Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005 of 14 November 2005 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: 2005-11-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, steel

19.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1890/2005

of 14 November 2005

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,

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

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 thereof,

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

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).

(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 L 128, 21.5.2005, p. 19.

(3)

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

(4)

Those parties who so requested were granted an oppor-
tunity to be heard by the Commission.

(5)

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

(6)

(7)

(8)

Parties were informed of the essential facts and consid-
erations 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 representa-
tiveness of the Community industry, as set out under
the provisional Regulation, within the
recital 113 of
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.

L 302/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.11.2005

(9)

(10)

(11)

The cooperating 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 infor-
mation in the non-confidential questionnaire replies
denied cooperating exporters an effective opportunity
to defend their interests and allegedly put them at a
disadvantage as compared with other parties, namely
in this procedure. However,
the Community industry,
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

consisted of nuts without any corresponding imports of
bolts. Furthermore, as stated above, bolts are not neces-
sarily 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 provi-
sional 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 provi-
sional Regulation, the proceeding should be terminated
as regards the Philippines.

(13)

(14)

(SSF).

It is recalled that, in the course of the provisional inves-
tigation, doubts arose as to whether nuts could be
regarded as a single product with other stainless steel
fasteners and parts thereof
In this respect, a
number of aspects needed to be explored further, e.g.
whether
are
and to what
these
marketed together as a system,
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
it was therefore
to include nuts normally
provisionally decided not
declared within CN code 7318 16 30 in the product
definition.

the preliminary findings,

to what extent

extent bolts

and nuts

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 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
in the
the imports
countries concerned, which produce and sell either nuts
or bolts, as well as by the fact
the sampled
Community producers manufacture screws and bolts
but not nuts. This is particularly apparent in the case
imports
of

from where virtually all

those producers

the Philippines,

from some of

that

scope, bolts

Following the imposition of provisional measures, the
cooperating Thai exporting producers alleged that nuts
and bolts are normally marketed and developed together
if nuts were to be excluded from the
and, therefore,
product
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 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.

stainless

Furthermore, several importers and their association reit-
erated their claim to further limit the investigation to two
CN codes, namely 7318 15 61 (hexagon socket head
screws of
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
steel)
and bolts without heads of
and
screws of
7318 15 51 (slotted
they provided as
stainless
some Community
evidence
producers
it was
claimed that bolts and screws are manufactured on
different machines.

steel).
some
could not deliver.

respect,
orders which

stainless
cross-recessed

Furthermore

In this

and

19.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/3

(15)

(16)

(17)

in

these

types

7318 15 30
7318 15 51
and
the Community. Consequently,

It should be recalled, as stated in recital 15 of the provi-
sional Regulation, that the investigation confirmed that
types of SSF falling within CN codes 7318 12 10,
are
7318 14 10,
the
produced
sampled Community producers (i) have the machinery
to produce these other types of SSF; and (ii) face compe-
tition for
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 estab-
lished 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 context, it should be considered that
the Community industry has significant spare capacity
(see table before recital 127 in the provisional Regu-
lation). Consequently, the claim of the importers could
not be accepted.

neither

The cooperating 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
that
(CN code
argued
they
end,
7318 15 70), nor
cross-
and
self-tapping,
recessed screws of stainless steel (CN codes 7318 14 10
and 7318 15 51) should be considered as one single
product category with the other fasteners under investi-
gation 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.

bolts
slotted

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

fastening devices. Thus,

the

all

(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 Regu-
lation are hereby confirmed.

D. SAMPLING

concerning

sampling of

in Taiwan, Community

exporting
(19) No comments
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.

producers

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

producer

exporting

cooperating

the rejection of

in Vietnam
expressed its disappointment at
its
claim for IT, despite its cooperation with the investi-
gation. 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
in
Vietnam.

exporting producers

from all

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

therefore, Article 2(7)(a) of

(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 estab-
lishing normal value for exporting producers not granted
MET. Following the imposition of provisional measures,
no party raised any comments concerning the determi-
nation 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.

L 302/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.11.2005

(24)

3.2. Methodology applied for

the determination of normal

value

calculation of

the basic Regulation.

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
It was therefore, necessary to rely on another
trade.
reasonable method for
SG&A
the
expenses and profit as provided for by Article 2(6)(c)
the use of
of
Taiwanese SG&A expenses and profit was considered
the most reasonable method because of (i) the represen-
tative domestic market, in terms of volumes and compe-
tition 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 realised by other exporters or
producers on sales of
the same general category of
products in Thailand.

In this respect,

(25) No other comments were raised concerning the metho-
dology 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) P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a

(26)

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

(b) I n d o n e s i a

(27)

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

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
the
It
were
company had demonstrated during the on-spot verifi-
cation, by way of drawings, samples and sales documen-
tation, the unique product characteristics of its speciality
fasteners exported to the Community.

speciality fasteners.

also claimed that

(30)

(31)

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 Regu-
lation, are based on its remaining exports which fell
within the description of the product concerned.

the normal value of

its remaining exports,

For
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 Regu-
lation).

