Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the United States of America and Russia and repealing Regulation (EC) No 151/2003 imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain oriented electrical sheets originating in Russia
Date: 2005-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Russia, United States, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, flat product, import, originating product, sheet

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 22.7.2005 
COM(2005) 335 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of grain oriented flat-rolled 
products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the United States of America and Russia 
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 151/2003 imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports 
of certain grain oriented electrical sheets originating in Russia  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

110 

•  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  proceedings  concerning  imports  of 
grain  oriented  flat-rolled  products  of  silicon-electrical  steel  originating  in  the  United 
States  of  America  and  Russia,  and  imports  of  certain  grain  oriented  electrical  sheets 
originating in Russia. 

120 

•  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. 

139 

141 

219 

229 

230 

•  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 

305 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
On  28  May  2004,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  proceeding  concerning 
imports  of  grain  oriented  flat-rolled  products  of  silicon-electrical  steel  originating  in 
the  United  States  of  America  and  Russia,  following  a  complaint  lodged  by  Eurofer. 
Simultaneously, an interim review of the anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain 
oriented electrical sheets originating in Russia was initiated by the Commission on its 
own  initiative,  in  order  to  allow  for  a  repeal  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  measures 
imposed on those products, since they fall within the scope of the products subject to 
the  proceeding  concerning  imports  into  the  Community  of  grain  oriented  flat-rolled 
products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the USA and Russia. 

The  investigation  established  that,  during  the  investigation  period,  imports  from  the 
USA and from one exporting producer in Russia were dumped, and that no dumping 
was  taking  place  in  the  case  of  a  second  Russian  exporting  producer.  It  was  also 
concluded  that  those  dumped  imports  caused  injury  to  the  Community  industry,  and 
that it was in the Community interest that anti-dumping duties be imposed.  

It is therefore proposed to impose anti-dumping measures on imports of grain oriented 
flat-rolled  products  of  silicon-electrical  steel  originating  in  the  United  States  of 
America  and  Russia,  and  to  repeal  the  existing  measure  on  certain  grain  oriented 
electrical  sheets  originating  in  Russia,  in  view  of  their  overlapping  scope  with  the 
proposed measures 

Member States were consulted and a majority supported this proposal. 

It  is  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation  which 
should be published in the Official Journal as soon as possible. 

310 

•  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. 

329 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

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

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason(s). 

331 

332 

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 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
341 

342 

409 

520 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s). 

The above-mentioned basic regulation does not foresee alternative options. 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

5)  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

•  Repeal of existing legislation 

The adoption of the proposal will lead to the repeal of existing legislation. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of grain oriented flat-rolled 
products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the United States of America and Russia 
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 151/2003 imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports 
of certain grain oriented electrical sheets originating in Russia  

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  19951  on  protection 
against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community  (’basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Articles 9 and 11(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. Initiation 

A. PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

On  28  May  2004,  the  Commission  announced  by  a  notice  (‘notice  of  initiation’), 
published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union2,  the  initiation  of  an  anti-
dumping  proceeding  concerning  imports  into  the  Community  of  grain  oriented  flat-
rolled  products  of  silicon-electrical  steel  originating  in  the  United  States  of  America 
(‘USA’) and Russia and the initiation of an interim review of the anti-dumping duty on 
imports of certain grain oriented electrical sheets with a width of more than 500 mm 
originating in Russia. 

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 13 April 
2004  by  the  European  Confederation  of  Iron  and  Steel  Industries  (‘Eurofer’  or  ‘the 
complainant’)  on  behalf  of  producers  representing  a  major  proportion,  in  this  case 
more  than  90%,  of  the  total  Community  production  of  grain  oriented  flat-rolled 
products  of  silicon-electrical  steel.  The  complaint  contained  evidence  of  dumping  of 
the  said  product  and  of  material  injury  resulting  there  from,  which  was  considered 
sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. 

1 
2 

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12). 
OJ C 144, 28.05.2004, p.2. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(3) 

The interim review was initiated by the Commission on its own initiative, pursuant to 
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, in order to allow for any necessary amendment 
or  repeal  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  by  Council  Regulation 
(EC) No 151/20033 on imports from Russia of grain oriented electrical sheets with a 
width of more than 500 mm. The necessary amendment or repeal may arise due to the 
fact that the products upon which measures have been imposed by Regulation (EC) No 
151/2003  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  products  subject  to  the  proceeding  concerning 
imports into the Community of grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical 
steel originating in the USA and Russia. 

2. Parties concerned by the proceeding 

(4) 

(5) 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  exporting  producers  in  Russia  and  the  USA 
and the importers/traders and users known to be concerned, the representatives of the 
exporting  countries  concerned  and  the  complainant  Community  producers  of  the 
initiation of the proceeding. The interested parties were given the opportunity to make 
their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the 
notice of initiation. 

The  exporting  producers  in  Russia  and  the  USA,  as  well  as  Community  producers, 
importers/traders  and  users  made  their  views  known  in  writing.  All  parties  who  so 
requested within the above time limit and indicated that there were particular reasons 
why they should be heard were granted an opportunity to be heard.  

3. Questionnaires 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

The  Commission  sent  questionnaires  to  all  parties  known  to  be  concerned  and  to  all 
other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice 
of initiation.  

Replies were received from one US exporting producer and its related subsidiaries in 
the  Community  and  from  two  Russian  exporting  producers  and  their  related 
subsidiaries  in  the  Community.  Replies  were  also  received  from  four  Community 
producers,  16  users  and  one  importer  not  related  to  an  exporting  producer  in  the 
countries concerned. 

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

Community producers 

–  ThyssenKrupp Electrical Steel UGO, Isbergues, France 

–  ThyssenKrupp Electrical Steel AST, Terni, Italy 

–  ThyssenKrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany 

3 

OJ  L  25,  30.1.2003,  p.7,  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  990/2004  (OJ  L  182, 
19.05.2004, p.5). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Orb Electrical Steels Limited, Newport, United Kingdom 

Users in the Community 

–  Areva S.A., Paris, France 

–  Specialacciai srl, Novi Ligure, Italy 

Exporting producers in Russia 

–  Novolipetsky Iron & Steel Corporation (‘NLMK’), Lipetsk 

–  VIZ Stal, Ekaterinburg 

Exporting producers in the USA 

–  AK Steel Corporation, Butler, Pennsylvania 

Related importers in the Community 

–  AK Steel BV, Oosterhout, The Netherlands 

–  AK Steel GmbH, Köln, Germany 

–  AK Steel Ltd., Baldock, United Kingdom 

–  AK Steel s.r.l., Genova, Italy 

–  Duferco Commerciale SpA, Genova, Italy 

–  Duferco GmbH, Mülheim, Germany 

Related importers outside the Community 

–  Duferco SA, Lugano, Switzerland 

–  Stinol AG, Lugano, Switzerland 

(9) 

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2003 to 31 
March 2004 (the ‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for 
the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2000 to the end of the IP 
(‘the period under examination’). 

4. Measures in force 

(10)  By  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  151/2003,  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  were 
imposed  on  imports  from  Russia  of  grain  oriented  electrical  sheets  with  a  width  of 
more  than  500  mm  (‘large  GOES’),  following  an  investigation  that  was  initiated 
pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  By  that  Regulation,  anti-dumping 
duty rates were set for imports from VIZ-Stal at 14,7% and for imports from NLMK at 
40,1%, the latter rate at the same time being the residual duty rate for imports of these 
products from other companies in Russia. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(11)  By  Regulation  (EC)  No  1000/20044,  undertakings,  in  connection  with  the  anti-
dumping  proceeding  concerning  imports  of  large  GOES  originating  in  Russia,  were 
accepted from NLMK and Viz Stal and their related sales companies for a period of 
six  months  until  20  November  2004.  These  undertakings were intended to provide a 
temporary  way  of  adapting  the  anti-dumping  measures  which  were  extended  to 
imports  into  the  10  new  Member  States  following  the  enlargement  of  the  European 
Union on 1 May 2004. The purpose was to avoid a sudden and excessively negative 
effect  for  importers  and  users  caused  by  the  sudden  full  application  of  the  extended 
measures in those 10 countries. Undertakings were accepted for a further period of six 
months until 20 May 2005, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1995/20045, because 
the conditions for their acceptance were considered to be still in existence.  

5. Provisional measures 

(12)  Given the need to further examine certain aspects of the investigation and also because 
of the interrelation with the interim review mentioned in recital (3), it was decided to 
continue the investigation without the imposition of provisional measures.  

(13)  All  interested  parties  were  nevertheless  informed  of  the  preliminary  findings  of  the 
investigation  and  were  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  comment  on  those 
findings.  The  comments  submitted  by  the  parties  were  considered  and,  where 
appropriate, any relevant claim was addressed and the findings were modified where 
necessary. 

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. Product concerned 

(14)  The product concerned is grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon electrical steel 
(‘GOES’) of all widths, declared under CN codes 7225 1100 (of a width of 600 mm or 
more)  and  7226  1100  (of  a  width  of  less  than  600  mm).  These  CN  codes  are  only 
given for information. 

(15)  GOES  are  produced  from  hot-rolled  coils  of  silicon  alloyed  steel  of  different 
thicknesses  of  which  the  grain  structure  is  uniformly  directed  in  order  to  allow  for 
magnetic  conductivity  with  a  high degree  of  efficiency.  Inefficiencies  with  regard  to 
this conductivity are called ‘core loss’, which is the prime indicator of the quality of 
the  product.  The  market  is  typically  divided  into  ‘high-permeability’,  or  high 
conductivity grades, and regular grades. The high-permeability grades allow achieving 
lower core losses for any given thickness of the sheets. The grain oriented steel sheets 
are  then,  if  needed,  cut  to  certain  widths  according  to  customer  specifications.  This 
process  is  called  slitting.  The  product  concerned  is  used  by  manufacturers  of 
electromagnetic  appliances  and  transformers  for  use  by  power  generators  and 
distributors. 

(16) 

In  spite  of  the  differences  in  permeability,  thickness  and  width,  all  types  of  GOES 
share  the  same  basic  physical  and  technical  characteristics  and  have  essentially  the 
same basic use. 

4 
5 

OJ L 183, 20.5.2004, p. 10. 
OJ L 344, 20.11.2004, p. 21. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(17) 

In  reference  to  the  review  investigation  on  large  GOES,  mentioned  in  paragraph  (3) 
above, it should be noted that on a number of occasions it was observed that the anti-
dumping measures in force, mentioned in paragraph (10), were avoided by cutting the 
coils  of  grain-oriented  electrical  steel  before  they  were  exported  to  the  Community. 
Indeed, often Community users bought large GOES and then slit them to the required 
measure.  After  the  imposition  of  measures,  GOES  were  cut  by  the  producers  or 
exporters  in  parts  not  exceeding  500  mm  before  being  exported,  so  that  the  product 
fell outside the scope of the measures. 

(18)  One exporting producer claimed that narrow GOES (defined by this company as less 
than 500 mm width) should be distinguished from large GOES (of a width of 500 mm 
or more), because large GOES cannot be substituted by narrow ones and narrow and 
large  GOES  are  subject  to  different  competitive  conditions.  The  argument  regarding 
different competitive conditions is based on the observation that end-users order and 
purchase directly GOES with a width that meets their exact requirements in order to 
avoid the cost of slitting, as opposed to purchasing coils of a larger width than used in 
their  own  production  processes  and  having  to  take  care  of  slitting  themselves, 
moreover in most cases by having recourse to specialised subcontractors. 

