Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine
Date: 2007-03-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import (EU)

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 29.3.2007 
COM(2007) 166 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China and 
Ukraine 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

110 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of 
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members 
of  the  European  Community,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2117/2005 of 23 December 2005 ('the basic Regulation') in the proceeding concerning 
imports  of  ironing  boards  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  (‘PRC’)  and 
Ukraine.  

120 

•  General context 

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

139 

141 

219 

229 

230 

•  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 the requirement 
that the measures should not be contrary to the “Community interest” means that the 
assessment  of  the  wider  impact  of  the  measures  forms  an  integral  part  of  the 
investigation.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

305 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On  4  February  2006,  the  Commission  announced  by  a  notice  (‘notice  of  initiation’), 
published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union1,  the  initiation  of  an  anti-
dumping  proceeding  concerning  imports  into  the  Community  of  ironing  boards 
originating in the PRC and Ukraine.  

The  anti-dumping  proceeding  was  initiated  following  a  complaint  lodged  on  23 
December 2005 by three Community producers representing a major proportion of the 
Community  production  of  ironing  boards  containing  evidence  of  dumping  and  of 
material injury resulting there from. 

On 31 October 2006, the Commission imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 1620/2006, a 
provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  the  imports  into  the  Community  of  ironing  boards 
originating in the PRC and Ukraine. 

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

Member States were consulted during the Anti-Dumping Committee of 6 March 2007. 
9  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  the  proposed  course  of  action,  4  opposed,  5 
abstained and 9 gave no opinion. 

It  is  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation  which 
should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by 30 April 2007 at 
the latest. 

310 

•  Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 23 December 2005. 

329 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

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

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason(s). 

331 

332 

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, 

1 

OJ C 29, 4.2.2006, p. 2. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is 
minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable, but the 
basic Regulation limits the level of the duties that may be imposed to that necessary to 
redress the injury caused by the dumping found. 

341 

342 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Regulation. 

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

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

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

409 

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 ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China and 
Ukraine 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community2 (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. 

Provisional measures 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

On  30  October  2006,  the  Commission  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1620/20063 
(the  provisional  Regulation)  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  into  the 
Community  of  ironing  boards  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  and 
Ukraine  (the  countries  concerned).  This  Regulation  entered 
into  force  on 
1 November 2006. 

It  is  recalled  that  the  investigation  of  dumping  and  injury  covered  the  period  from 
1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005 (the investigation period or IP). The examination 
of trends relevant for the injury analysis covered the period from 1 January 2002 to the 
end of the IP (the period considered). 

2. 

Subsequent procedure 

(3) 

Following  the  imposition  of  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  ironing 
boards from the countries concerned, all parties received a disclosure of the essential 
facts  and  considerations  on  which  the  provisional  Regulation  was  based  (the 
provisional  disclosure).  All  parties  were  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could 
make written and oral representations in relation to this disclosure.  

2 

3 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2117/2005  (OJ  L  340, 
23.12.2005, p. 17). 
OJ L 300, 31.10.2006, p. 13. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

Some  interested  parties  submitted  comments  in  writing.  Those  parties  who  so 
requested  were  also  granted  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  orally.  The  Commission 
continued  to  seek  and  verify  all  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  its  definitive 
findings.  

All  interested  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  (the  final  disclosure).  The  interested  parties  were  also  granted  a 
period  within  which  they  could  make  representations  subsequent  to  this  disclosure. 
The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where 
appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly. 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(6) 

(7) 

It is recalled that, as set out in recital (12) of the provisional Regulation, the product 
concerned by this proceeding is ironing boards, whether or not free standing, with or 
without  a  steam  soaking  and/or  heating  top  and/or  blowing  top,  including  sleeve 
boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest originating in 
the People's Republic of China and Ukraine (the product concerned). 

One  party  argued  that  the  ironing  boards  with  a  steam  soaking  and/or  heating  top 
and/or  blowing  top  should  be  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  measures,  since  such 
models are sold at a minimum retail price of 200 EUR, whilst the average retail price 
of an ironing board is 35 EUR. It was also argued that the aforesaid models are often 
sold to the consumer as a package including a steam iron, in which case the average 
retail price is about 500 EUR. As far as the price element is concerned, it is noted that 
prices  per  se,  and  in  particular  retail  prices,  are  not  a  factor  to  be  considered  when 
assessing whether or not two or more product types (models) should be considered as 
one  single  product  for  the  purpose  of  an  anti-dumping  proceeding.  It  is  the  basic 
physical  characteristics  and  uses  which  are  considered  for  this  purpose  and,  to  this 
end, such types are considered similar to those without steam soaking and/or heating 
top.  As  far  as  retail  sales  of  ironing  boards  together  with  irons  or  steam  irons  are 
concerned,  the  investigation  established  that  such  retail  sales  method  is  occasionally 
being  used  for  all  different  types  of  ironing  boards  and,  in  any  event,  the  different 
prices  of  the  various  combinations  cannot  justify  the  exclusion  of  any  ironing  board 
type from the product scope of this proceeding.  

