Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China
Date: 2005-06-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, originating product, wood product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 27.6.2005 
COM(2005) 283 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the 
People’s Republic of China 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1) 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

• 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of 
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members 
of  the  European  Community,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 461/2004  of  8  March  2004  (‘the  basic  Regulation’)  in  the  proceeding  concerning 
imports  of  hand  pallet  trucks  and  their  essential  parts  originating  in  the  People’s 
Republic of China. 

• 

General context 

This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and 
is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and 
procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 

• 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

There are no existing provisions in the area of the proposal. 

• 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2) 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

• 

Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  already  had  the  possibility  to 
defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic 
Regulation. 

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

• 

Impact assessment 

This  proposal  is  the  result  of  the  implementation  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  basic 
Regulation does not foresee a general impact assessment but contains an exhaustive list 
of conditions that have to be assessed. 

3) 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL  

• 

Summary of the proposed action 

On 29 April 2004, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to 
imports  of  hand  pallet  trucks  and  their  essential  parts  originating  in  the  People’s 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Republic  of  China.  The  proceeding  was  initiated  following  a  complaint  by  four 
European  producers  representing  72%  of  total  Community  production  of  hand  pallet 
trucks. 

A  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  was  imposed  on  28  January  2005,  ranging  from 
29,7% to 49,6%. At provisional stage, none of the investigated companies was granted 
market economy treatment.  

The  proposed  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  ranges  from  7,6%  to  46,7%.  One  of  the 
exporting  producers  was  granted  market  economy  treatment  after  provisional 
measures. 

It  is  proposed  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation  which 
should be published in the Official Journal at the latest on 28 July 2005.  

• 

Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 of 8 March 2004.  

• 

Subsidiary principle 

The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Community. The subsidiary 
principle therefore does not apply. 

• 

Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons. 

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no 
scope for national decision. 

Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Community, 
national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is 
minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable. 

• 

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Regulation. 

Other  means  would  not  be  adequate  because  the  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee 
alternative options. 

4) 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the 
People’s Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

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

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

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  128/2005(2)  (‘the  provisional  Regulation’) 
imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  hand  pallet  trucks  and  their 
essential parts, i.e. the chassis and hydraulics, falling within CN codes ex 8427 90 00 
and ex 8431 20 00, originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’). 

It is recalled that the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 
April 2003 to 31 March 2004 (‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the injury 
analysis  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2000  to  the  end  of  the  IP  (‘period 
considered’). 

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

Following the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet 
trucks  and  their  essential  parts  originating  in  the  PRC,  some  interested  parties 
submitted  comments  in  writing.  The  parties  who  so  requested  were  also  granted  an 
opportunity to be heard orally. 

(4) 

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its  definitive  findings.  After  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  an  on-spot 

1 

2 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  461/2004  (OJ  L  77, 
13.3.2004, p.12).  
OJ L 25, 28.1.2005, p.16. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
verification visit was carried out at the premises of the importers Jungheinrich AG in 
Germany and TVH Handling Equipment N.V. in Belgium. 

(5) 

All  interested  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis  of  which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  a  definitive  anti-
dumping  duty  and  the  definitive  collection  of  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the 
provisional  duty.  They  were  also  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  make 
representations subsequent to this disclosure. 

(6) 

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

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. Product concerned 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

The product concerned is hand pallet trucks, not self propelled, used for the handling 
of  materials  normally  placed  on  pallets,  and  their  essential  parts,  i.e.  chassis  and 
hydraulics, originating in the PRC (the ‘product concerned’), normally declared within 
CN codes ex 8427 90 00 and ex 8431 20 00.  

Some  interested  parties  reiterated  their  comments  regarding  the  inclusion  of  chassis 
and hydraulics under the scope of the product concerned set out in recital (11) of the 
provisional  Regulation  without,  however,  providing  any  additional  information  or 
justification. These comments have already been replied to in recitals (12) to (14) of 
the  provisional  Regulation.  No  additional  points  were  raised  to  these  parts  of  the 
provisional Regulation by the parties concerned. 

They further argued that: a) chassis and hydraulics, on the one hand, and hand pallet 
trucks, on the other hand, are different products and that for chassis and hydraulics no 
dumping  and  injury  assessment  was  carried  out  and,  therefore,  no  antidumping  duty 
can be imposed; b) the inclusion of parts without following the procedure of Article 13 
of the basic Regulation would unduly penalise assemblers of hand pallet trucks in the 
Community and c) chassis and hydraulics are also imported for servicing purposes and 
the  imposition  of  a  duty  on  chassis  and  hydraulics  would  unduly  penalise  current 
users. 

(10)  As regards the argument that chassis and hydraulics are different products than hand 
pallet  trucks  and  that  no  dumping  and  injury  assessment  was  carried  out  for  chassis 
and hydraulics, it is noted that for the purposes of this investigation all types of hand 
pallet trucks and their essential parts are considered as one product for the reasons set 
out  in  recital  (10)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  all  types  have  the  same  basic 
physical characteristics and uses. No compelling evidence has been submitted against 
these findings. As to the argument that no dumping and injury calculation was made 
for  chassis  and  hydraulics,  it  is  recalled  that  these  essential  parts  fall  within  the 
definition of the product concerned, for which dumping and injury to the Community 
industry of the like product were properly established. With respect to the assessment 
of  dumping  in  particular,  it  was  found  that  the  imports  of  chassis  and  hydraulics 
during  the  period  of  investigation  were  made  in  too  small  quantities  to  be 
representative. In consequence, it was considered appropriate to determine the margin 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
of  dumping  of  the  product  concerned  on  the  basis  of  hand  pallet  trucks,  for  which 
representative and reliable data were available. 

