Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the People’s Republic of China, India, South Africa and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96
Date: 2005-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, India, South Africa, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, manufactured goods, originating product, steel

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 14.10.2005 
COM(2005) 501 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating 
in the People’s Republic of China, India, South Africa and Ukraine following an expiry 
review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22 
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of 
the European Community, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 
of 8 March 2004 ("the basic Regulation") in the proceeding concerning imports of steel 
ropes and cables originating in the People’s Republic of China, India, South Africa and 
Ukraine  following  an  expiry  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  Council  Regulation 
(EC) No 384/96. 

•  General context 

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

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

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

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2)  CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

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

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

•  Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. 

The  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On  17  August  2004,  the  Commission  initiated  an  expiry  review  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures  in  force  in  respect  of  imports  of  steel  ropes  and  cables  originating  in  the 
People’s Republic of China, India, South Africa and Ukraine. 

The review investigation found continuing dumping of the product concerned, which, 
should measures be lifted, would result in the recurrence of injury to the Community 
industry.  It  was  further  established  that  the  lapse  of  measures  would  not  be  in  the 
interest of the Community.  

Therefore,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation in order to prolong the existing measures. 

•  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. 

•  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 reasons: 

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

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

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: 

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

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating 
in the People’s Republic of China, India, South Africa and Ukraine following an expiry 
review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having regard to the Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (the ‘basic 
Regulation’)1 and in particular Article 11(2) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. Procedure 

1.1 Measures in force 

(1) 

(2) 

In  August  1999,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1796/19992  (‘the  original  Regulation’),  the 
Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables 
(‘SWR’)  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  (‘PRC’),  Hungary,  India, 
Mexico,  Poland,  South  Africa  and  Ukraine.  The  investigation  that  led  to  these 
measures will be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.  

The  measures  applying  to  these  imports  consisted  of  an  ad  valorem  duty,  except  for 
imports  from  one  Indian,  one  Mexican,  one  South  African  and  one  Ukrainian 
exporting producers from which undertakings were accepted by Commission Decision 
1999/572/EC3.  By  Regulation  (EC)  No  1678/20034,  the  Commission  withdrew  the 
undertaking  offered  by  the  above  Ukrainian  exporting  producer,  and  by  Regulation 
(EC)  No  1674/20035,  the  Council  re-imposed  the  corresponding  ad  valorem  anti-
dumping duty for this exporter. 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 

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 217, 17.8.1999, p.1. 
OJ L 217, 17.8.1999, p. 63. 
OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p. 13. 
OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p. 1. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3) 

Thereafter,  it  was  found  that  circumvention  of  the  original  measures  concerning 
imports  from  Ukraine  and  the  PRC  took  place  via  respectively  Moldova  and  via 
Morocco  following  investigations  pursuant  to  Article  13  of  the  basic  Regulation. 
Consequently, the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports originating in the 
Ukraine was  extended to imports of  the same steel ropes and cables consigned from 
Moldova6.  Similarly,  the  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  on  imports  originating  in  the 
PRC  was  extended  to  imports  of  the  same  steel  ropes  and  cables  consigned  from 
Morocco7, with the exception of those produced by a genuine Moroccan producer. 

1.2 Investigation concerning another country 

(4) 

On  20  November  2004,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  proceeding 
concerning imports of the same product originating in the Republic of Korea, further 
to a complaint lodged by the Community industry showing prima facie evidence that 
such  imports  are  being  dumped  and  are  thereby  causing  material  injury  to  the 
Community  industry8.  The  investigation  was  terminated  by  Commission  Decision 
EC/INSERT/20059 without imposing measures. 

1.3 Request for a review 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

Following  the  publication  of  a  notice  of  impending  expiry  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures  in  force  of  SWR  originating  in  the  PRC,  Hungary,  India,  Mexico,  Poland, 
South Africa and Ukraine10, the Commission received, on 17 May 2004, a request to 
review these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.  

The  request  was  lodged  by  the  Liaison  Committee  of  European  Union  Wire  Rope 
Industries  (EWRIS)  (‘the  applicant’)  on  behalf  of  producers  representing  a  major 
proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Community production of SWR. 
The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely 
to  result  in  a  continuation  or  recurrence  of  dumping  and  injury  to  the  Community 
industry. 

In  the  absence  of  such  evidence  concerning  imports  originating  in  Mexico,  the 
applicant  did  not  request  the  initiation  of  an  expiry  review  concerning  imports 
originating in Mexico. Consequently, the measures applicable to imports originating in 
Mexico expired on 18 August 200411. 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed for the initiation of a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, 
the Commission initiated a review12. 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

OJ L 120, 24.4.2004, p. 1. 
OJ L 328, 30.10.2004, p. 1. 
OJ C 283, 20.11.2004, p. 6. 
OJ L [INSERT] 
OJ C 272, 13.11.2003, p.2. 
OJ C 203, 11.8.2004, p. 4. 
OJ C 207, 17.8.2004, p.2. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.4 Investigation 

(9) 

(10) 

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

In  view  of  the  large  number  of  Community  producers  and  of  importers  in  the 
Community not related to an exporting producer in one of the countries concerned, it 
was considered appropriate, in conformity with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to 
examine  whether  sampling  should  be  used.  In  order  to  enable  the  Commission  to 
decide whether sampling would indeed be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the 
above  parties  were  requested,  pursuant  to  Article  17(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  to 
make  themselves known  within  two weeks of  the  initiation  of  the  proceeding  and  to 
provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation. 

(11)  Seventeen  Community  producers  properly  completed  the  sampling  form  within  the 
deadline and formally agreed to co-operate further in the investigation. The sampling 
form requested, inter alia, information concerning the development of certain “macro” 
injury  indicators,  namely  production  capacity,  production  volume,  stocks,  sales 
volumes and employment.  

(12)  From  the  above  seventeen  producers,  five  companies,  which  were  found  to  be 
representative of the Community industry in terms of volume of production and sales 
of the product concerned in the Community, were selected for the sample. 

(13)  Only  one  importer  provided  the  information requested  in  the  notice  of  initiation  and 
expressed its willingness to further co-operate with the Commission services. In view 
of this situation, the Commission services decided not to apply sampling in the case of 
the  unrelated  importers,  but  to  send  a  questionnaire  to  the  aforementioned  importer. 
Subsequently,  the  said  importer  failed  to  complete  the  questionnaire.  It  is  therefore 
considered that no co-operation could be obtained  from the unrelated importers. The 
Association representing the interests of the importers (‘EWRIA’) made comments of 
a  general  nature,  notably  on  the  definition  of  the  product  concerned  and  the  like 
product. These comments are addressed under recitals (19) below(20) below. 

(14)  Questionnaires were therefore sent to the five sampled Community  producers  and to 
all  known  exporting  producers.  In  addition,  one  producer  in  Turkey  (‘analogue 
country’) was contacted and received a questionnaire. 

(15)  Replies  to  the  questionnaires  were  received  from  the  five  sampled  Community 
producers  and  three  exporting  producers  in  the  countries  concerned,  as  well  as  from 
two related importers and one producer in the analogue country. 

(16)  Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies: 

Sampled Community producers: 

– 

BTS Drahtseile GmbH (Germany), 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

Cables y Alambres especiales, SA (Spain), 

CASAR Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH (Germany), 

–  Manuel Rodrigues de Oliveira Sa & Filhos, SA (Portugal), 

– 

Trefileurope (France). 

Producer in the exporting country: 

– 

Usha Martin Ltd. (India). 

Related importers in the Community : 

– 

– 

Usha Martin UK (United Kingdom), 

Usha Martin Scandinavia (Denmark). 

Producer in the analogue country: 

– 

Celik Halat (Turkey). 

(17)  The investigation regarding the continuation and/or recurrence of dumping and injury 
covered the period from 1st July 2003 to 30 June 2004 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). 
The  examination  of  the  trends  relevant  for  the  assessment  of  a  likelihood  of  a 
continuation  or  recurrence  of  injury  covered  the  period  from  1st  January  2001  up  to 
the end of the IP (‘period considered’).  

2. Product concerned and like product 

2.1 Product concerned 

(18)  The product concerned is the same as that in the original investigation which led to the 
imposition of measures currently in force, i.e. steel ropes and cables, including locked 
coil  ropes,  excluding  ropes  and  cables  of  stainless  steel,  with  a  maximum  cross-
sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm. They are currently classifiable within CN codes 
ex 7312 10 82, ex 7312 10 84, ex 7312 10 86, ex 7312 10 88 and ex 7312 10 99. 

2.2 Like product 

(19)  As  established  in  the  original  investigation,  this  review  investigation  confirmed  that 
the  product  concerned  and  the  products  manufactured  and  sold  by  the  exporting 
producers  on  the  domestic  market,  as  well  as  those  manufactured  and  sold  by  the 
Community producers on the Community market and by the producer in the analogue 
country on the domestic market of the analogue country have the same basic physical 
characteristics and end uses and are therefore considered to be like products within the 
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(20)  EWRIA  re-iterated  the  argument  made  in  the  original  investigation  that  the  product 
concerned  differs  substantially  from  the  products  manufactured  and  sold  in  the 
Community, and should not be compared. The argument has been addressed in depth 
in the original Regulations imposing provisional and definitive measures on imports of 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
the  product  concerned  and  it  was  found  that  the  Community-produced  and  imported 
SWR were alike. As EWRIA did not bring any new element showing that the basis on 
which these original findings were made had changed, the conclusions reached in the 
original definitive Regulation are confirmed. 

3. Likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping 

(21) 

In  accordance  with  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined  whether 
dumping  was  currently  taking  place  and,  if  so,  whether  or  not  the  expiry  of  the 
measures would be likely to lead to a continuation of dumping. 

