Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2005-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, heat-resisting materials, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 12.9.2005 
COM(2005) 424 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of 
China 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

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  proceeding  concerning  imports  of 
certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China. 

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 

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. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Consultation of interested parties 

219 

229 

230 

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. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

305 

Summary of the proposed action 

On  13  July  2004,  the  Commission  announced  the  initiation  of  an  anti-dumping 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
proceeding  with  regard  to  imports  into  the  Community  of  certain  magnesia  bricks 
originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  ('PRC').  On  13  April  2005,  the 
Commission imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 552/2005 ('the provisional Regulation'), 
a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  the  imports  into  the  Community  of  certain 
magnesia bricks originating in the PRC. 

The  enclosed  Commission  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  contains  the  definitive 
conclusions regarding dumping, injury, causality and Community interest.  

It  is  proposed  that  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  should  be  imposed  on  imports  of 
certain magnesia bricks originating in the PRC. 

It  is  proposed  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation,  with  a 
view to publish it in the Official Journal on 12 October 2005 at the latest. 

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). 

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

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

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

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

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

331 

332 

341 

342 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

409 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of 
China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 (the ‘basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

1. Provisional Measures 

(1) 

(2) 

On 13 April 2005, the Commission imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 552/20052 (‘the 
provisional  Regulation’),  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  into  the 
Community of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China 
(‘PRC’). 

It  is  recalled  that  the  investigation  period  of  dumping  and  injury  (‘IP’)  covered  the 
period  from  1  April  2003  to  31  March  2004. The  examination  of  trends  relevant  for 
the  injury  analysis  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2001  to  the  end  of  the  IP 
(‘period considered’). 

2. Subsequent procedure 

(3) 

1 

2 

Following  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain 
magnesia  bricks  from  the  PRC,  some  interested  parties  submitted  comments  in 
writing.  The  parties  who  so  requested  were  also  granted  an  opportunity  to  be  heard 
orally.  

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  461/2004  (OJ  L  77, 
13.3.2004, p.12). 
OJ L 93, 12.4.2005, p .6. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(4) 

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its  definitive  findings.  The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  parties  were 
examined, and, where considered appropriate, the provisional findings were modified 
accordingly.  After  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  on-spot  verification  visits 
were carried out at the premises of  

– 

– 

– 

– 

Carboref GmbH, Germany (unrelated importer) 

Duferco, S.A., Switzerland (unrelated importer) 

Duferco La Louvière, Belgium (user) 

Refratechnik Steel GmbH, Germany (related importer). 

(5) 

The  Commission  further  disclosed  all  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis of which it intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping 
duty and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. 
The  interested  parties  were  also  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  make 
representations  subsequent  to  this  disclosure.  The  oral  and  written  comments 
submitted  by  the  parties  were  considered  and,  where  appropriate,  taken  into  account 
for the definitive findings. 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

It is recalled that, in recital (12) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned 
was  defined  as  chemically  bonded,  unfired  magnesia  bricks,  whose  magnesia 
component  contains  at  least  80%  MgO,  whether  or  not  containing  magnesite, 
originating in the PRC ('the product concerned'), normally declared within CN codes 
ex 6815 91 00, ex 6815 99 10. It was found in the further course of the investigation 
that  CN  code  ex  6815  99  90  could  also  be  legally  used  for  imports  of  the  product 
concerned.  

The investigation has shown that the product concerned was also imported under CN 
codes  ex  6815  10  10,  ex  6902  10  00  and  ex  6903  90  90  (ex  6903  90  20  before  1 
January  2004)  during  the  IP.  However,  CN  codes  falling  within  chapter  69,  ceramic 
products,  should  only  be  used  for  fired  products  and  not  for  the  product  concerned 
which  is  unfired.  In  addition,  CN  code  6815  10  10  includes  products  which  are 
essentially  characterised  by  carbon,  whereas  the  product  concerned  is  essentially 
characterised  by  the  magnesium  oxide  content.  Therefore,  imports  of  the  product 
concerned under these codes should be considered unacceptable should they be used. 
In order to prevent misclassifications in the future, and to ensure that the codes will be 
correctly used, the customs authorities have been alerted via a special risk information 
form. 

One interested party argued that only the CN codes 6815 91 00 and 6815 99 10 were 
mentioned in the notice of initiation and that the investigation could, therefore, not be 
extended  to  the  additional  codes.  However,  CN  codes  which  are  mentioned  in  the 
notice  of  initiation  are  given  for  information  only  and  are  not  binding,  as  it  is  the 
product  description,  in  particular  the  physical  and  chemical  characteristics,  which  is 
relevant for the scope of the investigation. Consequently, all types of magnesia bricks 
sharing the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and having basically the 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
same  use,  should  be  covered  by  the  investigation,  regardless  of  their  customs 
classification.  The  scope  of  the  investigation  has  thus  not  been  extended.  The 
investigation has clarified that the product concerned should legally be imported under 
CN codes ex 6815 91 00, ex 6815 99 10 and ex 6815 99 90. If, however, it was found 
that  the  product  concerned  was  mistakenly  declared  under  a  different  CN  code,  the 
investigation also covered that product. 

(9) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  regarding  the  definition  of  the  product 
concerned and the like product, it is therefore concluded that the product concerned is 
defined  as  chemically  bonded,  unfired  magnesia  bricks,  whose  magnesia  component 
contains  at  least  80%  MgO,  whether  or  not  containing  magnesite,  originating  in  the 
PRC,  declared  within  CN  codes  ex  6815  91  00,  ex  6815  99  10  and  ex  6815  99  90. 
Findings in recitals (13) to (16) of the provisional Regulation are also confirmed. 

C. 

DUMPING 

1. General methodology  

(10)  The general methodology used to establish whether the imports into the Community of 
the product concerned were dumped was described in the provisional Regulation. The 
general  methodology  as  set  out  in  particular  in  recitals  (35),  (45)  and  (61)  of  the 
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

2. Market Economy Treatment (‘MET’) 

(11)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (28)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  one  exporting  producer 
failed  to  provide  conclusive  proof  that  its  assets  were  valued  independently  and 
recorded at market value. It did not demonstrate that all costs were taken into account 
at market value. The exporting producer reiterated the same claims after adoption of 
the  provisional  Regulation.  Although  it  failed  to  respect  the  extended  deadlines,  it 
claimed that it had provided new evidence concerning the assets valuation, justifying a 
reconsideration of the rejection of MET. 