(11)  As regards the argument that the inclusion of essential parts could only be pursued via 
the provisions of Article 13 of the basic Regulation so as to avoid undue difficulties 
for  assemblers  of  hand  pallet  trucks  in  the  Community,  it  is  noted  that  Article  13  is 
irrelevant  when  defining  the  product  concerned.  Instead,  Article  13  of  the  basic 
Regulation refers to various circumvention practices, including the assembly of parts 
which  are  not  falling  within  the  definition  of  the  product  concerned,  an  issue  not 
present in this case. Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted. 

(12)  As  regards  the  argument  that  chassis  and  hydraulics  are  also  imported  for  servicing 
purposes and the imposition of a duty on chassis and hydraulics would unduly penalise 
current users, it is noted that no user complained in the course of the investigation that 
any  measures  would  have  such  effects.  Furthermore,  it  is  noted  that  the  volume  of 
chassis and hydraulics imported from the PRC during the IP is insignificant in relation 
to  the  volume  of  imported  Chinese  hand  pallet  trucks.  Therefore,  the  effect  on 
servicing old hand pallet trucks, if any, would be minor and the argument cannot be 
accepted.  

(13) 

In the absence of any other comments, the conclusions on the definition of the product 
concerned  set  out  in  recitals  (10)  to  (15)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

2. Like product 

(14) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  recitals  (16)  to  (18)  of  the  provisional  Regulation 
concerning the like product are hereby confirmed. 

D. DUMPING 

1. Market economy treatment (‘MET’) 

(15)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  three  co-operating  exporting 
producers  claimed  that  they  should  have  been  granted  MET.  Two  of  them  simply 
reiterated the arguments they had previously submitted and which have already been 
replied to by the Commission (see recitals (19) to (34) of the provisional Regulation). 

(16) 

It  is  recalled  that  for  one  of  these two  exporting  producers,  which  in  fact  comprises 
two  related  companies,  the  investigation  established  that  certain  assets  were  booked 
into  the  accounts  of  one  of  the  companies  at  significantly  higher  value  than  the 
actually paid purchase price. This was found to be in breach of IAS 1 (fair presentation 
of financial statements) and IAS 16 (measurement at recognition of property plant and 
equipment).  Furthermore,  the  other  company  was  found  in  breach  of  IAS  21 
(recording  at  initial  recognition  of  foreign  currency  transactions)  and  IAS  32 
(disclosure  and  presentation  of  financial  instruments).  Moreover,  the  auditors  of  the 
companies did not address these issues in the financial accounts, which strengthens the 
case for finding that the audits were not carried out in line with IAS. No new evidence 
was  provided  which  could  alter  the  above  findings  and,  therefore,  it  is  hereby 
confirmed that this exporting producer does not meet the requirements of the second 
criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(17)  For another exporting producer, the investigation established that a write-off of a loan 
was not properly booked in the accounts of the company thus, affecting significantly 
its  financial  results.  This  was  found  to  be  in  breach  of  IAS  1  (fair  presentation  of 
financial  statements).  Furthermore,  the  company  changed  the  accounting  method 
concerning  bad  debt  provisions  without  applying  the  change  retrospectively,  thus 
again  affecting  significantly  the  financial  results.  This  was  found  to  be  in  breach  of 
IAS  8  (changes  in  accounting  policies).  The  auditor,  whilst  highlighting  the 
inconsistency  even  in  relation  to  Chinese  accounting  standards  of  the  change  in  the 
bad debt provision method, was silent on the problem with the loan. No evidence was 
provided  which  could  alter  the  above  findings  and,  therefore,  it  is  hereby  also 
confirmed that this exporting producer does not meet the requirements of the second 
criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. 

(18)  The third exporting producer which continued requesting MET after the imposition of 
provisional  measures,  Zhejiang  Noblelift  Equipment  Joint  Stock  Co.  Ltd,  submitted 
evidence  that  its  practice  with  regard  to  recording  at  initial  recognition  of  foreign 
currency transactions, although in certain cases not fully formally in line with IAS 21, 
has  not  affected  its  financial  results.  No  other  problem  of  compliance  with  the  IAS 
was  established  for  the  accounts  of  the  company.  It  was  therefore  considered 
appropriate  in  these  circumstances  to  revise  the  conclusions  concerning  the 
compliance  of this exporting producer with the second criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of 
the  basic  Regulation  and  thus  to  grant  it  MET.  For  the  rest,  the  findings  set  out  in 
recitals (19) to (34) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(19) 

It  is  noted  that  following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  a  non-cooperating 
Chinese  exporting  producer  and  its  related  importer  in  the  Community  submitted 
certain comments on the provisional findings and claimed MET or, in the event it did 
not  receive  MET,  individual  treatment.  The  companies  were  informed  that  non-co-
operating  exporting  producers,  i.e.  exporting  producers  which  have  not  made 
themselves  known,  present  their  views  in  writing  and  submit  information  within  the 
set  periods,  cannot  claim  MET  or  individual  treatment  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions of Articles 2(7), 5(10), 9(5) and 18(1) of the basic Regulation. 

2. Individual treatment 

(20) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  recitals  (35)  to  (37)  of  the  provisional  Regulation 
concerning individual treatment are hereby confirmed. 