(19)  The  argument  of  the  lack  of  interchangeability  is  based  on  the  fact  that,  although 
narrow  GOES  can  be  substituted  by  large  GOES  which  are  subsequently  slit,  the 
reverse  situation  is  of  course  impossible.  Reference  has  been  made  by  the  exporter 
concerned  to  the  anti-dumping  proceeding  concerning  Certain  footwear  with  textile 
uppers from China and Indonesia6 where it was considered that indoor shoes cannot 
be used outside, and therefore should form a separate product. 

(20)  With  reference  to  the  above  mentioned  anti-dumping  proceeding,  it  was  concluded 
that  indoor  and  outdoor  shoes  should  form  a  separate  product  because  indoor  shoes 
have different basic physical characteristics, which make them not suitable for outdoor 
uses.  The  situation  is  therefore  different  in  the  present  case  since  the  investigation 
concluded  that,  irrespective  of  their  width,  GOES  are  made  from  the  same  basic 
material,  have  the  same  basic  characteristics  and  have  comparable  end-uses. 
Moreover,  it  should  be  noted  that  even  partial  interchangeability  between  products 
suffices  in  order  to  consider  them  as  a  single  product  for  the  purpose  of  an  anti-
dumping  investigation  and,  in  the  case  of  GOES,  as  explained  under  recital  (17), 
interchangeability occurs. 

(21)  The  second  argument  raised  by  this  exporting  producer  is  based  on  the  observation 
that  end-users  will  preferentially  make  use  of  GOES  with  widths  that  meet  their 
technical  requirements  for  production  purposes.  However,  it  has  been  found  that 
certain end-users, as a standard way of working, slit the material themselves or acquire 
roughly-cut  narrow  GOES  from  Russia  free  of  any  anti-dumping  duties  and 
subsequently  slit  the  imported  material  to  their  exact  specifications.  Moreover,  the 
widespread existence of slitting companies and steel service centres in the Community 
illustrates the fact that the GOES do not always leave the factories of the producers in 
dimensions  specifically  required  by  the  end-user.  Consequently,  the  claims  made  by 
this exporting producer were rejected. 

6 

OJ L 298, 01.11.1997, p.1. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(22) 

It is therefore concluded that, for the purpose of the present anti-dumping proceeding, 
all types of the product concerned are regarded as one product. 

2. Like product 

(23)  The  product  exported  to  the  Community  from  Russia  and  the  USA,  the  product 
produced  and  sold  domestically  in  Russia  and  the  USA,  as  well  as  the  one 
manufactured and sold in the Community by the Community producers were found to 
have  the  same  basic  physical  and  technical  characteristics  as  well  as  the  same  basic 
uses and are therefore considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) 
of the basic Regulation. 

1. General Methodology 

C. DUMPING 

(24) 

In  order  to  determine  the  normal  value,  the  Commission  first  established,  for  each 
exporting  producer,  whether  its  total  domestic  sales  of  the  product  concerned  were 
representative  in  comparison  with  its  total  export  sales  to  the  Community.  In 
accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered 
representative when the total domestic sales volume of each exporting producer was at 
least 5% of its total export sales volume to the Community.  

(25)  For each type sold by the exporting producers on their domestic markets and found to 
be directly comparable with the type of the product concerned sold for export to the 
Community, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative 
for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular 
type  of  GOES  were  considered  sufficiently  representative  when  the  total  domestic 
sales  volume  of  that  type  during  the  IP  represented  5%  or  more  of  the  total  sales 
volume of the comparable type of GOES exported to the Community. 

(26)  Subsequently it was examined whether the domestic sales of each type of the product 
of each exporting producer could be considered as being made in the ordinary course 
of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation, by establishing the proportion 
of profitable sales to independent customers of the type in question.  

(27) 

In cases where the sales volume of the GOES type, sold at a net sales price equal to or 
above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80% of the total sales 
volume of that type and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or 
above  the  cost  of  production,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic  price, 
calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales made during the IP, 
irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not. In cases where the volume of 
profitable sales of a GOES type represented 80% or less of the total sales volume of 
that  type  or  where  the  weighted  average  price  of  that  type  was  below  the  cost  of 
production,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic  price,  calculated  as  a 
weighted  average  of  profitable  sales  of  that  type  only,  provided  that  these  sales 
represented  10%  or  more  of  the  total  sales  volume  of  that  type.  In  cases  where  the 
volume of profitable sales of any type of GOES represented less than 10% of the total 
sales  volume  of  that  type,  it  was  considered  that  this  particular  type  was  sold  in 
insufficient  quantities  for  the  domestic  price  to  provide  an  appropriate  basis  for  the 
establishment of the normal value.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(28)  Wherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by an exporting producer 
could not be used in order to establish normal value, another method had to be applied. 
In  this  regard,  the  Commission  used  constructed  normal  value.  In  accordance  with 
Article  2(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  was  constructed  by  adding  to  the 
exporter’s  manufacturing  costs  of  the  exported  types,  adjusted  where  necessary,  a 
reasonable percentage for selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) and 
a reasonable margin of profit. 

2. United States of America 

Normal value 

(29)  For  the  one  co-operating  exporting  producer  it  was  found  that  domestic  sales  of  the 
product  concerned  could  not  be  considered  as  being  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
trade since such sales were made in substantial quantities below per unit cost, in this 
case  more  than  90%  of  the  volume  sold  on  the  domestic  market.  Moreover,  it  was 
established  that  the  weighted  average  selling  price  of  the  domestic  transactions  was 
below the weighted average per unit cost of production during the IP.  

(30)  As  a  consequence,  domestic  prices  of  the  product  concerned  sold  by  the  exporting 
producer could not be used in order to establish normal value. Normal value had to be 
constructed, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. 

(31)  Normal  value  was  constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  exporting  producer’s  costs  of 
manufacturing  plus  an  amount  for  SG&A  costs  and  profit.  The  amounts  established 
for  SG&A  costs  and  profit  were  those  applicable  to  production  and  sales,  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  trade,  of  the  same  general  category  of  steel  products  for  the 
exporting  producer  in  question  in  the  domestic  market,  in  accordance  with  Article 
2(6)(b) of the basic Regulation. 

(32)  The full cost of production was determined for each relevant product type, according 
to steel grade, thickness and the fact whether the product concerned was sold as a full 
coil or as a slit coil. In the latter case slitting costs had to be taken into account.  

Export price 

(33)  The export prices were determined on the basis of the prices paid or payable for the 
product concerned when sold for consumption in the Community in accordance with 
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. 

(34)  The exporting producer did not sell any quantity of the product concerned directly to 
independent  customers  in  the  Community.  All  sales  were  made  through  related 
subsidiaries  in  the  Community.  Consequently,  a  constructed  export  price  has  been 
established pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the resale 
prices  to  independent  customers  in  the  Community.  Adjustments  were  made  for  all 
costs  incurred  between  importation  and  resale  by  the  related  importers,  including 
SG&A expenses and a reasonable profit margin.  

Comparison 

(35)  For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export 
price at an ex-works level and at the same level of trade, due allowance in the form of 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
adjustments  was  made  for  differences  that  were  claimed  and  demonstrated  to  affect 
prices  and  price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  Adjustments  were  made  in  respect  of  transport  costs,  insurance,  credit 
costs and related bank charges, import charges and slitting costs where applicable and 
justified. 

(36)  The  adjustment  for  slitting  costs  was  necessary  in  order  to  allow  for  the  proper 
comparison of GOES according to whether they were imported as full width coils and 
subsequently sold as such in the Community or imported as full width coils and sold 
after slitting in the  Community  or imported as slit  material  and sold as such  or  after 
further  slitting  in  the  Community,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)(k)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

Dumping margin 

(37) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  dumping  margin  was 
established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  with 
the weighted average export prices per product type, as determined above. 

(38)  On  that  basis,  a  dumping  margin  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  Community 

frontier price duty unpaid was established as follows: 

AK Steel Corporation, Middletown: 47,6% 

(39)  For  USA,  since  there  was  evidence  of  a  known  exporter  that  deliberately  did  not 
cooperate  to  the  investigation,  the  residual  dumping  margin  for  this  non-cooperating 
exporting producer should be set at the level of the highest margin measured for sales 
of  representative  product  types  by  the  cooperating  producer  in  the  Community  i.e. 
60,6%.  

3. Russia  

NLMK 

Normal value 

(40)  Normal value was established in line with the general methodology as explained under 

paragraphs (24) to (28). 

(41)  For the sole type of GOES where 80% or less but at least 10% of the domestic sales 
made in sufficient quantities, were in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was 
based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of 
the domestic sales of that type made in the ordinary course of trade during the IP. 

(42)  For the remaining product types, where domestic sales were not representative, normal 
value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. Normal 
value  was  constructed  by  adding  to  the  manufacturing  costs  of  the  exported  types, 
adjusted with a reasonable percentage for selling, general and administrative expenses 
(‘SG&A’) and a reasonable margin of profit, on the basis of actual data pertaining to 
production  and  sales,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  of  the  like  product,  by  the 
exporting producer under investigation in accordance with the first sentence of Article 
2(6) of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Export price 

(43)  Export sales to the Community were made both directly to independent customers and 
via  a  related  company  in  Switzerland.  For  the  latter,  the  export  price  has  been 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  resale  prices  to  the  first  independent  buyer  in  the 
Community. 

Comparison 

(44)  The  exporting  producer  claimed  that  products  imported  into  the  Community 
originating  in  Russia  cannot  be  compared  to  products  produced  in  the  Community 
because  of  quality  differences:  the  exporting  producer’s  GOES  are  claimed  to  have 
higher  surface  defects  and  higher  core  losses  and  are  to  a  certain  extent  of  different 
grades.  This  exporting  producer  therefore  requested  an  adjustment  for  quality 
differences. 

(45)  For  the  calculation  of  the  dumping  margins,  comparison  is  made  at  the  level  of 
product  types  corresponding  to  steel  grades  with  specific  ranges  for  core  losses. 
American  and  Russian  standards  have  been  compared  to  European  ones  taking  into 
account all relevant product characteristics. Moreover, comparisons were made at the 
level of production and sales of prime grade material. The claim for an adjustment for 
quality differences made by one exporting producer was therefore rejected. The same 
methodological approach was followed for the calculation of undercutting commented 
upon in recitals (78) to (83).  

(46)  The  normal  value  and  export  prices  were  compared  on  an  ex-works  basis  and  at  the 
same level of trade. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal 
value and the export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the 
basic  Regulation,  of  differences  in  factors  which  were  claimed  and  demonstrated  to 
affect  prices  and  price  comparability.  On  this  basis,  allowances  for  differences  in 
freight,  insurance,  package,  credit  costs  and  related  bank  charges  and  indirect  taxes 
have been granted. Adjustments were also made where the export sales were made via 
a  related  company  located  in  a  country  other  than  the  Community,  pursuant  to  Art 
2(10) (i) of the basic Regulation.  

(47)  The  exporting  producer  claimed  that  clerical  errors  occurred  in  the  calculations  and, 
after verification, the claims were accepted and the calculations duly corrected. 

Dumping margin 

(48)  As  provided  by  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  weighted  average  normal 
value of each type of the product concerned exported to the Community was compared 
to  the  weighted  average  export  price  of  each  corresponding  type  of  the  product 
concerned. 

