2005/739/EC: Commission Decision of 20 October 2005 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables (SWR) originating in the Republic of Korea
Date: 2005-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: South Korea, anti-dumping legislation, import, iron, non-flat product, originating product, steel

L 276/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.10.2005

COMMISSION DECISION

of 20 October 2005

terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain iron or steel ropes and
cables (SWR) originating in the Republic of Korea

(2005/739/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1)
(the
basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9.3 thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

1. Initiation

(1)

(2)

the European Union (2),

On 20 November 2004, the Commission announced by
a notice (notice of initiation) published in the Official
the initiation of an
Journal of
anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into
the Community of certain iron or
ropes and
cables
(SWR) originating in the Republic of Korea
(Korea).

steel

The anti-dumping proceeding was initiated following a
complaint lodged on 11 October 2004 by the Liaison
Committee of European Wire Rope Industries (EWRIS or
the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a
major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the
Community
complaint
of
contained evidence of dumping of the said product and
injury resulting there from, which was
of material
considered sufficient
a
proceeding.

to justify the

initiation of

production

SWR.

The

imports of steel ropes and cables (SWR) originating in
the People’s Republic of China, Hungary, India, Mexico,
Poland, South Africa and Ukraine. The measures applying
to these imports consisted of an ad valorem duty, except
for one Indian, one Mexican, one South African and one
Ukrainian exporting producers from which undertakings
were accepted by Commission Decision 1999/572/EC (4).
By Regulation (EC) No 1678/2003 (5), the Commission
withdrew the undertaking offered by the above Ukrainian
and by Regulation (EC) No
exporting producer,
1674/2003 (6),
corre-
re-imposed the
sponding ad valorem anti-dumping duty for this exporter.

the Council

By Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 (7),
the Council
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the
Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey. The
measures applying to these imports consisted of an ad
valorem duty, except for one Czech, one Russian, one
Thai and two Turkish exporting producers from which
undertakings were accepted by Commission Regulation
(EC) No 230/2001 (8)
and Commission Decision
2001/602/EC (9). The two undertakings from Turkish
exporting
by
have
Commission Regulations (EC) No 2303/2002 (10) and
No 1274/2003 (11).

been withdrawn

producers

found that

circumvention of

Thereafter, following an investigation pursuant to Article
13 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (the basic Regulation),
it was
the measures
concerning imports from the Ukraine and the People’s
Republic of China took place via, respectively, Moldova
and Morocco. Consequently,
the anti-dumping duty
imposed on imports originating in the Ukraine was
extended to imports of the same steel ropes and cables
consigned from Moldova (12). Similarly,
the definitive
anti-dumping duty imposed on imports originating in
the People's Republic of China was
extended to
imports of the same steel ropes and cables consigned
from Morocco (13), with
those
produced by a genuine Moroccan producer.

exception of

the

(4)

(5)

1.1. Measures in force and on-going investigations concerning

imports of SWR from other countries

(3)

In August 1999, by Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 (3),
imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on
the Council

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2) OJ C 283, 20.11.2004, p. 6.
(3) OJ L 217, 17.8.1999, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 217, 17.8.1999, p. 63.
(5) OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p. 13.
(6) OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p. 1.
(7) OJ L 211, 4.8.2001, p. 1.
(8) OJ L 34, 3.2.2001, p. 4.
(9) OJ L 211, 4.8.2001, p. 47.
(10) OJ L 348, 21.12.2002, p. 80.
(11) OJ L 180, 18.7.2003, p. 34.
(12) OJ L 120, 24.4.2004, p. 1.
(13) OJ L 328, 30.10.2004, p. 1.

21.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 276/63

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

impending
Following the publication of a notice of
expiry of the anti-dumping measures in force on SWR
originating in the People’s Republic of China, Hungary,
India, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Ukraine (14), the
Commission received, on 17 May 2004, a request to
review these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the
basic Regulation.