3. Normal value 

3.1. Determination of normal value for exporting producers not granted MET 

(21)  Canada had provisionally been chosen as the analogue market economy third country 
for the purpose of establishing normal value for exporting producers not granted MET. 
Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  two  exporting  producers  and  one 
importer  reiterated  their  arguments  against  this  choice  (see  recital  (41)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation).  However,  they  did  not  provide  any  additional  verifiable 
evidence supporting their arguments.  

(22)  They further argued that the choice of Canada as an analogue market economy third 
country  was  inappropriate  because  the  Canadian  manufactures  of  hand  pallet  trucks 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
bear  much  higher costs than  Chinese  counterparts, in particular, in relation to labour 
costs. In this respect, one exporting producer has claimed an additional adjustment for 
differences in the cost of production between its own costs in the PRC and the cost of 
production  in  Canada,  whilst  the  other  exporting  producer  argued  that  the  very  high 
adjustments already made is an indication that the Canadian and Chinese hand pallet 
trucks are not comparable. 

(23) 

In  this  respect,  it  is  recalled  that  the  investigation  established  that  Canada  has  a 
competitive  and  representative  market  for  hand  pallet  trucks,  that  the  production 
facilities and methods of the Chinese and the Canadian producers are similar and that 
overall the Chinese and Canadian hand pallet trucks are comparable on the basis of the 
criteria  established  for  the  purposes  of  this  investigation  (see  recitals  (40),  (43)  and 
(44) of the provisional Regulation). Furthermore, the investigation established that the 
production of hand pallet trucks is not labour intensive (the cost of labour in Canada is 
not more than 15% of the total cost of production) and, therefore, any differences in 
labour cost between Canada and the PRC would not affect significantly the total cost 
of  production.  Therefore,  the  argument  that  cost  differences  mainly  due  to  labour 
render the choice of Canada as an analogue country inappropriate cannot be accepted. 

(24)  As  regards  the  argument  that  Canadian  manufacturers  produce  hand  pallet  trucks  at 
significantly higher costs than Chinese counterparts, and that an adjustment, based on 
the  cost  difference  between  Canada  and  the  exporting  producer’s  own  costs  in  the 
PRC should be made to the normal value, it should be noted that the production cost 
information  of  the  exporting  producer  which  made  the  argument  was  not  accepted 
since  its  request  for  MET  had  been  rejected.  This  significantly  undermines  the 
argument on comparison of costs. Consequently, the claim should be rejected. 

(25)  As to the argument that the high adjustments already granted are an indication that the 
Canadian  and  Chinese  hand  pallet  trucks  are  not  comparable,  it  is  noted  that  the 
product types to be compared to each other were selected on the basis of criteria which 
are considered  reasonable within  the industry  concerned. The comparison of  product 
types  were  made  on  the  basis  of  certain  basic  technical  characteristics  used  by  all 
operators in the market and no evidence was provided that this method of comparison 
was  not  appropriate  (see  recital  (43)  of  the  provisional  Regulation).  The  argument, 
therefore, cannot be accepted. 

(26)  No other arguments were raised concerning the determination of the normal value in 
the  analogue  country  and  thus  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals  (38)  to  (48)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.2. Determination of normal value for exporting producers granted MET 

(27)  Given  that  MET  was  granted  to  one  exporting  producer  (see  recital  (18)  above)  the 
normal value was established as set out below in accordance with Article 2(1) to 2(6) 
of the basic Regulation. 

3.2.1. Overall representativity of domestic sales 

(28) 

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, it was first examined whether 
the domestic sales of hand pallet trucks to independent customers were representative, 
i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was at least 5% of the total volume of its 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
corresponding  export  sales  to  the  Community.  This  was  the  case  for  the  exporting 
producer concerned. 

3.2.2. Product type specific representativity 

(29)  Subsequently,  it  was  examined  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  product  types 
comparable  to  the  exported  product  types  could  be  considered  as  representative.  For 
this purpose, the comparable types sold on the domestic market were first identified. 
The  investigation  considered  those  product  types  of  hand  pallet  trucks  sold 
domestically as being identical or directly comparable with the types sold for export to 
the  Community  when  they  had  the  same  lifting  capacity,  chassis  material,  size  of 
forks, type of hydraulics and type of wheels.  

(30)  Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative 
when  the  total  domestic  sales  volume  of  that  type  sold  to  independent  customers 
during  the  IP  represented  at  least  5%  of  the  total  sales  volume  of  the  comparable 
product type exported to the Community. This was the case for some of the product 
types exported. 

3.2.3. Ordinary course of trade test 

(31) 

It was first examined whether the domestic sales of the above product types made by 
the  exporting  producer  could  be  considered  as  being  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(32)  This  was  done  by  establishing  the  proportion  of  domestic  sales  to  independent 
customers,  of  each  exported  product  type,  not  sold  at  a  loss  on  the  domestic  market 
during the IP. 

(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 
during  the  IP,  paid  or  payable  to  independent  customers,  of  the  type  in  question 
irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not. 

(b) For those product types where at least 10%, but not 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 
made at prices 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.  

3.2.4. Normal value based on actual domestic price 

(33)  When  the  requirements  set  out  in  recitals  (29)  to  (32)(a)  and  (b)  were  met,  normal 
value  was  based  for  the  corresponding  product  type  on  the  actual  prices  paid  or 
payable,  by  independent  customers  in  the  domestic  market  of  the  exporting  country 
during the IP, as set out in Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
3.2.5. Normal value based on constructed value 

(34)  For types falling under recital (32)(c) above, as well as for those product types which 
were  not  sold  in  representative  quantities  on  the  domestic  market,  as  mentioned  in 
recital (30) above, normal value had to be constructed. 

