Council Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 of 18 July 2005 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: 2005-07-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, hoisting equipment, import

21.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1174/2005

of 18 July 2005

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 (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped
imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (hereafter 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)

(4)

(5)

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 128/2005 (2) (hereafter 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, of CN codes ex 8427 90 00 and ex 8431 20 00, originating in the People’s
Republic of China (hereafter PRC).

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

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

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.

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

L 189/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2005

(6)

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

(7)

(8)

(9)

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

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
(hereafter
ex 8431 20 00.

Some interested parties reiterated their comments, set out in recital (11) of the provisional Regu-
lation, regarding the inclusion of chassis and hydraulics under the scope of the ‘product concerned’
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 by the parties concerned to these parts of the provisional Regulation.

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
the
assessment was carried out and,
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.

therefore, no anti-dumping duty can be imposed;

(b)

(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.
it was considered appropriate to determine the
margin of dumping of the ‘product concerned’, on the basis of hand pallet trucks, for which
representative and reliable data were available.

In consequence,

(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
it is noted that Article 13 is irrelevant when defining the ‘product
trucks in the Community,
concerned’. Instead, Article 13 of the basic Regulation refers to various circumvention practices,
the ‘product
including the assembly of parts which are not
concerned’, an issue not present in this case. Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted.

falling within the definition of

(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.

21.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/3

(14)

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

2. Like product

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

D. DUMPING

1. Market economy treatment (MET)

Following the imposition of provisional measures, three cooperating 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 in recitals (19) to
(34) of the provisional Regulation.

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.

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 that
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,
didn’t give an answer to 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.

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
It was therefore
considered appropriate in these circumstances to revise the conclusions concerning the compliance
of this exporting producer with the second criterion set out in 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.

the company.

is noted that

findings and claimed MET or,

It
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
individual
treatment. The companies were informed that non-cooperating 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.

in the event it did not receive MET,

(20)

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

2. Individual treatment

L 189/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2005

(21)

(22)

(23)

3. Normal value

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

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, as set out in recital (41) of the provisional Regulation. However,
they did not provide any additional verifiable evidence supporting their arguments.

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 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.

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, as set
out in 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, as set out in 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. O v e r a l l r e p r e s e n t a t i v i t y o f d o m e s t i c s a l e s

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

21.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/5

3.2.2. 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 i t y

(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. 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

(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. 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

(33) When the requirements set out in recitals (29) to (31) and in recital (32)(a) and (b) of this Regulation
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.

(34)

(35)

3.2.5. 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

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

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
in order to determine
trade, during the IP, were added to the manufacturing cost
constructed normal value pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.

L 189/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2005

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, as set out in 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
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
in these circumstances, the export prices would be
the importer became associated. Normally,
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.

than to other

(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, as set out in recital (36) of this
Regulation.

(40)

(41)

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 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.

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 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.

21.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/7

(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
trade between direct export sales to the
on certain export prices for differences in levels of
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 abovementioned 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 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, as set out in 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) of this Regulation 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

32,2 %

28,5 %

39,9 %

7,6 %

46,7 %

E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

1. Community production

(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.

L 189/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2005

2. Definition of the Community industry

(47)

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

findings concerning the definition of

the provisional

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 the production capacity of the
Community industry has increased during the period considered, the development of stocks after
2001 cannot be regarded as a sign of injury but a sign of improvement of the Community industry,
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, the profitability of the Community industry increased
between 2000 and 2001, the level of investments of the Community industry has more than doubled
indicating that it had no problem to raise capital and 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 nine 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.

(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.

21.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/9

(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) of this Regulation 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 %
as set out in 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 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.

L 189/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2005

(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.

(64)

(65)

(66)

(a) The export performance of the Community industry

3. The effects of other factors

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

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

findings concerning the investments of

the provisional

(c) Imports from other third countries

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.

(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/US dollar exchange rate

(68) One exporting producer and certain importers claimed that a share of the price undercutting estab-
lished is attributable to the weakness of the US dollar against the 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 US dollar, 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 US dollar,
something which cannot be supported by the findings of the investigation,
import prices of the
product concerned should have dropped by 25 % (loss of US dollar 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.

21.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/11

(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 Regu-
lation, 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.

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 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.

the imposition of anti-dumping measures. Firstly,

(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
the cooperating 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.

trucks some 434 people during the IP, whilst,

for example,

(75)

In the absence of any other comment, the provisional
Community industry, as set out
hereby confirmed.

in recitals (107)

findings concerning the interest of the
the provisional Regulation, are

to (109) of

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
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.

their business.

L 189/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2005

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
It should be noted that submissions from
trucks.
importers, which made themselves known in due time and provided sufficient information, were
fully taken into account in this investigation. Among the cooperating unrelated importers were
companies with two and three employees. Furthermore, it is noted that the cooperating 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, 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,
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.

it is noted that no such Community user of hand pallet

(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.

(80)

Following the above, the conclusions on Community interest drawn in recitals (117) to (119) of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

6. Conclusion on Community interest

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:

Ningbo Liftstar Material Transport Equipment Factory

Company

Ningbo Ruyi Joint Stock Co. Ltd

Ningbo Tailong Machinery Co. Ltd

Zhejiang Noblelift Equipment Joint Stock Co. Ltd

All other companies

Duty rate

32,2 %

28,5 %

39,9 %

7,6 %

46,7 %

21.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/13

(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
Imported products produced by any other company not specifically
legal entities mentioned.
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 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, 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 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)

to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures,

two exporting producers
Subsequent
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 cooperated with the investigation and,
therefore, since no MET or individual treatment was granted to it, as set out in recital (19) of this
Regulation, no minimum prices could be established. Furthermore, it was found that the ‘product
concerned’ exists in 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.
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 had to be rejected. The exporting producers were
informed accordingly and given an opportunity to comment. Their comments have not altered the
above conclusion,

In such circumstances,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential
i.e. chassis and hydraulics, of CN codes ex 8427 90 00 and ex 8431 20 00 (TARIC codes

1.
parts,
8427 90 00 10 and 8431 20 00 10), originating in the People’s Republic of China.

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

Brussels.

L 189/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2005

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

2.
before duty, shall be as follows:

The People’s Republic of China

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

Rate of duty
(%)

TARIC addi-
tional code

32,2

28,5

39,9

A600

A601

A602

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

7,6

A603

All other companies

46,7

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.

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, 18 July 2005.

For the Council
The President

J. STRAW