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

claim concerning

this

the

(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 deter-
the SG&A
mination of normal value.
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 veri-
fication visit should be used instead.

It argued that

(c) M a l a y s i a

(34)

(28)

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

(d) T a i w a n

(29) One Taiwanese exporting producer objected to the meth-
odology used to determine normal value as set out in

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.

19.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/5

(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 utilised by the company in allo-
the company
cating costs. Therefore,
should
findings
be
confirmed.

the claim of

provisional

rejected

and

the

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.

(f) V i e t n a m

(36) No other comments were submitted and, therefore, the
findings set out in recitals 77 to 79 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(42)

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

(e) T h a i l a n d

4. Export price

(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 deter-
mination 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)

(39)

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 Regu-
lation. 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 provi-
sional 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.

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 utilised by the company in allocating
costs.

(40)

Concerning the exporting producer’s claim to use a
different
it was established
that, even if the claim was accepted, it would not lead

level of SG&A expenses,

(43)

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

the

5. Comparison

(44)

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

6. Dumping margins

6.1. General methodology

(45)

In the absence of any comments concerning the deter-
mination 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) P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a

(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

— Tong Ming Enterprise (Jiaxing)

Co. Ltd, Zhejiang

— All other companies

21,5 %

12,2 %

27,4 %.

L 302/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.11.2005

(b) I n d o n e s i a

product type classifications, production quantities and the
use of various grades of stainless steel were concerned.

(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 %.

(c) M a l a y s i a

(48)

(49)

(50)

In the absence of any comments on the calculation of
the provisional dumping margin for the two cooperating
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
the product
terminated as
concerned from Malaysia.

imports of

regards

(d) T h e P h i l i p p i n e s

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

stated above

(e) T a i w a n

In the absence of any further comments on the calcu-
lation of the provisional dumping margins for Taiwan, as
set out in recitals 106 to 108 of the provisional Regu-
lation, 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

— Cooperating exporting producers
not included in the sample

— All other companies

11,4 %

15,8 %

23,6 %.

(f) T h a i l a n d

(51) One Thai exporting producer made claims relating to the
calculation of its individual dumping margin insofar as

(52)

(53)

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.

Consequently, the definitive dumping margins, expressed
as
the
at
Community border, duty unpaid, are the following:

the CIF import price

a percentage of

— A.B.P. Stainless Fasteners Co. Ltd,

Ayutthaya

— Bunyat Industries 1998 Co. Ltd,

Samutsakorn

11,1 %

10,8 %

— Dura Fasteners Company Ltd, Samutprakarn 14,6 %

— Siam Screws (1994) Co. Ltd, Samutsakorn

11,0 %

— All other companies

14,6 %.

(g) V i e t n a m

(54)

In the absence of any further comments on the calcu-
lation 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 %.

F. INJURY

1. Community production and Community industry

(55)

the other

The cooperating Thai exporting producers contested the
analysis methodology set out in recital 114 of the provi-
sional Regulation,
i.e. that some data have been estab-
lished for the sampled Community producers only (trans-
action prices,
investment and return on investment,
wages, profitability, cash flow and ability to raise
share,
capital), whereas
production,
sales
volume and value, growth, stocks, employment and
productivity)
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.

(market
and capacity utilisation,

included data of

additionally

indicators

capacity

19.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/7

(56)

is normal practice in anti-dumping proceedings to
It
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
from sampled
from other
ignore usable
producers would
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
injury
case, data received and verified for trends in all
factors from the sampled producers was complemented
by information relating to the full industry.

injury analysis merely on data

data

(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.

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 product concerned is
appropriate.

the dumped imports of

(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)

submitted

concerning

Following the imposition of provisional measures, no
comments were
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
findings set out in recitals 127 to 133, 137, 142, 143,
145 and 146 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

the Community industry. Therefore,

2. Community consumption,

imports

and their

3.1. Profitability

cumulative assessment

(58)

(59)

competition with imports

The cooperating 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
latter
in terms of volumes, average
mentioned countries
that
prices and market share. They pointed out
in
imports
share of Thai
2002, volume and market
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 %.

from the

(62)

(63)

It should be recalled that the margins of dumping estab-
lished 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
from 2001 to the IP. Overall, Thai
considered,
imports’ volume and market share in fact
increased
significantly whilst
their prices dropped considerably.
Consequently, overall, the pattern of Thai imports is in
countries
line with the
concerned. Furthermore,
the SSF
it
imported from the countries concerned were alike in

all
recalled that

established for

trends

i.e.

is

of

the

the

any

further

situation

profitability

argued that

injury. They

The cooperating Thai exporting producers contended
that
sampled
Community producers had improved and did not
reflect
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. 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.

that

the provisional Regulation,

It should be recalled, as set out in recitals 149 and 150
of
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 compe-
titive, as set out in recital 138 of the provisional Regu-
lation, 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.

L 302/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.11.2005

(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.