(35)  The selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses incurred and the weighted 
average profit realised by the exporting producer concerned on domestic sales of the 
like  product,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  during  the  IP,  were  added  to  the 
manufacturing cost in order to determine constructed normal value pursuant to Article 
2(6) of the basic Regulation.  

4. Export price 

(36)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  no  comments  were  submitted 
concerning the determination of the export price for sales made directly to independent 
customers  in  the  Community.  Therefore,  the  findings  set  out  in  recital  (49)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation  concerning  the  establishment  of  the  export  price  pursuant  to 
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(37)  For  two  exporting  producers,  the  export  price  has  been  provisionally  constructed  for 
their  sales  to  importers  with  which  they  were  found  to  have  a  compensatory 
arrangement  pursuant  to  Article  2(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation  (see  recital  (49)  of  the 
provisional Regulation). 

(38)  One of the exporting producers and its importer, for which certain export prices were 
constructed, argued that the relationship between them did not warrant construction of 
export  prices  and  that  the  actual  prices  from  the  exporting  producer  to  the  importer 
should  form  the  basis  for  establishing  export  prices.  However,  the  investigation 
showed  that  these  export  prices  were  affected  by  an  agreement  between  the  parties, 
further  to  which  certain  product  development  costs  had  to  be  borne  by  the  importer. 
Due  to  this  compensatory  arrangement,  average  export  prices  to  the  importer  were 
significantly higher than to other independent customers in the Community. Therefore, 
the prices from the exporting producer to the importer were not accepted as the basis 
for establishing the export prices. Furthermore, before the end of the IP the exporting 
producer  and  the  importer  became  associated.  Normally,  in  these  circumstances,  the 
export  prices  would  be  constructed  based  on  resales  prices  to  independent  buyers  in 
the Community. However, in this case the number of resale transactions made in the 
IP was very small and actual transaction prices were not supplied by the importer in 
good  time  and  they  were  not  verifiable.  In  these  circumstances,  these  sales  were  not 
taken into account in the definitive calculation of export prices.  

(39) 

In fact, this exporting producer had significant direct sales to independent customers in 
the  Community  which  have  been  used  to  establish  the  export  price  (see  recital  (36) 
above).  

(40)  The other exporting producer for which certain export prices were constructed and the 
importer concerned submitted comments on the provisional findings arguing that there 
was no arrangement or agreement between them within the meaning of an association 
or a compensatory arrangement as set out in Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation and 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Article  2.3  of  the  WTO  ADA.  Therefore,  the  construction  of  export  prices,  using 
resale prices of the importer to independent customers as a basis, is incorrect. 

(41)  This  argument  could  not  be  accepted  because  the  information  given  by  the  exporter 
and  the  importer  was  not  reconcilable.  During  the  on-spot  verification  visit  at  the 
premises  of  the  exporting  producer,  the  investigators  were  informed  that  the  reason 
why  export  prices  between  the  parties  are  much  higher  than  normal  is  that  a  special 
arrangement or agreement exists between the exporting producer and the importer. In 
addition,  all  export  invoices  referred  for  details  to  this  agreement.  The  exporting 
producer denied the existence of a written agreement, but explained that the importer 
concerned was prepared to pay such higher prices in order to obtain and maintain the 
exclusivity of sales of certain products of the exporting producer for certain markets. 
The  importer  also  denied  the  existence  of  any  special  relationship  and  explained 
during the on-spot verification visit that the prices paid to the exporting producer are 
higher because of the high quality of the products in question. It is considered that in 
these circumstances, the export prices were unreliable and have to be adjusted either 
because of the existence of some form of compensatory arrangement in the light of the 
provisions  of  Article  2(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  or  for  differences  in  physical 
characteristics reflecting the alleged higher quality of the products in the light of the 
provisions of Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation. However, the claim on quality 
was not supported by any evidence and was indeed contradicted by the findings of the 
investigation.  In  the  absence  of  any  other  information,  the  export  prices  were 
constructed as set out in recital (49) of the provisional Regulation. 

(42)  The  same  exporting  producer  and  the  importer  also  claimed  that  the  calculation  of 
constructed  export  prices  was  incorrect  because  the  profit  margin  used  in  the 
calculation was significantly higher than the profit margins used for the same purposes 
in other cases in the past and, therefore, it was unreasonable. In this respect, it is noted 
that every case is considered on its own merits and the findings of one investigation 
cannot  be  simply  transposed  to  another.  In  this  case,  the  profit  margin  used  in  the 
calculation was the weighted average of the actual net profits on sales of the product 
concerned  reported  by  eleven  unrelated  importers  in  the  course  of  the  investigation. 
No  evidence  has  been  submitted  which  could  challenge  these  data.  Therefore,  the 
claim should be rejected. 

(43)  However, it should be noted that following the verification visit at the premises of the 
importer concerned, the calculation of the constructed export prices has been revised 
in  order  to  take  into  account  necessary  corrections  on  certain  resale  prices  and  the 
SG&A expenses of the importer.  

