Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam and terminating the proceeding on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in Malaysia and the Philippines
Date: 2005-10-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Asia, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, manufactured goods, originating product, steel

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 17.10.2005 
COM(2005) 497 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in 
the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam and 
terminating the proceeding on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts 
thereof originating in Malaysia and the Philippines 

(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 certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s 
Republic  of  China,  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  the  Philippines,  Taiwan,  Thailand  and 
Vietnam. 

• 

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 24 August 2004, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding with regard 
to  imports  of  stainless  steel  fasteners  and  parts  thereof  originating  in  the  People’s 
Republic  of  China,  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  the  Philippines,  Taiwan,  Thailand  and 
Vietnam. The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged by the European 
Industrial  Fasteners  Institute  on  behalf  of  Community  producers  representing  more 
than 50% of total Community production of stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof. 

A  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  was  imposed  on  imports  of  certain  stainless  steel 
fasteners  and  parts  thereof  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China,  Indonesia, 
Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam on 21 May 2005, ranging from 7,7% to 27,4%. 

Nuts  were  excluded  at  the  provisional  stage  from  the  definition  of  the  product 
concerned  by  the  investigation  on  the  basis  that  further  examination  was  needed  in 
order  to  establish  whether  nuts  could  be  regarded  as  a  single  product  with  other 
stainless steel fasteners and if the producers in the Community can provide nuts. 

Since  virtually  all  imports  from  the  Philippines  consisted  of  nuts,  no  provisional 
measures were imposed on imports of the product concerned from this country.  

No  dumping  margins  were  established  at  the  provisional  stage  for  Malaysia  and  no 
provisional measures were imposed on this country. 

At  provisional  stage,  none  of  the  investigated  companies,  either  in  the  People’s 
Republic  of  China  or  in  Vietnam,  was  granted  market  economy  treatment. 
Nevertheless, both cooperating exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China 
were granted IT. 

The  proposed  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  ranges  from  7,7%  to  27,4%.  The 
provisional  findings  concerning  nuts,  Malaysia,  the  Philippines  and  market  economy 
treatment  for  exporting  producers  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  and  Vietnam 
remained the same. 

Consequently it is proposed to exclude nuts from the scope of the product concerned 
by  this  proceeding  and  to  terminate  the  proceeding  with  regard  to  Malaysia  and  the 
Philippines.  

It  is  proposed  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation  which 
should be published in the Official Journal at the latest on 19 November 2005.  

• 

Legal basis 

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

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
• 

Subsidiary principle 

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

• 

Proportionality principle 

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

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

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

• 

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Regulation. 

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

4) 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in 
the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam and 
terminating the proceeding on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts 
thereof originating in Malaysia and the Philippines 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

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

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

Whereas: 

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  771/2005(2)  (‘the  provisional  Regulation’) 
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners 
and  parts  thereof,  falling  within  CN  codes  7318  12  10,  7318  14  10,  7318  15  30, 
7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70 originating in the People’s Republic of China 
(‘PRC’), Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. 

It  is  recalled  that  the  investigation  of  dumping  and  injury  covered  the  period  from 
1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 (‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the injury 
analysis  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2001  to  30  June  2004  (‘period 
considered’). 

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures, certain interested 
parties submitted comments in writing. 

Those  parties  who  so  requested  were  granted  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  by  the 
Commission. 

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 128, 21.5.2005, p.19. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

1 

2 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its definitive findings. 

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

The oral and written comments were considered and, where deemed appropriate, taken 
into account in the definitive findings.  

Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  one  importer  and  its  association 
questioned the representativeness of the Community industry, as set out under recital 
(113)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  within  the  meaning  of  Article  5(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  However,  no  evidence  was  produced  to  substantiate  this  claim.  The 
investigation has confirmed that the Community industry accounted for approximately 
54% of the Community production during the IP and has standing within the meaning 
of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. 

The  co-operating  Thai  exporting  producers  contended  upon  disclosure  that  the  non-
confidential  questionnaire  replies  of  the  Community  producers  were  not  sufficiently 
detailed  and  not  filed  in  accordance  with  Article  19  of  the  basic  Regulation.  It  was 
alleged that a lack of information in the non-confidential questionnaire replies denied 
co-operating exporters an effective opportunity to defend their interests and allegedly 
put  them  at  a  disadvantage  as  compared  with  other  parties,  namely  the  Community 
industry, in this procedure. However, the injury information as set out in Section E of 
the  provisional  Regulation  provides  all  interested  parties  with  verified  data  on  an 
aggregated  basis.  Thus,  they  all  have  a  sufficiently  precise  picture  of  the  facts  with 
regard to the injury and causality situation to enable them to defend their interests. All 
parties  are  treated  in  the  same  way  and  there  is  no  imbalance  between  the  different 
interested  parties  with  regard  to  disclosure.  Furthermore,  the  non-confidential 
questionnaire  replies  together  with  the  information  contained  in  the  provisional 
Regulation ensured respect for the rights of defence of all parties. The argument was 
therefore rejected. 

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(10) 

It  is  recalled  that,  in  the  course  of  the  provisional  investigation,  doubts  arose  as  to 
whether nuts could be regarded as a single product with other stainless steel fasteners 
and parts thereof (‘SSF’). In this respect, a number of aspects needed to be explored 
further,  e.g.  whether  and  to  what  extent  bolts  and  nuts  are  marketed  together  as  a 
system, to what extent these types are developed together etc. Further examination was 
also needed as to what extent the producers in the Community are able to offer these 
systems.  For  the  purpose  of  the  preliminary  findings,  it  was  therefore  provisionally 
decided  not  to  include  nuts  normally  declared  within  CN  code  7318  16  30  in  the 
product definition.  