(49)  The  comparison  showed  the  existence  of  dumping  in  respect  of  the  co-operating 
exporting  producer.  A  dumping  margin  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  import 
price at the Community border, duty unpaid is the following: 

NLMK, Lipetsk: 

11,5% 

VIZ STAL 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Normal value 

(50) 

It was found that domestic sales of the product concerned were overall representative, 
but not made in the ordinary course of trade since such sales were made in substantial 
quantities below per unit cost, in this case more than 90% of the volume sold in the 
transactions  under  consideration.  Moreover,  it  was  established  that  the  weighted 
average selling price of the domestic transactions was below the weighted average per 
unit cost of production during the IP.  

(51)  Because  domestic  prices  of  the  product  concerned  sold  by  the  exporting  producer 
could  not  be  used  in  order  to  establish  normal  value,  normal  value  had  to  be 
constructed, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. 

(52)  Normal value was constructed on the basis of the exporting producer’s own full cost of 
production,  i.e.  manufacturing  cost  plus  selling,  general  and  administrative  costs 
(‘SG&A’  costs)  and  a  reasonable  margin  for  profit,  on  the  basis  of  the  actual  data 
pertaining  to  production  and  sales  by  the  exporting  producer  under  investigation,  in 
accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.  

(53) 

It  should  be  noted  that during  the  IP,  Viz  Stal  purchased  its  main  raw  materials,  i.e. 
hot-rolled  coils  or  hot-rolled  band,  from  two  suppliers:  US  Steel  Kosice  and  the 
Russian  company  Magnitogorsk.  In  the  investigation  on  large  GOES,  referred  to  in 
recital (10), it was found that the relation between the latter company and Viz Stal was 
particularly  close,  and  that  the  purchase  prices  from  that  supplier  could  not  be 
considered reliable. In this respect, the establishment of the cost of manufacturing, and 
more  specifically  the  cost  of  the  main  raw  materials,  was  exclusively  based  on  the 
price of coils purchased from the unrelated Slovak producer/supplier US Steel Kosice. 
To  the  DAF  price  Slovak  border  was  added  the  transport  cost  to  Ekaterinburg,  the 
insurance  costs  and  the  credit  costs  based  on  the  payment  conditions.  Calculated  in 
this way, hot-rolled coils represented 61,4% of the total cost of production of GOES 
for this exporting producer.  

(54)  The full cost of production was determined for each relevant product type, according 
to steel grade, thickness and the fact whether the product concerned was sold as a full 
coil or as a slit coil, in which latter case slitting costs had to be taken into account.  

Export price 

(55)  Viz  Stal  did  not  sell  the  product  concerned  directly  to  independent  customers  in  the 
Community.  All  sales  were  made  to  related  subsidiaries  in  the  Community. 
Consequently, a constructed export price has been established pursuant to Article 2(9) 
of  the  basic  Regulation  i.e.  based  upon  the  resale  prices  to  independent  customers. 
Adjustments were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale by those 
related  importers,  including  selling,  general  and  administrative  expenses  and  a 
reasonable profit margin, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, 

Comparison 

(56)  For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export 
price at an ex-works level and at the same level of trade, due allowance in the form of 
adjustments  was  made  for  differences  that  were  claimed  and  demonstrated  to  affect 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
prices  and  price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. Adjustments were made in respect of transport costs, insurance, handling 
costs,  bank  charges,  credit  costs  and  related  bank  charges,  import  costs  and  slitting 
costs where applicable and justified. 

(57)  The  adjustment  for  slitting  costs  was  necessary  in  order  to  allow  for  the  proper 
comparison of GOES according to whether they were imported as full width coils and 
subsequently sold as such in the Community or imported as full width coils and sold 
after slitting in the  Community  or imported as slit material and sold  as  such  or after 
further  slitting  in  the  Community,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)(k)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

Dumping margin 

(58) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  dumping  margin  was 
established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  with 
the weighted average export prices per product type, as determined above. 

(59)  Regarding  the  exports  made  by  this  exporting  producer  to  the  Community,  the 

investigation did not lead to a finding of dumping.  

(60)  The conclusion of non-dumped imports into the Community was reached for both full 
coils and slit coils of all different product types and consequently covered both large 
and narrow GOES.  

CONCLUSION ON DUMPING REGARDING RUSSIAN IMPORTS 

(61)  Co-operation  by the exporting producers  was high since they covered the entirety of 
known imports into the Community. For one Russian exporting producer dumping of 
11,5% was found during the IP, whereas for the other co-operating exporting producer 
the investigation did not lead to any finding of dumped imports into the Community. 
The  residual  dumping  margin  was  set  at  the  level  of  the  margin  for  the  exporting 
producer for whom dumping was found.  

D. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 

1. Community production  

(62)  Within  the  Community,  six  producers  manufacture  GOES.  The  three  complainant 
Community  producers  are  located  in  Germany,  France  and  Italy.  It  should  be  noted 
that these three producers belong to the same group. The other producers are located in 
Poland, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom.  

(63)  The  investigation  concluded  that  these  six  producers  constitute  the  total  Community 

production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Basic Regulation. 

2. Definition of the Community industry  

(64) 

In  addition  to  the  three  (related)  complaining  Community  producers,  another 
Community  producer  also  fully  co-operated  with  the  investigation.  The  total 
production  of  these  four  companies  was  found  to  represent  around  90%  of  the  total 
Community production of the product concerned. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(65) 

It  is  therefore  considered  that  these  four  Community  producers  constitute  the 
Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic 
Regulation and will hereafter be referred to as the ‘Community industry’. 

(66)  As to the two remaining Community producers, one remained silent and the other one, 
although  supporting  the  proceeding,  could  not  be  considered  part  of  the  Community 
industry  since  it  only  provided  some  basic  information  on  its  production  and  sales 
volume. 

1. Community consumption  

E. INJURY  

(67)  Community consumption was established on the basis of the sales on the Community 
market of (a) the Community industry, (b) the other Community producers, which also 
provided  some  general  information,  and  (c)  the  imports  into  the  Community  market 
from all third countries as reported by Eurostat and also considering the data submitted 
by the co-operating exporting producers in the countries concerned. 

(68)  On this basis, the Community consumption developed as follows:  

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

Community 
(metric tonnes) 

Consumption 

Index: 2000=100 

XXX 

100 

XXX 

108 

XXX 

96 

XXX 

92 

XXX 

92 

Source:  verified  questionnaire  replies,  information  provided  by  one  other  Community  producer, 
information contained in the complain tand Eurostat 

(69)  The  Community  consumption  firstly  increased  by  8%  between  2000  and  2001,  but 
then significantly and continuously dropped by 15%. During the overall period under 
examination,  the  decrease  in  consumption  was  8%.  The  continuous  drop  in 
consumption is explained by a decreasing demand from the downstream industry, i.e. 
the  transformer  producers,  namely  due  to  reduction  of  new  industrial  projects  for 
which electrical transformers are needed. 

2. Imports from the countries concerned 

Cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped imports concerned 

(70)  The Commission considered whether the effects of dumped imports from the countries 
concerned  should  be  assessed  cumulatively,  on  the  basis  of  the  criteria  set  out  in 
Article  3(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  This  Article  provides  that  imports  shall  be 
cumulatively  assessed  when  the  margin  of  dumping  established  in  relation  to  the 
imports  from  each  country  is  more  than  de  minimis  as  defined  in  Article  9(3)  of  the 
basic  Regulation,  the  volume  of  imports  from  each  country  is  not  negligible  and  the 
conditions  of  competition  between  the  imported  products  and  the  conditions  of 
competition  between  the  imported  products  and  the  like  Community  product  make 
such an assessment appropriate. 

(71) 

It should be noted that one Russian exporting producer was found not to be dumping. 
Accordingly,  imports  from  that  exporting  producer  have  not  been  taken  into 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
(72) 

(73) 

consideration  in  the  examination  as  to  whether  or  not  a  cumulative  assessment  of 
imports is appropriate.  

It was found that the dumping margins established for each of the countries concerned 
were more than de minimis. In addition, the volume of the dumped imports from each 
of  those  countries  was  not  negligible,  i.e.  they  represented  for  the  USA  and  Russia 
respectively around 10% and 3% of the Community consumption during the IP.  

In  regard  to  the  conditions  of  competition  both  between  the  dumped  imports  and 
between  the  dumped  imports  and  the  like  Community  product,  it  was  found  that 
GOES  sold  by  the  countries  concerned  and  those  sold  by  the  Community  industry 
were alike in all respects and distributed via the same trade channels. The investigation 
showed  that  the  import  prices  in  the  case  of  both  countries  followed  a  similar 
decreasing  trend,  especially  during  the  second  part  of  the  period  under  examination, 
and those prices were found to undercut the Community industry’s prices. This led to 
an overall price depression of GOES sold by the Community industry. 

(74) 

It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  dumped  imports  originating  in  the  countries 
concerned should be assessed cumulatively.  

Volume and market share of the dumped imports concerned 

Dumped Import volume 

Import volume  

(metric tonnes) 

Index: 2000=100 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

XXX 

100 

XXX 

161 

XXX 

191 

XXX 

323 

XXX 

357 

Source: Eurostat and co-operating exporting producer 

(75)  The above table shows that the imports of GOES from the countries concerned into the 

Community more than tripled during the period under examination.  

Market share of dumped imports 

Market share  

2000 

3,3% 

2001 

5,0% 

2002 

6,6% 

2003 

IP 

11,8% 

13,0% 

Source: Eurostat and co-operating exporting producer 

(76)  The  constant  increase  in  market  share  took  place  in  the  context  of  an  overall 
decreasing  Community  consumption.  This  was  especially  the  case  as  from  2002,  a 
period  when,  in  spite  of  a  significant  decline  of  the  Community  consumption,  the 
market share increased from 6,6% to 13%. The most significant increase in the market 
share took place in the period 2002/2003, when dumped imports gained more than 5 
percentage  points.  This  corresponded  to  an  increase  in  absolute  import  volume  of 
65%.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
Price evolution of the dumped imports 

EUR/metric tonne 

Index: 2000=100 

2000 

XXX 

100 

2001 

XXX 

124 

2002 

XXX 

121 

2003 

XXX 

99 

IP 

XXX 

98 

Source: Eurostat and co-operating exporting producer 

(77)  The  price  of  the  dumped  imports  firstly  rose  by  24%  between  2000  and  2001.  This 
was especially due to an increasing demand for GOES at that time. Thereafter prices 
continuously  decreased  from  XXX  €/tonne  in  2001  to  XXX  €/tonne  during  the 
investigation period, i.e. a decrease of 20%. The average price decrease was especially 
marked between 2002 and 2003 (-20%). During the overall period under examination 
the decrease of the average unit price of the dumped imports was 2%. 

Undercutting 

(78)  The  Commission  has  examined  whether  the  exporting  producers  in  the  countries 
concerned  undercut  the  prices  of  the  Community  industry  during  the  IP.  For  the 
purposes of this analysis, the CIF prices of the exporting producers have been adjusted 
to  a  Community  frontier,  duty  paid,  level.  These  prices  have  then  been  compared  to 
the Community industry’s ex-works prices at the same level of trade, and at the level 
of comparable product types. 

(79)  One Russian exporting producer claimed that when assessing price undercutting (and 
injury  elimination  margin),  adjustments  should  be  made  with  respect  to  quality 
differences  between  GOES  produced  and  sold  by  this  exporting  producer  and  those 
produced  by  the  Community  industry.  This  claim  is  based  on  the  fact  that,  for  the 
same  types,  the  quality  of  GOES  produced  by  this  exporting  producer  would  be 
considerably lower than the quality of GOES produced by the Community industry. 