5. Comparison 

(44)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  one  exporting  producer  requested 
an adjustment on certain export prices for differences in levels of trade between direct 
export  sales  to  the  Community  and  sales  for  export  to  the  Community  via  traders  in 
the PRC, in accordance with Article 2(10)(d)(i) of the basic Regulation. It argued that 
export  sales  via  Chinese  traders  involve  further  sales  to  traders,  which  normally  are 
not necessary in cases of direct exports to the Community. In this respect, it is noted 
that the above-mentioned Article of the basic Regulation provides that an adjustment 
for  differences  in  levels  of  trade  may  be  granted  where  it  is  demonstrated  that 
consistent  and  distinct  differences  exist  in  functions  and  prices  of  the  seller  for  the 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
different levels of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country. In this case, 
the exporting producer claimed and tried to demonstrate the need for an adjustment by 
reference to the circumstances of its export sales rather than its domestic sales. This is 
not  a  sufficient  basis  for  claiming  a  level  of  trade  adjustment.  Furthermore,  the 
investigation established that all exports of the exporting producer concerned, as well 
as the domestic sales in the analogue country, were made to traders, i.e. no different 
levels of trade existed between export price and normal value.  

6. Dumping margins 

(45) 

In calculating the dumping margin for all other exporting producers (see recital (53) of 
the  provisional  Regulation),  the  exporting  producer  which  was  granted  MET  was  no 
longer taken into account. No other comments were submitted on the findings set out 
in  recitals  (52)  and  (53)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  which  are  hereby  confirmed. 
However,  for  the  exporting  producer  which  was  granted  MET,  the  dumping  margin 
was  established  by  comparing  the  weighted  average  normal  value  for  each  type 
exported  to  the  Community  as  determined  in  recitals  (28)  to  (35)  above  to  the 
weighted  average  export  price  of  the  corresponding  type,  in  accordance  with  Article 
2(11) of the basic Regulation. The dumping margins finally determined following the 
amendments set out above, expressed as a percentage of the net, free-at-Community-
frontier price, duty unpaid, are: 

Ningbo Liftstar Material Transport Equipment Factory 

Ningbo Ruyi Joint Stock Co. Ltd 

Ningbo Tailong Machinery Co. Ltd 

Zhejiang Noblelift Equipment Joint Stock Co. Ltd 

All other companies 

E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 

1. Community production 

32,2% 

28,5% 

39,9% 

7,6% 

46,7% 

(46) 

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings concerning the Community 
production, as set out in recitals (55) and (56) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
confirmed. 

2. Definition of the Community industry 

(47) 

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings concerning the definition of 
the  Community  industry,  as  set  out  in  recital  (57)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
F. INJURY 

1. Community consumption 

(48) 

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings concerning the Community 
consumption,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (58)  and  (59)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

2. Imports of hand pallet trucks from the PRC into the Community 

(49) 

In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings concerning imports of hand 
pallet trucks from the PRC into the Community, as set out in recitals (60) to (64) of the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. Situation of the Community industry 

(50)  Following  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  measures,  one  exporting  producer 
questioned the injurious situation of the Community industry by pointing out that: a) 
the  production  capacity  of  the  Community  industry  has  increased  during  the  period 
considered,  b)  the  development  of  stocks  after  2001  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  sign  of 
injury but a sign of improvement of the Community industry, c) the sales price of the 
hand pallet trucks sold by the Community producers and their market share remained 
stable  in  2003  and  during  the  IP,  d)  the  profitability  of  the  Community  industry 
increased  between  2000  and  2001,  e)  the  level  of  investments  of  the  Community 
industry has more than doubled indicating that it had no problem to raise capital and f) 
the stability of wages must be perceived as a positive indicator. 

(51)  As regards the argument that the production capacity of the Community industry has 
increased  and  this  does  not  indicate  injury,  it  should  be  noted  that  whilst  the  overall 
increase of production capacity during the period considered was 3%, it decreased by 
almost 2% between 2002 and the IP. In fact, the production capacity increased only in 
the years 2001 and  2002 when investments were  made.  This  development  cannot  be 
considered as indicating the absence of injury to the Community industry, in particular 
when the consumption increased by 17% during the same period.  

(52)  As regards the argument that the development of stocks after 2001 cannot be regarded 
as a sign of injury but a sign of improvement of the Community industry, it should be 
noted  that  in  addition  to  the  explanation  provided  in  recital  (67)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation as to why this factor is not regarded as a particularly relevant indicator of 
the  economic  situation  of  the  Community  industry,  it  should  be  recalled  that  stocks 
increased overall by 14% during the period considered. The fact that there was a peak 
in  2001  does  not  alter  the  finding  that  stocks  may  have  at  least  contributed  to  the 
injurious situation of the Community industry. 

(53)  As  regards  the  argument  that  the  sales  price  and  the  market  share  of  the  hand  pallet 
trucks sold by the Community producers remained stable in 2003 and during the IP, it 
should  be  noted  that  the  IP  includes  9  months  of  2003.  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
injury analysis covers a period of several years and that both the market share and the 
sales  price  of  the  Community  industry  declined  significantly  during  the  period 
considered. This has not been challenged. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(54)  As  regards  the  argument  that  the  increase  in  the  profitability  of  the  Community 
industry between 2000 and 2001 does not indicate injury, it should be noted that the 
profitability  increased  marginally  from  0,28%  in  2000  to  0,51%  in  2001  and  then 
decreased constantly to reach -2,31% during the IP. This is a clear indicator of injury. 