3.1 Preliminary remarks 

(22)  During  the  IP,  the  total  import  volume,  as  recorded  in  Eurostat,  of  steel  wire  ropes 
from the PRC, India, South Africa and Ukraine (‘the countries concerned’) amounted 
to 7 784 tonnes representing 4,4% of the Community market share. 

(23)  The  investigation  period  of  the  original  investigation  covered  15  months  (1  January 
1997  to  31  March  1998)  and  only  covered  imports  into  the  Community  prior  to 
Enlargement. Therefore, import figures from the original investigation period and the 
IP  are  not  directly  comparable.  In  any  case,  total  imports  in  EU-15  of  the  countries 
concerned in the original investigation period amounted to 21 102 tonnes representing 
14,3% of the Community market share. 

(24) 

In  India  one  exporting  producer  co-operated,  covering  75%  of  the  export  volumes 
recorded  in  Eurostat.  In  South  Africa,  the  sole  known  exporting  producer  submitted 
information on its export sales to the Community during the IP, which represented all 
export sales of South Africa to the Community during the same period. As regards the 
PRC,  one  exporting  producer  co-operated  which  represented  75%  of  export  sales  of 
the product concerned from the PRC to the Community. Finally, as regards Ukraine, 
none of the two known exporting producers co-operated in the present investigation. 

3.2 Dumping of imports during the investigation period 

(25) 

In accordance with Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation, the same methodology was 
used as in the original investigation, whenever circumstances have not changed. 

3.2.1 India 

(26)  During  the  IP,  the  total  import  volume,  as  recorded  in  Eurostat,  of  SWR  from  India 
amounted to 3 869 tonnes, representing 2,2% of the Community market share. 

3.2.1.1 Normal value 

(27)  As far as the determination of normal value is concerned, it was first established for 
the co-operating Indian exporting producer whether its total domestic sales of the like 
product were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at 
least 5% of its total export sales volume to the Community. In accordance with Article 
2(2) of the basic Regulation, this was found to be the case. 

(28)  Further  to  the  disclosure,  the  cooperating  Indian  exporting  producer  objected  to  the 
method used by the Commission. He argued that for the representativity test the sales 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
volume of the product concerned to the first independent customer in the Community 
and  not  to  the  related  importer  in  the  Community  should  have  been  used.  However, 
Article  2(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  provides  that  for  the  determination  whether 
domestic  sales  of  the  like  product  were  representative,  the  domestic  sales  volume 
should  be  compared  to  the  sales  volume  of  the  product  concerned  exported  to  the 
Community, without specifying whether export sales to the first independent customer 
or  export  sales  to  the  related  importer  should  be  taken  into  consideration. 
Consequently, it was found that the method used by the Commission was reasonable 
and in line with the basic Regulation. Therefore this claim had to be rejected. 

(29)  The Commission subsequently identified those product types, sold domestically by the 
company  concerned,  that  were  identical  or  directly  comparable  to  the  types  sold  for 
export to the Community. 

(30)  For each type sold by the exporting producer on its domestic market and found to be 
directly comparable with the type of SWR 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 SWR 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  SWR  exported  to  the  Community.  This  was  the  case  for  31%  of  all  types 
exported to the Community.  

(31)  An examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales of each product type, 
sold domestically in representative quantities, could be regarded as having been made 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  by  establishing  the  proportion  of  profitable  sales  to 
independent  customers  of  the  product  type  in  question.  In  cases  where  the  sales 
volume of a product 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 of that type made during the IP, 
irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not. In cases where the volume of 
profitable sales of a product 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. 

(32) 

In cases where the volume of profitable sales of any product type 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. 

(33)  Wherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by an exporting producer 
could not be used in order to establish normal value either because they had not been 
sold on the domestic market or not in the ordinary course of trade, another method had 
to be applied. In the absence of any other reasonable method, constructed normal value 
was used. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(34) 

In all cases where constructed normal value was used and in accordance with Article 
2(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  was  constructed  by  adding  to  the 
manufacturing costs of the exported types, a reasonable percentage for selling, general 
and  administrative  expenses  (‘SG&A’)  and  a  reasonable  margin  of  profit.  In  this 
regard  and  in  accordance  with  Article  2(6)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  amounts  for 
SG&A and profits were based on actual data pertaining to the production and sale, in 
the ordinary course of trade, of the like product on the domestic market.  

(35)  Further to the disclosure the cooperating Indian exporting producer argued that when 
calculating  its  domestic  profit  margin  in  accordance  with  Article  2(6)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, the Commission wrongly included domestic sales of products outside the 
scope of the investigation, i.e. locked coil wire ropes. However, as indicated in recital 
(18),  locked  coil  ropes  are  expressively  included  in  the  definition  of  the  product 
concerned  not  only  for  the  present  investigation,  but  they  were  also  included  in  the 
original investigation Therefore this claim had to be rejected. 

(36)  The  Indian  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  normal  value  used  to  calculate  its 
dumping margin during the IP would not reasonably reflect domestic prices and costs, 
since it was determined on an unrepresentative basis, i.e. on the basis of 4 months of 
the IP instead of 12. It should be noted that in the framework of an expiry review and 
in accordance with  Article  11(2)  of  the basic Regulation, it is examined whether  the 
expiry  of  the  measures  would  be  likely  to  result  in  a  continuation  or  recurrence  of 
dumping and injury. As a result, definitive anti-dumping duties are either confirmed or 
repealed, while individual duty rates as such cannot be amended. Since the calculation 
of  precise  dumping  margins  in  the  framework  of  an  expiry  review  is  therefore  not 
necessary, the examination of the continuation of dumping is based on a representative 
set of data during the IP. In the present proceeding, data were requested for the months 
at  the  end  of  each  quarter  and  the  exporting  producers  were  invited  to  comment  on 
their  representativity.  The  exporting  producer  did  not  object  to  this  approach  within 
the requested deadline, but only after the on-spot verification visit, i.e. at a time where 
the  verification  of  a  different  set  of  data  would  not  have  been  possible  anymore. 
Furthermore,  the  exporting  producer  did  not  explain  nor  provide  any  evidence  as  to 
why, in this specific case, the selected periods would be unrepresentative. This claim 
had therefore to be rejected. 

3.2.1.2 Export price 

(37)  Since all export sales of the product concerned to the Community were made to related 
companies  in  the  Community,  the  export  price  was  constructed  in  accordance  with 
Article  2(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation  on  the  basis  of  the  price  at  which  the  imported 
products were first resold to an independent buyer. Adjustments for all costs incurred 
between  importation  and  resale,  and  for  profits  accruing,  were  made  in  order  to 
establish  a  reliable  export  price,  at  the  Community  frontier  level.  In  this  regard,  the 
related importer’s SG&A were deducted from the resale price in the Community. As 
far  as  the  profit  margin  is  concerned  and  since  there  was  no  co-operation  from 
unrelated importers, it was considered that, in the absence of any other more reliable 
information, the same profit margin as was used in the original investigation, i.e. 5%, 
should  be  used.  No  information  was  available  to  show  that  this  was  not  a  reliable 
margin. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
3.2.1.3 Comparison 

(38)  For the purpose of making a fair comparison by product type, on an ex-factory basis 
and  at  the  same  level  of  trade,  due  allowance  was  made  for  differences  which  were 
claimed and demonstrated to affect price comparability. These adjustments were made 
in  respect  of  transportation  costs,  insurance  costs,  banking  and  credit  costs  in 
accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. 

3.2.1.4 Dumping margin 

(39) 

In  order  to  calculate  the  dumping  margin,  the  weighted  average  normal  value  was 
compared  to  the  weighted  average  export  price  to  the  Community  per  product  type. 
This  comparison  showed  the  existence  of  significant  dumping  for  the  exporting 
producer  concerned,  at  the  level  of  more  than  10%.  This  compares  with  a  dumping 
margin  of  39.8  %  found  in  the  original  investigation.  For  non-cooperating  exporting 
producers, an assessment of the level of dumping was made based on data relating to 
normal  value  and  export  prices,  as  provided  by  the  applicant  in  the  review  request. 
This also showed a dumping margin of more than 20%. 

3.2.2 The PRC 

(40)  During  the  IP,  the  total  import  volume,  as  recorded  in  Eurostat,  of  steel  wire  ropes 
from the PRC amounted to 1 942 tonnes, representing 1,1% of the Community market 
share.  As  mentioned  above  in  recital  (24),  the  sole  co-operating  exporting  producer 
represented 75% of the total Chinese imports. 

(41) 

In  the  original  investigation  four  Chinese  exporting  producers  co-operated,  however 
none of them was granted market economy status or individual treatment. 

3.2.2.1 Analogue country 

(42)  Since  the  PRC  is  an  economy  in  transition,  normal  value  had  to  be  based  on 
information  obtained  in  an  appropriate  market  economy  third  country  in  accordance 
with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. 

(43) 

In the original investigation, Poland was used as analogue country for the purpose of 
establishing normal value. As Poland has been a member of the European Union since 
1 May 2004, it can no longer be used as an analogue country for the purpose of anti-
dumping  investigations.  For  the  present  investigation  the  applicant  proposed  the 
United States of America (‘USA’) as an analogue country.  

(44)  One importer association objected to the choice of the USA and proposed South Korea 
as an appropriate analogue country. However, none of the producers in the USA and 
South Korea were willing to co-operate in the present expiry review. 

(45)  The Commission services therefore explored other possible analogue countries such as 
Norway, Thailand, India and Turkey. As far as Norway and Thailand are concerned, 
likewise, none of the producers in these countries was willing to co-operate.  