(12) 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  said  exporting  producer  did  not  provide  the  documents 
requested  within  the  deadlines,  which  would  be  sufficient  to  reject  its  claims. 
Nevertheless,  an  examination  of  the  documents  received  indicated  that  no  new 
evidence was provided to support these claims. Thus, even if these documents could 
be  taken  into  consideration,  they  would  not  change  the  findings  of  the  provisional 
Regulation.  The  decision  not  to  grant  MET  to  this  exporting  producer  is  therefore 
confirmed. 

(13)  Similarly,  two  other  exporting  producers  to  whom  MET  had  been  refused  reiterated 
their  objections  raised  at  the  provisional  stage.  However,  no  new  evidence  was 
provided which would justify any change in the decision. 

(14) 

In the absence of other comments, the findings concerning MET set out in recitals (17) 
to (28) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
3. Individual treatment (‘IT’) 

(15)  The companies not granted IT provided no new evidence proving that they should be 
granted IT. Therefore, and in the absence of any other comments on IT, the findings as 
set out in recitals (29) to (34) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. Normal value 

4.1. Determination of normal value of all exporting producers not granted MET  

(a) 

Analogue country 

(16)  As  set  out  in  recital  (39)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  Commission  sought 
cooperation  from  38  known  producers  around  the  world.  However,  cooperation  was 
only obtained from two producers in the United States of America. The investigation 
did not show any  reason  why  the  information  received and verified  was not suitable 
for this proceeding.  

(17)  Some interested parties argued that the USA was not an adequate analogue country for 
establishing the normal value for the PRC. They claimed that with only 3 producers on 
the US domestic market the competition was insufficient. In this respect, it is recalled 
that, as set out in recital (40) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation showed 
that  the  USA  have  a  competitive  market  for  the  product  concerned  with  at  least  3 
producers, around 30 suppliers, more than 15 importers and approximately 300 users. 
This claim was therefore rejected. 

(18)  Since  these  claims  were  not  further  substantiated  and  in  the  absence  of  any  further 
comments  on  this  issue,  the  choice  of  the  USA  as  the  analogue  country  is  hereby 
confirmed. 

(b) 

Determination of normal value  

(19)  Some  exporting  producers  claimed  that  clerical  errors  were  made  in  the  definitive 
dumping  calculations.  Other  specific  claims  concerning  the  ocean  freight  costs,  the 
insurance cost, export surcharge and the credit rate used in the calculations were also 
made by exporters. 

(20)  Following  an  examination  of  these  claims,  it  was  found  that  some  clerical  errors 
occurred  in  the  calculations.  These  were  corrected.  Some  other  claims  concerning 
ocean freight, the insurance costs and the export charge could also be accepted as far 
as they were justified and substantiated. All other claims had however to be rejected. 

(21)  For  the  reasons  stated  below,  some  interested  parties  argued  that  the  normal  value 

from the USA should be adjusted downward. 

(22)  Firstly,  it  was  claimed  that  the  Chinese  producers  have  a  different  cost  structure, 
especially with regard to certain costs including labour and electricity. It must be noted 
that  this  claim  is  irrelevant  in  the  context  of  the  assessment  of  normal  value  in  the 
analogue country as any such adjustment on the costs would render the investigation 
in  the  analogue  country  meaningless and  it would lead to adjust the normal value to 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
non-market  economy  levels.  Moreover,  this  claim  was  not  substantiated  by  any 
evidence. Therefore, it had to be rejected. 

(23)  Secondly,  it  was  argued  that  one  of  the  two  cooperating  producers  in  the  USA  is 
linked  to  one  of  the  complainant  companies  in  the  Community.  It  is  recalled  that 
normal value in the analogue country was established on the basis of the data provided 
by two companies in the USA. This data was closely analysed and verified on spot. On 
this basis, it was concluded that the relationship between one of those companies and a 
complainant  company  did  not  affect  the  reliability  of  the  data  used  for  the 
establishment of normal value. No indications were found during the investigation that 
this relationship had any influence on the normal value in analogue country. 

(24)  Finally,  following  substantiated  claims  by  a  number  of  exporters,  normal  value  was 
adjusted downwards due to (i) differences in quality of the raw material used by the 
producers in the analogue country as compared to that used by producers in the PRC; 
(ii)  the  higher  costs  of  transport  and  other  charges;  and  (iii)  importation  costs 
associated with the purchases of these raw materials by the US producers. It was also 
found  that  certain  types  of  treatment  of  the  bricks  were  done  in  the  US  but  not  in 
China. Furthermore, the investigation showed that an adjustment concerning the level 
of trade was also warranted. 

(25) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  recitals  (42)  and  (43)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are confirmed. 

4.2. Determination of normal value of all exporting producers granted MET 

(26)  At the provisional stage, the normal value for companies granted MET was established 
for each type of magnesia bricks. These types could be identified by a Product Control 
Number (PCN). For companies granted IT, however, groups of PCNs were established 
based on MgO content for the purpose of establishing the normal value. 

(27)  At the definitive stage, it was considered that the methodology should be streamlined 
so  as  to  ensure  consistency  between  exporting  producers  granted  MET  and  other 
producing  exporters.  Accordingly,  the  groups  of  PCNs  on  MgO  basis  were  also 
applied to calculate the normal value for producers granted MET.  

5. Export price 

(28)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  that  errors  were  made  in  the  level  of  SG&A  and 

profit of a related importer. 

(29)  After  verification,  it  was  found  that  the  claim  with  regard  to  the  SG&A  could  be 
accepted  as  a  clerical  error  occurred  at  the  provisional  stage.  However,  the  claim 
related to the level of the profit was not founded as the level used in the calculations 
was based on that of unrelated importers and traders verified during the investigation. 
The claim on the profit was therefore rejected. 