(8) 

The same party also argued that the essential parts of the ironing boards should not be 
included in the scope of the measures, since there is allegedly no market for these parts 
in  the  Community  and  there  are  apparently  no  manufacturers  of  these  parts  in  the 
People's Republic of China (the PRC) and Ukraine. This argument, which is as such 
not  decisive  for  the  definition  of  a  product,  was  in  any  event  not  confirmed  by  the 
investigation. It was in fact established that a certain market for the essential parts of 
the  ironing  boards  exists  and  that  at  least  two  known  Chinese  producers  of  ironing 
boards exported essential parts thereof to the Community. 

(9) 

In view of the above, it is concluded that all types of ironing boards and the essential 
parts  thereof  mentioned  in  recital  (6)  above  share  the  same  basic  physical  and 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
technical characteristics, have the same basic end-uses and compete with one another 
on  the  Community  market.  On  this  basis,  recitals  (12)  and  (13)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Like product  

(10) 

(11) 

In the absence of any comments, recital (14) of the provisional Regulation is hereby 
confirmed. 

In view of the above, it is definitively concluded that, in accordance with Article 1(4) 
of the basic Regulation, the product concerned and ironing boards, whether or not free 
standing,  with  or  without  a  steam  soaking  and/or  heating  top  and/or  blowing  top, 
including  sleeve  boards,  and  the  essential  parts  thereof  produced  and  sold  in  the 
analogue  country  Turkey,  as  well  as  those  produced  and  sold  by  the  Community 
industry on the Community market are alike. 

1. 

Market economy treatment (MET) 

C. 

DUMPING 

(12)  Following the imposition of provisional measures, one Chinese co-operating exporting 
producer claimed that it should have been granted MET. The company reiterated that 
the accounting practices set out in recital (25) of the provisional Regulation, which led 
to the rejection of MET of five Chinese exporting producers (three were rejected only 
for this reason), were not sufficiently material to affect the reliability of the accounts, 
which were in fact complete, and do not impact on the determination of the dumping 
margin.  

(13) 

In this respect, it is noted that the aforesaid accounting practices used by the company 
were  found  during  the  on-the-spot  verification  visit  to  be  in  clear  breach  of  the 
International  Accounting  Standards  (IAS),  namely  IAS  No  1,  and  could  not  be 
considered  immaterial.  No  new  evidence  which  could  alter  the  findings  set  out  in 
recital (25) of the provisional Regulation was submitted. 

(14) 

In the absence of any other relevant and substantiated comment, recitals (15) to (28) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

2. 

Individual treatment 

(15) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  recitals  (29)  to  (34)  of  the  provisional  Regulation 
concerning individual treatment are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Normal value 

3.1.  Analogue country 

(16) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  on  the  choice  of  Turkey  as  the  analogue  country, 
recitals (35) to (40) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
3.2.  Determination of normal value for the exporting producers granted MET 

(17) 

(18) 

It  is  recalled  that  the  normal  value  determination  for  one  Chinese  and  the  sole 
Ukrainian  exporting  producer  granted  MET  was  based  on  the  data  these  companies 
submitted  on  domestic  sales  and  cost  of  production.  These  data  were  verified  at  the 
premises of the companies concerned.  

It  is  furthermore  recalled  that  the  Chinese  and  the  Ukrainian  exporting  producer 
granted  MET  did  not  have  sufficient  representative  domestic  sales  and  that  normal 
value  was  established  according  to  Article  2(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  i.e.  normal 
value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs a reasonable amount for 
selling,  general  and  administrative  (SG&A)  expenses  and  a  reasonable  margin  of 
profit.  