(80) 

In this respect, it should firstly be noted that such an adjustment was indeed granted in 
the original investigation, i.e. in 1996, but the investigation concerning the review and 
prolongation of those measures following an expiry review in 2003 already concluded 
that any quality adjustment was no longer warranted in view of the improved Russian 
facilities7. 

(81)  Furthermore,  the  users  were  asked  to  comment  on  the  comparability  of  GOES 
imported from Russia, with that purchased from the Community industry, and none of 
the  co-operating  users  mentioned  any  significant  quality  difference.  Only  one  user 
mentioned  that  the  quality  of  Russian  products  is  slightly  inferior  to  that  of  the 
Community made products, but this user did not substantiate its claim. Moreover, this 
user  further  mentioned  that  both  products  are  completely  substitutable  and  that  they 
have  switched  to  Russian  products  due  to  the  significant  price  difference.  The  claim 
was therefore rejected. 

7 

OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 12, recital (50). 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(82)  On the basis of the cooperating exporting producers’ prices, the undercutting margins 
found, by country, and expressed as a percentage of the Community industry’s prices, 
are as follows: 

Country 

USA 

Russia 

Price Undercutting 

14.4% 

Between 6.1% and 26.6% 

(83)  As far as Russia is concerned, the undercutting margin of 6.1% was established for the 
exporting  producer  for  which  no  dumping  margin  was  found.  The  other  percentage 
refers to the other co-operating exporting producer. 

3. Situation of the Community industry  

(84)  Pursuant  to  Article  3(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission  examined  all 
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry. 

(85) 

In view of the limited number of Community producers belonging to two groups and 
exporting  producers  concerned,  figures  concerning  them  have  only  been  given  in 
indexed form and ranges.  

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

Production (metric tonnes) 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

Index: 2000=100 

100 

104 

101 

99 

98 

Capacity (metric tonnes) 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

Index: 2000=100 

Capacity utilisation 

100 

86% 

104 

86% 

107 

104 

104 

81% 

82% 

81% 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(86)  During  the  overall  period  under  examination,  the  Community  industry’s  production 
volume  decreased  by  2%.  More  specifically,  the  production  firstly  increased  by  4%, 
between 2000 and 2001, and then continuously declined between 2001 and the IP, i.e. 
a decrease of around 5%.  

(87)  The  reported  capacity  figures  refer  to  technical  capacity,  as  opposed  to  theoretical 
capacity, which implies that adjustments, considered as standards by the industry, for 
normal  holidays,  set-up  time,  maintenance  and  other  normal  stoppages  have  been 
taken into consideration. The increase in production capacity in the years 2001/2002 
was designed to match the surge in demand in 2001. Capacity fell back in 2003 and 
the  IP  because  one  producer  slightly  modified  its  production  process,  which  had  the 
effect  of  reducing  the  technical  capacity.  On  this  basis,  the  production  capacity 
increased by 4% over the period under examination. As showed below in recital (102), 
such  an  increase  is  related  to  investments  made  in  order  to  modernise  the  existing 
production  tool,  thus  improving  its  efficiency,  and  therefore  mainly  consists  of 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
purchases  of  replacement  equipment.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  increase  in 
capacity  occurred  at  a  time  when  the  Community  industry  was  still  profitable. 
Moreover, these investments have to be seen as a response to the increased demand in 
2001 and in the light of the cash flow available to the Community at that time. 

(88)  The  decrease  of  the  capacity  utilisation  rate  resulted  from  a  slight  increase  in  the 
production capacity combined with a fall in the production volume. This decrease was 
5 percentage points during the period under examination.  

Stocks  

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

metric tonnes 

Index: 2000=100 

XXX 

100 

XXX 

109 

XXX 

160 

XXX 

182 

XXX 

122 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(89)  Certain types of the like product are specifically produced by the Community industry 
to order and are therefore not destined for stocks. Other, more standardised, types of 
GOES  are  however  produced  on  a  regular  basis  and  their  sale  depends  on  the 
evolution  of  the  market  in  terms  of  demand  and  prices.  It  is  therefore  clear  that  the 
overall  increase  of  stocks  during  the  period  under  examination  indicates  that  the 
Community  industry  faced difficulties to sell the more standardised types of the  like 
product especially during 2002, when stocks increased by 46% compared to 2001, and 
in 2003 when they further increased by 3,5% as compared to the previous year. 

(90)  The decrease of the stocks (23,5%) between 2003 and the IP is explained by an overall 
increase of sales during that period. It should however be kept in mind that the IP does 
not  correspond  to  a  calendar  year,  which  may  affect  the  comparability  of  the  stocks 
level as compared to the other years. At the end of the period under examination, the 
level of stocks was 22% higher than in 2000. 

Sales volume  

metric tonnes 

Index: 2000=100 

2000 

XXX 

100 

2001 

XXX 

109 

2002 

XXX 

90 

2003 

XXX 

76 

IP 

XXX 

81 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(91)  The Community industry’s sales volume on the Community market decreased by 19% 
during  the  period  under  examination,  from  around  XXX  tonnes  in  2000  to  around 
XXX tonnes in the IP. The sales volume first increased by XXX tonnes between 2000 
and  2001  i.e.  by  9%,  but  thereafter  declined  by  XXX  tonnes  (or  by  26%)  in  the 
subsequent period up to the end of the IP. The increase between 2003 and the IP can 
be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  Community  industry  decreased  its  sales  prices  (see 
below) in order regain market share.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
Market share 

In % Community consumption 

68,6% 

69,1% 

2000 

2001 

2002 

63,8% 

2003 

56,5% 

IP 

60,4% 

Source: verified questionnaire replies and Eurostat 

(92)  During the overall period under examination, the Community industry faced a drop of 
market share of 8,2 percentage points. More specifically, in spite of a 9% increase in 
sales volume between 2000 and 2001, the Community industry could barely maintain 
its  level  of  market  share  which  only  increased  by  0,5  percentage  point  during  those 
years.  In  the  period  from  2001  to  the  IP,  the  Community  industry’s  market  share 
dropped by 8,7 percentage points. This loss of market share occurred at a time when 
consumption  decreased  by  15%,  thus  indicating  that  the  Community  industry’s  sales 
decreased  more  than  consumption.  At  the  same  time,  the  market  shares  of  the 
countries concerned continuously increased.  

Sales prices 

EUR/metric tonne 

Index: 2000=100 

2000 

XXX 

100 

2001 

XXX 

109 

2002 

XXX 

111 

2003 

XXX 

106 

IP 

XXX 

99 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(93)  The  average  unit  sales  price  first  increased  by  8,6%  in  2001,  then  rose  by  2,6%  in 
2002. Thereafter, the Community industry faced a significant and continuous drop in 
prices,  which  was  especially  marked  between  2003  and  the  IP  when  prices  fell  by 
6,3%. This price decrease was necessary in order to allow the Community industry to 
maintain its market share.  

(94)  The trend which emerges from the above table clearly shows an important depression 
of the Community industry sales prices as from the year 2002. This coincided with a 
period  when  dumped  import  prices  significantly  decreased,  which  allowed  them  to 
benefit from a major increase in market share.  

(95)  The  pressure  on  the  Community  industry’s  sales  prices  was  such  that  they  were  not 

profitable in 2003 and during the IP, as explained below.  

(96)  The table below shows the evolution of the Community unit sales price as compared to 
the corresponding cost of production, which mainly consists of raw material, i.e. hot 
rolled coils representing on average around 70% of the total cost of production of the 
product concerned: 

Index: 2000=100 

unit price 

unit full cost of production 

2000 

100 

100 

2001 

2002 

109 

103 

111 

107 

2003 

106 

105 

IP 

99 

106 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
(97) 

In  the  period  2001/2002,  sales  prices  have  on  average  increased  more  than  their 
corresponding costs. During that period prices were in line with costs and this resulted 
in  a  profitable  situation,  as  shown  below.  In  2003,  prices  significantly  dropped,  and 
profitability  became  negative,  in  spite  of  a  decrease  of  the  average  cost  during  that 
year. During the IP, the slight increase in production cost, mainly raw material, could 
not  be  passed  on  to  the  prices  that  dramatically  further  decreased,  thus  causing 
significant losses. The price depression was therefore coupled with price suppression, 
i.e. the incapacity of the Community industry to increase its prices in order to reflect 
the increase in costs.  

Profitability and return on investments 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

% Profit on net turnover  Around 0%  Around 5% 

Around 3% 

Around 0% 

Around -5% 

Return on investments 

Around 0%  Around 25%  Around 20%  Around -5%  Around -30% 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(98)  The  financial  results  of  certain  Community  producers  in  2000  were  significantly 
affected  by  start-up  costs  and  also  technical  problems  related  to  a  significant 
investment in 1999, concerning the production tool. The overall Community industry’s 
profitability was affected accordingly. Since the year 2000 was untypical, it can thus 
not  be  considered  as  a  representative  starting  point  for  examining  a  trend.  The 
Community  industry’s  sales  on  the  Community  market  became  profitable  during  the 
years 2001 and 2002, also in view of a higher demand from the downstream industry 
and  a  satisfactory  price  level.  Thereafter,  the  significant  drop  in  prices  had  a  direct 
negative  effect  on  the  profitability.  Indeed,  sales  on  the  Community  market  became 
loss  making  as  from  the  year  2003  and  losses  even  reached  around  -5%  of  turnover 
during the IP. 

(99)  For the purpose of this investigation, the return on investments (‘ROI’) is expressed as 
the  profit  in  percent  of  the  net  book  value  of  investments.  Since  the  companies 
constituting  the  Community  industry  are  mainly,  if  not  exclusively,  active  in  the 
production and sales of the like product, the ROI has been established with respect to 
their overall situation. On that basis, the ROI broadly followed the above profitability 
trend over the whole period under examination. It went up from around 0% in 2000 to 
around 20% in 2002 and then decreased continuously to around –30% in the IP.  

Cash flow and ability to raise capital 

‘000 EUR 

Index: 2000=100 

2000 

XXX 

100 

2001 

XXX 

181 

2002 

XXX 

141 

2003 

XXX 

7 

IP 

XXX 

-83 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(100)  The  net  cash  in(out)  flow  from  operating  activities,  developed  from  around  XX 
million € in 2000 to around –XX million € in the IP. It peaked in 2001 and 2002, but 
subsequently  dropped  sharply  in  2003  and  reached  a  low  during  the  IP.  As  a 
consequence, the Community industry is, on average, increasingly resorting to debt in 
order to help finance its current activity and investment.  

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
(101)  The  investigation  has  shown  that  capital  requirements  of  several  Community 
producers have been adversely affected by their difficult financial situation. Although 
most of these companies are part of large steel companies, capital requirements are not 
always  met  to  the  desired  level,  as  financial  resources  are  generally  allocated  within 
these groups to the most profitable entities. 

Investments  

‘000 EUR 

Index: 2000=100 

2000 

XXX 

100 

2001 

XXX 

137 

2002 

XXX 

105 

2003 

XXX 

76 

IP 

XXX 

49 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(102)  The  Community  industry's  total  investments  related  to  the  like  product  decreased  by 
around 50% between 2000 and the IP. The investigation showed that it is vital for this 
industry to maintain a certain level of investment in order to stay competitive. Most of 
the  investments  were  made  for  modernisation  purposes,  and  little  for  increasing 
capacity.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  modernisation  of  investments  normally 
tends to raise slightly the technical capacity, simply because an improved equipment is 
more efficient and productive than the previous one.  