(55)  As regards the argument that the level of investments of the Community industry has 
more  than  doubled  and  thus  it  had  no  problem  to  raise  capital,  it  is  recalled,  as 
explained  in  recital  (76)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  that  major  investments  were 
made in 2001 and 2002 to replace worn-out production facilities in order to allow the 
Community  industry  to  remain  competitive.  Investments  dropped  by  40%  between 
2002  and  the  IP,  in  parallel  with  the  worsening  profitability  and  this  indicated 
problems in raising capital. This again clearly indicates a state of injury. 

(56)  As  regards  the  argument  that  the  stability  of  wages  must  be  perceived  as  a  positive 
indicator,  it  should  be  noted  that  this  factor  should  be  analysed  in  the  context  of 
development of wages and employment. The impairment of the industry can be clearly 
seen in the reduction of number of employees. The fact that the Community producers 
could  not  increase  wages  in  line  with  inflation  during  the  period  considered  due  to 
unfair competition must be considered a negative indicator. 

(57)  The  arguments  of  this  exporting  producer  analysed  in  recitals  (50)  to  (56)  above 

should, therefore, be rejected. 

(58)  Certain importers argued that the Community industry has offered hand pallet trucks 
for  sale  at  prices  much  lower  than  any  Chinese-made  hand  pallet  trucks  and  this 
indicates that it is not being injured. This argument is not supported by the finding of 
significant  price  undercutting  of  over  55%  (see  recital  (64)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation) and, therefore, cannot be accepted.  

(59) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  the  provisional  findings  concerning  the 
situation  of  the  Community  industry,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (65)  to  (84)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. Conclusion on injury 

(60) 

In  conclusion,  as  already  set  out  in  the  provisional  Regulation,  all  relevant  injury 
indicators  showed  negative  trends.  In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  the 
provisional findings concerning the conclusion on injury set out in recitals (85) to (87) 
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

G. CAUSATION OF INJURY 

1. Introduction 

(61) 

In the absence of any comment concerning the introduction on causation of injury, as 
set out in recital (88) of the provisional Regulation, the statement is hereby confirmed. 

2. Effect of the dumped imports 

(62)  One exporting producer and certain importers alleged that the use of Eurostat import 
data are inappropriate in determining the volume  and  market  share  of  imports  of  the 
product  concerned  since  there  is  no  separate  CN  code  for  it.  They  argued  that  other 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
products are also covered by the two CN codes in question, one covering the complete 
product and the other parts, and thus such Eurostat data cannot give an accurate picture 
of the  effect of the dumped imports. It is noted that no evidence has been submitted 
indicating  that  any  significant  quantities  of  other  products  may  have  been  classified 
under  the  CN  code  8427  90  00,  which  covers  the  complete  product  and  which  was 
used  to  determine  the  dumped  imports  volume.  In  fact,  the  same  interested  parties 
used  Eurostat  import  data  from  the  same  CN  code  to  substantiate  their  claim 
concerning the trends of imports of hand pallet trucks from other third countries. It is 
also considered, that given the narrow definition of the CN code, the vast majority of 
products  entering  the  Community  under  this  heading  are  imports  of  the  product 
concerned. As to other CN code 8431 20 00 covering parts for use solely or principally 
with the machinery of heading 8427, it is noted that the imports reported by Eurostat 
for  this  code  are  small  and  have  not  been  taken  into  account  when  establishing  the 
volume and the market share of the imports of the product concerned. Therefore, the 
argument cannot be accepted. 

(63) 

In the absence of any other comment, the provisional findings concerning the effect of 
the dumped imports, set out in recitals (89) to (91) of the provisional Regulation are 
hereby confirmed. 

3. The effects of other factors 

(a) The export performance of the Community industry 

(64)  Following the imposition of provisional measures, one exporting producer argued that 
the  export  performance  of  the  Community  industry  had  been  wrongly  evaluated. 
Export sales were found to have fallen by nearly 50% between 2000 and the IP, having 
a significant impact on the Community industry’s performance. It should be noted that 
even if the exports have declined in absolute terms, they represented on average only 
11%  of  the  total  sales  of  the  Community  industry  during  the  period  considered. 
Furthermore,  whilst  sales  in  the  Community  were  loss  making,  exports  were  still 
earning  some  profits  during  the  IP.  Therefore,  the  decline  of  the  exports  cannot  be 
considered  as  a  factor  causing  any  significant  injury  to  the  Community  industry. 
Consequently, the argument should be rejected and the findings set out in recitals (92) 
and (93) of the provisional Regulation confirmed. 

(b) Investments of the Community industry 

(65) 

In the absence of any comment, the provisional findings concerning the investments of 
the  Community  industry,  as  set  out  in  recital  (94)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

(c) Imports from other third countries 

(66)  Two exporting producers and certain importers claimed that contrary to the findings in 
recital (95) of the provisional Regulation, countries other than the PRC, in particular 
Brazil  and  India,  have  taken  advantage  of  the  strength  of  the  Euro  in  order  to 
significantly increase their sales on the Community market. Given the fact that imports 
from third countries, such as Brazil and India, represent only approximately 1% of the 
Chinese  imports  of  the  product  concerned,  their  impact  on  causality,  if  any,  can  be 
considered insignificant. The claim should, therefore, be rejected. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(67) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comment,  the  provisional  findings  concerning  imports 
from  other  third  countries  as  set  out  in  recitals  (95)  and  (96)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(d) Euro/USD exchange rate 