This 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
recurrence of
in a continuation or
dumping and injury to the Community industry.

an

expiry

review was

in
Subsequently
accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation
against imports of SWR from the People’s Republic of
China, India, South Africa and Ukraine. This review is
still on-going.

initiated

selected in the sample withdrew its cooperation subse-
quently and the next biggest exporter in terms of export
volume was therefore included in the sample. The final
sample consisted of the following companies:

— Kiswire Ltd,

— DSR Wire Corporation,

— Chung-Woo Rope Co., Ltd.

(14) As far as unrelated importers are concerned, only one
importer actually importing the product concerned from
the country concerned replied positively to the sampling
form and expressed its willingness to further cooperate
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.

However, this document only deals with imports from
Korea,
the investigation mentioned in recitals 1
and 2.

i.e.

(15)

1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding

the

advised

officially

exporting
The Commission
producers in Korea,
importers/traders and their asso-
ciations, suppliers and users known to be concerned,
the representatives of the exporting countries concerned
and the complainant and other known Community
producers of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested
parties were given the opportunity to make their views
known in writing and to request a hearing within the
time limit set in the notice of initiation.

In view of the large number of Community producers,
Korean exporting producers and Community importers
listed in the complaint, sampling was envisaged for these
initiation in accordance with
parties in the notice of
Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

all

if so,

Community

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether
to select a
sampling would be necessary and,
sample,
Community
importers and exporting producers were asked to make
themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as
specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on
their activities related to the product concerned during
the period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004.

producers,

(13) After examination of the information submitted by the
exporting producers, three companies were selected for
the sample on the basis of their export volumes to the
Community. However, one of the exporting producers

(14) OJ C 272, 13.11.2003, p. 2.

The complaint was lodged on behalf of 21 Community
producers. The Commission sought cooperation from
these 21 companies
and from any other known
producer, by requesting them to complete a sampling
form. 17 companies properly completed the sampling
form within the deadline
and formally agreed to
cooperate further
in the investigation. The sampling
form contained questions concerning the development
of certain ‘macro’
injury indicators, namely production
capacity, production volume, stocks, sales volumes and
values and employment. From the seventeen producers
that expressed a willingness to cooperate further in the
investigation, the following five companies were selected
for the sample:

— BTS Drahtseile GmbH (Germany),

— Cables y Alambres especiales, SA (Spain),

— CASAR Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH (Germany),

— Manuel Rodrigues de Oliveira Sa & Filhos, SA

(Portugal),

— Trefileurope, SA (France).

(16)

The Commission sent questionnaires to the exporting
producers and Community producers selected in the
sample and all other parties known to be concerned.
Replies were received from the three Korean exporting
producers selected in the sample, and one importer in
the Community related to one of the Korean exporters,
the five Community industry producers selected in the
sample,
two
cooperating
suppliers of raw materials and ten users.

importer,

unrelated

the

L 276/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.10.2005

(17)

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

dumping,

resulting

injury

of

(a) Community industry producers

— BTS Drahtseile GmbH, Gelsenkirchen (Germany),

— Cables y Alambres especiales, SA, Bilbao (Spain),

— CASAR Drahtseilwerk

Saar GmbH,

Kirkel

(Germany),

— Manuel Rodrigues de Oliveira Sa & Filhos, SA,

Gemunde (Portugal),

— Trefileurope SA, Bourg en Bresse (France).

substantially from the ones manufactured and sold in
the Community, and should not be compared. The
same argument had been addressed in depth in Regu-
lation (EC) No 230/2001 where it was concluded that
the products produced by the Community industry have
to be considered as like product. As EWRIA did not
bring any new element, the conclusions reached in the
aforementioned Regulation are confirmed.

(21)

This investigation showed that the products exported by
the exporting producers and those manufactured and
sold by the Community producers on the Community
market have the same basic physical and technical char-
acteristics and end uses and are therefore considered to
be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the
basic Regulation. The same is true with regard to the
products manufactured by the Korean producers and
sold on the Korean domestic market.