Growth  

(103)  Between 2000 and the IP, Community consumption decreased by 8%, while the sales 
volume of the Community industry decreased by 20%. The Community industry thus 
significantly  lost  market  share,  whereas  the  market  share  of  the  imports  concerned 
increased by 12.8 percentage points during the same period. 

Employment 

Total employees 

Index: 2000=100 

2000 

XXX 

100 

2001 

XXX 

100 

2002 

XXX 

99 

2003 

XXX 

97 

IP 

XXX 

95 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(104)  The  level  of  employment  of  the  Community  industry  remained  stable  between  2000 
and the 2001. It was reduced in the following years resulting in a total reduction of 5% 
compared to the beginning of the period under examination. 

Wages 

Wages (000 €) 

Index: 2000=100 

2000 

XXX 

100 

Avg. Wages per employee (€) 

XXX 

Index: 2000=100 

100 

2001 

XXX 

99 

XXX 

100 

2002 

XXX 

102 

XXX 

103 

2003 

XXX 

97 

XXX 

100 

IP 

XXX 

94 

XXX 

99 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
(105)  During the period under examination the average wage per employee remained stable 
and thus below the rate of inflation. Given that employment was reduced during that 
period, as shown in the previous table, the total cost of wages also decreased. 

Productivity  

Production (m tonnes) (a) 

Employment (b) 

Productivity (a) / (b) 

Index 2000 = 100 

2000 

XXX 

XXX 

160,4 

100 

2001 

XXX 

XXX 

166,9 

104 

2002 

XXX 

XXX 

163,9 

102 

2003 

XXX 

XXX 

164,2 

102 

IP 

XXX 

XXX 

166 

103 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(106)  Productivity  of  the  Community  industry’s  workforce,  measured  as  output  per  person 
employed per year, first increased by 4% from 2000 to 2001, then dropped by around 
2%  between  2001  and  2002,  and  rose  again  in  2003  and  the  IP.  At  the  end  of  the 
period  under  examination,  the  productivity  was  3%  higher  than  that  observed  at  the 
start  of  the  period.  The  increase  in  productivity  may  be  partially  explained  by  the 
investments aimed at improving efficiency of existing equipments as stated in recital 
(102) above.  

Magnitude of dumping margin 

(107)  As  concerns  the  impact  on  the  Community  industry  of  the  magnitude  of  the  actual 
margin of dumping, given the volume and the prices of the imports from the countries 
concerned, this impact cannot be considered to be negligible, especially in transparent 
and thus highly price sensitive markets like the one of the product concerned.  

Recovery from the effects of past dumping or subsidisation 

(108)  As previously explained, measures on imports of GOES with a width of more than 500 
mm,  originating  in  Russia,  have  been  in  place  during  the  whole  period  under 
examination.  However,  it  is  recalled  that  this  concerns  only  a  portion  of  the  product 
concerned by the current investigation since the present proceeding concerns GOES of 
all widths from Russia, but also those originating in the USA. Thus, the Community 
industry  only  partially  recovered  since  it  subsequently  also  faced  the  increased  of 
dumped imports of all width of GOES from Russia and the USA. 

4. Developments after the investigation period 

(109)  Certain  interested  parties  claimed  that  important  developments  took  place  after  the 
investigation period and that those developments should be taken into consideration in 
the  analysis  since  they  would  allegedly  make  the  imposition  of  measures  manifestly 
inappropriate. More specifically those claims relate to the increase of the Community 
industry’s  sales  prices  of  the  like  product,  as  well  as  the  plant  closure  of  one  of  the 
complainants after the end of the investigation period. 

(110)  It should firstly be noted that in accordance with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, 
information relating to a period subsequent to the investigation period shall, normally, 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
not  be  taken  into  account.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  relevant  facts  need  to  be 
established, and verified, during a limited and specified time period in order to ensure 
that  the  results  of  the  investigation  are  representative  and  reliable,  and  also  because 
otherwise the investigation could be prolonged unnecessarily on the grounds that the 
facts gathered for a particular period, i.e. the investigation period, are not reflecting the 
situation prevailing at a later stage. 

(111)  It follows from the wording of the basic Regulation that developments occurring after 
the  investigation  period  should  be  taken  into  consideration  only  if  they  are  of  an 
exceptional  nature,  and  would  indeed  make  the  imposition  of  measures  manifestly 
inappropriate.  Such  approach  was  also  confirmed  by  the  European  Court  of  First 
Instance8.  

Community industry price increase 

(112)  It  was  argued  that  the  Community  industry  announced  a  price  increase  after  the 
investigation period, and that this price increase was of an exceptional nature since it is 
described in the press as unusually large. 

(113)  Actual data have been gathered by the Commission services and the evolution of the 
average  Community  sales  price  on  the  Community  market  are  presented  in  the  table 
below: 

 Average sales price  

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

Apr-Dec 
2004 

EUR/metric tonne 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

Index: 2000=100 

100 

109 

111 

106 

99 

104 

(114)  From  the  above  table  it  can  be  seen  that  if  prices  indeed  increased  after  the 
investigation period, this price increase is far from being unusually large. Indeed, the 
average price for the 3 last quarters of 2004 increased by only 5% as compared to their 
IP level, but prices did certainly not recover as compared to the previous years’ level. 

(115)  In  addition,  even  if  it  was  considered  that  the  price  increase  was  indeed  of  an 
exceptional  nature  –  which  it  is  recalled  is  not  the  case  here  –  consideration  should 
also be taken of the evolution, after the investigation period, of the price level of the 
other  operators  on  the  Community  market,  and  especially  that  of  the  countries 
concerned,  as  well  as  the  fluctuation  of  the  raw  material  price,  in  order  to  verify 
whether the increase of prices would indeed make the imposition of the anti-dumping 
duties manifestly inappropriate. Any detailed analysis in that respect is not warranted 
in  view  of  the  only  partial  recovery  of  prices  as  shown  above.  Furthermore,  it  is 
unknown whether any price increase would be of a lasting nature. 

(116)  More importantly, it is recalled that the injury suffered by the Community industry is 
not  exclusively  based  on  price  levels,  but  is  characterised  by  a  deterioration  of  a 
combination of various indicators. Therefore, any possible price increases, even if they 
were  of  an  exceptional  and  lasting  nature,  would  not,  taken  in  isolation,  make  the 

8 

Sinochem case (T-161/94) 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
imposition  of  measures  inappropriate,  if  they  were  not  accompanied  by  similar 
developments of other injury indicators in such a way that the complete injury picture 
were affected. 

(117)  For the above reasons, it is considered that the Community industry price increase that 
might  have  occurred  after  the  investigation  period  does  not  make  the  imposition  of 
measures inappropriate. 

Closure of one producer of the Community industry 

(118)  Certain interested parties claimed that the closure of one of the producers that is part of 
the Community industry calls for the non imposition of measures since it would result 
in a significant decrease of the production capacity in  the Community, thus possibly 
generating a shortage of GOES on the Community market. 

(119)  In that respect, it is noted that Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation concerning events 
occurring  after  the  investigation  period  does  not  apply  to  the  determination  of  the 
Community  interest  which  is  dealt  with  by  Article  21  of  the  basic  Regulation. 
Reference  is  therefore  made  to  recital  (174)  where  the  issue  related  to  production 
capacity is addressed in the framework of the Community interest analysis. 

(120)  It  should  nevertheless  be  confirmed  that  the  plant  closure  of  the  producer  located  in 
Italy has been announced, and that production there will continue at reduced level as 
from June 2005 and is expected to completely cease in September of the same year. 

(121)  Moreover,  even  if  the  envisaged  closure  of  a  plant  might  constitute  an  exceptional 
event, of a lasting nature, and were therefore considered in the context of the analysis, 
it would only reinforce the above findings that the Community industry was suffering 
injury during the investigation period, and that this precarious situation continued after 
the investigation period.  

5. Conclusion on injury 

(122)  In  spite  of  the  existing  anti-dumping  measures  concerning  imports  of  large  GOES 
from  Russia,  the  economic  situation  of  the  Community  industry  significantly 
deteriorated between 2000 and the IP. The positive impact of the measures imposed on 
large  GOES  from  Russia  has  indeed  been  diluted  by  the  emergence  of  the  dumped 
imports  of  all  widths  of  GOES  from  Russia  and  the  USA.  Those  imports  were 
significantly  less  important  at  the  beginning  of  the  period  under  examination.  In 
addition, reference is also made to the recital (17), where it is explained that the anti-
dumping measures in force against large GOES from Russia were avoided by cutting 
the coils of grain-oriented electrical steel in two halves not exceeding 500 mm. 

(123)  Over  this  period  under  examination  sales  volume  decreased  by  19%,  production 
decreased  by  2%,  stocks  significantly  increased  by  18%,  and  market  shares  dropped 
by 8 percentage points. Community producers’ prices on the Community market were 
undercut by dumped imports and could not be increased to reflect the increased cost of 
production during the IP. As a result, the industry made losses in 2003 and in the IP. 
Employment and investments respectively decreased by 5% and 50% over the period 
under examination. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
(124)  More  specifically,  the  economic  situation  of  the  Community  industry  developed  as 
follows.  During  the  year  2001,  the  Community  market  saw  a  higher  demand  and 
increasing prices. During this period, the Community industry could also raise its sales 
volumes  to  the  same  extent  as  the  increases  in  consumption  and  sales  prices.  This 
resulted in a profitable situation and the industry was therefore in a position to invest 
and slightly increase its production capacity. Even if sales volume and market shares 
dropped in 2002, the Community industry managed to maintain its price level, and to 
remain  profitable,  albeit  at  a  level  below  that  of  2001  in  view  also  of  the  increasing 
cost of production at that time. 

(125)  As  from  2003,  the  Community  industry  could  no  longer  maintain  its  prices,  which 
significantly  dropped,  in  conjunction  with  a  strong  fall  in  sales  volume  and  market 
shares. Prices further decreased during the IP, while costs remained relatively stable. 
As  a  consequence,  profitability  reached  a  dramatically  low  level.  At  this  level  of 
losses,  the  further  existence  of  the  industry  is  at  risk.  Indeed,  after  the  investigation 
period,  the  production  plant  of  one  of  the  Community  producers  will  have  to  close 
down. 

(126)  In the light of the foregoing it is concluded that the Community industry has suffered 

material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. 

1. Introduction  

F. CAUSATION 

(127)  In  accordance  with  Articles  3(6)  and  3(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission 
examined  whether  the  dumped  imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  the 
countries  concerned  have  caused  injury  to  the  Community  industry  to  a  degree  that 
enables it to be classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, 
which could at the same time be injuring the Community industry, were also examined 
in order to ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed 
to the dumped imports.  

2. Effects of the dumped imports 

(128)  The significant increase of the volume of the dumped imports, which more than tripled 
during the period under examination, coincided with the deterioration of the economic 
situation of the Community industry, which materialised amongst others by a drop in 
sales  volume  of  around  20%  during  the  same  period.  Since  they  only  concern  large 
GOES from Russia, the existing measures could not sufficiently shield the Community 
industry  from  the  effect  of  the  imports  concerned.  This  is  especially  true  when 
considering  the  above  mentioned  significant  increase  of  imports  of  all  widths  of 
GOES, thus also including those originating in the USA, and the fact that measures on 
large  GOES  were  sometimes  avoided  by  cutting  the  sheets,  as  explained  in  recital 
(17). 