3.2.1.  People's Republic of China 

(19)  With  reference  to  recital  (44)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  Commission  further 
examined the cost of production, and in particular the purchase prices of certain raw 
materials  made  of  steel,  reported  by  the  Chinese  producer  granted  initially  MET.  In 
this  respect,  the  allegations  and  additional  evidence  received  from  certain  parties 
following the provisional disclosure were also considered and verified. No divergence 
of  the  purchase  prices  of  steel  reported  by  the  company  concerned  from  the 
corresponding world prices was confirmed. The cost of production submitted by this 
company is therefore definitively accepted. 

(20) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  normal  value  for  the  Chinese 
exporting  producer  granted  MET,  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals  (43)  to  (46)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.2.2.  Ukraine 

(21)  Following the imposition of provisional measures, the Ukrainian authorities requested 
the  Commission  to  recalculate  normal  value  for  the  sole  Ukrainian  exporter  on  the 
basis  of  sales  on  the  Ukrainian  market.  It  should  be  recalled  that,  for  the  sole 
Ukrainian  exporting  producer,  the  overall  domestic  sales  of  the  product  concerned 
during the IP were not made in representative quantities pursuant to Article 2(2) of the 
basic Regulation and, thus, normal value had to be constructed as mentioned in recital 
(18) above and as explained in recital (47) of the provisional Regulation.  

(22) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning normal value for the sole Ukrainian 
exporting  producer,  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals  (47)  to  (49)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.3.  Determination of normal value in the analogue country 

(23)  One importer argued that the information received from just one producer in Turkey, 
the analogue country, does not suffice for the purpose of the determination of normal 
value  and  that  given  such  insufficient  grounds  no  anti-dumping  duties  shall  be 
imposed. In this respect, it is noted that the basic Regulation, and in particular Article 
2(7) thereof, does not preclude the imposition of the measures in case of low or no co-
operation from producers in analogue countries. It is however added that, for the sake 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
of ensuring as accurate a finding as possible, the Commission nevertheless compared 
the information received from the sole co-operating producer in the analogue country 
with  the  information  received  from  another  Turkish  producer  and  from  one  US 
producer,  which  did  not  fully  co-operate  in  the  investigation  but  agreed  to  provide 
certain  information  on  prices,  costs  and  volume  of  sales,  and  from  the  Community 
industry.  Such  comparison  confirmed  that  the  data  from  the  co-operating  Turkish 
producer  constitute  an  appropriate  reasonable  basis  for  the  determination  of  normal 
value.  This  argument  is  therefore  rejected.  In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in 
this respect, recitals (50) to (52) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

4. 

Export price 

4.1. 

People's Republic of China 

(24)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  one  exporting  producer  from  the 
PRC referred to in recital (57) of the provisional Regulation maintained that its export 
sales  via  unrelated  trading  companies  should  not  be  excluded  from  the  export  price 
determination.  However,  the  company  failed  to  provide  any  additional  verifiable 
evidence  supporting  its  claims;  in  particular,  the  company  failed  to  substantiate  the 
final destinations of its sales via unrelated parties. The claim is therefore rejected. 

(25)  One  other  exporting  producer  from  the  PRC  argued  that  its  sales  to  the  EC  via  its 
related  Hong  Kong  based  trading  company  should  not  have  been  disregarded.  The 
company reiterated its initial claim on the non exclusion of these particular sales from 
the  calculation  of  the  export  prices,  but  it  was  not  able  to  provide  any  new  and 
verifiable information or explanation. It could not demonstrate that the reported export 
prices to independent customers in the Community were actually paid. Also, the Hong 
Kong trader's purchases were not reconcilable with its audited accounts. The claim is 
therefore rejected. 

(26)  The same party argued that the Commission should have used its own exchange rates 
when calculating export prices. In this respect, it is noted that the company reported all 
its transactions for each month using the exchange rate of the first working day of the 
month.  This  claim  is  rejected  as  the  monthly  average  exchange  rate  used  by  the 
Commission in its calculations represents more accurately the real situation because it 
neutralizes  the  effect  of  the  use  of  a  fixed  rate  of  one  only  day  in  converting 
transactions that took place within a whole month. 

(27)  The  Community  industry  alleged  that  the  export  prices  reported  by  the  co-operating 
exporting  producers,  and  in  particular  the  company  referred  to  in  recital  (69)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation,  are  wrong.  However,  the  evidence  submitted  in  this  respect 
was  either  irrelevant  or  unverifiable  or  it  did  not  show  any  discrepancies.  The 
allegations are thus considered unfounded. 