(b) Unrelated importer

— Interkabel GmbH, Solms (Germany),

(22)

(c) Exporting producers in Korea

— Kiswire Ltd, Seoul,

— DSR Wire Corporation, Suncheon,

— Chung-Woo Rope Co., Ltd., Busan.

(23)

1.3. Investigation period

(18)

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the
period from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 (investigation
period or IP). The examination of trends in the context of
the injury analysis covered the period from 1 January
2001 to the end of the IP (period under consideration).

3. Dumping

3.1. Normal value

3.1.1. G l o b a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v i t y

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation,
the Commission first examined for each cooperating
exporting producer whether its domestic sales of SWR
were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such
sales represented at least 5 % of the total export sales
volume of the producer to the Community.

3.1.2. P r o d u c t

t y p e c o m p a r a b i l i t y

sold for export

The Commission subsequently identified those types of
SWR sold domestically that were identical or directly
comparable with the types
to the
Community. The Commission considered domestically
to be directly
sold and exported product
comparable when they had a
similar number of
strands, number of wires per strand, construction of
wires in strand, core, tensile strength, wire characteristics,
rope special characteristics, rope cover and diameter.

types

2. Product concerned and like product

2.1. Product concerned

3.1.3. P r o d u c t

t y p e

s p e c i f i c

r e p r e s e n t a -

t i v i t y

(19)

including
The product concerned is ropes and cables,
iron or steel but not stainless
locked coil ropes, of
steel, with a maximum cross-sectional
dimension
exceeding 3 mm, with attached fittings or not originating
in the Republic of Korea (the product concerned),
declared within CN codes 7312 10 82,
normally
7312 10 84,
and
and
7312 10 99.

7312 10 88

7312 10 86

(24)

2.2. Like product

(20)

The Association representing Community importers
imported products differ
(EWRIA) argued that

the

export

type of SWR sold for

For each type sold by the exporting producer on their
domestic market and found to be directly comparable
with the
to the
Community,
it was established whether domestic sales
the purposes of
were sufficiently representative for
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
the comparable type of SWR
total sales volume of
the
exported to the Community.
majority of
to the
Community was sold in representative quantities on the
domestic market.

It was found that
exported

the product

types

21.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 276/65

3.1.4. O r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f

t r a d e t e s t

(25)

The Commission subsequently examined whether the
domestic sales of each company could be considered as
being made in the ordinary course of trade in accordance
with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

(29)

(26)

This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic
sales to independent customers, of each exported product
type, sold at a loss on the domestic market during the IP.

3.1.6. N o r m a l

o n d o m e s t i c
b a s e d
p r i c e s o f o t h e r p r o d u c e r s i n K o r e a

v a l u e

For product types falling under section 3.1.4(c), as well as
for product types which were not sold by the exporting
producers in representative quantities on the Korean
domestic market, as mentioned in section 3.1.3, it was
first considered whether for these product types sales
prices of other domestic producers can be used in
it was
to determine normal value. However,
order
found that a number of different models of SWR are
sold and a variety of factors affect the final sales price.
The differences between the models sold would have
implied numerous adjustments which would have to be
It was therefore considered more
based on estimates.
appropriate to construct normal value.

(a) For those product types where more than 80 % by
volume of sales on the domestic market were not
below unit costs and where the weighted average
sales price was
than the
weighted average production cost, normal value, per
product type, was calculated as the weighted average
of all domestic sales prices of the type in question.

to or higher

equal

3.1.7. N o r m a l v a l u e b a s e d o n c o n s t r u c t e d

v a l u e

(30)

Considering the above, for all product types mentioned
in recital 29, normal value was constructed on the basis
of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.

(b) For those product types where at least 10 %, but not
more than 80 %, by volume of sales on the domestic
market where not below unit costs, normal value, per
product type, was calculated as the weighted average
of domestic sales prices which were found equal to
or above unit costs only, of the type in question.