(11)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  Community  producers  as  well  as 
importers,  provided  evidence  that  nuts  and  bolts  are  neither  developed  nor  produced 
and  marketed  together.  While  nuts  are  typically  used  in  conjunction  with  bolts,  they 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
are  not  typically  sold  as  a  set.  Also,  bolts  can  be  used  as  fastening  devices  without 
nuts, which shows that there can be different end–uses between bolts and nuts. This is 
borne  out  by  the  imports  from  some  of  those  producers  in  the  countries  concerned, 
which  produce  and  sell  either  nuts  or  bolts,  as  well  as  by  the  fact  that  the  sampled 
Community producers manufacture screws and bolts but not nuts. This is particularly 
apparent in the case of the Philippines, from where virtually all imports consisted of 
nuts  without  any  corresponding  imports  of  bolts.  Furthermore,  as  stated  above,  bolts 
are  not  necessarily  combined  with  nuts  and  washers.  This  is  also  obvious  from  the 
description of the HS-code 7318 15: “other screws or bolts whether or not with their 
nuts or washers”. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the Community industry does 
not keep the necessary machinery to produce nuts and did not manifest any intention 
to produce nuts in the future. 

(12)  Therefore, the findings set out in recital (13) of the provisional Regulation to exclude 
nuts, not imported as part of a set with their screws and bolts, from the product scope 
are  confirmed.  Consequently,  in  line  with  the  conclusions  drawn  in  recitals  (14)  and 
(105)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  proceeding  should  be  terminated  as  regards 
the Philippines.  

(13)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  the  co-operating  Thai  exporting 
producers  alleged  that  nuts  and  bolts  are  normally  marketed  and  developed  together 
and,  therefore,  if  nuts  were  to  be  excluded  from  the  product  scope,  bolts  should  be 
excluded from the scope of the proceeding as well. However, they did not substantiate 
this allegation. Consequently, and in light of the findings  set out  in  recitals (11) and 
(12) above that nuts are not marketed and developed together with bolts, the claim was 
rejected and only nuts were excluded from the scope of the proceeding.  

(14)  Furthermore,  several  importers  and  their  association  reiterated  their  claim  to  further 
limit  the  investigation  to  two  CN  codes,  namely  7318  15  61  (hexagon  socket  head 
screws  of  stainless  steel)  and  7318  15  70  (hexagon  bolts  of  stainless  steel).  To  this 
end, they referred to an alleged lack of production by the Community industry of all 
other  fasteners  being  subject  to  this  investigation,  i.e.  SSF  normally  declared  within 
CN codes 7318 12 10 (other wood screws of stainless steel), 7318 14 10 (self tapping 
screws  of  stainless  steel),  7318  15  30  (screws  and  bolts  without  heads  of  stainless 
steel)  and  7318  15  51  (slotted  and  cross-recessed  screws  of  stainless  steel).  In  this 
respect,  they  provided  as  evidence  some  orders  which  some  Community  producers 
could not deliver. Furthermore it was claimed that bolts and screws are manufactured 
on different machines.  

(15) 

It  should  be  recalled,  as  stated  in  recital  (15)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  that  the 
investigation  confirmed  that  types  of  SSF  falling  within  CN  codes  7318  12  10, 
7318 14  10,  7318  15  30  and  7318  15  51  are  produced  in  the  Community. 
Consequently,  the  sampled  Community  producers  (i)  have  the  machinery  to  produce 
these  other  types  of  SSF;  and  (ii)  face  competition  for  these  types  from  the  dumped 
product  concerned.  The  information  with  regard  to  some  orders  which  could  not  be 
supplied  by  the  Community  industry  relates  to  a  period  outside  the  IP  which, 
normally,  shall  not  be  taken  into  account  according  to  Article  6(1)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. In any event, this fact does not show that these products are not produced 
by  the  Community  industry.  In  addition,  the  investigation  established  that,  in  the 
absence of unfair dumped competition from the countries concerned, the Community 
industry is able to increase production in order to meet demand of such items. In this 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
context,  it  should  be  considered  that  the  Community  industry  has  significant  spare 
capacity  (see  table  before  recital  (127)  in  the  provisional  Regulation). Consequently, 
the claim of the importers could not be accepted. 

(16)  The co-operating Thai exporting producers asked to limit the product scope to the CN 
codes 7318 12 10 (other wood screws of stainless steel), 7318 15 30 (screws and bolts 
without  heads  of  stainless  steel)  and  7318  15  61  (hexagon  socket  head  screws  of 
stainless steel). To this end, they argued that neither bolts (CN code 7318 15 70), nor 
self-tapping, slotted and cross-recessed screws of stainless steel (CN codes 7318 14 10 
and 7418 15  51)  should be considered as one single product category with the other 
fasteners under investigation because of alleged (i) different physical properties, nature 
and quality of these fasteners, (ii) different end uses, (iii) different consumers’ tastes 
and habits and (iv) different CN codes, which in their view would show that bolts and 
screws do not constitute one single category of product.  

(17) 

In  the  case  at  hand,  the  investigation  has  shown  that  all  types  of  fasteners  under 
consideration  share,  from  a  user’s  perspective,  similar  basic  physical  and  technical 
characteristic  and  uses,  i.e.  they  are  threaded  stainless  steel  metal  pins,  used  to  join 
things,  by  means  of  rotation  of  the  fastening  devices.  Thus,  all  these  fasteners  fall 
under the same four digit heading of the Combined Nomenclature. Consequently, the 
claim to further limit the product scope has to be rejected.  

(18)  Since  no  other  comments  were  submitted,  the  findings  concerning  the  product 
concerned  and  the  like  product  as  set  out  in  recitals  (10)  to  (18)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

D. SAMPLING 

(19)  No  comments  concerning  sampling  of  exporting  producers  in  Taiwan,  Community 
producers and importers have been submitted following the imposition of provisional 
measures. The findings set out in recitals (19) to (32) of the provisional Regulation are 
hereby confirmed. 