(71)

3.2. Investments,

return on investment, cash flow and the

ability to raise capital

(65)

The cooperating 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 Regu-
lation, 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.

(72)

(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 Regu-
lation 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)

(69)

(70)

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

set out

findings

3.3. Wages

cooperating Thai

further
The
contended that the 10 % increase in labour costs per
employee over the period considered does not show
injury in the present case.

exporting producers

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
the period
that employment decreased by 5 % over
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

growth,

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,
in employment, unsatisfactory
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).

loss

G. CAUSATION

on

the

set out

submitted

comments

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

development

the

(73)

(74)

1. Impact of currency exchange rates

The cooperating 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 devel-
opment (in case of the PRC in particular due to the
Yuan/USD peg).

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 fluc-
tuation 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.

19.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/9

2. Competitiveness of the Community industry

1. Impact of the measures on importers and users

(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.

(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
link between dumped imports
have broken the causal
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 compe-
titiveness of the Community industry are confirmed.

3. Conditions on the Community market

(78)

(79)

Thai

exporting

cooperating

The
also
contended that the injury might have been caused by
unstable market
they
referred to the temporary steel price increases and the
bargaining power of large customers.

conditions.

producers

In this

context,

that

is noted, however,

It
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 essen-
tially contributes to their bargaining power. Thus, a direct
linkage between imports from the countries concerned
importers/distributors can be
and the behaviour of
the conditions on the
therefore,
observed. Overall,
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
link between the
other factor has broken the causal
imports
concerned taken
countries
from the
injury sustained by the
together and the material
Community industry.

five

(86)

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.

(82)

(83)

(84)

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.

that

First of all, these parties did not substantiate their alle-
gations. Moreover, as already stated in the provisional
Regulation, no indication exists
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 industry. It is therefore confirmed that
any 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 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.

The Thai exporting producers commented that the impo-
sition 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

the provisional Regulation that

is
confirmed for the reasons given in recitals 163 to 175
of
from an overall
Community interest perspective no interest overweighs
anti-
the Community
dumping measures imposed with the aim of eliminating
the
resulting from dumped
imports.

trade distorting effects

industry’s

to have

interest

I. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

injury, causation and Community interest,

the conclusions reached with regard to
In view of
dumping,
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
the
level of
the
dumping margins
amount of duty necessary to eliminate
the injury
sustained by the Community industry.

taken of
found during the IP and of

these measures, account was

L 302/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.11.2005

(87)

(88)

1. Injury elimination level

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.

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)

it is considered that,

in
In the light of the foregoing,
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.

Country

Exporting producer

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

Cooperating exporting producers not
included in the sample

All other companies

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

AD duty
rate

15,2 %

8,8 %

16,1 %

16,1 %

11,4 %

15,8 %

23,6 %

11,1 %

10,8 %

14,6 %

11,0 %

14,6 %

7,7 %

(92)

(93)

(90) With regard to the level of duty,

in the case of two
cooperating 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 elim-
In all other cases, the level of the duty
ination level.
the dumping margin
should be set at
found pursuant to Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

the level of

(91) On the basis of

the above,

the definitive duty rates

should be as follows:

Country

Exporting producer

The PRC

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

AD duty
rate

11,4 %

12,2 %

27,4 %

9,8 %

24,6 %

special

regard is

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

the

duty

rates

company

individual

findings of

the present

anti-dumping

(as opposed to the

The
rates
specified in this Regulation were established on the
basis of
investigation.
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that
to these companies. These
investigation with respect
duty
countrywide 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
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’.

specific

legal

19.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/11

(e.g.

(94) Any claim requesting the application of these individual
following a
company anti-dumping duty rates
change in the name of
the entity or following the
setting up of new production or sales entities) should
be addressed to the Commission (1) 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
that change in the production and sales
change or
then be
entities.
amended accordingly by updating the list of companies
benefiting from individual duty rates.

the Regulation will

If appropriate,

the amounts provisionally secured in excess of the defi-
nitive duty should be released,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
1.
imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof,
falling
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.

7318 12 10,

within

codes

CN

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. Regu-
lation (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 rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to
2.
the net,
for
free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty,
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
3.
for
free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty,
the net,
products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be
as follows:

Country

Exporting producer

Rate of duty
(%)

TARIC
additional code

The People’s Republic of
China

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

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

(1) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate B,

J-79 5/17, rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, B-1049 Brussels.

11,4

12,2

27,4

9,8

24,6

15,2

8,8

16,1

16,1

11,4

23,6

11,1

10,8

14,6

11,0

14,6

7,7

A650

A651

A999

A652

A999

A653

A654

A655

A656

A657

A999

A658

A659

A660

A661

A999

—

L 302/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.11.2005

Unless otherwise

4.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

in excess of the definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall
be released.

Article 2

Article 3

Amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty
pursuant to 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 origi-
nating 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

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

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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, 14 November 2005.

For the Council
The President

T. JOWELL

19.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/13

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

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.