(31)

(c) For those product types where less than 10 %, by
volume, was sold on the domestic market at a
price not below unit costs,
it was considered that
the product
type concerned was not sold in the
ordinary course of trade and therefore, another meth-
odology had to be applied to determine normal
value.

(27) As a result of the above it was found that the majority of
types exported was sold in the ordinary

the product
course of trade on the domestic market.

(32)

In constructing normal value, the selling, general and
incurred and the
(SG & A)
administrative
expenses
weighted average profit
realised by the cooperating
exporting producers concerned on domestic sales of the
like product, made in the ordinary course of trade during
the IP, were added to their own average cost of manu-
facturing during the IP, in accordance with Article 2(6) of
the
the basic Regulation. Where necessary, a part of
manufacturing
incorrectly
allocated for one company, and SG & A expenses were
corrected, before being used in the ordinary course of
trade test and in constructing normal value.

cost, which

been

had

all

exporting producers

concerned
In this
regard,
included non-operating
SG & A
expenses on the domestic market for the like product.
Also, these exporters deducted amounts of income not
linked to sales of
the like product on the domestic
market from the SG & A expenses.

in their

expenses

3.1.5. N o r m a l

v a l u e

b a s e d

o n

a c t u a l

d o m e s t i c p r i c e s

(28)

For the types sold for export to the Community by the
investigated companies where the requirements set out in
sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4(a) and (b) were met, normal
value was based, for the corresponding product types,
on the actual prices paid or payable, by independent
customers in the Korean domestic market, during the
IP,
in accordance with Article 2(1) of the basic Regu-
lation.

(33) However, the investigation revealed that some of these
income and expenses could not be linked to the sales of
the like product on the domestic market and should
therefore not have been allocated to or deducted from
the relevant SG & A expenses. Consequently such non-
operating income and expenses were excluded from the
reported SG & A.

L 276/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.10.2005

3.2. Export price

(34)

In all cases where the product concerned was exported to
independent customers in the Community, the export
price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of
the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export
prices actually paid or payable.

(35) Where the export sale was made via a related importer,
the export price was constructed, pursuant to 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, duly adjusted for all costs incurred
In this
between importation and resale and profits.
regard, the related importer’s own SG & A costs were
used. In the absence of any other more reliable inform-
ation, a reasonable profit margin was estimated to be
5 %. This profit margin was used in a prior anti-
dumping investigation concerning imports of the same
product and where definitive findings were published by
Council Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 (15). No infor-
mation was available to show that
this was not a
reliable margin.

3.3. Comparison

(36)

The normal value and export prices were compared on
an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair
comparison between the normal value and the export
price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was
made for differences affecting prices and price compar-
the basic
ability in accordance with Article 2(10) of
Regulation. Appropriate adjustments were granted in all
cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate
and supported by verified evidence. On this basis
allowances
rebate,
commissions, inland freight, packing, credit cost, ocean
freight,
insurance, handling and loading charges, bank
charges and other factors were made.

differences

discounts,

for

in

all Korean

(37) Allowances to the normal value were claimed by all
exporting producers for credit costs incurred on the
domestic market. However,
exporting
producers were using an open account system and no
link could be established between the claimed credit cost
and
in question.
Therefore,
it could not be established that such factor
had an impact on price and price comparability as
required by Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Conse-
quently, these claims had to be rejected.

the domestic

transactions

sales

(38) An adjustment was also claimed by all exporting
producers for credit costs incurred on export sales to
adjustment was
the Community. Although
warranted the reported amounts were understated and
had to be corrected during the on-the-spot verification.

such

(40)

(41)