(28) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  respect,  recitals  (53)  to  (58)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4.2.  Ukraine 

(29)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  the  Ukrainian  authorities  and  the 
sole Ukrainian exporting producer claimed that when determining the export price, no 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(30) 

deduction should be made for the related company's SG&A and profit, as Article 2(9) 
of the basic Regulation is not applicable in the present case. It was argued that Article 
2(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation  only  applies  to  related  importers  located  in  the 
Community as its wording makes a clear distinction between 'importation and resale'. 
The sole Ukrainian exporting  producer submitted that its related company acts as an 
export department, and both interested parties argued that the export price should be 
established  on  the  basis  of  Article  2(8)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Furthermore,  they 
argued that if the related company could not be considered as an export department of 
the exporting producer it should be considered as a sales agent. 

In  reply  to  this,  it  should  be  noted  that,  for  sales  of  the  product  concerned  to  the 
Community, the  sole Ukrainian exporting producer  consigned the  product concerned 
directly  to  the  Community,  invoiced  its  related  company  in  Switzerland  for  each 
consignment and received a relevant payment. Thus, the exporting producer performed 
all  functions  of  an  exporter.  The  related  company  in  Switzerland  negotiated  sales 
contracts  and  invoiced  the  first  independent  buyer  in  the  Community.  The  related 
company also performed all import functions in respect of the goods entering into free 
circulation in the Community, i.e., it undertook the customs clearing of the goods into 
the Community and incurred any costs for transporting the goods to the independent 
buyer  in  the  Community  as  well  as  any  warehousing  in  the  Community  where 
applicable. In this respect, this related company, though formally established  outside 
the  Community,  has  an  EU  VAT  number  and  operates,  inter  alia,  through  its  sales 
offices  and  several  warehousing  facilities  in  the  Community.  It  should  thus  be 
considered as performing the functions of a related importer as set out in recital (59) of 
the provisional Regulation and not those of an exporter or a sales agent. Consequently, 
the claim should be rejected and the provisional findings confirmed. 

(31) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  respect,  recital  (59)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

5. 

Comparison 

(32)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  one  Chinese  exporting  producer 
argued that certain important price differentials (e.g. the actual weight of the ironing 
board)  were  disregarded  in  comparing  the  normal  value  and  the  export  price  of 
different product types. In this respect, it is noted that the different product types were 
grouped in order to reflect the major physical characteristics and cost/price-drivers on 
the one hand and to permit sufficiently representative matching of the exported types 
with the types sold by the co-operating Turkish producer on its domestic market on the 
other  hand.  The  following  main  characteristics  were  considered  for  comparison 
purposes:  type,  size,  construction  and  material  of  top,  material  of  legs,  presence  and 
type  of  iron  rest,  presence  of  accessories  like  sleeve  board,  linen  rack,  socket.  The 
weight  and  other  criteria  mentioned  by  the  exporting  producer  in  question  are 
indirectly  reflected  in  certain  criteria  considered  for  the  comparison  (by  way  of 
example,  the  weight  is  reflected  in  size  of  the  top  of  the  ironing  board  and  its 
construction material). Consequently, the claim could not be accepted. 

(33)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  several  parties  requested  more 
information  concerning  the  adjustments  to  the  normal  value  used  for  the  exporting 
producers  not  granted  MET.  In  this  respect,  it  is  noted  that  the  specific  disclosure 
documents  communicated  to  each  co-operating  party  gave  an  exhaustive  list  of  the 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
various adjustments granted and that as in all cases adjustments were made where this 
was  proven  to  be  warrant.  In  particular,  the  normal  value  based  on  the  analogue 
country was adjusted downwards in order to eliminate the effects of (a) the differences 
in the  physical characteristics described  in recital  (62)  of the provisional Regulation, 
(b) the differences in the level of trade also described in recital (62) of the provisional 
Regulation  and  (c)  the  differences  in  the  cost  of  the  credit  granted  for  the  domestic 
sales  under  consideration.  No  other  differences  were  established  and,  thus,  no  other 
adjustments were made.  

(34)  The  sole  Ukrainian  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  Commission,  when 
determining for comparison purposes the adjustments to the export price, made certain 
non justified deductions in relation to certain elements concerning transport and credit 
costs.  The  Commission  accepted  the  claim  and  revised  the  relevant  adjustments 
accordingly. 

(35) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  respect,  recitals  (60)  to  (62)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6. 

Dumping margins 

6.1. 