(129)  The  negative  effect  of  the  continuously  increasing  volume  of  dumped  imports  was 
even reinforced as from the year 2002, when Community consumption decreased. As a 
matter  of  fact,  in  the  period  2002/2003,  the  dumped  imports  gained  more  than  5 
percentage points of market shares, while the Community industry’s share dropped by 
around  7  points.  This  sudden  surge  of  dumped  imports  is  explained  by  a  dramatic 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
decrease of the corresponding prices during the same period. Indeed, in only one year, 
prices  decreased  from  1.282  to  1.049  €/tonne,  i.e.  a  decrease  of  around  15%.  This 
resulted  in  an  important  drop  in  the  Community  industry’s  sales  volume  during  the 
corresponding period. While the Community industry first tried to maintain its average 
price level, prices nevertheless decreased from 1.254 €/t in 2002 to 1.189 €/t in 2003. 
Thereafter  the  industry  had  no  choice  but  to  further  decrease  its  prices  in  order  to 
maintain  sales  volume  and  market  shares  during  the  IP.  This  had  however  a  direct 
negative  impact  on  its  profitability  which  became  negative  and  reached  –7.4%  of 
turnover during the IP. 

(130)  In view of the clearly established coincidence in time between, on the one hand, the 
surge of dumped imports at continuously decreasing prices and, on the other hand, the 
Community  industry’s  loss  of  sales  volume,  market  shares  and  price  depression 
resulting in a loss-making situation, it is concluded that the dumped imports played a 
determining role in the injurious situation of the Community industry.  

3. Effects of other factors  

Exchange rate effect 

(131)  One interested party claimed that the injury suffered by the Community industry was 
caused  by  the  development  of  the  USD/EUR  exchange  rate,  which  had  a  decreasing 
impact on the prices of imports from the USA. This situation thus favoured the USA 
imports which were able to increase their market shares.  

(132)  The table below compares the development of the USD/EUR exchange rate with the 

average import prices of the product concerned originating in the US. 

USD/EUR exchange rate 

Index 2000=100 

Import price US (€) 

Index 2000=100 

2000 

1,082 

100 

1.945 

100 

2001 

1,116 

103 

1.741 

90 

2002 

1,068 

99 

1.543 

79 

2003 

0,894 

83 

1.171 

60 

IP 

0,860 

79 

1.133 

58 

(133)  It  appears  from  the  above  data  that  there  is  no  clear  correlation  between  the 
development  of  the  USD/EUR  exchange  rate  and  the  average  import  prices  of  the 
product  concerned  originating  in  the  USA.  Indeed,  during  the  period  2000-2002 
import  prices  already  decreased  by  21  %,  while  exchange  rates  remained  stable. 
Moreover, the above data clearly indicates that, over the period under examination, the 
decrease  of  the  relevant  average  import  prices  (-42%)  was  much  stronger  than  the 
negative development of the exchange rate (-21%). This was especially the case in the 
period 2002/2003 when the unit average import prices showed its strongest decrease. 
It is therefore concluded that the effect of exchange rates, if any, cannot be considered 
as a substantial cause of the injurious situation of the Community industry.  

Performance of other Community producers 

Sales volume (metric tonnes) 

market shares 

2000 

XXX 

9,2% 

2001 

XXX 

8,8% 

2002 

XXX 

8,3% 

2003 

XXX 

8,2% 

IP 

XXX 

8,3% 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
Source: questionnaire reply, complaint, Eurostat 

(134)  The  above  table  shows  that  the  sales  of  the  other  Community  producers  on  the 
Community  market  decreased  by  almost  20%  during  the  period  under  examination. 
The  corresponding  market  shares  have  also  decreased  from  9,2%  in  2000  to  8,3% 
during  the  investigation  period.  Based  on  the  information  available  it  is  therefore 
concluded that the other Community producers were in a situation similar to that of the 
Community industry and did not cause any injury to the Community industry. 

Export performance of the Community industry 

Sales volume export (tonnes) 

Index: 2000=100 

2000 

XXX 

100 

2001 

XXX 

92 

2002 

XXX 

117 

2003 

XXX 

145 

IP 

XXX 

141 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(135)  One  interested  party  claimed  that  part  of  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Community 
industry could be attributed to the export performance of the Community industry. It 
was argued that the Community industry deliberately  decreased  its  domestic  sales  in 
favour of profitable exports to non EU-countries. 

(136)  The  above  table  shows  that  indeed  the  Community  industry  increased  its  exports 
during the period under examination and especially from 2002 onwards. However, this 
increase  should  rather  be  seen  in  the  light  of  the  surge  of  dumped  imports  on  the 
Community market, at a time when the consumption decreased and Community prices 
were  depressed  to  a  significant  extent.  Under  these  circumstances  the  Community 
industry reacted, in order to limit the damage, by an attempt to increase their exports. 

(137)  It  is  also  recalled  that  the  Community  market  remains  the  Community  industry’s 
natural market. In fact, in the year 2001, when the situation on the Community market 
became favourable, the Community industry increased its domestic sales volume, and 
exports sales were reduced. 

(138)  In addition, it should be noted that the injury suffered by the Community industry did 
not  only  consist  in  a  loss  of  sales  volume  and  market  shares  on  the  Community 
market. It was also characterised by a strong price depression caused by the dumped 
imports,  and  significant  undercutting  of  the  Community  industry’s  prices,  which 
resulted in considerable financial losses. Such negative effect on prices can certainly 
not  be  attributed  to  an  increase  of  the export  sales  of  the  product  concerned.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  considered  that  increased  export  sales  volume  may  have  allowed  the 
Community  industry  to  benefit  from  economies  of  scale  and  thus  a  leverage  in  the 
overall  costs  of  the  like  product.  In  the  absence  of  such  increasing  exports,  it  is 
expected that losses would have been even more significant. It is therefore concluded 
that  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry  cannot  be  attributed  to  its 
increasing exports. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
  
Non-dumped imports from the countries concerned 

Import volume (metric tonnes) 

Index: 2000=100 

Market shares 

2000 

XXX 

100 

3,3% 

2001 

XXX 

124 

3,8% 

2002 

XXX 

142 

4,9% 

2003 

XXX 

223 

8,1% 

IP 

XXX 

166 

6,0% 

(139)  Non-dumped  imports  from  Russia  increased  by  66%  during  the  period  under 
examination, corresponding to a market share gain of almost 3 percentage points. 

(140)  In that respect, it should firstly be noted that this increase of imports was less marked 
than that of  the  dumped  imports, as stated in recital 75 above. Secondly, it  was also 
established that the price level of the non-dumped imports was higher than that of the 
dumped imports. Indeed, whilst an undercutting margin of 6,1% was established in the 
case  of  the  non-dumped  imports,  the  undercutting  margin  for  the  dumped  imports 
ranged between 14,4% and 26,6%. 

(141)  For  those  reasons  it  is  concluded  that  any  impact  of  non-dumped  imports  on  the 
situation  of  the  Community  industry  was  limited  and  could  not  be  considered  as  a 
determining reason for the injurious situation of the Community industry.  

Imports from other third countries 

Import volume (metric tonnes) 

Market shares 

Average unit price 

2000 

XXX 

15,6% 

1.370 

2001 

XXX 

13,3% 

1.477 

2002 

XXX 

16,4% 

1.581 

2003 

XXX 

IP 

XXX 

15,4% 

12,2% 

1.525 

1.509 

Source: Eurostat 

(142)  The table above indicates that imports from other third countries decreased in absolute 
and relative terms. At the same time, the corresponding average sales price increased. 
It is therefore concluded that the imports from other third countries did not contribute 
to the injury suffered by the Community industry. 

Decline in demand  

(143)  In  a  market  where  demand  is  decreasing,  it  is  expected  that  all  operators  face  a 
diminution  of  their  sales.  This  was  the  case  of  the  Community  industry.  However 
those sales decreased more than the consumption during the period under examination. 
Whilst  the  Community  industry,  the  other  Community  producers  and  the  other  third 
countries lost sales volume and market share during the period under examination, the 
volume  of  dumped  imports  more  than  tripled  and  gained  significant  market  share 
during  the  same  period.  As  shown  in  the  injury  analysis,  the  demand  declined  by 
around 25.000 tonnes during the period under examination, the Community industry’s 
sales dropped by around 40.000 tonnes but the imports from the countries concerned 
increased by around 30.000 tonnes.  

(144)  In  this  context,  even  if  the  decline  in  demand  may  have  contributed  to  the  sales 
decrease of the Community industry, it is concluded that the injury consisting mainly 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
in a loss of market shares, price depression and a loss-making situation, can only be 
attributed, if at all, to a minor extent to that factor. 

4. Conclusion on causation  

(145)  In  conclusion,  it  is  confirmed  that  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the  Community 
industry, which is characterised especially by a decline in sales volume, market shares 
and  unit  sales  price  resulting  in  a  deterioration  of  the  profitability  indicators,  was 
caused by the dumped imports concerned.  

(146)  Indeed, there is a clear coincidence in time between the surge of dumped imports and 
the  drop  of  the  Community  industry’s  sales  volume  and  market  share.  The  price 
depression  caused  by  the  dumped  imports  was  especially  remarkable  as  from  2002. 
The Community industry tried to maintain its level of prices in 2003, but had no other 
choice than to follow the price level set by the dumped imports in order to maintain a 
certain level of sales. This resulted in a loss-making situation. 

(147)  The other identified factors were not found to break the causal link established above, 
even  considering  their  possible  combined  effect.  The  decrease  in  consumption  may 
have  contributed  to  a  decrease  in  the  Community  industry’s  sales  volume.  It  can 
however be reasonably stated that in the absence of the surge of low-priced dumped 
imports,  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry  would  certainly  not  have  been 
affected to such an extent, since there would not have been a decrease in market share. 
It  is  also  considered  that  the  non-dumped  imports  from  Russia  only  had  a  limited 
negative  impact.  Finally,  the  development  of  the  USD/EUR  exchange  rate  did  not 
explain the high level of dumping established for the USA and the injury suffered by 
the Community industry.  

(148)  It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  dumped  imports  originating  in  the  countries 
concerned have caused material injury to the Community industry within the meaning 
of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation. 

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(149)  It  has  been  examined  whether,  despite  the  conclusions  on  dumping,  injury  and 
causation, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not 
in  the  Community  interest  to  adopt  any  measures  in  this  particular  case.  For  this 
purpose, and pursuant to Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the likely impact of the 
imposition  and  non-imposition  of  measures  for  all  parties  concerned  in  the 
investigation was considered. 

1. Interest of the Community industry 

(150)  The  injury  analysis  has  demonstrated  that  under  fair  trade  circumstances  the 
Community  industry  is  viable  and  profitable  and  the  industry  has  also  invested  in 
order  to  stay  competitive.  This  was  the  case  in  the  years  2001  and  2002,  when  the 
Community industry also benefited from the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  against 
large GOES from Russia, and the level of the dumped imports concerned was not yet 
as significant as it was during the IP. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
(151)  It is also recalled that this industry has undergone a major restructuring programme in 
the  Community  in  1999.  The  merging  of  the  three  complainants  at  that  time  was 
intended to create a larger entity which could compete more effectively and increase 
investments. 

(152)  As from the year 2002, the continuous increase of low priced dumped imports caused 
a  general  price  depression  on  the  Community  market,  which  also  faced  a  declining 
consumption.  The  Community  industry  became  loss-making  and  therefore  extremely 
vulnerable.  Losses  became  so  heavy  that  the  Italian  producer  announced  the  phased 
closure  of  its  factory.  The  market  development  in  Italy  clearly  shows  to  what  extent 
dumped  imports  negatively  affected  the  economic  situation  of  the  Community 
industry. 