(30)  Another  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  profit  margins  deducted  for  its  related 
companies were excessive and provided evidence that the actual profit was at a lower 
level. It was also claimed that the profit should be deducted once for the last related 
trader  only  and  not  for  intermediate  related  traders.  In  addition,  it  claimed  that  the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
calculation  of  the  deduction  of  the  export  VAT  should  be  based  on  the  cost  of  raw 
materials and not on the export price of the goods. 

(31)  Based  on  the  new  evidence  provided,  the  profit  margin  for  the  related  traders  was 
corrected on the basis of data from other unrelated traders. The claim concerning the 
export  VAT,  however,  was  rejected  as  the  company  did  not  provide  any  evidence 
supporting its claim.  

(32)  Contrary  to  its  position  at  provisional  stage,  one  exporting  producer  granted  IT 
claimed  at  a  very  late  stage  in  the  investigation  that  it  was  related  to  a  Community 
importer and requested that its dumping margin be revised accordingly. It claimed that 
its dumping margin should be calculated starting from the resale price of the allegedly 
related  importer.  Although  the  exporting  producer  and  the  Community  importer 
acknowledged  that  they  did  not  have  any  legal  link  to  clearly  establish  their 
relationship, they claimed that they should nevertheless be considered related because 
of their long term cooperation in the business of magnesia bricks.  

(33)  However, the companies mentioned did not provide any new evidence that would lead 
to the conclusion that they are related in the sense of the basic Regulation. In addition, 
the Community importer had a similar relationship with another Chinese exporter, but 
did not claim the same relationship for this exporter. On this basis, there is no reason 
to change the provisional conclusion that these companies are not related. The claim is 
therefore rejected. 

(34)  At the provisional stage, the export price for companies granted MET was established 
at  the  level  of  PCN  but  for  companies  granted  IT  groupings  to  PCNs  on  MgO  basis 
were applied to the export price. At the definitive stage, the Commission streamlined 
the  methodology  to  ensure  consistency  and  groupings  to  PCNs  on  MgO  basis  were 
applied to calculate the export price for producers granted MET as well.  

(35) 

In the absence of any other comments, the provisional findings set out in recitals (59)-
(60) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6. Comparison 

(36) 

In the absence of substantiated claims, the provisional findings as described in recitals 
(61)-(62) of the provisional Regulation are herewith confirmed. 

7. Dumping margin 

7.1. For the co-operating exporting producers granted MET/IT 

(37)  The  definitive  weighted  average  dumping  margins  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the 

CIF Community frontier price, duty unpaid, are: 

–  Liaoning Mayerton Refractories Co. Ltd. 

2,7% 

–  Yingkou Sanhua Refractory Materials Co. Ltd. 

8,1% 

–  Yingkou Guangyang Refractories Co. Ltd.  

18,6% 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
–  Yingkou Kyushu Refractories Co. Ltd 

18,6% 

–  Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd.   27,7% 

–  Yingkou Qinghua Refractories Co. Ltd. 

22,2% 

7.2. For all other exporting producers 

(38)  Due  to  new  data  made  available  on  import  quantities,  the  level  of  cooperation  was 
recalculated and found to be higher than provisionally established. Nonetheless, it is to 
be confirmed that the level of co-operation was low.  

(39)  At the provisional stage the country-wide dumping margin was set at the level of the 
highest margin established for the co-operating producers. However, at the definitive 
stage the calculation methodology of the country-wide margin was revised in line with 
the  consistent  practice  of  the  Commission  in  case  of  low  cooperation.  The  country-
wide dumping margin was therefore re-assessed as a weighted average of: 

(a) 

(b) 

the  dumping  margin  found  for  the  representative  group  of  the  product 
concerned  exported  by  the  only  co-operating  exporting  producer  not  granted 
MET or IT; and 

the highest dumping margin found for the representative group of the product 
concerned exported by the same co-operating exporter. 

(40)  Accordingly, the country-wide dumping margin was definitively set at 51,5%. 

D. 

INJURY 

1. Community production 

(41) 

In  the  absence  of  any  new  comments  submitted,  the  provisional  findings  concerning 
the total Community production as set out in recital (68) of the provisional Regulation 
are hereby confirmed. 

2. Definition of the Community industry 

(42)  Several  interested  parties  argued  that  the  Community  producer  RHI  should  be 
excluded from the Community industry, contrary to the conclusion in the provisional 
Regulation.  These  parties  claimed  that  RHI’s  core  business  is  not  situated  in  the 
Community and that its volume of imports in the IP is almost the same as that of the 
Refratechnik group (‘Refratechnik’), another importing producer which was excluded 
from the Community industry. 

(43) 

It  is  recalled  from  recital  (70)  in  the  provisional  Regulation  that  RHI’s  biggest 
production sites as regards the product concerned as well as its headquarters and R&D 
centre  are  situated  in  the  Community.  Also  it  was  clear  that  RHI’s  Community 
production company was a separate legal entity from its Chinese production company. 
Even if RHI is a global group and has a production site in the PRC under a separate 
legal  entity,  it  still  produces  the  vast  majority  of  its  magnesia  bricks,  which  are 
subsequently  sold  on  the  Community  market,  at  its  Community  production  sites.  As 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
only a small proportion of its sales on the Community market are imported from the 
PRC, RHI is not shielded from the dumped imports and the economic benefit it might 
obtain  from  these  imports,  if  any,  are  minimal.  Therefore,  there  is  no  compelling 
reason why RHI should be excluded from the Community industry.  

(44)  Moreover, it was found that any comparison with the situation of Refratechnik is not 
appropriate.  First  of  all,  not  being  either  a  complainant  or  supporting  the  complaint, 
Refratechnik  could  not  be  included  in  the  definition  of  Community  industry. 
Furthermore, in contrast to the RHI situation discussed above, although Refratechnik 
imported similar absolute volumes, these represented a much larger percentage of their 
sales  on  the  Community  market.  It  is  recalled  that  (i)  almost  half  of  Refratechnik’s 
sales  on  the  Community  market  were  produced  in the PRC; (ii)  the core business as 
regards  the  product  concerned  had  partly  relocated  to  China,  and  (iii)  Refratechnik 
clearly  benefited  from  the  sales  of  the  imported  products.  In  all  of  these  elements 
Refratechnik was substantially different from RHI. For these reasons, the claims had 
to be rejected and it is confirmed that RHI is part of the Community industry. 