E. DUMPING 

1. Market economy treatment (‘MET’) 

(20)  No  new  comments  concerning  MET  were  submitted  following  the  imposition  of 
provisional  measures.  The  findings  set  out  in  recitals  (33)  to  (54)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. Individual treatment (‘IT’) 

(21)  One  co-operating  exporting  producer  in  Vietnam  expressed  its  disappointment  at  the 
rejection of its claim for IT, despite its co-operation with the investigation. It also said 
that  the  rejection  of  its  claim  for  IT,  as  well  as  those  of  two  other  Vietnamese 
exporters, lead to the imposition of the same provisional anti-dumping duty on imports 
from all exporting producers in Vietnam. 

As set out in recital (60) of the provisional Regulation, the company in question was 
not  able  to  demonstrate  that  it  met  the  conditions  of  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
Regulation for being granted IT. Furthermore, no argument or evidence was submitted 
which  could  alter  this  finding  and,  therefore,  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
had to apply to Vietnam, as a whole. This means that the same measure applies to all 
exporting producers in Vietnam.  

(22) 

In the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in recitals (55) to (61) of 
the provisional Regulation concerning individual treatment are hereby confirmed. 

3. Normal value 

3.1. Analogue country 

(23)  Taiwan had provisionally been chosen as the analogue market economy third country 
for the purpose of establishing normal value for exporting producers not granted MET. 
Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  no  party  raised  any  comments 
concerning the determination of the normal value in the analogue country. Thus,  the 
findings  set  out  in  recitals  (62)  to  (64)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

3.2. Methodology applied for the determination of normal value 

(24)  Four  Thai  exporting  producers  argued  that  the  selling,  general  and  administrative 
(‘SG&A’) expenses and the profit realised on domestic sales in another country, in this 
case Taiwan, cannot be used for constructing their normal value. However, as set out 
in  recital  (80)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  these  exporting  producers  had  no 
representative sales of the like product, or other products in the same general category, 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade.  It  was  therefore,  necessary  to  rely  on  another 
reasonable method for the calculation of SG&A expenses and profit as provided for by 
Article  2(6)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In  this  respect,  the  use  of  Taiwanese  SG&A 
expenses  and  profit  was  considered  the  most  reasonable  method  because  of  (i)  the 
representative  domestic  market,  in  terms  of  volumes  and  competition  in  terms  of 
prices, for the like product in Taiwan; and (ii) the fact that the Taiwanese SSF industry 
controls  the  majority  of  SSF  producers  in  all  the  countries  under  investigation, 
including  some  in  Thailand  (see  recital  (71)  of  the  provisional  Regulation).  No 
information  was  provided  to  show  that  the  profit  so  used  would  exceed  the  profit 
normally  realized  by  other  exporters  or  producers  on  sales  of  the  same  general 
category of products in Thailand.  

(25)  No  other  comments  were  raised  concerning  the  methodology  applied  for  the 
determination of normal value and thus the methodology set out in recitals (65) to (72) 
of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

3.3. Determination of normal value 

a) People’s Republic of China 

(26) 

In the absence of any comments, the findings set out in recital (73) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
b) Indonesia 

(27) 

In the absence of any comments, the findings set out in recital (74) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

c) Malaysia 

(28) 

In the absence of any comments, the findings set out in recital (76) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

d) Taiwan 

(29)  One  Taiwanese  exporting  producer  objected  to  the  methodology  used  to  determine 
normal  value  as  set  out  in  recital  (79)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  The  company 
claimed that it did not classify the different types of the product concerned according 
to  the  specifications  given  by  the  Commission  as  some  of  these  fasteners  were 
speciality fasteners. It also claimed that the company had demonstrated during the on 
spot  verification,  by  way  of  drawings,  samples  and  sales  documentation,  the  unique 
product characteristics of its speciality fasteners exported to the Community.  

(30) 

In fact, the evidence collected during the verification visit indicated that these products 
are not falling within the CN codes under investigation. In these circumstances, it was 
considered appropriate not to consider the exports of these products for the purposes 
of this investigation. Findings for this company, including those on normal value as set 
out  in  recital  (79)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  are  based  on  its  remaining  exports 
which fell within the description of the product concerned. 

(31)  For  the  normal  value  of  its  remaining  exports,  the  company  suggested  some 
adjustments  to  the  cost  of  production  used  for  the  provisional  determination  of  its 
normal value (see recital (79) of the provisional Regulation).  

(32)  However, these adjustments were based on data which were not submitted either with 
the  response  to  the  questionnaire  or  during  the  verification  visit  and,  thus,  were  not 
verifiable.  Furthermore,  these  adjustments  were  not  supported  by  any  information 
available  on  the  record.  Consequently,  this  claim  concerning  the  cost  of  production 
should be rejected.  

(33)  Another Taiwanese exporting producer claimed that there was certain double counting 
in the cost of production and the SG&A expenses used for the determination of normal 
value. It argued that the SG&A expenses ratio submitted in the Profit and Loss table of 
its response to the questionnaire was not the correct one and that the SG&A expenses 
ratio given during the verification visit should be used instead.  

(34) 

In this respect, it should be noted that the company did not make any correction on its 
Profit  and  Loss  table  before  the  verification  visit.  The  company  provided  a 
significantly  revised  table  for  the  SG&A  expenses  at  the  very  last  stage  of  the 
verification,  when  it  was  too  late  for  it  to  be  verified.  Consequently,  and  since  the 
revised  SG&A  expenses  did  not  link  to  other  verified  information  available  on  the 
record,  the  claim  was  rejected  and  data  derived  from  the  Profit  and  Loss  table 
submitted  in  the  questionnaire  response  have  been  maintained  in  the  dumping 
calculation, in line with the provisions of Article 6(8) of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(35)  The  same  Taiwanese  exporting  producer  claimed  that  scrap  materials  must  be 
deducted from the cost of the raw materials. The company claimed that since scrap is 
obtained from the production process, the income from its sales should be allowed to 
offset cost of production. However, it has not reported the amount of any such income. 
In  any  event,  any  income  from  other  products  or  by-products  is  not  relevant  for  the 
calculation of the cost of production of the like product as it has not been a practice 
historically  utilized  by  the  company  in  allocating  costs.  Therefore,  the  claim  of  the 
company should be rejected and the provisional findings confirmed.  