(153)  It  is  therefore  important  that  prices  be  restored  to  a  non-dumped  or  at  least  a  non-
injurious  level  in  order  to  allow  all  various  producers  to  operate  on  the  Community 
market under normal fair trade circumstances. This will allow the Community industry 
to  regain  a  satisfactorily  volume  of  profitable.  In  the  absence  of  the  imposition  of 
measures,  it  cannot  be  excluded  that  the  Community  industry  will  face  further  plant 
closures. 

(154)  In conclusion, any imposition of anti-dumping measures would allow the Community 

industry to recover from the effects of injurious dumping found.  

2. Interest of users in the Community 

(155)  GOES are mainly used in the manufacture of power and distribution transformers. The 
transformer  manufacturers  constitute  a  long-established  industry  which  traditionally 
supplies large energy producers. The transformer industry, in general, belongs to large 
industrial  groups,  which  have  a  worldwide  presence.  Some  smaller  independent 
companies however also operate on the market. 

(156)  The product concerned is considered a significant cost item for the users since GOES 
represents  on  average  between  10%  and  30%  of  the  total  cost  of  production  of 
transformers. 

(157)  Substantiated  questionnaire  replies, 

the  requested  financial 
information, were received from 16 users. Some other users also submitted comments 
in  writing,  but  without  providing  detailed  information.  According  to  the  financial 
information  they  submitted,  co-operating  users  would  represent  around  30%  of  the 
overall Community consumption.  

including  all 

i.e. 

(158)  Users generally expressed their opposition to the imposition of measures. Firstly, they 
claimed that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would result in the cessation of 
imports  from  the  countries  concerned  and  therefore  make  them  dependent  on  the 
Community  industry,  which  would  arguably  also  find  itself  in  a  monopolistic 
situation.  They  further  claimed  that  the  imposition  of  measures  would  result  in  a 
significant price increase, thus negatively affecting their competitiveness vis-à-vis the 
non-Community transformer industry. Finally, they claimed that, should measures be 
imposed,  the  Community  industry  would  not  have  sufficient  capacity  to  supply  the 
user industry. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
(159)  Before  specifically  addressing  the  issues  raised  by  the  user  industry,  certain 
background information should be mentioned at this stage, in order to properly assess 
the situation on the Community market.  

(160)  It should be noted that the number of producers of the product concerned worldwide is 
rather  limited.  Indeed,  only  13  producers  worldwide  operate  in  the  GOES  business. 
There are two producers each in Japan, the USA and Russia, one each in South Korea, 
China and Brazil and six in the European Community (from which three are related). 
The  European  Community  is  therefore  the  market  with  the  highest  number  of 
producers.  The  distribution  network  of  the  Japanese  and  the  US  producers  is 
particularly  well  organised  on  the  Community  market  since  they  have  their  own 
service-centres  and/or  related  importers  in  the  EU.  Furthermore,  it  appears  that  only 
three  producers  worldwide  are  able  to  supply  certain  high  permeable  (laser  treated) 
types of the product concerned. Those producers are located in the EU, the USA and 
Japan. 

(161)  It  is  recalled  that  in  1999,  three  Community  producers  merged  their  activities  under 
the  same  holding  company  (ThyssenKrupp)  in  order  to  create  a  larger  entity  which 
could compete more effectively with the other GOES producers on the world market. 
At that time, this merger was analysed in detail by the European Commission, and was 
approved.  

(162)  Finally, the investigation revealed that co-operating users purchased overall during the 
IP  respectively  10%  and  15%  of  their  GOES  from  the  Russian  and  American 
producers  for  which  dumping  was  established.  In  other  words,  co-operating  users 
overall  relied  mainly  on  other  sources  of  supply:  75%  of  their  purchases  were  from 
non-dumped  sources,  from  which  around  60%  was  purchased  from  the  Community 
industry.  Only  one  user  exclusively  purchased  GOES  from  dumped  sources,  but  it 
recently switched to Community industry supply. 

(163)  Against this background, and considering the first claim made by the users that they 
would  become  dependent  exclusively  on  the  Community  industry  supplies,  it  should 
firstly  be  recalled  that  the  objective  of  anti-dumping  duties  is  not  to  close  off  the 
Community  market  from  any  imports,  but  to  restore  a  situation  of  fair  trade  by 
removing  the  effect  of  injurious  dumping.  Imports  from  the  countries  concerned  are 
therefore  not  expected  to  come  to  an  end,  but  to  continue,  albeit  at  non-dumped  or 
non-injurious price levels. 

(164)  This is certainly the case for Russia since no dumping margin was established for the 
major  Russian  exporting  producer,  representing  around  75%  of  the  Russian  imports 
during  the  IP,  and  since  only  a  relatively  limited  margin  of  dumping,  i.e.  11.5%  as 
established  for  the  other  exporting  producer.  Reference  is  also  made  to  heading  I. 
below,  where  it  is  suggested  that  the  measures  based  on  the  findings  of  the  present 
investigation  should  replace  those  currently  in  place  concerning  large  GOES  from 
Russia, which range between 14,7% and 40,1%. In other words, in the case of Russia, 
the  overall  weight  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  established  by  the  present 
investigation  would  be  significantly  less  important  than  the  measures  currently  in 
force.  

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
(165)  In  the  case  of  the  USA,  imports  are  also  expected  to  continue  in  view  of  the 
continuous  demand  on  the  Community  market  for  specific  types  of  the  product 
concerned, which are only produced by a limited number of suppliers worldwide. 

(166)  Furthermore,  reference  is  made  to  recitals  (190)  to  (193)  concerning  the  price 
undertakings  offered  by 
those 
undertakings,  the  exporting  producers  undertake  to  sell  their  product  on  the 
Community market above a certain price level which will remove the injurious effect 
of dumping. It is therefore expected that imports from the countries concerned will not 
cease. 

two  exporting  producers  concerned.  By 

the 

(167)  Because the imports from the countries concerned are expected to continue, and since 
alternative sources of supply still exist, the claim that the imposition of anti-dumping 
duties  would  result  in  the  Community  industry  being  in  a  monopolistic  situation  is 
unfounded.  Indeed,  not  only  imports  from  the  countries  concerned  are  expected  to 
continue,  but  also  those  from  other  third  countries.  In  addition,  the  Community 
industry consists of more than one producer, and other Community producers (not part 
of the Community industry) are also active on the market. 

(168)  Certain  parties  claimed  that  the  monopolistic  situation  of  the  Community  industry 
would specifically arise with respect to certain specific types of the product concerned, 
i.e. certain high permeable types, that can only be produced by a very limited number 
of producers worldwide. In that respect, it should firstly be noted that the investigation 
concluded that for the purpose of the present anti-dumping proceeding, all types of the 
product  concerned  should  be  regarded  as  one  single  product.  The  investigation, 
including the Community interest analysis, should therefore be carried out with respect 
to the product concerned overall, and not individually for certain specific types.  

(169)  Notwithstanding  the  above,  it  is  true  that  high  permeable  types  of  the  product 
concerned are indeed only produced by a limited number of producers worldwide, i.e. 
one producer in the US, two in Japan and one in the Community (see above). In that 
respect, it is recalled that those sources of supply are expected to remain available after 
the imposition of the measures, including those imports from the USA, albeit at a non 
dumped  or  injurious  prices.  Therefore,  a  sufficient  level  of  competition  can  be 
expected to remain also with regard to these specific product types. 

(170)  In  addition,  the  claim  that  it  would  be  against  the  Community  interest  to  impose 
measures  because  only  few  companies  produce  those  specific  types  cannot  be 
considered a valid reason for accepting that one of those producers, in this case the US 
producer, sells its products at dumped and injurious prices on the Community market. 
It  is  recalled  that  a  substantial  margin  of  dumping  of  47,6%  was  established  with 
respect to this company. The investigation revealed that users purchased a significant 
portion  of  their  products,  including  the  high  permeable  types,  from  the  Community 
industry  and  that  the  continuous  price  pressure  caused  by  the  dumped  imports  may 
lead  to  plant  closures  in  the  Community.  In  the  absence  of  anti-dumping  measures 
removing the negative impact of injurious dumping, it could not be excluded that users 
would  become  exclusively  dependent  on  imports,  which  would  certainly  also  be 
detrimental to competition and to the user industry. 

(171)  As  concerns  the  claim  that  prices  of  the  product  concerned  will  increase  on  the 
Community market if anti-dumping measures are imposed, it should be acknowledged 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
that since the objective of the measures is to remove injurious dumping, it can also be 
expected  that  any  imposition  of  measures  would  indeed  have  an  overall  increasing 
effect on prices. This effect is however expected to remain moderate.  

(172)  Indeed, there would remain various sources of supply that will not be hit by measures 
and  ensure  competition.  Also,  as  already  mentioned  above,  as  far  as  Russia  is 
concerned, in view of the level of the measures established by the present investigation 
and since those measures would replace the existing measures concerning large GOES 
(see  recital  194,  195),  anti-dumping  measures  based  on  the  current  findings  would 
overall  have  a  lesser  impact  than  the  measures  in  force  during  the  IP.  Indeed,  when 
applying  a  level  of  measures  as  established  by  the  present  investigation  on  Russian 
imports of the product concerned into the Community during the IP, the anti-dumping 
duties would overall be four times less that the actual duties paid. 

(173)  As  to  the  imports  from  the  USA,  in  application  of  the  lesser  duty  rule,  only  the 
injurious part of the dumping margin will be removed, which would on average bring 
back the price of the US imports to a level that is still below its 2002 level.  

(174)  The allegation that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would result in a shortage 
should also be refuted. Indeed, as set out above, imports are in any event expected to 
continue if anti-dumping measures are imposed. Moreover, the Community industry’s 
production capacity is larger than the overall Community consumption during the IP. 
In addition, if Community prices are restored to a fair level, it can be expected that the 
Community industry will shift back sales on its domestic market by decreasing export 
sales. 

(175)  Some interested parties claimed that the closure of the Italian plant would decrease the 
Community  industry’s  overall  production  capacity  of  the  product  concerned,  thus 
possibly resulting in shortages on the Community market. This argument is however 
ambiguous since it would, rather call for protection of the Community industry against 
dumped imports, in order to prevent further plant closures thus maintaining production 
capacity.  

(176)  Moreover, it should be noted that even after the announced plant closure, the overall 
Community  industry’s  production  capacity  will  still  be  larger  than  the  Community 
demand during the IP, and that it is the intention of the remaining producers to invest 
in  their  production  capacities  in  order  to  further  guarantee  a  sufficient  supply  on  the 
Community market. A situation whereby fair competition and price level are restored 
on  the  Community  market,  thus  ensuring  a  satisfactory  return  for  the  Community 
industry,  would  certainly  favour  such  investments  and  a  shift  back  of  sales  on  the 
Community market. 

(177)  Finally,  it  should  be  noted  that  most  of  the  above  claims  were  already  made  by  the 
users in the framework of the previous investigations that led to the imposition of anti-
dumping measures on large GOES from Russia. In spite of those claims, which at that 
time were all rejected because they were either considered unfounded or they were not 
found to be against the interest of the Community as a whole, the users did not provide 
any  evidence,  in  framework  of  the  current  investigation,  that  those  measures  indeed 
had the negative impact that was claimed at the time. This gives an indication that any 
measures  based  on  the  current  findings  are  also  expected  not  to  have  a  significant 
negative impact on the user industry.  