(46)  Only one producer of SWR in Turkey co-operated with the investigation by replying 
to  the  questionnaire  and  accepting  an  on-spot  verification  visit.  The  investigation 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
showed that Turkey has a competitive market for SWR with two domestic producers 
supplying around 83 % of the market and competition from imports from other third 
countries.  Import  duties  in  Turkey  are  low  and  there  are  no  other  restrictions  for 
imports of SWR into Turkey. The production volume in Turkey constituted more than 
five times the volume of Chinese exports of the product concerned to the Community. 
The  Turkish  market  was  therefore  deemed  sufficiently  representative  for  the 
determination  of  normal  value  for  the  PRC.  Finally,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (19) 
above, the product produced and sold on the Turkish domestic market was alike to the 
product exported by the Chinese exporting producer to the Community. 

(47)  Subsequent to the disclosure one importer association objected to the choice of Turkey 
as analogue country. However, this claim was not substantiated and had therefore to 
be rejected. 

(48) 

It is therefore  concluded that Turkey constitutes an appropriate analogue country for 
the  purpose  of  establishing  normal  value  in  accordance  with  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the 
basic Regulation. 

3.2.2.2 Normal value 

(49)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  was  established  on 
the  basis  of  verified  information  received  from  the  cooperating  producer  in  the 
analogue country, i.e. on the basis of the price paid or payable on the domestic market 
of  Turkey  by  unrelated  customers,  since  these  sales  were  found  to  be  made  in  the 
ordinary course of trade. 

(50)  As a result, normal value was established as the weighted average domestic sales price 

to unrelated customers by the cooperating producer in Turkey. 

3.2.2.3 Export price 

(51)  Given  that  the  export  sales  of  the  co-operating  exporter  represented  75%  of  the  EC 
imports  of  the  product  concerned  from  the  PRC  in  the  IP,  the  determination  of  the 
export  price  was  based  on  the  information  provided  by  the  co-operating  exporting 
producer  in  the  PRC.  Since  all  export  sales  of  the  product  concerned  were  made 
directly to independent customers in the Community, the export price was established 
in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the  basic  Regulation  on  the  basis  of  the  prices 
actually paid or payable. 

3.2.2.4 Comparison 

(52)  For the purpose of making a fair comparison by product type, on an ex-factory basis 
and  at  the  same  level  of  trade,  due  allowance  was  made  for  differences  which  were 
claimed and demonstrated to affect price comparability. These adjustments were made 
in  respect  of  transportation  costs,  insurance  costs,  banking  and  credit  costs  in 
accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation 

(53)  For certain product types sold on the domestic market in Turkey, adjustments had to 
be  made  in  order  to  make  them  comparable  with  the  Chinese  exported  types. 
Adjustments were made in order to take account of physical differences in accordance 
with  Article  2(10)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation  such  as  diameter,  tensile  strength  and 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
core. The adjustments were based on the price differences of the types in question on 
the Turkish market.  

3.2.2.5 Dumping margin 

(54) 

In  order  to  calculate  the  dumping  margin,  the  weighted  average  normal  value  was 
compared  to  the  weighted  average  export  price  to  the  Community  per  product  type. 
This  comparison  showed  the  existence  of  significant  dumping  of  imports  of  the 
product concerned by the co-operating exporter, at the level of more than 65%. This 
compares with a dumping margin of 60,4% found in the original investigation. 

3.2.3 South Africa 

(55)  During the IP, the total import volume, as recorded in Eurostat, of SWR from South 
Africa  amounted  to  278  tonnes,  representing  0,1%  of  the  Community  market  share, 
i.e.  at  a  de  minimis  level.  The  sole  known  exporting  producer  represented  100%  of 
these imports. 

(56) 

In  the  absence  of  full  co-operation  from  the  South  African  exporting  producer  as 
outlined below in recital (57), recourse had to be made to facts available in accordance 
with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. 

(57)  The  sole  known  exporting  producer  only  submitted  information  regarding  its  export 
sales to the Community, but did not provide any information with regard to costs and 
prices of the like product on the domestic market. Therefore, no normal value could be 
established  for  the  IP.  Nevertheless,  the  exporting  producer  admitted  that  dumping 
was still taking place during the IP. On this basis and in the absence of any other more 
reliable  information,  it  was  concluded  that  dumping  continued  at  significant  levels 
during the IP. 

3.2.4 Ukraine 

(58)  During the IP, the total import volume, as recorded in Eurostat, of SWR from Ukraine 
amounted  to  1  695  tonnes,  representing  1%  of  the  Community  market  share,  which 
was considered as a de minimis market share. 

(59) 

In  the  absence  of  any  cooperation  from  Ukraine,  recourse  had  to  be  made  to  facts 
available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. On this basis normal 
value as established for the analogue country was compared with the export price as 
contained  in  the  applicant’s  review  request.  As  a  result,  a  dumping  margin  of  more 
than 65 % was established for the IP.  

3.3 Developments of imports should measures be repealed 

3.3.1 Preliminary remarks 

(60)  Out of the eight Indian exporting producers named in the complaint, one co-operated 
in  the  investigation.  Of  the  two  South  African  exporting  producers  named  in  the 
complaint,  only  one  co-operated  partially.  There  are  no  other  known  producers  in 
South  Africa.  As  far  as  Ukraine  is  concerned,  neither  of  the  two  known  exporting 
producers co-operated and likewise, no other producers are known in Ukraine. Of nine 
known Chinese exporting producers, only one co-operated with the investigation. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
3.3.2 India 

3.3.2.1 Preliminary remarks 

(61)  Seven  of  the  eight  known  producers  in  India  did  not  co-operate  during  the  present 
expiry review. It is noted that in the original investigation, six of these producers were 
selling SWR only on their domestic market or to other third country markets and they 
were therefore not subject to the original investigation. Furthermore, due to their non 
co-operation  in  the  present  investigation,  no  information  was  available  as  to  their 
production  capacity  and  volume,  stocks  and  sales  to  markets  other  than  the 
Community.  The  examination  of  whether  it  would  be  likely  that  dumping  continues 
should measures be repealed was therefore based on the information available, i.e. the 
information provided by the co-operating exporting producer. Information relating to 
the import prices from exporters other than the co-operating exporter, determined on 
the basis of Eurostat, was also examined. In order to establish whether dumping would 
be  likely  to  continue  should  measures  be  repealed,  the  pricing  behaviour  of  the  co-
operating  exporting  producer  to  other  export  markets,  its  export  prices  to  the 
Community, its production capacity and stocks were examined. Also, the likely effect 
of a repeal of the measures on prices of other imports was also assessed. 

3.3.2.2  Relationship  between  export  prices  to  third  countries  and  export  prices  to  the 

Community  

(62) 

It  was  found  that  the  average  export  price  of  sales  to  non-EU  countries  was 
significantly  below  the  average  export  price  to  the  Community  and  also  below  the 
prices on the domestic market, which indicated that exports to non-EU countries were 
very  likely  dumped  at  even  higher  levels  than  the  export  sales  to  the  Community.  It 
should  be  noted,  however,  that  during  the  IP  a  minimum  price  undertaking  was  in 
force which required the exporting producer concerned to respect a certain price level 
for exports to the Community. Some prices were found to be slightly higher than the 
undertaking  level,  but  the  majority  of  the  sales  were  at  prices  at  the  level  of  the 
undertaking.  The  exporter’s  sales  to  non-EU  countries  were  made  in  significant 
quantities, accounting for 86 % of total export sales. Therefore, it was considered that 
the  export  price  level  to  other  third  countries  can  be  seen  as  an  indicator  as  to  the 
likely price level for export sales to the Community should measures be repealed. On 
this  basis,  and  given  the  low  price  levels  to  third  country  markets,  it  was  concluded 
that there is a likelihood that the co-operating exporter would reduce its export prices 
to the Community, which as a consequence would also increase the level of dumping.  

(63) 

It is noted that the margin of dumping found in the IP was significant. On this basis, it 
has to be assumed that even if price levels to the Community would remain the same 
or increase, it is very likely that dumping would still continue should the measures in 
force be repealed. In view of the company’s export behaviour to the Community in the 
past  (i.e.  in  the  original  investigation,  it  was  found  that  the  company  exported  high 
quantities to the EU at dumped levels), as well as its pricing strategies with regard to 
exports to other third country markets, it is more likely that any further exports to the 
Community would be made at lower, and consequently dumped price levels. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
3.3.2.3  Relationship  between  export  prices  to  third  countries  and  the  price  level  in  the 

Community 

(64) 

It is also noted that export prices to third countries were found to be on average below 
the sales prices of the Community industry in the Community, which means that the 
prevailing price level for the product concerned in the Community market makes the 
Community  market  a  very  attractive one for exporters in India. On this  basis, it was 
considered  that  there  is  indeed  an  economic  incentive  to  shift  exports  from  non-EU 
countries to the more profitable Community market in case of repeal of the measures 
in force.  

3.3.2.4 Prices of non-cooperating exporters 

(65)  Eurostat  prices  of  all  imports  of  the  product  concerned,  excluding  those  of  the  co-
operating  exporter,  are  significantly  below  those  of  the  co-operating  exporter.  In  the 
absence of other information, based on the normal value of the co-operating exporter, 
these  imports  would  be  dumped  at  significantly  high  levels.  In  the  absence  of 
measures,  there  is  no  reason  to  consider  that  these  imports  would  not  be  made  at 
similar dumped prices but in higher quantities.  