(45) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  submitted,  the  definition  of  the  Community 
industry  as  set  out  in  recitals  (69)  to  (78)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is  hereby 
confirmed. 

3. Community consumption 

(46) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  submitted,  the  calculation  of  Community 
consumption as set out in recitals (79) to (82) of the provisional Regulation is hereby 
confirmed. 

4. Imports into the Community from the PRC 

4.1.  Market share of imports concerned 

(47) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  submitted,  the  findings  on  market  share  of  imports 
concerned as set out in recitals (83) to (84) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
confirmed. 

4.2. 

Prices of imports and undercutting 

(48) 

It  is  recalled  that,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (85)  to  (87)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  a 
comparison  was  made  between  the  ex-works  prices  of  the  Community  industry  and 
those of the exporting producers in the country concerned at CIF Community frontier 
level. 

(49)  Bearing  in  mind  the  revised  methodology  for  underselling  margins  at  recital  (86) 
below,  it  was  also  considered  appropriate  to  similarly  revise  the  undercutting 
methodology.  The  revised  undercutting  margins  for  the  exporting  producers  which 
were granted MET or IT were in the range of 13% to 37%. The average undercutting 
was calculated at 23,9%. 

(50)  Apart from the adjustments made as set out in recital (49) above, and in the absence of 
any  other  comments,  recitals  (85)  to  (87)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  concerning 
prices of imports and undercutting are confirmed. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
5. Situation of the Community Industry 

(51) 

It  is  recalled  that  in  recital  (111)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  it  was  provisionally 
established  that  the  Community  industry  had  suffered  material  injury  within  the 
meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. 

(52)  Several  interested  parties  questioned  the  interpretation  of  the  figures  relating  to  the 
situation  of  the  Community  industry  as  presented  in  recitals  (88)  to  (111)  of  the 
provisional Regulation. They stated that the figures did not show any material injury. 
These  parties  claimed  that  the  Community  industry  is  making  profits,  that  they  are 
competitive and that their business perspectives are very positive. This should lead to 
the conclusion that the Community industry has not suffered material injury.  

(53) 

It  is  noted  that  none  of  the  interested  parties  questioned  the  figures  relating  to  the 
situation  of  the  Community  industry  as  such,  but  rather  their  interpretation.  Indeed, 
when looking solely at certain volume indicators such as production, market share or 
sales  on  the  Community  market,  isolated  from  other  indicators,  these  do  not  show  a 
very negative trend.  

(54)  However, it is recalled that the Community industry responded to the dumped imports 
over  the  period  considered  by  reducing  its  prices  in  order  to  maintain  its  volume  of 
sales  on  the  Community  market.  This  caused  a  large  fall  in  profitability.  In  such 
circumstances,  the  injury  is  consequently  reflected  particularly  in  prices  and 
profitability. 

(55) 

In addition, when analysing the development of the Community industry’s economic 
indicators  between  2001  and  the  IP,  one  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  Community 
industry  had  already  restructured  in  order  to  decrease  overcapacities  and  in  order  to 
rationalise  in  the  1990’s.  At  the  beginning  of  the  period  considered  (2001)  the 
Community industry was in a stable economic position and making reasonable profits. 
However,  as  can  be  seen  from  the  substantially  decreasing  developments  in 
profitability  of  Community  sales  (recital  (98)  of  the  provisional  Regulation)  and 
decreasing  average  sales  prices  (recital  (94)  of  the  provisional  Regulation),  the 
situation deteriorated significantly between 2001 and the end of the IP. 

(56)  As  regards  the  slightly  improving  situation  in  the  IP,  it  is  recalled  that  this  was 
achieved by a further reduction in costs and that the improved situation in the IP was 
still far from the level that could be achieved in the absence of dumped imports (recital 
(99) of the provisional Regulation). 

(57) 

In the absence of any other comments submitted in addition to the above, the findings 
in  respect  of  the  situation  for  the  Community  industry,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (88)  to 
(111) of the provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.  

6. Conclusion on injury 

(58) 

In view of the above, and in the absence of any other comments, it is confirmed that 
the Community industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3 
of the basic Regulation.  

E. CAUSATION 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
1. Impact of the imports from the PRC 

(59)  One interested party alleged that the imports did not have an effect on the Community 
industry as  market  share and sales  volume were stable during  the period considered. 
However,  it  was  found  that  the  Community  industry  suffered  material  injury  (recital 
(58)  above)  and  that  they  could  only  keep  their  market  share  at  the  expense  of 
substantial price reductions which led to a 55% fall in profitability. This development 
coincided with the increased imports. It is recalled that import volumes from the PRC 
increased by around 150% and their market share increased by 118% during the period 
considered. In addition, import prices from the PRC fell by 22% and substantial price 
undercutting was taking place (recital (49) above). Therefore, and since the claim was 
not further substantiated, this argument had to be rejected. In the absence of any other 
comments, the findings of recital (113) are hereby confirmed. 

2. Impact of developments within the steel industry 

(60)  One  interested  party  alleged  that  the  technical  progress  resulting  in  longer  lasting 
bricks  and  an  efficient  steel  making  process  were  causing  the  injury  suffered  by  the 
Community  industry  and  that  this  was  not  taken  into  account  sufficiently  in  the 
provisional Regulation. 

(61) 

It  is  recalled  in  this  respect  that,  based  on  data  obtained  from  the  user  industry,  the 
decrease of magnesia bricks used per tonne of steel produced was calculated at around 
2% in the IP (recital (116) of the provisional Regulation). In addition, it was found that 
Community consumption was stable during the period considered (recital (82) of the 
provisional  Regulation).  On  the  basis  of  these  figures,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the 
technical  progress  could  only  have  had  a  minor  impact,  if  any,  on  the  situation  of 
Community industry. The argument should therefore be dismissed. 