(36)  No other comments were submitted and, therefore, the findings set out in recitals (77) 

to (79) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

e) Thailand 

(37)  One Thai exporting producer having some domestic sales made several claims relating 
to  the  calculation  of  the  cost  of  production  and  the  SG&A  expenses  used  for  the 
determination  of  its  normal  value.  Furthermore,  it  stated  that  should  the  claims  be 
accepted its domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade would be representative and 
could be used for the determination of normal value in Thailand. 

(38) 

It  should  be  noted  that  this  company  provided  several  revised  versions  of  its 
questionnaire  response  during  the  verification  visit  to  an  extent  that  significantly 
impeded  the  investigation  as  it  was  not  possible  to  reconcile  any  of  the  different 
versions  with  its  accounts.  Nevertheless,  all  this  information  was  examined  as  far  as 
possible in line with the provisions of Article 6(8) of the basic Regulation. It is noted 
that the cost of production, as reported by the company for a large number of product 
types, was significantly understated, in particular the cost of raw materials, and it was, 
therefore, corrected for the provisional dumping calculations. As the company has not 
provided  any  substantiated  information  regarding  its  cost  of  production  that  would 
require  a  change  in  the  dumping  calculations,  its  claim  regarding  calculation  of  the 
cost of production has to be rejected.  

(39)  This exporting producer claimed that income from sales of scrap should be deducted 
from the cost of raw materials in the cost of production of the like product. However, 
no  income  from  sales  of  scrap  has  been  reported  in  the  company’s  Profit  and  Loss 
Table. In any event, any income from other products or by-products is not relevant for 
the calculation of the cost of production of the like product as it has not been a practice 
historically utilized by the company in allocating costs.  

(40)  Concerning the exporting producer’s claim to use a different level of SG&A expenses, 
it was established that, even if the claim was accepted, it would not lead to a situation 
where the company’s domestic sales could have been used as a basis for establishing 
normal value, as they would still not be made in the ordinary course of trade. 

(41)  Consequently,  these  claims  regarding  scrap  and  SG&A  expenses  should  be  rejected 
and  the  findings  set  out  in  recital  (80)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
f) Vietnam 

(42) 

In the absence of any comments, the findings set out in recital (81) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. Export price 

(43) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals  (82)  to  (91)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation  concerning  the  establishment  of  the  export  price  pursuant  to 
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation for all countries concerned are hereby confirmed. 

5. Comparison 

(44) 

In the absence of any comments, the methodology and the findings set out in recitals 
(92)  and  (93)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  concerning  the  comparison  between 
normal value and export price are hereby confirmed. 

6.1.  General Methodology 

6. Dumping margins 

(45) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the determination of the dumping margin, 
the  methodology  set  out  in  recitals  (94)  to  (100)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is 
hereby confirmed.  

6.2.  Dumping margins 

a) People’s Republic of China 

(46) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  definitive  dumping  margins,  expressed  as  a 
percentage  of  the  CIF  import  price  at  the  Community  border,  duty  unpaid,  are  the 
following: 

Tengzhou Tengda Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd, Tengzhou City  21,5% 

Tong Ming Enterprise (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd., Zhejiang  12,2% 

All other companies  27,4%. 

– 

– 

– 

b) Indonesia 

(47) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  definitive  dumping  margins,  expressed  as  a 
percentage  of  the  CIF  import  price  at  the  Community  border,  duty  unpaid,  are  the 
following: 

– 

– 

PT. Shye Chang Batam Indonesia, Batam 

9,8 % 

All other companies  24,6%. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
c) Malaysia 

(48) 

In the absence of any comments on the calculation of the provisional dumping margin 
for  the  two  co-operating  exporting  producers  in  Malaysia,  the  findings  as  set  out  in 
recital (104) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. Consequently, as no 
dumping was found for any Malaysian exporting producer, the proceeding should be 
terminated as regards imports of the product concerned from Malaysia. 

d) The Philippines 

(49) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  on  the  situation  concerning  the  Philippines,  no 
dumping  margin  has  been  established.  Consequently,  as  stated  above  in  recital  (12), 
the proceeding should be terminated as regards imports of the product concerned from 
the Philippines. 

e) Taiwan 

(50) 

In the absence of any further comments on the calculation of the provisional dumping 
margins for Taiwan, as set out in recitals (106) to (108) of the provisional Regulation, 
the definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at 
the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: 

– 

– 

Arrow Fasteners Co. Ltd., Taipei 

15,2% 

Jin Shing Stainless Ind. Co. Ltd, Tao Yuan  18,8% 

–  Min Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd, Pingtung 

16,1% 

Tong Hwei Enterprise, Co. Ltd., Kaohsiung  16,1% 

Yi Tai Shen Co. Ltd., Tainan  11,4% 

Co-operating exporting producers not included in the sample 

15,8% 

All other companies  23,6%. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

f) Thailand 

(51)  One Thai exporting producer made claims relating to the calculation of its individual 
dumping margin insofar as product type classifications, production quantities and the 
use of various grades of stainless steel were concerned. 

(52)  The  claims  were  examined  on  the  basis  of  the  verified  information  and  certain 
appropriate corrections were made leading to the determination of a revised individual 
dumping margin for this exporting producer. As the basis for establishing the dumping 
margin for any non-cooperating Thai exporters was the level of the highest dumping 
margin  found  for  a  cooperating  Thai  exporter,  the  residual  dumping  margin  was 
revised accordingly. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(53)  Consequently,  the  definitive  dumping  margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF 

import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

A.B.P. Stainless Fasteners Co. Ltd, Ayutthaya 

11,1 % 

Bunyat Industries 1998 Co. Ltd, Samutsakorn 

10,8 % 

Dura Fasteners Company Ltd, Samutprakarn 14,6 % 

Siam Screws (1994) Co. Ltd, Samutsakorn  11,0 % 

All other companies  14,6 %. 

g) Vietnam 

(54) 

In the absence of any further comments on the calculation of the provisional dumping 
margin  for  Vietnam,  as  set  out  in  recital  (110)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the 
definitive dumping margin for all companies in Vietnam, expressed as a percentage of 
the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, is confirmed as 7,7%.  