3.3.2.5 Unused capacity and stocks 

(66)  The co-operating Indian producer, despite increasing capacity utilisation over the last 
years,  still  has  significant  spare  capacities  representing  almost  five  times  the  export 
quantity to the Community during the IP. Furthermore, stocks - although decreasing in 
terms of volume - are significant and, at the end of the IP, represented a major portion 
of  the  volume  exported  to  the  Community.  Therefore,  the  capacity  to  significantly 
increase  export  quantities  to  the  EC  exists,  in  particular  because  there  are  no 
indications  that  third  country  markets  or  the  domestic  market  could  absorb  any 
additional production. In this regard, it should be noted that it is very unlikely that the 
domestic market in India, due to the presence of eight competing producers, would be 
able to absorb all of the spare capacity of this exporting producer. In fact, according to 
the review request, spare capacities of all Indian producers were estimated at 35 000 
tonnes, representing almost 20% of Community consumption. 

3.3.3 PRC 

3.3.3.1 Preliminary remarks 

(67)  As  mentioned  above  in  recital  (41),  none  of  the  Chinese  companies  was  granted 
market  economy  status  or  individual  treatment  in  the  original  investigation,  i.e.  all 
companies are subject to the single country wide anti-dumping duty at a rate of 60,4%. 
Import volumes from the PRC decreased significantly, i.e. from 11 484 tonnes during 
the IP of the original investigation (EU15) to 1 942 tonnes during the IP (EU25). The 
current market share of the PRC is slightly above de minimis, i.e. 1,1%. It is, however, 
noted that Chinese imports have, since 2001, an increasing trend. The exports to the 
EC  of  the  sole  co-operating  Chinese  exporting  producer  represented  75%  of  total 
Chinese  exports,  amounting  to  1  456  tonnes  during  the  IP.  There  are  seven  other 
exporting  producers  which  exported  only  small  quantities  to  the  Community  during 
the IP. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(68) 

In order to establish whether dumping would be likely to continue should the measures 
be  repealed,  the  pricing  behaviour  of  the  co-operating  exporting  producer  to  other 
export markets, its export prices to the Community, the likely effect on prices of other 
imports, its production capacity and stocks were examined. Information relating to the 
import prices from exporters other than the co-operating exporter was determined on 
the basis of Eurostat. 

3.3.3.2  Relationship  between  export  prices  to  third  countries  and  export  prices  to  the 

Community 

(69)  Export  prices  from  the  PRC  to  the  USA,  one  of  the  major  export  markets  of  the 
Chinese exporting producers and a market in which no measures are in force, were, on 
average, significantly below the export prices to the Community. Since, as concluded 
in  recital  (54),  export  sales  from  the  PRC  to  the  Community  were  made  at  dumped 
levels,  this  indicated  that  exports  to  the  USA  and  other  third  country  markets  were 
likely  dumped  at  even  higher  levels  than  the  export  sales  to  the  Community.  It  was 
also considered that the export price level to the USA and to other third countries can 
be seen as an indicator as to the likely price level for export sales to the Community 
should  measures  be  repealed.  On  this  basis,  and  given  the  low  price  levels  to  third 
country markets it was concluded that there is a considerable margin to reduce export 
prices to the Community, which as a consequence would also increase the dumping. 

3.3.3.3  Relationship  between  export  prices  to  third  countries  and  the  price  level  in  the 

Community 

(70) 

It  was  also  found  that  the  price  level  of  sales  by  the  Community  industry  in  the 
Community was on average considerably higher than the export price level of the co-
operating  Chinese  exporter’s  prices  to  other  third  country  markets.  As  indicated 
already above in recital (64) for India, the fact that the generally prevailing price level 
for the product concerned in the Community market makes the Community market a 
very attractive one, applies also for the PRC. The higher price level on the Community 
market is an incentive for increasing exports to the Community. 

3.3.3.4 Prices of non-cooperating exporters 

(71)  Eurostat  prices  of  all  imports  of  the  product  concerned,  excluding  those  of  the  co-
operating exporter, are below those of the co-operating exporter. Based on the normal 
value  calculated  for  the  analogue  country,  these  imports  would  be  dumped  at 
significantly high levels. In the absence of measures, there is no reason to consider that 
these imports would not be made at similar dumped prices but in higher quantities. 

3.3.3.5 Unused capacity and stocks 

(72)  The  co-operating  Chinese  producer,  despite  slightly  increasing  capacity  utilisation 
over the last years, has still significant spare capacities representing almost 4 times the 
export  quantity  to  the  Community  during  the  IP.  According  to  the  review  request, 
spare  capacities  of  all  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  were  estimated  at  270  000 
tonnes.  Thus,  the  capacity  to  increase  export  quantities  to  the  Community  exists,  in 
particular, because there are no indications that third country markets or the domestic 
market could absorb any additional production. In this regard it should be noted that it 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
is very unlikely that the domestic market in PRC, due to the presence of a considerable 
number of competing producers would be able absorb any spare capacities. 

3.3.3.6 Circumvention practices  

(73) 

It  is  noted  that  the  measures  in  force  on  imports  of  the  product  concerned  from  the 
PRC  were  found  to  have  been  circumvented  by  means  of  imports  transhipped  via 
Morocco.  This  indicates  the  clear  interest  in  the  Community  market  of  sellers  of 
Chinese SWR and their inability to compete on the Community market at non-dumped 
levels. This was considered as a further indication that Chinese exports would likely 
increase  in  volume  and  enter  the  Community  market  at  dumped  prices  should 
measures be repealed. 

3.3.4 South Africa 

3.3.4.1 Preliminary remarks 

(74)  There is only one known producer in South Africa. This producer partially co-operated 

in this review investigation. 

(75) 

Imports  from  South  Africa  dropped  considerably  since  the  imposition  of  definitive 
measures. The market share of imports from South Africa was below the de minimis 
threshold  (1%)  during  the  IP.  Thus,  total  exports  from  South  Africa  during  the  IP 
amounted  to  278  tonnes  of  which  major  quantities  were  shipped  to  a  bond  store  in 
Rotterdam, whereby these goods were eventually re-exported and not customs cleared 
in  the  EU.  Only  minor  quantities  of  the  product  concerned  were  released  for  free 
circulation in the EU. 

(76)  As mentioned above in recitals (57) and (60), recourse was made to facts available, in 
particular  as  regards  the  situation  of  the  South  African  domestic  market.  Since  little 
information is known about the South African industry, the following conclusions rely 
on the information contained in the applicant’s review request and publicly available 
export trade statistics. 

(77) 

In  order  to  establish  whether  dumping  would  recur  should  measures  be  repealed 
information  provided  by  the  co-operating  exporter  relating  to  export  prices  to  the 
Community and to third countries, unused capacity and stocks were examined. 

3.3.4.2 Relationship between export prices to third countries and prices in the exporting 

country. 

(78)  As  already  explained  in  recital  (76),  no  information  regarding  domestic  prices  was 
provided. Therefore, the information on domestic prices, as contained in the request, 
was  used.  As  to  the  prices  in  export  markets  other  than  the  Community,  five  major 
export destinations were analysed. In all instances, the export prices to third countries 
were below domestic prices. Assuming that these export prices will serve as a bottom 
line which the exporter may accept when coming back to the Community market, it is 
clear that these exports would likely continue to be at dumped prices. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
3.3.4.3 Relationship between export prices to third countries and the export price level 

to the Community 

(79)  An  examination  of  the  average  export  sales  prices  to  the  five  major  export  markets 
other  than  the  Community  showed  that  these  sales  were  made  at  prices  significantly 
lower  than  export  prices  to  the  Community.  As  in  the  case  of  India,  this  is  at  least 
partly  due  to  the  fact  that,  during  the  IP,  a  minimum  price  undertaking  was  in  force 
which  required  the  exporting  producer  concerned  to  respect  a  certain  price  level  for 
exports  into  the  Community.  All  prices  were  found  to  be  slightly  higher  than  the 
undertaking level. 

(80)  Therefore,  it  was  considered  that  the  export  price  level  to  these  five  export  markets 
outside  the  Community  can  be  seen  as  an  indicator  as  to  the  likely  price  level  for 
export  sales  to  the  Community  should  measures  be  repealed.  On  this  basis,  it  was 
concluded  that  there  is  a  considerable  margin  for  the  sole  South  African  exporter  to 
reduce export prices to the Community, which as a consequence would also increase 
the level of dumping. 

3.3.4.4  Relationship  between  export  prices  to  third  countries  and  the  price  level  in  the 

Community 

(81) 

It  was  furthermore  found  that  prices  on  the  Community  market  were  on  average 
substantially higher than the export prices to the five major exporting countries outside 
the Community. As indicated already above in recital (64) for India and recital (70) for 
the PRC, this makes the Community market a very attractive one for the future should 
measures be repealed. In this regard, it was considered that the higher price level on 
the  Community  market  is  an  incentive  for  increasing  exports  to  the  Community 
market.  

3.3.4.5 Unused capacity and stocks 

(82)  Since the imposition of the definitive duty, the partly cooperating exporting producer 
accumulated significant stocks and spare capacities, the latter of over more than 40% 
of  the  level  of  installed  capacity.  According  to  the  request,  spare  capacities  were 
estimated  at  23  000  tonnes  to  25  000  tonnes.  Thus,  the  capacity  to  increase  export 
quantities to the Community exists, in particular because there are no indications that 
third country markets or the domestic market could absorb any additional production. 

3.3.5 Ukraine 

3.3.5.1 Preliminary remarks 

(83)  Given  the  absence  of  any  cooperation  from  the  two  known  Ukrainian  exporting 
producers, findings were based on facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the 
basic Regulation. Since little information is known about the Ukrainian industry, the 
following  conclusions  rely  on  the  information  contained  in  the  applicant’s  review 
request and publicly available trade statistics. It is noted that there are no other known 
producers in the Ukraine and that the following considerations regarding in particular 
production capacities, relate to the two known exporting producers. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(84) 

In  order  to  establish  whether  dumping  would  be  likely  to  recur  should  measures  be 
repealed,  the  export  prices  to  third  countries,  unused  capacity  and  stocks  were 
examined. 