3. Impact of currency changes 

(62)  Another  factor  which  was  claimed  to  have  caused  the  injury  is  the  falling  currency 
exchange  rate  of  the  dollar  (which  is  linked  to  the  Chinese  RMB)  against  the  Euro. 
The  dollar  depreciation  against  the  Euro  amounted  to  around  31%  in  the  period 
considered. 

(63) 

It is recalled that dumping was established comparing all prices on a RMB basis and 
therefore  the  currency  exchange  rate  did  not  have  an  influence  on  the  dumping 
margins  found.  As  regards  the  injury  margins,  the  dollar  depreciation  may  have 
encouraged increased exports to the Community of the product concerned. However, 
irrespective  of  whether  the  low  prices  may  also  be  somewhat  due  to  currency 
movements,  the  full  difference  between  the  prices  of  the  Community  industry  and 
those  of  the  exporting  producers  (see  recital  (49)  above)  constitutes  the  level  of 
undercutting which is to be taken into account. The magnitude of the injury margins in 
this case show that the dollar depreciation could hardly have contributed to the injury 
suffered by the Community industry. 

4. Impact of imports to the Community by the Community industry 

(64)  One interested party argued that the imports from the PRC by RHI were causing the 
injury  found.  It  should  be  noted  that  only  5 %  of  the  total  sales  volume  of  RHI  was 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
imported  from  the  PRC  (recital  (121)  of  the  provisional  Regulation)  and  that  these 
imports  were  sold  at  prices  comparable  to  those  of  the  Community  industry  in  the 
Community.  It  is,  therefore,  concluded  that  these  imports  did  not  cause  the  injury 
found. 

5. Impact of exports by the Community industry 

(65)  One interested party claimed that the loss in exports due to the currency fluctuation of 
the  US  dollar  and  the  resulting  reduction  in  production  caused  the  injury.  It  is, 
however,  recalled  that  exports  only  fell  slightly  over  the  period  considered  and  that 
their profitability was higher than that of the sales on the Community market (recital 
(122) of the provisional Regulation). It is, therefore, highly unlikely that these exports 
could have had a substantial negative impact on the Community industry. 

6. Impact of other factors 

(66)  One interested party alleged that the disadvantage of the Community industry, due to 
the fact that the magnesia resources are mainly located in the PRC, was a cause of the 
injury. While it is true that the mines for the main raw material are situated in the PRC 
leading  to  a  cost  and  a  strategic  advantage  for  the  producers  in  the  PRC,  such 
differences, which result in cost advantages, have in any event been taken into account 
in price comparisons. 

7. Conclusion on causation 

(67) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  on  causation,  the  conclusions  drawn  in  this 
respect in recitals (112) to (124) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

F. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. Interest of the Community industry 

(68) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  submitted  with  respect  to  the  interest  of  the 
Community  industry,  the  findings  as  set  out  in  recitals  (125)  to  (129)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. Interest of importers 

(69)  Two unrelated importers and one related importer provided submissions as a result of 
the  provisional  disclosure.  A  further  importer  which  had  not  cooperated  in  the 
proceeding  also  submitted  comments  opposing  the  provisional  measures  on  the 
grounds  that  they  would  have  a  negative  impact  on  their  turnover,  employment  and 
profitability  because  the  product  concerned  represented  a  substantial  proportion  of 
their  business.  These  four  importing  companies  represented  around  35%  of  total 
imports  in  the  IP.  The  companies  did  not,  however,  present  any  new  evidence  that 
could  change  the  Community  interest  conclusions  as  shown  in  the  provisional 
Regulation. 

(70)  Further arguments submitted by the importers which coincided with those of the users 

are discussed under recitals (73) to (82) below. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(71) 

In the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in recitals (130) to (132) of 
the provisional Regulation concerning importers’ interests are confirmed. 

3. Interest of suppliers 

(72) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  submitted  with  respect  to  the  interest  of  the 
Community  suppliers,  the  findings  as  set  out  in  recital  (133)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. Interest of users 

4.1. Market structure 

(73)  The majority of users, importers and exporting producers reiterated the argument that 
measures would strengthen a market structure consisting of a few important producers 
and thus reduce competition. Although no new arguments were made in this respect, 
some additional material was provided to support this claim. 

(74) 

It  is  recalled  that  the  largest  producer  on  the  Community  market  did  not  have  a 
majority  market  share  in  the  IP  for  the  product  concerned  (recital  (141)  of  the 
provisional Regulation). This share was calculated on the basis of verified data. It was 
contested  by  one  interested  party,  but  no  substantiated  evidence  was  given  that  the 
market  share  is  higher  than  the  above  figure.  In  addition,  no  substantial  evidence  of 
any  anti-competitive  behaviour  of  the  large  players  on  the  Community  market  has 
been  provided  by  any  of  the  interested  parties  which  could  support  the  allegation. 
Moreover, several other Community producers produced the product concerned. In the 
absence of any other comments, the finding described in recitals (140) to (141) of the 
provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed. 

4.2. Shortage of supply and increased costs 

(75) 

(76) 

It  was  claimed  that  the  measures  would  lead  to  a  shortage  of  supply  of  the  product 
concerned in the Community market as the exporting producers would stop exporting 
it to the Community due to the measures. This argument was not substantiated by any 
documentary evidence. It should be noted here that the number of available sources of 
supply in the PRC and in the Community makes it unlikely that any shortage of supply 
could occur. This argument is therefore unfounded. 

It was also claimed that raw material suppliers may be forced to reduce exports to the 
Community due to factors such as electricity shortages in the PRC, where the majority 
of  magnesite  raw  materials  are  sourced.  It  was  alleged  that  consequently  prices  for 
magnesite started to increase in 2005, leading to a shortage of the raw material on the 
Community market. It is clear that supply by the PRC of the raw materials necessary 
to  produce  magnesia  bricks  may  vary  depending  on  internal  factors  and  may  lead  to 
increased  prices  for  magnesite.  However,  this  will  impact  equally  on  Community 
producers  which  use  magnesite  of  Chinese  origin  as  it  will  impact  on  Chinese 
producers of magnesia bricks. These arguments are therefore not relevant for assessing 
the impact of the imposition of anti dumping measures. 