People's Republic of China 

(36) 

In the light of the above, the definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of 
the CIF Community frontier price duty unpaid, are the following:  

–  Foshan City Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co. Ltd., Foshan 

34,9 % 

–  Guangzhou Power Team Houseware Co. Ltd., Guangzhou 

36,5 % 

–  Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., Guangzhou 

0 % 

–  Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd., Foshan 18,1 % 

–  Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd., Guzhou 

–  all other companies 

6.2.  Ukraine 

26,5 % 

38,1 %. 

(37)  The  revised  definitive  dumping  margins,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF 

Community frontier price duty unpaid, are the following: 

–  Eurogold Industries Ltd, Zhitomir: 

9,9 % 

–  all other companies: 

9,9 %. 

D. 

INJURY 

1. 

Community production 

(38) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  in  this  respect,  recitals  (72)  and  (73)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
2. 

Definition of the Community industry 

(39) 

In the absence of any comments in this respect, recitals (74) to (76) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Community consumption 

(40) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  in  this  respect,  recitals  (77)  and  (78)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Imports from the countries concerned 

(41)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  one  of  the  parties  referred  to  in 
recital (83) of the provisional Regulation reiterated its claim to analyze the influence 
of  the  dumped  imports  from  Ukraine  separately  from  the  dumped  imports  from  the 
PRC, because there allegedly are fundamental differences as far as the price level and 
the import volume development are concerned. However, no further justification was 
submitted  to  support  the  claim.  As  regards  prices,  it  is  recalled  that  the  absolute 
difference  in  the  level  of  the  prices  between  the  two  countries  is  not  decisive  in  the 
context  of  the  cumulative  assessment  since  it  may  reflect  a  number  of  factors, 
including  a  different  product  mix  of  the  imports  from  each  country;  price  trends 
followed however a similar trend (see recital (84) of the provisional Regulation). As 
regards  volumes,  the  volume  of  imports  from  each  country  was  significant  in  the  IP 
and it had an increasing trend over the period considered. The fact that the Ukrainian 
producer  only  started  its  production  operation  in  2003  is  not  relevant  in  establishing 
any  injury  in  the  IP.  Consequently,  the  claim  should  be  rejected  again,  and  the 
cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped imports set out in recitals (79) to 
(86) of the provisional Regulation confirmed. 

(42)  One  importer  argued  that  the  import  prices  of  the  co-operating  exporting  producers 
from the PRC, as established by the Commission for the undercutting calculation (see 
recital  (92)  of  the  provisional  Regulation),  do  not  reflect  certain  unavoidable 
additional costs borne on importation from the PRC, such as the palletisation costs and 
the  costs  for  storage,  dispatching  and  transport  from  a  transition  warehouse  to  the 
importer's  warehouse.  In  the  case  of  the  palletisation  costs,  the  investigation  has 
confirmed that such costs are indeed born in the Community, since ironing boards are 
normally  shipped  loose  in  containers  from  the  PRC.  The  claim  was  thus  considered 
warranted and the import prices of the co-operating exporting producers from the PRC 
were amended accordingly. In the case of all other additional costs mentioned above, 
the  claim  could  not  be  accepted  since  such  costs  are  rather  specific  for  the  importer 
concerned and are not necessarily borne by other importers. Moreover, such costs may 
be borne by Community producers as well. The provisional undercutting margins for 
the dumped imports from the PRC were accordingly amended as follows: 

Country 

PRC 

Price Undercutting 

29,2 % - 44,2 % 

(43)  No  comments  were  received  concerning  the  6,6  %  undercutting  found  for  Ukraine, 
which  is  hereby  confirmed.  In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
dumped imports from the countries concerned, recitals (87) to (92) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5. 

Situation of the Community industry 

(44)  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  the  complainants  argued  that  its 
profit  margin  during  the  IP  should  not  reflect  the  extraordinary  and  temporary 
management remuneration cuts of certain Community producers in the IP (see recital 
(100) of the provisional Regulation). In order to reflect consistently during the period 
considered  the  economic  situation  of  the  Community  industry  and  since  verified 
evidence  in  this  respect  was  available,  the  claim  was  accepted.  The  figures  and  the 
provisional  conclusions  on  the  profitability  of  the  Community  industry  were 
accordingly amended as follows: 

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

Pre-tax profit margin 

6,8 % 

6,4 % 

0,7 % 

2,1 % 

Index: 2002=100 

100 

94 

10 

31 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(45)  Thus, over the period considered profitability of the Community industry deteriorated. 

Profit margin in the IP was by 69 % lower than in 2002.  