1. 

Community production and Community industry 

F. INJURY 

(55)  The co-operating Thai exporting producers contested the analysis methodology set out 
in recital (114) of the provisional Regulation, i.e. that some data have been established 
for  the  sampled  Community  producers  only  (transaction  prices,  investment  &  return 
on investment, wages, profitability, cash flow and ability to raise capital), whereas the 
other  indicators  (market  share,  production,  capacity  and  capacity  utilisation,  sales 
volume and value, growth, stocks, employment and productivity) additionally included 
data  of  another  Community  producer,  constituting  with  the  sampled  producers,  the 
Community  industry.  They  argued  that  this  approach  is  (i)  not  objective  within  the 
meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation and that (ii) Article 17(4) of the basic 
Regulation allegedly does not permit such an approach.  

(56) 

It is normal practice in anti-dumping proceedings to analyse injury factors for the full 
Community industry. However, in cases where the industry consists of a high number 
of producers, resort is made to sampling. The purpose of sampling is to provide that 
detailed data can be collected and verified from a limited number of producers within 
the  time  available.  This  data  concerns  factors  such  as  prices,  wages,  investments, 
profit, return on investment, cash flow and ability to raise capital, where it would be 
unfeasible to verify the data for the full industry within the time available. For other 
factors,  such  as  market  share,  sales  volume  and  production,  data  is  usually  readily 
available  for  the  full  industry.  To  base  the  injury  analysis  merely  on  data  from 
sampled producers would ignore usable data from other producers, thereby leading to 
an  incomplete  assessment.  Therefore,  in  the  interests  of  having  as  complete  an 
assessment as possible within the time available in this case, data received and verified 
for  trends  in  all  injury  factors  from  the  sampled  producers  was  complemented  by 
information relating to the full industry. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(57)  No  other  comment  has  been  submitted  concerning  Community  production  and  the 
definition  of  the  Community  industry  and,  therefore,  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals 
(111) to (114) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Community consumption, imports and their cumulative assessment 

(58)  The co-operating Thai exporting producers claimed that Thai imports should not have 
been  assessed  cumulatively  with  dumped  imports  of  SSF  originating  in  the  PRC, 
Indonesia,  Taiwan  and  Vietnam,  because  of  an  alleged  lack  of  competition  with 
imports  from  the  latter  mentioned  countries  in  terms  of  volumes,  average  prices  and 
market share. They pointed out that in 2002, volume and market share of Thai imports 
dropped  by  29%  and  35%  respectively,  whereas  already  in  2002  an  increase  can  be 
observed  with  regard  to  the  other  countries  concerned.  Furthermore,  they  noted  that 
since 2003, average Thai import prices increased by 2%.  

(59) 

It should be recalled that the margins of dumping established in relation to the imports 
from  each  country concerned are more  than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of 
the basic Regulation, i.e. 2%, and the volume of imports from each country concerned 
is above the threshold of 1% market share set by Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation. 
Furthermore,  it  is  pertinent  to  note  that  the  analysis  should  not  focus  on  2002  in 
isolation, but on the overall picture during the period considered, i.e. from 2001 to the 
IP.  Overall,  Thai  imports’  volume  and  market  share  in  fact  increased  significantly 
whilst  their  prices  dropped  considerably.  Consequently,  overall,  the  pattern  of  Thai 
imports is in line with the trends established for all countries concerned. Furthermore, 
it  is  recalled  that  the  SSF  imported  from  the  countries  concerned  were  alike  in  all 
respects,  they  are  interchangeable,  they  are  marketed  in  the  Community  through 
comparable sales channels and under similar commercial conditions and compete with 
the  SSF  produced  in  the  Community.  Therefore,  and  in  line  with  Article  3(4)  of  the 
basic  Regulation,  it  is  confirmed  that  a  cumulative  assessment  of  the  effects  of  the 
dumped imports of the product concerned is appropriate. 

(60)  No other comment has been submitted concerning the analysis of the situation on the 
Community market and, therefore, the findings set out in recitals (115) to (126) of the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Economic situation of the Community industry 

(61)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  no  comments  were  submitted 
concerning production, capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, sales price, market 
share,  growth,  stocks,  employment,  productivity,  the  magnitude  of  dumping  and  the 
recovery  from  past  dumping  of  the  Community  industry.  Therefore,  the  findings  set 
out  in  recitals  (127)  to  (133),  (137),  (142),  (143),  (145)  and  (146)  are  hereby 
confirmed.  

3.1 

Profitability 

(62)  The co-operating Thai exporting producers contended that the profitability situation of 
the sampled Community producers had improved and did not reflect any injury. They 
further  argued  that  the  Community  industry  has  not  achieved  the  minimum  profit 
margin of 5% considered adequate and achievable in the absence of dumping because 
of  the  investments  made  by  the  sampled  Community  producers  in  2002  and  2003. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
They also argued to disregard the fact that the Community industry benefited from the 
use of low priced stainless steel because this should be considered as a normal market 
situation from which all operators have benefited.  

(63) 

It  should  be  recalled,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (149)  and  (150)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, that the profitability situation was neither the only factor, nor the central 
factor,  showing  injury  in  the  present  case.  According  to  Article  3(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, not any one or more of the injury factors set out in that Article necessarily 
give  decisive  guidance  as  to  the  state  of  the  Community  industry.  Investments  were 
necessary  to  remain  competitive,  as  set  out  in  recital  (138)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation,  so  that  no  negative  impact  on  profitability  can  be  attributed  to  such 
investment. Furthermore, as set out in recital (136) of the provisional Regulation, the 
positive  effect  on  the  sampled  Community  producers’  profitability  from  the  rising 
stainless steel prices during the IP was strictly temporary and was a factor which may 
have benefited other economic operators for a very short period.  