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
(178)  For all the above reasons it can be concluded that, in case of imposition of measures, 
users  of  the  product  concerned  overall  would  not  exclusively  depend  on  the 
Community  industry,  that  in  many  circumstances  the  purchase  price  of  the  users 
would  not  be  directly  affected  by  the  imposition  of  any  measures,  or  only  in  a 
moderate  way,  and  that  there  would  be  no  shortage  of  GOES  supply  overall  in  the 
future on the Community market.  

3. Interest of the unrelated importers 

(179)  Only  one  unrelated  importer  co-operated  with  the  investigation  and  opposed  the 
imposition of measures on the grounds that measures would allegedly make an end to 
their  trading  operations  with  respect  to  the  product  concerned.  Since  this  company 
exclusively imported GOES from one of the countries concerned, it can be expected 
that  it  will  be  directly  affected  by  the  imposition  of  measures.  This  importer  would 
nevertheless still have the possibility to also import from other suppliers not subject to 
measures.  Furthermore,  it  appears  that  around  75%  of  this  importer’s  turnover  does 
not relate to the product concerned. Considering those elements, it is considered that 
the negative impact of imposition of measures would be expected to remain relatively 
limited. In view of the fact that no other importer claimed any adverse effect resulting 
from  the  possible  imposition  of  measures,  it  can  be  concluded  that  importers  would 
overall not be significantly affected. 

(180)  It should be noted that the low level of co-operation of importers is explained by the 
fact that users mostly import GOES themselves, and reference is therefore also made 
to the above conclusions.  

4. Conclusion on Community interest 

(181)  The  effects  of  the  imposition  of  measures  are  expected  to  give  the  Community 
industry the opportunity to regain profitable sales volumes on the Community market 
and a higher market share. It was established that dumped imports highly contributed 
to  the  phased  plant  closure  of  one  company  that  is  part  of  the  Community  industry 
and, in view of the deteriorated situation of the Community industry overall, there is a 
risk  that  in  the  absence  of  measures,  other  Community  producers  will  have  to  close 
down some production lines or even their whole production facilities and lay-off part 
of  their  workforce.  Whilst  some  negative  effects  are  likely  to  result  in  the  form  of 
price  increases  for  the  users,  it  is  considered  that  such  effect  will  remain  limited.  It 
should  also  be  considered  that  it  is  also  in  the  interest  of  the  users  that  viable  and 
competitive  Community  producers  remain  active  on  a  market  that  is  no  longer 
distorted by unfair trade practices. 

(182)  Indeed, in view of the limited sources of supply worldwide, it is also in the interest of 
the  Community  users  that  sources  of  supply  in  the  Community  are  not  further 
weakened  by  dumped  imports  which  could  result  in  a  further  decrease  of  the 
Community  industry’s  activity,  thus  make  users  of  GOES  progressively  more 
dependent on imported material. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
H. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES  

(183)  In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  resulting  injury  and 
Community interest, measures on imports of the product concerned from the USA and 
Russia should be imposed. 

1. Injury Elimination Level 

(184)  The level of the definitive anti-dumping measures should be sufficient to eliminate the 
injury to the Community industry caused by the dumped imports, without exceeding 
the  dumping  margins  found.  When  calculating  the  amount  of  duty  necessary  to 
remove  the  effects  of  the  injurious  dumping,  it  was  considered  that  any  measures 
should allow the Community industry to cover its costs and obtain a profit before tax 
that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the 
absence of dumped imports.  

(185)  On  the  basis  of  the  information  available,  it  was  preliminarily  found  that  a  profit 
margin of 5% of turnover, which the Community industry achieved in 2001, could be 
regarded  as  an  appropriate  level  that  the  Community  industry  could  be  expected  to 
obtain in the absence of injurious dumping. It is to be noted that this level of profit was 
also  used  for  the  determination  of  the  injury  margin  in  the  framework  of  the 
investigation that led to the imposition of the measures currently in place concerning 
GOES  with  a  width  of  more  than  500  mm.  The  necessary  price  increase  was  then 
determined on the basis of a comparison, at the same level of trade, of the weighted 
average  import  price,  as  established  for  the  price  undercutting  calculations,  with  the 
non-injurious  price  of  products  sold  by  the  Community  industry  on  the  Community 
market. The non-injurious price has been obtained by adjusting the sales price of each 
company composing the Community industry to a break-even point and by adding the 
above-mentioned  profit  margin.  Any  difference  resulting  from  this  comparison  was 
then expressed as a percentage of the total CIF import value.  

2. Definitive duties 

(186)  In  the  light  of  the  foregoing,  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, it is considered that definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed 
in respect of imports originating in Russia and the USA at the level of the lowest of 
the dumping and injury margins, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. 

(187)  On the basis of 
the above, the proposed 
definitive duties are as 
follows:Country 

Company 

Anti-dumping 
duty 

United States of America 

AK Steel Corporation  

All other companies 

Russia 

Novolipetsk Iron & Steel Corporation (NLMK)  

EN 

Viz Stal  

37 

31,5% 

37,8% 

11,5% 

0% 

   EN 

 
 
 
All other companies 

11,5% 

(188)  The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  They  therefore 
reflect  the  situation  found  during  that  investigation  with  respect  to  these  companies. 
These  duty  rates  (as  opposed  to  the  country-wide  duty  applicable  to  ‘all  other 
companies’)  are  thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in  the 
countries  concerned  and  produced  by  the  companies  and  thus  by  the  specific  legal 
entities  mentioned  in  the  operative  part  of  this  Regulation.  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’. 

(189)  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  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 accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting 
from individual duty rates. 

3. Undertakings 

(190)  One exporting producer in the USA and one in Russia offered a price undertaking in 

accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. 

(191)  The Commission considers that the undertakings offered by AK Steel Corporation and 
NMLK  can  be  accepted  since  they  will  eliminate  the  injurious  effect  of  dumping. 
Moreover, the regular and detailed reports which the companies undertook to provide 
to the Commission will allow effective monitoring and the structure of the companies 
is  such  that  the  Commission  considers  that  the  risk  of  circumvention  of  the 
undertakings is minimised. 

(192)  In order to ensure the effective respect and monitoring of the undertakings, when the 
request  for  release  for  free  circulation  pursuant  to  the  undertakings  is  presented, 
exemption  from  the  duty  is  conditional  upon  presentation  of  a  commercial  invoice 
containing  the  information  listed  in  the  Annex,  which  is  necessary  for  customs  to 
ascertain that shipments correspond to the commercial document at the required level 
of detail. Where no such invoice is presented, or when it does not correspond to the 
product presented to customs, the appropriate rate of the anti-dumping duty should be 
payable. 

(193)  In the event of a suspected breach, breach or withdrawal of the undertaking, and anti-
dumping  duty  may  be  imposed,  pursuant  to  Articles  8(9)  and  (10)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
I. CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERIM REVIEW INVESTIGATION 
CONCERNING RUSSIA  

(194)  It is recalled that, as mentioned in recital (3) of this regulation, an interim review was 
initiated in order to allow for any amendment or repeal necessary of the definitive anti-
dumping measures imposed on imports from Russia of large GOES. This was due to 
the  fact  that  those  products  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  products  subject  to  the 
proceeding  concerning  imports  into  the  Community  of  grain  oriented  flat-rolled 
products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the USA and Russia 

(195)  On the basis of the above findings and conclusions, the investigation established that 
measures  should  be  imposed  on  GOES  of  all  widths,  as  described  in  recital  (3), 
originating inter alia in Russia. It is therefore considered that because those measures 
also  cover  large  GOES,  the  continued  imposition  of  those  measures  imposed  by 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  151/2003,  are  no  longer  appropriate  and  should 
accordingly be repealed. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of grain oriented flat-
rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the United States of America 
and  Russia,  falling  under  CN  codes  7225  1100  (products  of  a  width  of  600  mm  or 
more) and 7226 1100 (products of a width of less than 600 mm). 

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable, before duty, to the net free-
at-Community-frontier  price  of  the  products  described  in  paragraph  1  and 
manufactured by the companies below shall be as follows: 

Country 

Company 

United 
America 

States 

of 

AK  Steel  Corporation  -  703,  Curtis 
Street, Middletown, Ohio 

Russia 

All other companies 

Iron 
Novolipetsk 
Corporation 
(NLMK) 
Metallurgov sq., Lipetsk 

& 

Steel 
2, 

- 

Viz  Stal 
Ekaterinburg 

-  28,  Kirov  Street, 

All other companies 

Anti-
dumping 
duty 

TARIC 
Additional 
code 

31,5% 

37,8% 

A669 

A999 

11,5% 

A670 

0% 

11,5% 

A516 

A999 

3. 

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

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Article 2 

1. 

Imports  declared  for  release  into  free  circulation  shall  be  exempt  from  the  anti-
dumping duties imposed by Article 1, provided that they are manufactured, shipped 
and  invoiced  by  companies  from  which  undertakings  are  accepted  by  the 
Commission  and  whose  names  are  listed  in  the  relevant  Commission  Decision,  as 
from  time  to  time  amended,  and  have  been  imported  in  conformity  with  the 
provisions of the same Commission Decision or Regulation. 

2. 

The imports mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duty 
on condition that  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the  goods  declared  and  presented  to  customs  correspond  precisely  to  the 
product described in Article 1 paragraph 1, 

a  commercial  invoice  containing  at  least  the  elements  listed  in  the  Annex  is 
presented  to  Member  States'  customs  authorities  upon  presentation  of  the 
declaration for release into free circulation, and 

the  goods  declared  and  presented  to  customs  correspond  precisely  to  the 
description on the commercial invoice’. 

Article 3 

The  anti-dumping  duties  imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  151/2003  on  imports  of 
grain oriented cold rolled sheets and strips of silicon-electrical steel with a width of more than 
500 mm originating in Russia, and falling within CN codes 7225 1100 (products of a width of 
600  mm  or  more)  and  ex-7226  1100  (TARIC  code  7226  1100  10)  (products  of  a  width  of 
more than 500 mm but less than 600 mm) are hereby repealed. 

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

Article 4 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
The  following  elements  shall  be  indicated  in  the  Commercial  Invoice  accompanying  the 
Company's sales to the Community of goods which are subject to the Undertaking: 

ANNEX  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

The  heading  "COMMERCIAL  INVOICE  ACCOMPANYING  GOODS  SUBJECT 
TO AN UNDERTAKING" 

The name of the Company issuing the Commercial Invoice 

The Commercial Invoice number 

The date of issue of the Commercial Invoice 

The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be customs-
cleared  at  the  Community  frontier  (as  specified  in  the  Regulation  imposing  the 
definitive anti-dumping duty), 

6. 

The exact plain language description of the goods and: 

–  the product code number (PCN), 

–  technical specifications of the PCN as described in Annex I, 

–  the company product code number (CPC), 

–  CN code, 

–  quantity (to be given in kg/ton) 

7. 

The description of the terms of the sale, including: 

–  price per units (kg/ton) 

–  the applicable payment terms, 

–  the applicable delivery terms, 

–  Total discounts and rebates. 

8. 

9 

Name of the Company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued directly 
by the Company. 

The name of the official of the Company that has issued the Commercial Invoice and 
the following signed declaration: 

“I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community of the 
goods  covered  by  this  invoice  is  being  made  within  the  scope  and  under  the  terms  of  the 
Undertaking  offered  by  [COMPANY],  and  accepted  by  the  European  Commission  through 
[Regulation (EC) No XXX/2002] [Decision XXXXX]. I declare that the information provided 
on this invoice is complete and correct.” 

EN 

41 

   EN