(77)  The user industry also expressed its concern that measures would lead to a substantial 
cost  increase  for  magnesia  bricks  and  that  this  should  be  taken  into  account  when 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
considering  the  cost  effect  of  measures  on  the  steel  industry.  However,  the  steel 
industry  did  not  generally  question  the  fact  that  magnesia  bricks  account  for 
significantly  less  than  1 %  of  their  total  costs  (recital  (143)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation). Nevertheless, they pointed out that consideration should be given to the 
fact  that  (i)  the  product  is  of  strategic  importance;  (ii)  technical  failure  of  magnesia 
bricks  could  cause  substantial  additional  costs;  and  (iii)  prices  are  likely  to  increase 
considerably due to other factors.  

(78) 

It was already noted in the provisional Regulation in recital (135) that refractories are 
a strategically very important consumable material for the steel industry as all steel has 
to  pass  through  its  converters,  furnaces  and  ladles.  Consequently,  refractory  failure 
could  cause  material  damage  in  terms  of  interrupted  production,  repairs  and  safety. 
Therefore, sufficient supply in high quality, i.e. long lasting bricks, and good technical 
support is a very important factor for the steel industry. 

(79)  Although  it  important  to  consider  whether  a  material  is  strategically  or  otherwise 
important,  its  cost  in  comparison  to  the  total  cost  of  production  is  also  a  substantial 
issue  in  a  Community  interest  analysis.  Hence,  the  undisputed  fact  that  the  cost  of 
magnesia  bricks  is  less  than  1%  of  the  total  cost  of  production  of  steel  remains  a 
decisive factor.  

(80) 

(81) 

In  this  respect,  it  should  also  be  pointed  out  that  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  anti-
dumping  measures  to  prohibit  imports  but  to  increase  prices  to  a  sustainable,  non- 
injurious  level.  In  view  of  the  level  of  the  measures  (with  a  weighted  average  of 
around 20%), it is likely that Chinese non-injurious imports will still enter the market 
and  provide  for  a  valid  competition.  Other  third  countries  also  provided  possible 
sources of supply, even if in the IP these were at low volumes. 

It should also be recalled that if measures are not imposed, there is a risk of a transfer 
of the Community production of the product concerned to the PRC in the long-term. 
Bearing in mind the lack of important producers in other third countries and that the 
product concerned is of strategic importance for the steel industry, such a reliance on 
Chinese imports is clearly not a viable scenario for the Community steel industry. This 
consideration  of  the  provisional  Regulation  (recital  (138)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation) was doubted by an importer and one steel company. It was, however, not 
contested by the large majority of the steel industry, leading to the conclusion that it is 
also  in  their  interest  that  a  viable  magnesia  bricks  production  rests  within  the 
Community. 

(82) 

In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments  submitted  with  respect  of  the  claimed 
disruption in the market structure and increased costs, the findings as set out in recitals 
(140) to (143) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.3. Conclusion on users’ interest 

(83) 

In the absence of any further comments submitted with respect of the users’ interest, 
the  findings  as  set  out  in  recitals  (134)  to  (144)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

5. Conclusion on Community Interest 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(84) 

In view of the conclusions drawn in the provisional Regulation and taking into account 
the  submissions  made  by  the  various  parties,  it  is  concluded  that  there  are  no 
compelling  reasons  not  to  impose  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  against  dumped 
imports  of  magnesia  bricks  originating  in  the  PRC.  The  conclusion  as  set  out  in 
recitals (145) and (146) of the provisional Regulation is therefore confirmed. 

G. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

1. Injury elimination level 

(85) 

(86) 

In  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  injury  elimination  level  was  calculated  using  5 
groups of PCNs depending on the MgO content of the bricks. This methodology was 
first mentioned in the questionnaires sent out at the initiation of this investigation and 
interested  parties  were  invited  to  comment.  Adjustments  to  this  methodology  were 
claimed and investigated as set out in recitals (86) to (88) below. 

In the provisional Regulation a standard adjustment was made to the CIF export prices 
in order to cover post importation costs, importer costs and level of trade. Subsequent 
investigation has shown that these adjustments should be revised in order to accurately 
reflect the costs associated with each channel of sale. The injury elimination margins 
calculated are shown below at recital (90). 

(87)  A  users’  association  claimed  that  the  difference  in  costs  for  resin  or  pitch,  which  is 
used  as  binder  for  magnesia  bricks  was  not  taken  into  account  in  the  calculations. 
While  it  is  true  that  the  costs  for  pitch,  which  is  mainly  used  in  the  Community 
production are lower than for resin, it has been claimed in a substantiated way by the 
Community producers that the higher costs for the slightly more elaborated production 
process for pitch absorb the difference. No substantiated evidence has been provided 
in this investigation as to disprove these findings. This claim was therefore rejected. 

(88)  Furthermore,  it  was  claimed  by  one  user  that  a  difference  existed  within  the  PCN 
groupings outlined in recital (85) above between bricks used in converters and bricks 
used in ladles. The Community industry sold a higher percentage of the higher priced 
converter  bricks  than  the  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC.  The  user  argued  that  this 
issue should be better reflected in the price comparisons. However, this claim was not 
substantiated as it was not made clear which PCNs were affected and to what extent. 
This claim was therefore rejected.  

(89) 

It is recalled that the non-injurious price was calculated using a profit margin of 8%. 
This figure was not contested by any interested parties and it is therefore definitively 
confirmed. 

(90)  The  definitive  weighted  average  injury  margins  for  companies  granted  either  IT  or 

MES are: 

Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd. 

Liaoning Mayerton Refractories Co. Ltd. 

Yingkou Guangyang Refractories Co. Ltd. 

42,5% 

22,7% 

27,7% 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
Yingkou Kyushu Refractories Co. Ltd. 

Yingkou Qinghua Refractories Co. Ltd. 

Yingkou Sanhua Refractory Material Co. Ltd. 

27,7% 

15,3% 

48,2% 

(91)  Following  the  various  adjustments  mentioned  above  that  have  been  made  to  the 
normal value and export prices, the injury elimination level established on the basis of 
data  of  cooperating  companies  not  granted  MET  or  IT  and  non  co-operating 
companies was found to be 39,9%.  