3.3.5.2 Relation between export prices to third countries and the export price level to the 

Community 

(85) 

In the absence of any other more reliable information, the information provided in the 
request  with  regard  to  exports  to  Russia  and  the  USA,  which  was  based  on  publicly 
available  statistics,  has  been  taken  into  account.  An  analysis  of  the  figures  available 
revealed that the average export prices to these countries were significantly below the 
average export prices to the Community. As already explained above in the case for 
India,  the  PRC  and  South  Africa,  export  prices  to  other  third  countries  were 
considered  as  an  indicator  as  to  the  likely  price  level  for  export  sales  to  the 
Community should measures be repealed. On this basis it was concluded that there is a 
considerable  margin  to  reduce  export  prices  to  the  Community,  and  very  likely  to 
dumped levels. 

3.3.5.3 Unused capacity 

(86)  According to the evidence available in the request, the estimated production capacity 
in  the  Ukraine  amounts  to  100  000  tonnes,  of  which  only  50%  is  used  for  actual 
production.  A  spare  capacity  of  50  000  tonnes  would  represent  the  highest  spare 
capacity  of  all  countries  concerned  and  amount  to  more  than  one  third  of  the 
Community consumption. Therefore, the capacity to increase export quantities to the 
Community  is,  in  the  case  of  Ukraine,  by  far  the  most  imminent  from  all  countries 
concerned, in particular because there are no indications that third country markets or 
the domestic market could absorb any additional production. 

3.3.5.4 Violation of an undertaking and circumvention of the measures 

(87) 

In 1999, in the framework of the original investigation, the Commission accepted an 
undertaking offered by one of the Ukrainian exporters. Subsequently, the Commission 
found  a  breach  of  this  undertaking  in  two  respects.  Firstly,  the  Ukrainian  exporter 
concerned  provided  misleading  declarations  of  origin  and  secondly,  the  exporter 
issued  undertaking  invoices  for  product  types  not  falling  within  the  scope  of  the 
undertaking, thereby unduly benefiting from the exemption of the payment of the anti-
dumping  duties.  Consequently,  by  Commission  Regulation  1678/200313, 
the 
Commission withdrew its acceptance of the undertaking. 

(88)  Moreover, following the imposition of the existing measures on imports of SWR from 
the Ukraine, it was found that these measures were being circumvented by imports of 
SWR  from  Moldova.  As  mentioned  in  recital  (3)  above,  the  existing  measures  were 
accordingly extended to imports of SWR consigned from Moldova. 

(89)  Although  the  violation  of  an  undertaking  and  circumvention  practices  in  the  past  do 
not per se justify the conclusion of dumping practices in the future, it was considered 
that in this case such practices were additional factors indicating the exporters’ interest 

13 

OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p.13. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in  entering  the  Community  market  and  their  inability  to  compete  on  the  Community 
market at non-dumped levels. 

3.4 Conclusion 

(90)  Continuation of significant dumping was found in all cases, albeit import volumes for 

South Africa and the Ukraine were at de minimis levels. 

(91)  For the examination as to whether it would be likely that dumping would continue or 
recur  should  the  anti-dumping  measures  be  repealed,  spare  capacities  and  unused 
stocks as well as pricing and export strategies in different markets were analysed. This 
examination  revealed  that  there  were  important  spare  capacities  and  accumulated 
stocks in all exporting countries concerned. It was further found that export prices to 
other  third  countries  were  generally  of  a  significant  lower  level  than  those  to  the 
Community  market  and  that  therefore  the  Community  remained  an  attractive  market 
for the exporting producers of all countries concerned. It was therefore concluded that 
exports from the countries concerned to third countries would very likely be redirected 
to  the  Community  should  the  access  to  the  Community  market  be  without  anti-
dumping measures. The available spare production capacities would also likely lead to 
increased imports from all countries concerned. 

(92)  An analysis of the pricing strategies of all countries concerned revealed furthermore, 
that these exports would most likely be made at dumped prices. In the case of the PRC 
and Ukraine, these conclusions were reinforced by the fact that the existing measures 
were found to have been circumvented by imports via other countries which indicated 
that  exporting  countries  were  not  able  to  compete  in  the  Community  market  at  fair 
prices.  

(93)  Considering  the  above,  it  was  established  for  all  countries  concerned  that  dumping 
would likely continue or recur in significant quantities should measures be allowed to 
expire. 

4. Definition of the Community industry 

4.1 Community production 

(94)  Within the Community, the product concerned is manufactured by 30 producers which 
constitute  the  total  Community  production  within  the  meaning  of  Article  4(1)  of  the 
basic Regulation.  

4.2 Community industry 

(95) 

It should be noted that in the original investigation the Community industry consisted 
of  20  producers.  Nine  of  these  companies  did  not  co-operate  in  the  review 
investigation.  Conversely,  six  companies  which  were  not  part  of  the  Community 
industry in the original investigation, both supported the review request and agreed to 
co-operate  in  the  review  investigation.  Accordingly,  the  following  17  producers 
supported the complaint and agreed to co-operate: 

– 

– 

Bridon International Ltd (United Kingdom), 

BTS Drahtseile GmbH (Germany), 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Cables y Alambres especiales, SA (Spain), 

CASAR Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH (Germany), 

D. Koronakis SA (Greece), 

Drahtseilwerk GmbH (Germany),  

Drahtseilwerk Hemer GmbH and Co. KG (Germany),  

Drahtseilerei Gustav Kocks GmbH (Germany), 

Drumet SA (Poland),  

Hamburger Drahtseilerei A. Steppuhn GmbH (Germany),  

Iscar Funi Metalliche Srl (Italy), 

–  Manuel Rodrigues de Oliveira Sa & Filhos, SA (Portugal), 

–  Metalcavi wire ropes Srl (Italy), 

–  Metal Press Srl (Italy), 

– 

Trefileurope (France), 

–  WADRA GmbH (Germany), 

–  Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH (Germany). 

As indicated under recital (12) above, a sample consisting of five companies was selected. 

(96)  These companies fully co-operated in the investigation. The five sampled Community 
producers accounted for 30% of the total Community production during the IP, whilst 
the  above  17  Community  producers  accounted  for  68%  of  the  total  Community 
production during the IP. 

(97) 

It is therefore considered that the above 17 Community producers account for a major 
proportion  of  the  total  Community  production  of  the  like  product.  The  above  17 
Community  producers  are  therefore  deemed  to  constitute  the  Community  industry 
within  the  meaning  of  Article  4(1)  and  Article  5(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  will 
hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Community industry’. 

5. Situation on the Community market 

5.1 Consumption in the Community market 

(98)  Community  consumption  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  sales  volumes  of  the 
Community  industry  on  the  Community  market,  the  sales  volumes  of  the  other 
Community  producers  on  the  Community  market,  and  Eurostat  data  for  all  EU 
imports. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
(99)  Between 2001 and the IP, Community consumption decreased by 9%. Specifically, it 
decreased  by  3%  between  2001  and  2002,  and  by  a  further  6%  between  2002  and 
2003. It then remained broadly stable at this level in the IP. 

Total EC consumption (tonnes)
Index (2001=100)

5.2 Imports from the countries concerned 

5.2.1 Cumulation 

2001
194 547
100

2002
187 845
97

2003
176 438
91

IP
177 825
91  

(100)  In  the  original  investigation  imports  of  SWR  originating  in  the  PRC,  India,  South 
Africa and Ukraine were assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the 
basic  Regulation.  It  was  examined  whether  a  cumulative  assessment  was  also 
appropriate in the current investigation. 

(101)  In this respect, it was found that the margin of dumping established in relation to the 
imports from each country was above the de minimis level. As regards the quantities 
exported  by  each  of  the  four  countries  concerned,  as  stated  in  recitals  (22)  to  (24) 
above, it was considered that, if the measures were repealed, imports from each of the 
countries  concerned  would  be  likely  to  increase  to  levels  significantly  above  those 
reached in the IP and certainly exceed the negligibility threshold. 

(102)  As  regards  the  conditions  of  competition,  the  investigation  has  found  that  SWR 
imported from the countries concerned, considered on a type-by-type basis, were alike 
in all their essential physical and technical characteristics. Furthermore, these types of 
SWR  were  interchangeable  with  other  types  imported  from  the  countries  concerned 
and  those  produced  in  the  Community  and  they  were  marketed  in  the  Community 
during the same period, through comparable sales channels under similar commercial 
conditions. The imported SWR were therefore considered to compete with each other 
and with the SWR produced in the Community. 

(103)  In the light of the above, it was considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of 
the Basic Regulation were met. The imports from the four countries concerned were 
therefore examined cumulatively. 

5.2.2 Volume, market share and prices of imports 

(104)  With respect to the four countries concerned, the import volumes, market shares and 
average  prices  developed  as  set  out  below.  The  following  price  trends  are  based  on 
Eurostat import prices and include anti-dumping duties and estimated post-importation 
costs. 

(105)  The volume of imports originating in the four countries concerned first increased and 
reached  a  level  of  9  153  tonnes  in  2002,  corresponding  to  a  market  share  of  4,9%, 
before  declining  to  7  784  tonnes  during  the  IP,  corresponding  to  a  market  share  of 
4,4%.  During  the  IP  of  the  original  investigation,  the  cumulated  market  share  of  the 
four countries concerned was 14,3%. 

(106)  Prices of imports from the four countries concerned decreased on average from 1 364 

EUR/tonne in 2001 to 1 296 EUR/tonne in the IP. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
(107)  The investigation showed that imports from the countries concerned were undercutting 

those of the Community industry by 36 to 68% in the IP.  