(64)  Thus,  the  allegation  that  the  profitability  situation  does  not  reflect  injury  has  to  be 
rejected and the findings set out in recitals (134) to (136) of the provisional Regulation 
confirmed. 

3.2. 

Investments, return on investment, cash flow and the ability to raise capital 

(65)  The  co-operating  Thai  exporting  producers  pointed  out  that  the  rising  investments, 
return on investment, cash flow as well as the ability to raise capital did not indicate 
any injury. 

(66)  As mentioned in recital (147) of the provisional Regulation, it should be recalled that 
the  factors  “investment”  and  “ability  to  raise  capital”  have  not  been  considered  as 
factors showing injury during the period considered.  

(67)  With  regard  to  return  on  investment,  however,  the  overall  improvement  over  the 
period  considered  needs  to  be  viewed  in  the  context  of  (i)  the  temporary  and 
exceptional nature of the profitability situation of the sampled Community producers 
during  the  IP  as  already  set  out  in  recitals  (136)  and  (139)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation  and  (ii)  the  increased  usage  of  leased  machinery,  which  has  not  been 
considered  as  an  investment.  Leased  capital  goods  were  not  included  in  the 
investments,  but  their  increased  usage  contributed  to  the  profit  earned.  These  two 
reasons explain the artificially high increase on return on investment during the IP.  

(68)  Concerning  cash  flow,  the  fact  remains  that  over  the  period  considered  its 
development  deteriorated  by  36%,  and  this  clearly  indicates  injury  over  the  period 
considered.  Consequently,  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals  (138)  to  (141)  of  the 
provisional Regulation should be confirmed. 

3.3.  Wages 

(69)  The co-operating Thai exporting producers further contended that the 10% increase in 
labour  costs  per  employee  over  the  period  considered  does  not  show  injury  in  the 
present case.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(70) 

It  is  recalled  that  the  provisional  conclusion  on  injury  with  regard  to  wages  had 
acknowledged  an  increase  in  wages  to  reflect  reward  for  improved  productivity  and 
compensation for inflation. However, the fact remains that employment decreased by 
5% over the period considered, which was assessed as a sign of injury. Consequently, 
the findings set out in recital (144) of the provisional Regulation should be confirmed. 

3.4.  Conclusion on injury 

(71) 

In  summary,  the  conclusions  set  out  in  recitals  (147)  to  (150)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are confirmed. Overall, the negative trend indicators (significant losses in 
market  share,  growth, 
improvement  of 
profitability/return on investments  and cash  flow) significantly outweigh the  positive 
trends  (small  increase  of  production  and  sales  volume,  stocks  reduction,  continuing 
investments, decrease in labour costs in absolute terms and ability to raise capital). 

in  employment,  unsatisfactory 

loss 

G. CAUSATION 

(72)  The  Thai  exporting  producers  and  an  importers  association  submitted  comments  on 
the  provisional  causation  analysis  with  regard  to  certain  factors  which  are  set  out 
below. In the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in the provisional 
Regulation  concerning  the  effect  of  dumped  imports  (recital  (152)),  the  impact  of 
imports  from  other  third  countries  (recitals  (153)  to  (159))  and  the  development  of 
consumption on the Community market (recital (160)) are hereby confirmed. 

1. Impact of currency exchange rates  

(73)  The  co-operating  Thai  exporting  producers,  one  importer  and  its  association  focused 
on the impact of the currency depreciation of the USD compared to the Euro, notably 
during  2003,  which  they  alleged  favoured  the  Chinese  and  Thai  exports  to  the 
Community.  Thus,  they  argued  that  at  least  partially,  the  price  decrease  and 
consequent  injurious  effect  on  the  Community  industry  should  not  be  attributed  to 
dumping  practices  by  exporters  in  the  PRC  and  Thailand,  but  to  such  exchange  rate 
development (in case of the PRC in particular due to the Yuan/USD peg). 

(74)  First  of  all,  it  is  noted  that  the  invoice  currencies  of  all  export  transactions  from  the 
countries  concerned  are  not  known.  Therefore,  the  effect  of  any  exchange  rates 
fluctuation  cannot  be  estimated.  Furthermore,  as  regards  injury,  irrespective  of 
whether  the  low  import  prices  may  also  be  somewhat  due  to  currency  movements, 
actual import prices during the IP are used to establish the level of undercutting and 
the  subsequent  impact  on  the  Community  industry.  The  undercutting  margins  were 
found to be significant (see recitals (125) and (126) of the provisional Regulation). 

(75) 

In  light  of  the  above,  the  argument  regarding  the  possible  effect  of  exchange  rate 
movements must be rejected.  

2. Competitiveness of the Community industry 

(76)  The  Thai  exporting  producers  further  submitted  that  the  injury  endured  by  the 
Community industry should be attributed to a lack of competitiveness due to allegedly 
outdated production facilities.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
(77)  However, it should be recalled that the Community industry constantly invested over 
the period considered in order to replace obsolete machinery and to maintain “state of 
the art” production facilities. Thus, no outdated non-competitive production technique 
exists  which  could  have  broken  the  causal  link  between  dumped  imports  from  the 
countries  concerned  and  their  injurious  effects  on  the  Community  industry.  The 
argument should be therefore rejected and the findings set out in recital (161) of the 
provisional Regulation concerning the competitiveness of the Community industry are 
confirmed.  

3. Conditions on the Community market 

(78)  The co-operating Thai exporting producers also contended that the injury might have 
been  caused  by  unstable  market  conditions.  In  this  context,  they  referred  to  the 
temporary steel price increases and the bargaining power of large customers. 