(68)  One  exporting  producer  and  certain  importers  claimed  that  a  share  of  the  price 
undercutting established is attributable to the weakness of the USD against Euro and 
not to dumped import prices. However, these parties have not submitted any evidence 
indicating the volume of imports from the PRC invoiced in USD, which could allow 
an overall assessment of any impact of exchange rates on prices. In any event, even if 
all  imports  from  the  PRC  had  been  made  in  USD,  something  which  cannot  be 
supported by the findings of the investigation, import prices of the product concerned 
should  have  dropped  by  25%  (loss  of  USD  value  against  the  Euro)  instead  of  34% 
experienced  during  the  period  considered.  Finally,  it  should  be  noted  that  with  the 
exception  of  two  individual  cases  with  clearly  negligible  import  volumes,  imports 
from all countries other than the PRC, taken together, which also benefited from the 
appreciation  of  the  Euro,  decreased.  This  indicates  that  currency  fluctuations  cannot 
have  been  a  substantial  cause  of  the  surge  of  dumped  imports  from  the  PRC.  The 
claim  should  therefore  be  rejected  and  the  findings  set  out  in  recital  (98)  of  the 
provisional Regulation confirmed. 

(e) Selling behaviour 

(69)  One  exporting  producer  and  certain  importers  reiterated  their  argument  that  the 
complainants  are  large  companies  active  in  the  material  handling  sector,  for  which 
hand  pallet  trucks  are  only  an  accessory  product,  often  used  as  a  selling  tool  for 
bigger,  more  expensive  products.  Since  no  new  evidence  has  been  submitted,  the 
findings  set  out  in  recitals  (99)  and  (100)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed and the claim rejected. 

(f)  Strategic  mistakes  made  by  the  EC  producers,  such  as  a  low  quality  products  and 
production of own parts 

(70)  One exporting producer reiterated the claim that Community producers suffered self-
inflicted injury by focusing on the production of low quality products and outsourcing 
the  production  of  parts.  However,  no  new evidence was submitted  in  support of this 
claim. It is noted that this claim has already been examined and explicitly addressed in 
recitals (101) to (103) of the provisional Regulation, which are hereby confirmed. 

4. Conclusion on causation 

(71) 

In the absence of any other comments which could alter the provisional determination, 
the  conclusion  on  causation  as  set  out  in  recitals  (104)  and  (105)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. General remarks 

(72) 

In the absence of any comment, the general remarks on Community interest as set out 
in recital (106) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
2. Interest of Community industry 

(73)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  one  importer  claimed  that 
previously closed production plants in the Community will not be reopened, thus will 
not  offer  new  employment  opportunities  because  of  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping 
measures. Firstly, the claim was not supported by any evidence. Secondly, even if no 
closed plants were to reopen, it must be noted that the Community industry’s capacity 
utilisation during the IP was only 46%. This is a clear indication of the potential for 
increase  in  production  and  sales  of  the  Community  industry  should  fair  competition 
prevail in the Community market. The claim, therefore, should be rejected. 

(74)  One exporting producer and certain importers argued that the hand pallet activities of 
the Community industry in particular in terms of employment is negligible in relation 
to their  total activities and, therefore, their interest in such measures is limited when 
compared  to  that  of  other  operators  in  the  market.  First  of  all  it  is  recalled  that 
exporting producers have no standing to bring claims regarding the examination of the 
interest  of  the  Community  industry.  The  same  applies  with  regard  to  the  interest  of 
suppliers, traders or users examined below. The arguments brought were nevertheless 
examined.  In  this  respect,  it  is  recalled  that  the  Community  industry  employed  for 
hand  pallet  trucks  some  434  people  during  the  IP,  whilst,  for  example,  the  co-
operating  importers  employed  around  74.  It  is  further  noted  that  certain  Community 
producers  rely  almost  exclusively  on  production  and  sales  of  hand  pallet  trucks. 
Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted. 

(75) 

In the absence of any other comment, the provisional findings concerning the interest 
of  the  Community  industry,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (107)  to  (109)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, are hereby confirmed.  

3. Interest of Community suppliers 

(76)  One exporting producer alleged that the lack of any representation  from Community 
suppliers  is  an  indication  that  imports  from  the  PRC  did  not  negatively  affect  their 
business.  This  allegation  cannot  be  accepted.  The  Community  industry  relies  on 
Community suppliers for certain parts of hand pallet trucks, and it is not reasonable to 
assume  that  there  are  no  negative  effects  on  their  business.  Further  closures  of 
Community  plants  could  further  affect  their  business.  In  the  absence  of  any  new 
comments, the provisional finding concerning the interest of Community suppliers, as 
set out in recital (110) of the provisional Regulation, is hereby confirmed.  

4. Interest of unrelated importers/traders 

(77)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  investigation  ignored  the  interests  of  small 
importers, which mostly focus their activities on hand pallet trucks. It should be noted 
that  submissions  from  importers,  which  made  themselves  known  in  due  time  and 
provided  sufficient  information,  were  fully  taken  into  account  in  this  investigation. 
Among  the  co-operating  unrelated  importers  were  companies  with  two  and  three 
employees.  Furthermore,  it  is  noted  that  the  co-operating  importers  reported  a  very 
good  profitability  on  their  hand  pallet  trucks  business  (net  profits  of  up  to  50%  on 
turnover). Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that the impact  on  their business of 
the  imposition  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  will  be  relatively  small.  Consequently, 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
the claim should be rejected and the findings set out in recitals (111) to (114) of the 
provisional Regulation confirmed. 

