it is noted that the
anti-dumping measures in place from 1997 to 2003 did not put the economic situation of the
importers/distributors at risk. Furthermore, the profit margins of the importers appear, on the basis of
the received questionnaire replies, over the period considered well above the profitability of the
Community industry.
is not expected that any increase on prices,
it
because of the imposition of measures, would automatically be passed through to users.

In such circumstances,

(170) Although importers/distributors are not in favour of measures, it can be concluded on the basis of
the information available that any advantage they may gain from not having anti-dumping measures
imposed are outweighed by the interest of the Community industry in having the unfair and injurious
trading practices from the countries concerned redressed.

4. Interest of upstream suppliers

(171)

In order to assess the likely effect that anti-dumping measures could have on the upstream suppliers
of the Community industry, questionnaires were sent to all such known suppliers. In total, nine
questionnaires were sent out and one reply was received. This upstream supplier, a stainless steel
producer, is in favour of the imposition of measures. Although the Community industry is not one of
the most
this business still contributes to its
this upstream supplier,
employment and profitability. If the Community industry would curb or even stop production of
the like product, upstream suppliers would lose some of their business.

important customers of

(172) Therefore, and in the absence of any information to the contrary, it is concluded that the imposition

of anti-dumping measures would be in the interests of upstream suppliers.

5. Interest of users and consumers

(173) Consumer associations have neither made themselves known nor provided any information in
accordance with Article 21(2) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, and since utilisation of SSF essen-
tially takes place in the assembly of further downstream products, the analysis has been limited to the
effect of measures on users. SSF are used in a wide variety of sectors, inter alia, automotive, ship-
building, construction, chemical, pharmaceutical, medical and foodstuffs. Questionnaires were sent to
12 known Community users of the product concerned. The Commission requested, amongst other
information, their comments on whether the imposition of anti-dumping measures would be in the
interest of the Community and how these measures would affect them. One questionnaire reply was
received by a manufacturer of rolling stock vehicles. It pointed out that the product under investi-
gation accounts for less than 1 % of the total costs of its finished products.

L 128/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

(174) Taking into consideration that users could obtain the product under investigation not only from the
countries concerned but from other sources as well, and given the marginal impact of SSF on the
costs of downstream products, no adverse users’ interest of tantamount importance was established.

6. Conclusion

(175) Having examined the various interests involved, it is provisionally concluded that, from an overall
Community interest perspective, no interest outweighs the Community industry’s interest to provi-
sionally impose measures with the aim to eliminate trade distorting effects resulting from dumped
imports.

H. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

(176)

injury, causation and Community
In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping,
interest,
it is considered appropriate to introduce provisional anti-dumping measures in order to
prevent further injury being caused to the Community industry by the dumped imports. For the
purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the dumping margins
found during the investigation period and of the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury
sustained by the Community industry.

1. Injury elimination level

(177) The necessary price increase to eliminate injury was determined on a per-company basis by
comparing the weighted average import price of the product concerned with the non-injurious
price of the like product sold by the Community industry on the Community market. The price
difference was expressed as a percentage of the cif import value.

(178) The non-injurious price has been obtained by taking the weighted cost of production of

the
Community industry together with a profit margin of 5 %. This is provisionally considered to be
the profit margin that the Community industry could achieve in the absence of dumped imports. It
reflects the achievable profit margin for similar product groups of the Community industry not
subject to unfair competition, e.g. fasteners which do not fall under the CN codes of the product
scope of the present investigation.

2. Level of the provisional anti-dumping duty

(179)

In the light of the foregoing,
in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic
Regulation, a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports from the countries
concerned. This duty should be imposed at the level of the dumping margins found or the injury
elimination level, if the latter is lower (Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation).

it is considered that,

(180) With regard to the level of duty, in the case of two cooperating exporting producers (one in Taiwan
and one in the PRC) the injury elimination level was found to be lower than the dumping margin. In
these cases, the level of the duty should be restricted by the injury elimination level. In all other cases,
the level of the duty should be set at the level of the dumping margin found. The rates of the
provisional anti-dumping duty for the countries concerned should be as follows:

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/47

Country

Exporting producer

AD duty rate

The PRC

Tengzhou Tengda Stainless Steel Product Co.,
Ltd, Tengzhou City

Tong Ming Enterprise (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd, Zhejiang