(79) 

It  is  noted,  however,  that  the  temporary  steel  price  increases  have  not  inflicted  any 
injury  on  the  sampled  Community  producers.  To  the  contrary,  it  was  beneficial  to 
them,  since  profitability  temporarily  increased.  With  regard  to  the  impact  of  large 
customers,  it  is  noted  that  unfair  competition  in  the  form  of  dumped  imports 
essentially  contributes  to  their  bargaining  power.  Thus,  a  direct  linkage  between 
imports from the countries concerned and the behaviour of importers/distributors can 
be  observed.  Overall,  therefore,  the  conditions  on  the  Community  market  have  not 
broken  the  causal  link  between  dumped  imports  and  the  injury  sustained  by  the 
Community industry. 

4. 

Conclusion on causation 

(80) 

In summary, an appreciation of the above comments on causation and for the reasons 
set out in recitals (151) to (162) of the provisional Regulation, it is confirmed that no 
other  factor  has  broken  the  causal  link  between  the  imports  from  the  five  countries 
concerned  taken  together  and  the  material  injury  sustained  by  the  Community 
industry. 

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(81)  A  number  of  importers/distributors  and  Thai  exporting  producers  alleged  that 

measures may not be in the interests of the Community.  

1. 

Impact of the measures on importers and users 

(82)  The  importers/distributors,  pointed  out  that  measures  would  have  a  direct  impact  on 
their profit margins as they would not be able to pass on the costs of measures to their 
customers through higher prices.  

(83)  First  of  all,  these  parties  did  not  substantiate  their  allegations.  Moreover,  as  already 
stated in the provisional Regulation, no indication exists that anti-dumping measures 
would  put  the  economic  viability  of  importers/distributors  at  risk.  Moreover,  their 
profit  margins  were,  over  the  period  considered,  well  above  the  profitability  of  the 
Community 
advantage 
importers/distributors may gain from the non-imposition of anti-dumping measures is 
outweighed  by  the  interest  of  the  Community  industry  in  having  the  unfair  and 

confirmed 

therefore 

industry. 

that 

any 

is 

It 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
injurious  trading  practices  from  the  countries  concerned  redressed.  The  findings  set 
out  in  recitals  (164)  to  (170)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  should  be  therefore 
confirmed. 

(84)  The  Thai  exporting  producers  commented  that  the  imposition  of  measures  would 
increase costs for the European car industry and this would not be in the Community’s 
interest. However, they did not substantiate this alleged impact on users. On the basis 
of information available, i.e. the reply of one user, a rolling stock vehicles producer, 
the impact of measures on downstream users would be negligible. The findings set out 
in recitals (173) and (174) of the provisional Regulation concerning interests of users 
and consumers should therefore be confirmed. 

2. 

Conclusion 

(85)  Having examined the various interests involved, it is confirmed for the reasons given 
in  recitals  (163)  to  (175)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  that  from  an  overall 
Community  interest  perspective  no  interest  overweighs  the  Community  industry’s 
interest to have anti-dumping measures imposed with the aim of eliminating the trade 
distorting effects resulting from dumped imports.  

I. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

(86) 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  injury,  causation  and 
Community  interest,  it  is  considered  appropriate  to  impose  definitive  anti-dumping 
measures in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Community industry by 
the  dumped  imports.  For  the  purpose  of  determining  the  level  of  these  measures, 
account was taken of the dumping margins found during the IP and of the amount of 
duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Community industry. 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

(87)  The  necessary  price  increase  to  eliminate  injury  was  determined  on  a  per-company 
basis, by comparing the weighted average import price of the product concerned with 
the  non-injurious  price  of  the  like  product  sold  by  the  Community  industry  on  the 
Community  market.  The  price  difference  was  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF 
import value. 

(88)  The non-injurious price has been obtained by taking the weighted cost of production 
of  the  Community  industry  together  with  a  profit  margin  of  5%.  In  the  absence  of 
comments,  this  profit  margin  is  confirmed  to  be  that  that  the  Community  industry 
could  achieve  in  the  absence  of  dumped  imports.  It  reflects  the  achievable  profit 
margin  for  similar  product  groups  of  the  Community  industry  not  subject  to  unfair 
competition, e.g. fasteners which do not fall under the CN-codes of the product scope 
of the present investigation.  

2. 

Form and level of the duty 

(89) 

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 9(4) of 
the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of 
SSF from the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
(90)  With regard to the level of duty, in the case of two co-operating exporting producers 
(one  in  Taiwan  and  one  in  the  PRC),  the  injury  elimination  level  was  found  to  be 
lower  than  the  dumping  margin.  In  these  cases,  the  level  of  the  duty  should  be 
restricted to the injury elimination level. In all other cases, the level of the duty should 
be set at the level of the dumping margin found pursuant to Article 9(4) of the basic 
Regulation.  

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

Country 

The PRC 

Indonesia 

Taiwan 

Exporting producer 

AD duty rate 

Tengzhou  Tengda  Stainless 
Steel  Product  Co.,  Ltd, 
Tengzhou City 

Tong Ming Enterprise 
(Jiaxing) Co. Ltd., Zhejiang 

All other companies 

PT. Shye Chang Batam 
Indonesia, Batam  

All other companies 

Arrow Fasteners Co. Ltd., 
Taipei 

Jin Shing Stainless Ind. Co. 
Ltd, Tao Yuan 

Min Hwei Enterprise Co. 
Ltd, Pingtung 

Tong Hwei Enterprise, Co. 
Ltd., Kaohsiung 

Yi Tai Shen Co. Ltd., Tainan 

Cooperating exporting 
producers not included in the 
sample 

All other companies 

11,4% 

12,2% 

27,4% 

9,8% 

24,6% 

15,2% 

8,8% 

16,1% 

16,1% 

11,4% 

15,8% 

23,6% 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Thailand 

A.B.P. Stainless Fasteners 
Co. Ltd., Ayutthaya 

Bunyat Industries 1998 Co. 
Ltd, Samutsakorn  

Dura Fasteners Company 
Ltd., Samutprakarn 

Siam Screws (1994) Co. Ltd., 
Samutsakorn 

All other companies 

Vietnam 

All companies  

11,1% 

10,8% 

14,6% 

11,0% 

14,6% 

7,7% 

(92)  The Thai exporting producers drew attention to Article 15 of the WTO Anti-dumping 
Agreement, which provides that special regard is to be given to the special situation of 
developing  countries  when  consideration  is  being  given  to  the  imposition  of  anti-
dumping measures. However, it was not substantiated that the case at hand affects the 
essential interests of Thailand, as stipulated by this provision. In these circumstances, 
it is considered appropriate to impose an anti-dumping duty on imports from Thailand 
at the above-mentioned rates. 