(92) 

In the absence of any further comments, other than the amendments discussed above, 
the  methodology  set  out  in  recitals  (147)  to  (152)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is 
hereby confirmed.  

2. Definitive measures 

(93) 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the 
dumping margin or at the level of the injury margin calculated in all cases, where it is 
lower than the dumping margin found. 

(94)  On the basis of the above, the definitive duties should be as follows:  

Company 

Injury 
elimination 
margin 

Dumping 
margin 

Proposed 
dumping duty 

anti-

Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd  42,5% 

27,7% 

27,7% 

Liaoning Mayerton Refractories Co. Ltd 

22,7% 

2,7% 

2,7% 

Yingkou Guangyang Refractories Co. Ltd 

27,7% 

18,6% 

18,6% 

Yingkou Kyushu Refractories Co. Ltd 

27,7% 

18,6% 

18,6% 

Yingkou Qinghua Refractories Co. Ltd 

15,3% 

22,2% 

15,3% 

Yingkou Sanhua Refractory Material Co. Ltd 

48,2% 

8,1% 

8,1% 

All other companies 

39,9% 

51,5% 

39,9% 

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

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(96)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. 
following  a  change  in  the  name  of  the  entity  or  following  the  setting-up  of  new 
production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission3 forthwith with all 
relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked 
to production, domestic and export sales associated with e.g. that name change or that 
change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Commission will, after 
consultation  of  the  Advisory  Committee,  propose  the  amendment  of  the  Regulation 
accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates. 

3. Undertakings 

(97)  During the course of the investigation, five exporting producers in the PRC expressed 
interest  in  offering  an  undertaking.  However,  only  three  exporting  producers  finally 
offered price undertakings in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation.  

(98)  One  of  the  companies  has  not  co-operated  in  the  investigation.  Therefore,  this 

undertaking offer had to be rejected.  

(99)  Another  company  which  had  been  granted  individual  treatment  offered  a  joint 
undertaking  together  with  an  unrelated  Swiss  based  trader.  A  joint  undertaking  offer 
with  an  unrelated  company  has  normally  to  be  rejected  since  the  presence  of  the 
unrelated  trader  renders  the  monitoring  of  financial  flows  impracticable.  In  addition, 
the unrelated trader is either directly or indirectly related to most of its EU-clients. All 
this  leads  to  a  very  complex  corporate  structure  that  would  not  allow  to  efficiently 
monitor  the  financial  flows  and  thus  the  prices  finally  paid.  Therefore,  such  an 
undertaking  is  considered  as  being  neither  enforceable  nor  effective.  Thus,  the  offer 
had to be rejected.  

(100)  Another  exporting  producer,  which  had  been  granted  individual  treatment,  offered 
together with its related trader in the PRC, a joint price undertaking combined with a 
quantitative  ceiling.  They  have  agreed  to  sell  the  product  concerned  within  the 
quantitative  ceiling  at  or  above  price  levels  which  eliminate  the  injurious  effects  of 
dumping.  Imports  beyond  the  quantitative  ceiling  will  be  subject  to  anti-dumping 
duties.  The  companies  will  also  provide  the  Commission  with  regular  and  detailed 
information concerning their exports to the Community, meaning that the undertaking 
can be monitored effectively by the Commission. Furthermore,  the  sales structure of 
these companies is such that the Commission considers that the risk of circumventing 
the agreed undertaking is limited. 

(101)  To  further  enable  the  Commission  to  effectively  monitor  the  compliance  of  the 
companies  with  the  undertaking,  when  the  request  for  release  for  free  circulation  is 
presented to the relevant customs authority, exemption from the anti-dumping duty is 
to  be  conditional  on  the  presentation  of  a  commercial  invoice  containing  at  least  the 
elements  listed  in  the  Annex.  This  level  of  information  is  also  necessary  to  enable 
customs authorities to ascertain with sufficient precision that shipments correspond to 

3 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade   
Direction B 
Office J-79 5/16 
B-1049 Brussels. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
the commercial documents. Where no such invoice is presented, or when it does not 
correspond to the product presented to customs, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping 
duty will instead be payable. 

(102)  To  further  ensure  the  effective  respect  of  the  undertaking,  the  importers  should  be 
made  aware  that  any  violation  of  the  undertaking  may  lead  to  the  retrospective 
application  of  the  anti-dumping  duty  for  the  relevant  transactions.  Therefore,  it  is 
necessary to implement legal provisions providing for the incurrence of a customs debt 
at the level of the appropriate anti-dumping duty whenever one or more conditions for 
the  exemption  are  not  respected.  A  customs  debt  should  therefore  be  incurred 
whenever the declarant has chosen to release the goods for free circulation, i.e. without 
collection of anti-dumping duty, and one or several conditions of that undertaking are 
found to have been violated.  

(103)  In the event  of  a  breach,  the  anti-dumping duty may be recovered, provided  that  the 
Commission  has  withdrawn  the  acceptance  of  the  undertaking  in  accordance  with 
Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation, by referring to that particular transaction and, as 
the case may be, by declaring the relevant undertaking invoice as invalid. Therefore, 
pursuant to Article 14 (7) of the basic Regulation, customs authorities should inform 
the  Commission  immediately  whenever  indications  of  a  violation  of  the  undertaking 
are found. 

(104)  In view of this, the offer of an undertaking is therefore considered acceptable and the 
companies  concerned  have  been  informed  of  the  essential  facts,  considerations  and 
obligations upon which acceptance is based. 

(105)  It should be noted that in the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertaking or a 
suspected breach, an anti-dumping duty may be imposed, pursuant to Article 8(9) and 
(10) of the basic Regulation. 

(106)  The above undertaking is accepted by Commission Decision [INSERT]4 

4. Collection of provisional duties 

(107)  In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the material injury caused to the Community industry, it is considered necessary that 
the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 552/2005, should be collected at the rate of the duty 
definitely imposed. Where the definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, 
only the amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties should be definitively 
collected, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

1. 