Volume of imports from the four countries concerned (tonnes)
Market share of imports from the four countries concerned
Prices of imports from the four countries concerned (EUR/tonne)

5.3 Imports found to be circumventing 

2001
7 951
4,1%
1 364

2002
9 153
4,9%
1 450

2003
7 168
4,1%
1 331

IP
7 784
4,4%
1 296  

(108)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (3)  above,  it  was  further  found  that  circumvention  of  the 
original  measures  concerning  Ukraine  and  the  PRC  took  place  respectively  via 
Moldova  and  Morocco.  Consequently,  the  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  on  imports 
originating  in  the  PRC  was  extended  to  imports  of  the  same  steel  ropes  and  cables 
consigned  from  Morocco,  with  the  exception  of  those  produced  by  a  genuine 
Moroccan  producer.  Similarly,  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  on  imports 
originating in the Ukraine was extended to imports of the same steel ropes and cables 
consigned from Moldova. 

Volume of imports from Moldova (tonnes)
Market share of imports from Moldova
Prices of imports from Moldova (EUR/tonne)
Index (2001=100)
Volume of imports from Morocco (tonnes)
Market share of imports from Morocco
Prices of imports from the Morocco (EUR/tonne)
Index (2001=100)

2001
1 054
0,5%
899
100
231
0,1%
963
100

2002
1 816
1,0%
843
94
1 435
0,8%
955
99

2003
0
0,0%
0
0
2 411
1,4%
1 000
104

IP
0
0,0%
0
0
1 904
1,1%
1 009
105  

(109)  While the volume of imports from Moldova stood at zero in the years before 2000, it 
rose sharply to 1 816 tonnes in 2002. Subsequently it dropped to zero again, probably 
as  a  consequence  of  the  initiation  of  the  aforementioned  anti-circumvention 
investigation  in  the  course  of  2003.  Imports  from  Moldova  were  made  at  very  low 
prices in 2001 and 2002, i.e. 899 EUR/tonne in 2001 and 843 EUR/tonne in 2002. 

(110)  During  the  investigation  period  of  the  original  investigation,  the  market  share  of 
imports  from  Morocco  was  0%.  The  volume  of  imports  from  Morocco  rose  sharply 
from 231 tonnes in 2001 to 2 411 tonnes in 2003. It declined to 1 904 tonnes during 
the IP. The above anti-circumvention investigation evidenced that a limited volume of 
imports  from  Morocco  (around  100  tonnes)  was  attributed  in  2003  to  a  genuine 
Moroccan  producer.  Imports  from  Morocco  were  made  at  very  low  prices  between 
2001 and the IP, i.e. around 1 000 EUR/tonne. 

5.4 Imports from other countries  

5.4.1 The Republic of Korea (South Korea) 

(111)  On  20  November  200414,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  proceeding 
concerning imports of the same product originating in the Republic of Korea, further 
to a complaint lodged by the Community industry showing prima facie evidence that 

14 

OJ C 283, 20.11.2004, p. 6. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
such  imports  are  being  dumped  and  are  thereby  causing  material  injury  to  the 
Community industry. 

(112)  The evolution of imports from the Republic of Korea is as follows: 

Volume of imports from the Republic of Korea (tonnes)
Market share of imports from the Republic of Korea
Prices of imports from the Republic of Korea (EUR/tonne)
Index (2001=100)

2001
13 582
7,0%
1 366
100

2002
16 403
8,7%
1 256
92

2003
22 400
12,7%
1 187
87

IP
25 835
14,5%
1 123
82  

(113)  The volume of imports from the Republic of Korea rose from 13 582 tonnes in 2001, 
corresponding to a market share of 7%, to 25 835 tonnes in the IP, corresponding to a 
market  share  of  14,5%.  Average  prices  of  imports  from  the  Republic  of  Korea 
declined  by  18%  between  2001  and  the  IP,  i.e.  from  1  366  EUR/tonne  to  1  123 
EUR/tonne.  As  no  dumping  was  evidenced  as  regards  imports  from  the  Republic  of 
Korea, this proceeding was terminated (see recital (4) above). 

5.4.2 Mexico 

(114)  As  indicated  in  recital  (7)  above,  the  measures  imposed  on  imports  originating  in 
Mexico by the original definitive Regulation expired on 18 August 2004. The volume 
of imports originating in Mexico remained very limited since 2001 through the IP. It 
was nil in 2001 and during the IP, and reached an annual level ranging from around 
700 to 400 tonnes in 2002 and 2003, corresponding to a market share of respectively 
0,4% and 0,2%. 

(115)  Prices of imports from Mexico reached around 2 400 EUR/tonne in 2002 and 2003. 

Volume of imports from Mexico (tonnes)
Market share of imports from Mexico
Prices of imports from Mexico (EUR/tonne)
Index (2001=100)

2001
0
0,0%
n/a
n/a

2002
669
0,4%
2 358
100

2003
 433
0,2%
2 434
103

IP
0
0,0%
n/a
n/a  

5.4.3 Other countries concerned by anti-dumping measures 

(116)  By  Regulation  (EC)  No  1601/200115,  anti-dumping  measures  were  imposed  on 

imports of similar products originating in Russia, Thailand and Turkey. 

(117)  The  rate  of  the  duty  applicable  to  imports  from  Russia  ranged  between  36,1%  and 
50,7%, except for imports from one Russian exporter from whom a price undertaking 
was accepted. The volume of imports from Russia declined from 3 630 tonnes in 2001, 
corresponding to a market share of 1,9%, to 2 101 tonnes in the IP, corresponding to a 
market  share  of  1,2%.  Average  prices  of  imports  from  Russia  remained  relatively 
stable between 2001 and the IP, at around 1 000 EUR/tonne. 

15 

OJ L 211, 4.8.2001, p. 1. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Volume of imports from Russia (tonnes)
Market share of imports from Russia
Prices of imports from Russia (EUR/tonne)
Index (2001=100)

2001
3 630
1,9%
1 038
100

2002
2 557
1,4%
997
96

2003
2 198
1,2%
 980
94

IP
2 101
1,2%
1 046
101  

(118)  The rate of the duty applicable to imports from Thailand ranged between 24,8% and 
42,8%,  except  for  imports  from  one  exporter  from  whom  a  price  undertaking  was 
accepted. The volume of imports from Thailand declined from 1 039 tonnes in 2001, 
corresponding to a market share of 0,5%, to 277 tonnes in the IP, corresponding to a 
market share of 0,2%. Average prices of imports from Thailand increased from around 
1 335 EUR/tonne in 2001 to 1 722 EUR/tonne in the IP. 

Volume of imports from Thailand (tonnes)
Market share of imports from Thailand
Prices of imports from Thailand (EUR/tonne)
Index (2001=100)

2001
1 039
0,5%
1 335
100

2002
1 002
0,5%
1 433
107

2003
 368
0,2%
1 593
119

IP
277
0,2%
1 722
129  

(119)  The rate of the duty applicable to imports from Turkey during the period considered 
ranged between 17,8% and 31%, except for imports from two Turkish exporters from 
whom a price undertaking was accepted in 2001 and subsequently withdrawn in 2003. 
The  volume  of  imports  from  Turkey  declined  from  4  354  tonnes  in  2001, 
corresponding to a market share of 2,2%, to 1 457 tonnes in the IP, corresponding to a 
market share of 0,8%. Average prices of imports from Turkey decreased from 1 448 
EUR/tonne in 2001 to 1 302 EUR/tonne in the IP. 

Volume of imports from Turkey (tonnes)
Market share of imports from Turkey
Prices of imports from Turkey (EUR/tonne)
Index (2001=100)

5.4.4 Other third countries not mentioned above 

2001
4 354
2,2%
1 448
100

2002
4 448
2,4%
1 414
98

2003
2 248
1,3%
1 376
95

IP
1 457
0,8%
1 302
90  

(120)  The volume of imports from other third countries not mentioned above declined from 
around 23 000 tonnes in 2001, corresponding to a market share of 12%, to around 19 
000  tonnes  in  the  IP,  corresponding  to  a  market  share  of  10,5%.  Average  prices  of 
imports from other third countries not mentioned above increased from around 1 500 
EUR/tonne  in  2001  to  around  1  900  EUR/tonne  in  2003,  before  declining  again  to 
around 1 500 EUR/tonne in the IP.  

Volume of imports from countries not mentioned above (tonnes)
Market share of imports from countries not mentioned above
Prices of imports from countries not mentioned above (EUR/tonne)
Index (2001=100)

6. Economic situation of the Community industry  

2001
23 321
12,0%
1 472
100

2002
14 924
7,9%
1 749
119

2003
17 227
9,8%
1 895
129

IP
18 741
10,5%
1 497
102  

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

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
6.1 Preliminary remarks 

(122)  In  view  of  the  fact  that  sampling  had  been  used  with  regard  to  the  Community 
industry, the injury has been assessed both on the basis of information collected at the 
level of the entire Community industry (‘C.I.’ in the appended tables) and on the basis 
of  information  collected  at  the  level  of  the  sampled  Community  producers  (‘S.P.’  in 
the appended tables). 

(123)  Where recourse is made to sampling, in accordance with established practice, certain 
injury  indicators  (production,  capacity,  productivity,  stocks,  sales,  market  share, 
growth and employment) are analysed for the Community industry as a whole, while 
those injury indicators relating to the performance of individual companies, i.e. prices, 
costs of production, profitability, wages, investments, return on investment, cash flow, 
ability  to  raise  capital  are  examined  on  the  basis  of  the  information  collected  at  the 
level of the sampled Community producers. 