All other companies

Indonesia

PT. Shye Chang Batam Indonesia, Batam

All other companies

Taiwan

Arrow Fasteners Co. Ltd, Taipei

Jin Shing Stainless Ind. Co. Ltd, Tao Yuan

Min Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd, Pingtung

Tong Hwei Enterprise, Co. Ltd, Kaohsiung

Yi Tai Shen Co. Ltd, Tainan

Cooperating exporting producers not
sample

in the

All other companies

Thailand

A.B.P. Stainless Fasteners Co. Ltd, Ayutthaya

Bunyat Industries 1998 Co. Ltd, Samutsakorn

Dura Fasteners Company Ltd, Samutprakarn

Siam Screws (1994) Co. Ltd, Samutsakorn

All other companies

Vietnam

All companies

11,4 %

12,2 %

27,4 %

9,8 %

24,6 %

15,2 %

8,8 %

16,1 %

16,1 %

11,4 %

15,8 %

23,6 %

15,9 %

10,8 %

14,6 %

11,0 %

15,9 %

7,7 %

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

(182) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g.
following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or
sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (1) forthwith with all relevant information, in
particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to production, domestic and export
sales associated with e.g. that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. The
Commission, if appropriate, will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, amend the Regu-
lation accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

I. FINAL PROVISION

(183)

In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties
which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make
their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings
concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and
may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive duty,

(1) European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade
Directorate B
J-79 5/17
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels.

L 128/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and
parts thereof, falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61, and
7318 15 70 originating in the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.

2.
The rate of the provisional duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty,
for products manufactured by the Taiwanese exporting producers listed in the Annex shall be 15,8 %
(TARIC additional code A649).

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

3.
for products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:

Country

Exporting producer

AD duty rate (%)

TARIC additional
code

The People’s Republic of China

Indonesia

Stainless
Tengda
Tengzhou
Product Co., Ltd, Tengzhou City

Steel

Tong Ming Enterprise (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd,
Zhejiang

All other companies

Shye Chang Batam Indonesia,

PT.
Batam

All other companies

Taiwan

Arrow Fasteners Co. Ltd, Taipei

Jin Shing Stainless Ind. Co. Ltd, Tao
Yuan

Min Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd, Pingtung

Tong Hwei
Kaohsiung

Enterprise,

Co.

Ltd,

Yi Tai Shen Co. Ltd, Tainan

All companies other than the above
and those listed in the Annex

11,4

12,2

27,4

9,8

24,6

15,2

8,8

16,1

16,1

11,4

23,6

Thailand

Stainless

A.B.P.
Ayutthaya

Fasteners Co.

Ltd,

15,9

Bunyat Industries 1998 Co. Ltd, Samut-
sakorn

Dura Fasteners Company Ltd, Samut-
prakarn

Siam Screws (1994) Co. Ltd, Samut-
sakorn

All other companies

Vietnam

All companies

10,8

14,6

11,0

15,9

7,7

A650

A651

A999

A652

A999

A653

A654

A655

A656

A657

A999

A658

A659

A660

A661

A999

—

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/49

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

4.
subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.

5.

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

Article 2

Without prejudice to Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96,
interested parties may request
disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make
their views known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date
of entry into force of this Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the parties concerned may comment on
the application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.

Article 3

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

Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.

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

Done at Brussels, 20 May 2005.

For the Commission

Peter MANDELSON
Member of the Commission

L 128/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.5.2005

ANNEX

(TARIC additional code A649)

A-STAINLESS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD, Taipei

BOLTUN CORPORATION, Tainan

CHAEN WEI CORPORATION, Taipei

CHIAN SHYANG ENT CO LTD, Chung-Li City

CHONG CHENG FASTENER CORP., Tainan

DIING SEN FASTENERS & INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Taipei

DRAGON IRON FACTORY CO LTD, Kaohsiung

EXTEND FORMING INDUSTRIAL CORP. LTD, Lu Chu

FORTUNE BRIGHT INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Lung Tan Hsiang

FWU KUANG ENTERPRISES CO LTD, Tainan

HSIN YU SCREW ENTERPRISE CO LTD, Taipin City

HU PAO INDUSTRIES CO LTD, Tainan

J C GRAND CORPORATION, Taipei

JAU YEOU INDUSTRY CO LTD, Kangshan

JOHN CHEN SCREW IND CO LTD, Taipei

KUOLIEN SCREW INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Kwanmiao

KWANTEX RESEARCH INC, Taipei

LIH LIN ENTERPRISES & INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Taipei

LIH TA SCREW CO LTD, Kweishan

LU CHU SHIN YEE WORKS CO LTD, Kaohsiung

M & W FASTENER CO LTD, Kaoshsiung

MULTI-TEK FASTENERS & PARTS MANIFACTURER CORP., Tainan

NATIONAL AEROSPACE FASTENERS CORP., Ping Jen City

QST INTERNATIONAL CORP., Tainan

SEN CHANG INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Ta-Yuan

SPEC PRODUCTS CORP., Tainan

SUMEEKO INDUSTRIES CO LTD, Kaoshiung

TAIWAN SHAN YIN INTERNATIONAL CO LTD, Kaohsiung

VIM INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE CO LTD, Taichung

YEA-JANN INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Kaohsiung

ZONBIX ENTERPRISE CO LTD, Kaohsiung

ZYH YIN ENTERPRISE CO LTD, Kaohsiung