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

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

3 

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

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. Collection of provisional duty 

(95) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the 
amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by  the 
provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  771/2005,  be  collected 
definitively to the extent of the amount of the duty definitively imposed by the present 
Regulation.  For  exporting  producers  whose  rate  of  definitive  duty  is  lower  than  the 
provisional  duty,  the  amounts  provisionally  secured  in  excess  of  the  definitive  duty 
shall be released, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

3. 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  certain  stainless 
steel  fasteners  and  parts  thereof,  falling  within  CN  codes  7318  12  10,  7318  14  10, 
7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 and 7318 15 70 and originating in the People’s 
Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-
Community-frontier price, before duty, for products manufactured by the Taiwanese 
exporting  producers  listed  in  the  Annex  shall  be  15,8%  (TARIC  additional  code 
A649). 

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

Country 

Exporting producer 

AD duty rate (%) TARIC additional 

The 
Republic of China 

People’s 

Tengzhou  Tengda  Stainless  Steel 
Product Co., Ltd, Tengzhou City 

Tong Ming Enterprise (Jiaxing) Co. 
Ltd., Zhejiang 

All other companies 

Indonesia 

PT.  Shye  Chang  Batam  Indonesia, 
Batam  

All other companies 

11,4 

12,2 

27,4 

9,8 

24,6 

code 

A650 

A651 

A999 

A652 

A999 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
Taiwan 

Arrow Fasteners Co. Ltd., Taipei  

Jin Shing Stainless Ind. Co. Ltd, 
Tao Yuan 

Min Hwei Enterprise Co. Ltd, 
Pingtung 

Tong Hwei Enterprise, Co. Ltd., 
Kaohsiung 

Yi Tai Shen Co. Ltd., Tainan 

All companies other than the above 
and those listed in the Annex 

Thailand 

A.B.P. Stainless Fasteners Co. Ltd., 
Ayutthaya 

Bunyat Industries 1998 Co. Ltd, 
Samutsakorn  

Dura Fasteners Company Ltd., 
Samutprakarn 

Siam Screws (1994) Co. Ltd., 
Samutsakorn 

All other companies 

Vietnam 

All companies  

15,2 

8,8 

16,1 

16,1 

11,4 

23,6 

11,1 

10,8 

14,6 

11,0 

14,6 

7,7 

A653 

A654 

A655 

A656 

A657 

A999 

A658 

A659 

A660 

A661 

A999 

- 

4. 

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

Article 2 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 771/2005 imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless 
steel fasteners and parts thereof, falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 
7318  15  51,  7318  15  61  and  7318  15  70  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China, 
Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam shall be definitively collected, in accordance with 
the  rules  set  out  below.  The  amounts  secured  in  excess  of  the  definitive  rates  of  the  anti-
dumping duty shall be released.  

The  proceeding  concerning  imports  of  certain  stainless  steel  fasteners  and  parts  thereof 
originating in Malaysia and the Philippines is hereby terminated. 

Article 3 

EN 

23 

   EN 

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

Article 4 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 

(TARIC additional code A649) 

A-STAINLESS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD, Taipei  

BOLTUN CORPORATION, Tainan 

CHAEN WEI CORPORATION, Taipei  

CHIAN SHYANG ENT CO LTD, Chung-Li City  

CHONG CHENG FASTENER CORP., Tainan 

DIING SEN FASTENERS & INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Taipei 

DRAGON IRON FACTORY CO LTD, Kaohsiung 

EXTEND FORMING INDUSTRIAL CORP. LTD, Lu Chu  

FORTUNE BRIGHT INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Lung Tan Hsiang 

FWU KUANG ENTERPRISES CO LTD, Tainan 

HSIN YU SCREW ENTERPRISE CO LTD, Taipin City 

HU PAO INDUSTRIES CO LTD, Tainan 

J C GRAND CORPORATION, Taipei 

JAU YEOU INDUSTRY CO LTD, Kangshan 

JOHN CHEN SCREW IND CO LTD, Taipei 

KUOLIEN SCREW INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Kwanmiao 

KWANTEX RESEARCH INC, Taipei 

LIH LIN ENTERPRISES & INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Taipei 

LIH TA SCREW CO LTD, Kweishan 

LU CHU SHIN YEE WORKS CO LTD, Kaohsiung 

M & W FASTENER CO LTD, Kaoshsiung 

MULTI-TEK FASTENERS & PARTS MANIFACTURER CORP., Tainan 

NATIONAL AEROSPACE FASTENERS CORP., Ping Jen City 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
QST INTERNATIONAL CORP., Tainan 

SEN CHANG INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Ta-Yuan  

SPEC PRODUCTS CORP., Tainan 

SUMEEKO INDUSTRIES CO LTD, Kaoshiung  

TAIWAN SHAN YIN INTERNATIONAL CO LTD, Kaohsiung 

VIM INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE CO LTD, Taichung 

YEA-JANN INDUSTRIAL CO LTD, Kaohsiung 

ZONBIX ENTERPRISE CO LTD, Kaohsiung  

ZYH YIN ENTERPRISE CO LTD, Kaohsiung 

EN 

26 

   EN