4  

EN 

Article 1 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of chemically bonded, 
unfired  magnesia  bricks,  whose  magnesia  component  contains  at  least  80%  MgO, 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
whether or not containing magnesite, originating in the People's Republic of China, 
falling within CN codes ex 6815 91 00, ex 6815 99 10 and ex 6815 99 90 (TARIC 
codes 6815 91 00 10, 6815 99 10 20 and 6815 99 90 20). 

2. 

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

Manufacturer 

Anti-dumping 
duty 

TARIC  additional 
code 

Liaoning  Mayerton  Refractories  Co.  Ltd.,  Jinqiao  Development  Zone, 
Dashiqiao, Liaoning Province, 115100, PRC  

2,7% 

A632 

Yingkou Sanhua Refractory Material Co. Ltd., Gangdu Management Zone, 
Dashiqiao City, Liaoning Province, 115100, PRC  

8,1% 

A633 

Yingkou  Kyushu  Refractories  Co.  Ltd.,  Houlashan,  Jinqiao  Village,
Dashiqiao City, Liaoning Province 115100, PRC  

Yingkou  Guangyang  Refractories  Co.  Ltd.,  Houlashan,  Jinqiao  Village,
Dashiqiao City, Liaoning Province, 115100, PRC,  

18,6% 

18,6% 

A634 

A635 

Yingkou  Qinghua  Refractories  Co.  Ltd.,  Qinghuayu  Village,  Qinghua
District, Dashiqiao City, Liaoning Province, 115100, PRC  

15,3% 

A636 

Dashiqiao  Sanqiang  Refractory  Materials Co.  Ltd.,  Biangan  Village, 
Nanlou Economic Development zone, Dashiqiao City, Liaoning Province,
115100, PRC  

All other companies 

27,7% 

A638 

39,9% 

A999 

3. 

4. 

1. 

Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraph 2, the definitive duty shall not apply to 
imports declared for release into free circulation in accordance with the provisions of 
Article 2. 

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

Article 2 

Imports  declared  for  release  into  free  circulation  which  are  invoiced  by  companies 
from  which  undertakings  are  accepted  by  the  Commission  and  whose  names  are 
listed in Commission Decision 2005/XX/EC (*), as from time to time amended, shall 
be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1, on condition that: 

–  they are manufactured, shipped and invoiced directly by the said companies to the 

first independent customer in the Community; and  

–  such  imports  are  accompanied  by  a  valid  undertaking  invoice.  An  undertaking 
invoice  is  a  commercial  invoice  containing  at  least  the  elements  and  the 
declaration stipulated in Annex; and 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
2. 

3. 

–  the  goods  declared  and  presented  to  customs  correspond  precisely  to  the 

description on the undertaking invoice. 

A  customs  debt  shall  be  incurred  at  the  time  of  acceptance  of  the  declaration  for 
release into free circulation whenever it is established, in respect of goods described 
in  Article  1  and  exempted  from  anti-dumping  duty  under  the  conditions  listed  in 
paragraph  (1),  that  one  or  more  of  such  conditions  are  not  fulfilled.  The  second 
condition set out in paragraph (1) shall be considered as not being fulfilled where the 
undertaking  invoice  is  found  not  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  Annex  or 
found not to be authentic or where the Commission has withdrawn the acceptance of 
the undertaking pursuant to Article 8(9) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 in a 
Regulation  or  Decision  which  refers  to  a  particular  transaction  and  declares  the 
relevant undertaking invoice(s) as invalid.  

Importers shall accept as a normal trade risk that the non-fulfilment, by any party, of 
one or more of the conditions listed in paragraph (1) and further defined in paragraph 
(2) may give rise to a customs debt incurred under Article 201 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 2913/92. The customs debt incurred shall be recovered upon withdrawal by the 
Commission of the acceptance of the undertaking. 

Article 3 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  552/2005  on  imports  of  chemically  bonded,  unfired  magnesia  bricks, 
whose magnesia component contains at least 80% MgO, whether or not containing magnesite, 
originating in the People's Republic of China, falling within CN codes ex 6815 91 00, ex 6815 
99 10 and ex 6815 99 90 (TARIC codes 6815 91 00 10, 6815 99 10 20 and 6815 99 90 20) 
shall be definitely collected in accordance with the rules set out below. The amounts secured 
in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released. Where the definitive 
duties  are  higher  than  the  provisional  duties,  only  the  amounts  secured  at  the  level  of  the 
provisional duties shall be definitively collected. 

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

Article 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 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX  

The  following  elements  shall  be  indicated  in  the  commercial  invoice  accompanying  the 
company’s  sales  to  the  Community  of  chemically  bonded,  unfired  magnesia  bricks,  whose 
magnesia component contains at least 80% MgO, whether or not containing magnesite, which 
are subject to an Undertaking: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

The  heading  ‘COMMERCIAL  INVOICE  ACCOMPANYING  GOODS  SUBJECT 
TO AN UNDERTAKING’. 

The  name  of  the  company  mentioned  in  Article  1  of  the  Commission  Decision 
[INSERT NUMBER] accepting the undertaking, 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. 

The exact description of the goods, including: 

–  Product  code  number  (PCN)  used  for  the  purposes  of  the  investigation  and  the 

undertaking (e.g. PCN 1, PCN 2, etc), 

–  plain language description of the goods corresponding to the PCN concerned, 

–  company product code (CPC) (if applicable), 

–  CN code, 

–  quantity (to be given in tonnes)  

7. 

The description of the terms of the sale, including: 

–  price per tonne  

–  the applicable payment terms, 

–  the applicable delivery terms, 

–  total discounts and rebates. 

8. 

9. 

Name  of  the  company  acting  as  an  importer  in  the  Community  to  which  the 
commercial invoice accompanying goods subject to an undertaking is issued directly 
by the company. 

The name of the official of the company that has issued the 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 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
undertaking  offered  by  [COMPANY],  and  accepted  by  the  European  Commission  through 
Decision  [INSERT  NUMBER],  I  declare  that  the  information  provided  in  this  invoice  is 
complete and correct.’ 

EN 

24 

   EN