6.2 Data relating to the Community industry as a whole 

(a) Production 

(124)  The Community industry’s production decreased by 10% between 2001 and the IP, i.e. 
from a level of around 125 000 tonnes in 2001 to a level of around 112 000 tonnes in 
the  IP.  Specifically,  production  increased  by  2%  in  2002,  before  declining  by  5 
percentage points in 2003 and by a further 7 percentage points in the IP. 

C.I. Production (tonnes)
Index (2001=100)

(b) Capacity and capacity utilisation rates 

2001
124 549
100

2002
127 118
102

2003
121 065
97

IP
111 765
90  

(125)  Production  capacity  increased  marginally  (by  2%)  between  2001  and  the  IP.  As 
production  declined,  while  at  the  same  time  capacity  rose  slightly,  the  resulting 
capacity utilisation declined, from a level of 67% in 2001 to a level of 59% in the IP. 

C.I. Production capacity (tonnes)
Index (2001=100)
C.I. Capacity utilisation
Index (2001=100)

(c) Stocks  

2001
184 690
100
67%
100

2002
185 360
100
69%
102

2003
188 430
102
64%
95

IP
189 150
102
59%
88  

(126)  The  level  of  closing  stocks  of  the  Community  industry  decreased  progressively 
throughout the period considered. In the IP, the level of stocks was 14% lower than in 
2001. 

C.I. Closing stock (tonnes)
Index (2001=100)

2001
31 459
100

2002
30 222
96

2003
29 336
93

IP
26 911
86  

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
(d) Sales volume 

(127)  The  sales  by  the  Community  industry  on  the  Community  market  decreased  by  10% 
between  2001  and  the  IP.  This  development  is  in  line  with  the  evolution  of  the 
Community market, which declined by 9% between 2001 and the IP. 

C.I. EC Sales volume to unrelated customers (tonnes)
Index (2001=100)

(e) Market share 

2001
80 019
100

2002
79 089
99

2003
73 636
92

IP
72 072
90  

(128)  The market share held by the Community industry decreased by one percentage point 
between 2001 and the IP. Specifically, it increased by 0,5 percentage points in 2002, 
declined  by  0,3  percentage  points  in  2003  and  finally  declined  by  1,2  percentage 
points in the IP. 

Market share of Community industry
Index (2001=100)
Market share of the four countries concerned
Index (2001=100)

(f) Growth  

2001
42,8%
100
4,1%
100

2002
43,3%
101
4,9%
119

2003
43,0%
101
4,1%
99

IP
41,8%
98
4,4%
107  

(129)  Between  2001  and  the  IP,  when  the  Community  consumption  decreased  by  9%,  the 
sales volume of the Community industry decreased by 10%. The Community industry 
thus  lost  a  part  of  its  market  share,  whereas  the  imports  concerned  gained  0,3 
percentage points during the same period. 

(g) Employment 

(130)  The  level  of  employment  of  the  Community  industry  declined  by  4%  between  2001 

and the IP. 

C.I. Employment product concerned
Index (2001=100)

(h) Productivity  

2001
2 049
100

2002
2 028
99

2003
1 975
96

IP
1 975
96  

(131)  Productivity  of  the  Community  industry's  workforce,  measured  as  output  per  person 
employed  per  year,  remained  fairly  stable  between  2001  and  2003.  In  the  IP,  as  the 
production volume dropped whilst employment remained flat, productivity dropped by 
8 %. 

C.I. Productivity (tonnes per employee)
Index (2001=100)

(i) Magnitude of dumping margin  

2001
61
100

2002
 63
103

2003
 61
101

IP
57
93  

(132)  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 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
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.  

(j) Recovery from the effects of past dumping 

(133)  While  the  indicators  examined  above  and  below  show  some  improvement  in  the 
economic and financial situation of the Community industry, further to the imposition 
of anti-dumping measures in 1999, they also evidence that the Community is still in a 
fragile and vulnerable situation. 

6.3 Data relating to the sampled Community producers 

(a) Sales prices and factors affecting domestic prices 

(134)  Unit sales prices of the Community industry remained relatively stable between 2001 
and  the  IP,  and  experienced  a  very  limited  increase  towards  the  end  of  the  period 
considered.  This  price  development  is  broadly  in  line  with  that  of  the  principal  raw 
material, which also showed a rise at the end of the period considered. 

S.P. Unit price EC market (EUR/tonne)
Index (2001=100)

(b) Wages  

2001
2 195
100

2002
2 171
99

2003
2 224
101

IP
2 227
101  

(135)  Between  2001  and  the  IP,  the  average  wage  per  employee  increased  by  5%,  a 
moderate  figure  in  comparison  with  the  rate  of  increase  of  the  average  nominal  unit 
labour  costs  (6%)  observed  during  the  same  period  in  the  Community  economy  at 
large. 

S.P. Annual labour cost per employee (000 EUR)
Index (2001=100)

(c) Investments  

2001
36,6
100

2002
37,6
103

2003
38,2
104

IP
38,5
105  

(136)  The  annual  flow  of  investments  in  the  product  concerned  made  by  the  five  sampled 
producers  stayed  relatively  stable  at  around  EUR  4  million  per  annum.  The  big 
increase observed in 2003 corresponds to a large extent to an exceptional purchase of 
equipment made by one sampled company. 

S.P. Net investments (000 EUR)
Index (2001=100)

(d) Profitability and return on investments 

2001
4 284
100

2002
3 074
72

2003
8 393
196

IP
4 914
115  

(137)  Profitability of the sampled producers, while showing a gradual improvement over the 
period considered, remained negative between 2001 (-4,2%) and the IP (-0,3%). The 
return on investments (‘ROI’), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value 
of  investments,  broadly  followed  the  above  profitability  trend  over  the  whole  period 
considered. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
S.P. Profitability of EC sales to unrelated (% of net sales) 
S.P. ROI (profit in % of net book value of investments) 

(e) Cash flow and ability to raise capital  

2001 
-4,2% 
-13,9% 

2002 
-1,7% 
-6,5% 

2003 
-1,5% 
-4,5% 

IP 
-0,3% 
-1,0% 

(138)  The cash-flow situation improved between 2001 and the IP, as the above limited losses 
were  more  than  offset  by  other  non-cash  items,  such  as  assets  depreciation  and 
inventory movements. 

S.P. Cash flow (000 EUR) 

2001 
-6 322 

2002 
10 670 

2003 
2 124 

IP 
4 485 

(139)  The investigation has shown that capital requirements of several sampled Community 
producers have been adversely affected by their difficult financial situation. Although 
several 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.  

6.4 Conclusion 

(140)  Between  2001  and  the  IP,  the  following  indicators  developed  positively:  production 
capacity of the Community industry increased and closing stocks decreased. Unit sales 
prices of the Community industry remained flat between 2001 and the IP, profitability 
improved to an almost breakeven situation in the IP, while return on investment and 
cash-flow  improved  as  well.  Wages  developed  moderately  and  the  Community 
industry continued to invest at a stable pace. 

(141)  Conversely,  the  following  indicators  developed  negatively:  production  and  capacity 
utilisation declined, sales volumes decreased (in line though with the development of 
the  market),  employment  and  productivity  dropped.  The  market  share  of  the 
Community industry slightly decreased, although the loss was clearly less pronounced 
than in the period preceding the adoption of anti-dumping measures when a loss of 9 
percentage points of market share had been observed. 

(142)  Overall,  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry  is  characterised  by  mixed 
developments: while some indicators show positive trends, a number of others show a 
negative  one.  If  one  compares  the  above  trends  with  the  ones  described  in  the 
Regulations  imposing  provisional  and  definitive  measures,  it  is  clear  that  the 
introduction of the anti-dumping measures in 1999 concerning imports from India, the 
PRC, Ukraine and South Africa had a positive impact on the economic situation of the 
Community  industry.  Had  the  measures  not  been  circumvented  by  imports  from 
Moldova  and  Morocco,  the  situation  might  have  been  even  more  favourable.  In 
addition, further to the imposition of anti-dumping measures on imports from Russia, 
Thailand  and  Turkey,  the  respective  market  shares  of  these  countries  declined  (see 
recitals (116) to (119) above), which certainly alleviated the pressure on prices of the 
Community industry. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that even indicators showing 
positive developments, such as in particular profitability and return on investment, are 
still  far  from  reaching  levels  that  could  be  expected  if  the  Community  industry  had 
fully recovered from the injury caused. 

(143)  It is therefore concluded that the situation of the Community industry has improved, as 
compared to the period preceding the imposition of measures, but is still fragile. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
  
  
7. Likelihood of recurrence of injury 

(144)  As concluded under recital (91) above, the producers in the countries concerned have 
the  potential  to  raise  and/or  redirect  their  export  volumes  to  the  Community  market. 
The  investigation  showed  that,  on  the  basis  of  comparable  product  types,  the 
cooperating  exporting  producers  sold  the  product  concerned  at  a  significantly  lower 
price than the Community industry's (58-68% for the PRC, 47-55% for India). As to 
Ukraine  and  South  Africa,  in  the  absence  of  cooperation  and  due  to  the  variety  of 
product  types  and  thus  import  prices,  no  price  comparison  on  a  type  by  type  basis 
could  be  carried  out.  However,  the  available  facts  indicate  that  both  the  average 
Ukrainian import price and the average South African import price (both without anti-
dumping  duty)  are  significantly  lower  than  the  domestic  prices  of  the  Community 
industry,  i.e.  respectively  by  65%  and  25%.  These  low  prices  would  most  likely 
continue  to  be  charged  by  the  countries  concerned,  also  in  order  to  regain  their  lost 
market shares. Such a price behaviour, coupled with the ability of the exporters in the 
countries  concerned  to  deliver  significant  quantities  of  the  product  concerned  on  the 
Community  market,  would  in  all  likelihood  have  the  effect  of  reinforcing  the  price-
depressive  trend  on  the  market,  with  an  expected  negative  impact  on  the  economic 
situation of the Community industry. 