(42)

basic Regulation. For two exporting producers concerned,
it was found that the amount of import duties refunded
exceeded the amount of import duties paid. Therefore it
is unlikely that the exporters received refunds only for
those imported parts which were incorporated later in
exported goods. Moreover,
the exporting
for two of
the refund received when exporting SWR
producers,
linked to import duties paid for
was not
the raw
materials,
i.e. a refund was received whether or not
imported raw material was used for the production of
the exported product. Therefore, it was considered that
no refund of import duties has been taking place within
the meaning of Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation.
In any case, none of the exporting producers concerned
could show whether or to what extent import charges
and indirect taxes were borne by the like product when
sold on the domestic market. Therefore it could not be
established that price comparability was affected. Conse-
quently none of the conditions mentioned in the afore-
mentioned provision was fulfilled and all claims had to
be rejected.

to

the

It was found that one of the exporting producers paid a
commission to its related importer for activities linked to
export sales of SWR made directly by the exporting
producer
the
independent
Community. Since the commission paid was considered
as a factor having an impact on price and price compar-
ability within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the basic
Regulation, the sales under consideration were adjusted
accordingly.

customers

in

Two exporting producers claimed an adjustment on both
domestic and export sales for differences in other factors,
consisting of the cost incurred by the company for the
inspection fees and outside processing (incorporation of
fittings) of certain sales in order to meet customers’
It was considered more appropriate to
requirements.
for differences in
grant
physical characteristics. The amount of the adjustment
corresponds to the actual price paid by the exporting
producers for the inspection fees and outside processing
costs.

this claim as an adjustment

for differences

the exporting producers claimed an
Finally one of
adjustment
trade in
in the level of
accordance with Article 2(10)(d) of the basic Regulation.
However, sales on the domestic market were made to
national distributors. This is a level of trade similar to
the level of trade of sales to the related importer after
the export price. Consequently, no
reconstruction of
adjustment was warranted.

(39)

exporting

an
The
adjustment
and
indirect taxes in accordance with Article 2(10)(b) of the

producers
for differences

concerned
in import

claimed
charges

(15) OJ L 211, 4.8.2001, p. 1 (recital 25).

3.4. Dumping margin for the companies investigated

(43) According to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, for
each exporting producer the weighted average normal
value was compared with the weighted average export
price per product type, as determined above.

21.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 276/67

(44) On the basis of the above, the dumping margin for the
a
expressed
free-at-Community-frontier

the cif net

producers,

exporting

as

cooperating
percentage of
price, before duty are:

— Kiswire Ltd

— DSR Wire Corporation

– 8,4 %,

0,7 %,

— Chung-Woo Rope Co., Ltd

– 6,1 %.

(45)

for the bulk of

it was found that,

Regarding those cooperating exporters not included in
the sample,
their
their export prices were generally in line with
sales,
those of the sampled exporters. In the absence of any
information indicating the contrary,
it was considered
that the sampling results are representative for all other
exporters. Moreover, it is noted that both the other coop-
erating exporters and the non-cooperating exporters each
approximately 0,5 % of Community
accounted for
these reasons,
consumption in the IP. For
it was
these imports, even if
considered that any impact of
level of dumping,
they were above the de minimis
would not have been such as to,
in isolation, cause
injury to the Community industry.

3.5. Conclusion

(46)

In accordance with Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation,
an anti-dumping proceeding shall be terminated where
it
the margin of dumping is less
than 2 %.

is determined that

(47)

Consequently and given the above findings, the present
proceeding should be terminated.

(48) Given the above determinations with regard to dumping,
and in accordance with Article 9(3) of the basic Regu-
lation, i.e. that where dumping margins were found to be
de minimis a proceeding shall be terminated immediately,
it was not considered necessary to conclude on injury,
causation and Community interest aspects,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ropes and
including locked coil ropes, of iron or steel but not
cables,
stainless
steel, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension
exceeding 3 mm, with attached fittings or not, falling within
CN codes 7312 10 82, 7312 10 84, 7312 10 86, 7312 10 88
and 7312 10 99 and originating in the Republic of Korea is
hereby terminated.

Article 2

The Decision shall enter into force on the day following its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 October 2005.

For the Commission

Peter MANDELSON
Member of the Commission