5. Interest of users 

(78)  Two exporting producers and certain importers claimed that the increase in the price of 
Chinese  hand  pallet  trucks  following  the  imposition  of  measures  is  having  an 
immediate and disproportionate effect on hundreds of thousands of shops, stores and 
factories using hand pallet trucks in the Community. However, it is noted that no such 
Community user of hand pallet trucks has submitted any comments on the findings set 
out  in  the  provisional  Regulation.  Since  this  claim  has  not  been  supported  by  any 
evidence, it should be rejected. 

(79) 

In the absence of any other comment, the provisional findings concerning the interest 
of  Community  users,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (115)  and  (116)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, are hereby confirmed.  

6. Conclusion on Community interest 

(80)  Following the above, the conclusions on Community interest drawn in recitals (117) to 

(119) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

I. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

1. Injury elimination level 

(81) 

In the absence of any substantiated comments, the methodology used for establishing 
the injury elimination level, as described in recitals (120) to (123) of the provisional 
Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

(82)  Based  on  this  methodology,  an  injury  elimination  level  has  been  calculated  for  the 

purposes of establishing the level of measures to be definitely imposed. 

2. Form and level of the duty 

(83) 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the 
dumping  margins  found,  since  for  all  the  exporting  producers  concerned  the  injury 
elimination level was found to be higher than the dumping margins. 

(84)  On the basis of the above, the definitive duty rates are as follows: 

Company 

Duty rate 

Ningbo Liftstar Material Transport Equipment Factory 

32,2% 

Ningbo Ruyi Joint Stock Co. Ltd 

Ningbo Tailong Machinery Co. Ltd 

28,5% 

39,9% 

Zhejiang Noblelift Equipment Joint Stock Co. Ltd 

7,6% 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
All other companies 

46,7% 

(85)  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 
country  concerned  and  produced  by  the  companies  and  thus  by  the  specific  legal 
entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically 
mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, 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’. 

(86)  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  Commission3  forthwith 
with  all  relevant  information,  in  particular  any  modification  in  the  company’s 
activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, 
that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the 
Regulation  will  then  be  amended  accordingly  by  updating  the  list  of  companies 
benefiting from individual duty rates. 

3. Collection of provisional duty 

(87) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the 
amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by  the 
provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  128/2005,  be  collected 
definitively to the extent of the amount of the duty definitively imposed by the present 
Regulation.  Where  the  definitive  duty  is  higher  than  the  provisional  duty,  only  the 
amounts secured at the level of the provisional duty should be collected definitively. 

4. Undertakings 

(88)  Subsequent  to  the  imposition  of  provisional  anti-dumping  measures,  two  exporting 
producers expressed their willingness to offer undertakings in accordance with Article 
8 of the basic Regulation. The possibility of contractive remedies in the form of price 
undertakings  has  been  explored.  However,  it  is  noted  that  one  of  these  exporting 
producers has not co-operated with the investigation and, therefore, since no MET or 
individual  treatment  was  granted  to  it  (see  recital  (19)  above),  no  minimum  prices 
could be established. Furthermore, it was found that the product concerned exists in a 
large number (hundreds) of types that are regularly upgraded or otherwise modified. In 
addition, the exporting producers were also selling either directly or via their affiliated 
importers other products to the same customers. In such circumstances, the monitoring 
of price undertakings would be virtually impossible. It  was therefore  considered that 
the  acceptance  of  undertakings  was  impractical  in  this  particular  case  and  the  offers 

3 

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

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
had to be rejected. The exporting producers were informed accordingly and given an 
opportunity to comment. Their comments have not altered the above conclusion, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  hand  pallet  trucks 
and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics, falling within CN codes ex 8427 
90  00  and  ex  8431  20  00  (TARIC  codes  8427  90  00  10  and  8431  20  00  10) 
originating in the People’s Republic of China. 

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community 
frontier price, before duty, shall be as follows: 

The People's Republic of China 

Rate of duty (%) 

TARIC additional code 

Ningbo  Liftstar  Material  Transport  Equipment 
Factory,  Zhouyi  Village,  Zhanqi  Town,  Yin  Zhou 
District,  Ningbo  City,  Zhejiang  Province,  315144, 
PRC 

Ningbo Ruyi Joint Stock Co. Ltd, 656 North Taoyuan 
Road, Ninghai, Zhejiang Province, 315600, PRC 

Ningbo  Tailong  Machinery  Co.  Ltd,  Economic 
Developing  Zone,  Ninghai,  Ningbo  City,  Zhejiang 
Province, 315600, PRC  

Zhejiang  Noblelift  Equipment  Joint  Stock  Co.  Ltd, 
58,  Jing  Yi  Road,  Economy  Development  Zone, 
Changxin, Zhejiang Province, 313100, PRC 

All other companies 

32,2 

A600 

28,5 

39,9 

7,6 

46,7 

A601 

A602 

A603 

A999 

3. 

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

Article 2 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  No  128/2005  on  imports  of  hand  pallet  trucks  and  their  essential  parts  falling 
within CN codes ex 8427 90 00 and ex 8431 20 00 (TARIC codes 8427 90 00 10 and 8431 20 
00  10)  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  shall  be  definitively  collected,  in 
accordance with the rules set out below. The amounts secured in excess of the amount of the 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  shall  be  released.  Where  the  definitive  duty  is  higher  than  the 
provisional  duty,  only  the  amounts  secured  at  the  level  of  the  provisional  duty  shall  be 
definitively collected. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

21 

   EN