(145)  As shown above, although  the situation  of the Community industry has improved as 
compared  to  the  one  prevailing  before  the  imposition  of  existing  anti-dumping 
measures, it remains vulnerable and fragile. It is likely that if the Community industry 
were  exposed  to  increased  volumes  of  imports  from  the  countries  concerned  at 
dumped  prices  it  would  result  in  a  deterioration  of  its  financial  situation  as  found  in 
the original investigation. On this basis, it is therefore concluded, that the repeal of the 
measures would in all likelihood result in the recurrence of injury to the Community 
industry.  

8. Community Interest 

8.1 Introduction 

(146)  According to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether maintenance 
of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Community 
as a whole. The determination of the Community interest was based on an appreciation 
of all the various interests involved.  

(147)  It should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the adoption of measures was 
considered not to be against the interest of the Community. Furthermore, the fact that 
the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping 
measures  have  already  been  in  place,  allows  the  assessment  of  any  undue  negative 
impact on the parties concerned by the current antidumping measures.  

(148)  On this basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a 
continuation  or  recurrence  of  injurious  dumping,  compelling  reasons  existed  which 
would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  not  in  the  Community  interest  to  maintain 
measures in this particular case.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
8.2 Interest of the Community industry 

(149)  The  Community  industry  has  proven  to  be  a  structurally  viable  industry.  This  was 
confirmed  by  the  positive  development  of  its  economic  situation  observed  after  the 
imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  in  1999.  In  particular,  the  fact  that  the 
Community industry virtually stopped its loss of market share in the few years before 
the  IP  contrasts  sharply  with  the  situation  preceding  the  imposition  of  the  measures. 
Also, the Community industry improved its profit situation between 2001 and the IP. 
It is further recalled that circumvention had been found by imports from Moldova and 
Morocco.  Had  these  developments  not  occured,  the  situation  of  the  Community 
industry would have been even more favourable.  

(150)  It  can  reasonably  be  expected  that  the  Community  industry  will  continue  to  benefit 
from  the  measures  currently  imposed  and  further  recover  by  regaining  market  share 
and improving its profitability. Should the measures not be maintained, it is likely that 
the  Community  industry  will  start  again  to  suffer  injury  from  increased  imports  at 
dumped  prices  from  the  countries  concerned  and  that  its  currently  fragile  financial 
situation will deteriorate further. 

8.3 Interest of importers  

(151)  It  is  recalled  that  in  the  original  investigation  it  was  found  that  the  impact  of  the 
imposition of measures would not be significant. As indicated above, no importer fully 
co-operated in this investigation. Therefore, it  can accordingly be  concluded that the 
maintenance of the measures will not have a significant negative effect on importers or 
traders. 

8.4 Interest of users 

(152)  SWR are used in a wide variety of applications and therefore a large number of user 
industries might be concerned. The following list of user industries is only indicative: 
fishing,  maritime/shipping,  oil  and  gas  industries,  mining,  forestry,  aerial  transport, 
civil  engineering,  construction,  elevator.  In  examining  the  possible  effect  of  the 
imposition  of  measures  on  users,  it  was  concluded  in  the  original  investigation  that 
given the negligible incidence of the cost of SWR on the user industries, any increase 
in these costs was unlikely to have a significant effect on the particular user industry. 
The fact that no user provided any information contradicting the above finding in the 
frame  of  the  current  review  investigation  tends  to  confirm  that:  (i)  SWR  represent  a 
very  small  part  of  total  production  costs  for  these  user  industries,  (ii)  the  measures 
currently  in  force  did  not  have  any  substantial  negative  effect  on  their  economic 
situation,  and  (iii)  the  continuation  of  measures  would  not  adversely  affect  the 
financial interests of the user industries. 

8.5 Interest of suppliers 

(153)  The original investigation concluded that suppliers of the Community industry would 
benefit  from  the  imposition  of  measures.  In  the  absence  of  any  information  to  the 
contrary in the framework of this review, it is considered that the maintenance of the 
current measures would continue to have a positive impact on the suppliers. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
8.6 Conclusion on Community interest 

(154)  Given  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  there  are  no  compelling  reasons  against  the 

maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures. 

9. ANTI - DUMPING MEASURES 

(155)  All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which  it  is  intended  to  recommend  that  the  existing  measures  be  maintained.  They 
were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. No 
comments were received which were of a nature to change the above conclusions.  

(156) 

It  follows  from  the  above  that,  as  provided  for  by  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  the  antidumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  SWR,  originating  in 
India,  the  PRC,  Ukraine  and  South  Africa  should  be  maintained.  It  is  recalled  that 
these measures consist of ad valorem duties, with the exception of the imports of the 
product concerned which are manufactured and sold for export to the Community by 
one Indian company and one South African company from which undertakings have 
been accepted. 

(157)  As outlined under recital (3) above, the anti-dumping duties in force on imports of the 
product  concerned  from  Ukraine  and  the  PRC  were  extended  to  cover,  in  addition, 
imports  of  SWR  consigned  from  Moldova  and  Morocco  respectively,  whether 
declared  as  originating  in  Moldova  or  Morocco  or  not.  The  anti-dumping  duty  to  be 
maintained  on  imports  of  the  product  concerned,  as  set  out  in  recital  (156)  above, 
should  continue  to  be  extended  to  imports  of  SWR  consigned  from  Moldova  and 
Morocco,  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Moldova  or  Morocco  or  not.  The 
Moroccan  exporting  producer  who  was  exempted  from  the  measures  as  extended  by 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1886/2004  should  also  be  exempted  from  the  measures  as 
imposed by this Regulation. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  steel  ropes  and 
cables including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with 
a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm, falling within CN codes ex 
7312 10 82 (TARIC code 7312 10 82 19), ex 7312 10 84 (TARIC code 7312 10 84 
19), ex 7312 10 86 (TARIC code 7312 10 86 19), ex 7312 10 88 (TARIC code 7312 
10 88 19) and ex 7312 10 99 (TARIC code 7312 10 99 19) and originating in India, 
the People’s Republic of China, Ukraine and South Africa. 

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

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
Country  

Company 

India  

Usha Martin Limited (formerly Usha 
Beltron Ltd) 
2A, Shakespeare Sarani 
Calcutta – 700 071, West Bengal, India 

Rate of duty 
(%) 

TARIC  additional 
code 

23,8 

 8613 

All other companies 

All companies 

People's 
Republic  of 
China 

Ukraine 

All companies 

South Africa  All companies 

30,8 

60,4 

51,8 

38,6 

 8900 

 8900 

- 

- 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

1. 

The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  imports  from  Ukraine,  as  set  out  in 
paragraph  2,  is  hereby  extended  to  imports  of  the  same  steel  ropes  and  cables 
consigned  from  Moldova,  whether  declared  as  originating  in  Moldova  or  not 
(TARIC codes 7312 10 82 11, 7312 10 84 11, 7312 10 86 11, 7312 10 88 11, 7312 
10 99 11 respectively). 

The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  imports  from  the  People’s  Republic 
of China, as set out in paragraph 2, is hereby extended to imports of the same steel 
ropes  and  cables  consigned  from  Morocco,  whether  declared  as  originating  in 
Morocco or not (TARIC codes 7312 10 82 12, 7312 10 84 12, 7312 10 86 12, 7312 
10  88  12,  7312  10  99  12  respectively)  with  the  exception  of  those  produced  by 
Remer Maroc SARL, Zone Industrielle, Tranche 2, Lot 10, Settat, Morocco (TARIC 
additional code A567). 

Notwithstanding  paragraph  1,  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  shall  not  apply  to 
imports released into free circulation in accordance with Article 2. 

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

Article 2 

Imports  declared  for  release  into  free  circulation  under  the  following  TARIC 
additional  codes  which  are  produced  and  directly  exported  (i.e.  shipped  and 
invoiced)  by  the  company  below  to  a  company  in  the  Community  acting  as  an 
importer shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1 provided 
that such imports are imported in conformity with paragraph 2 of this Article. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
Country  

Company 

India 

Usha Martin Limited (formerly Usha Martin 
Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd)  

2A, Shakespeare Sarani 
Calcutta – 700 071, West Bengal, India 

South Africa 

Haggie 
Lower Germiston Road 
Jupiter 
PO Box 40072 
Cleveland 
South Africa 

TARIC 
additional 
code 

 A024 

 A023 

2. 

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

(a) 

a valid undertaking 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 

(b) 

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

Article 3 

1. 

2. 

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

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 

The  following  elements  shall  be  indicated  in  the  undertaking  invoice  accompanying  the 
company's sales of steel ropes and cables to the Community subject to the undertaking.  

1. The product reporting code number (PRC) (as established in the undertaking offered by the 
exporting  producer  in  question),  including  type,  number  of  strands,  number  of  wires  per 
strand and CN code. 

2. The exact description of the goods, including: 

– the ‘company product code’ (CPC), 

– CN code, 

– the TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice may be customs-cleared at 
Community borders (as specified in the Regulation), 

– quantity (to be given in kilos), 

– minimum price applicable. 

3. The description of the terms of the sale, including: 

– price per kilo, 

– the applicable payment terms, 

– the applicable delivery terms, 

– total discounts and rebates. 

4. Name of the importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the company. 

5.  The  name  of  the  official  of  the  company  that  has  issued  the  undertaking  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  Decision  (1999/572/EC).  I  declare  that  the  information  provided  in  this  invoice  is 
complete and correct.’ 

EN 

35 

   EN