(46)  Consequently,  the  return  on  investment  and  cash  flow  of  the  Community  industry 
were amended in order to reflect the above described corrections to the remunerations 
and  profit  in  the  IP.  The  revised  figures  in  the  table  below  present  a  worse 
development of these two injury indicators in the IP than that set out in recitals (102) 
and (103) of the provisional Regulation:  

2002 

2003 

2004 

IP 

Return on investment 

61,98 % 

68,19 % 

4,77 % 

13,72 % 

Index: 2002=100 

100 

110 

8 

22 

Cash flow (EUR) 

3 463 326 

4 184 515 

1 246 671 

2 565 562 

Index: 2002=100 

100 

121 

36 

74 

Source: verified questionnaire replies 

(47) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  situation  of  the  Community 
industry,  recitals  (94)  to  (107)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  modified  as  set  out  in 
recitals (44) and (46) above, are hereby confirmed. 

6. 

Conclusion on injury 

(48)  The  above  revised  factors,  i.e.  price  undercutting,  profitability,  return  on  investment 
and cash flow of the Community industry in the IP, left unaffected the conclusions on 
all injury factors set out in the provisional Regulation confirming that the Community 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
industry  suffered  material  injury  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  Therefore,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  respect, 
recitals (108) to (110) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

E. 

CAUSATION 

(49)  Following the imposition of provisional measures, certain parties referred to in recital 
(134)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  simply  reiterated  that  the  injury  suffered  by  the 
Community  Industry  was  self-inflicted.  However,  no  new  evidence  and  no  new 
arguments were brought forward in this respect, and their claim was therefore rejected. 

(50) 

In  the  light  of  the  above  and  in  the  absence  of  any  new  comments  concerning 
causation, recitals (111) to (141) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

F. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. 

General remarks and Interest of the Community industry 

(51) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  in  this  respect,  recitals  (142)  to  (146)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Interest of consumers 

(52)  Following the provisional disclosure, one importer disagreed with certain assessments 
quoted  in  recital  (148)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  In  particular,  it  challenged  the 
assumption  made  that  (i)  any  burden  of  anti-dumping  measures  would  be  allocated 
evenly  between  the  importers,  retailers  and  consumers  and,  (ii)  the  total  mark-up 
between import and retail price is around 500%. It was argued that the burden will be 
fully passed on to consumers, since the importer's margin is already low and retailers 
are not likely to reduce their margin, although the latter is considerable. As far as the 
mark-up  is  concerned,  it  was  argued  that  an  ironing  board  imported  at  EUR  6,53, 
which is the average unit dumped import price at the Community frontier, will most 
likely be retailed at less than EUR 35, which is approximately the average retail price 
o2f an ironing board in the Community, and, thus, the analysis based on the average 
retail and import prices is misleading and shows unrealistic margins. It was also noted 
that the value added tax element was not considered in the calculation. According to 
this importer, the total mark-up would rather be at most 300%.  

(53) 

In respect of the impact on the consumers, it should be recalled that no representations 
were received from consumers' organisations, neither before nor after the publication 
of  the  provisional  Regulation.  Regarding  the  importer's  comments  set  out  in  recital 
(52) above, the following should be noted. Firstly, the importer in question admitted 
that  any  impact  of  anti-dumping  measures  on  the  consumers  would  be  negligible, 
considering  the  useful  life  of  an  ironing  board.  In  fact,  even  if  the  burden  would  be 
fully  passed  on  to  consumers,  the  latter  would  have  to  pay  in  addition  on  average 
around EUR 1,5 for a durable good with a useful life of at least five years (estimate 
being  based  on  2005  market  shares  and  prices  and  on  the  definitive  duty  rates). 
Secondly, given the keen competition in this market, it is highly unlikely that any of 
the operators involved in importation and sale of the product concerned would absorb 
any of the anti-dumping duty imposed. Therefore, the scenario according to which the 
burden would be distributed evenly appears to be more realistic. Indeed, no other party 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
involved in this proceeding disputed such assessment. Thus, the conclusion drawn in 
recital (149) of the provisional Regulation can be confirmed.  

(54) 

In respect of the mark-ups applied by the operators, it is hereby recalled that no retailer 
co-operated in the investigation and, thus, no detailed and verifiable evidence on the 
retail  prices  and  on  the  margins  applied  at  this  stage  was  available.  The  assessment 
could therefore only be based on a comparison between the price of dumped imports, 
known  from  the  questionnaire  replies,  and  the  average  retail  price,  estimated  on  the 
basis  of  the  information  received  from  importers  and  the  Community  industry. 
According  to  this  information,  the  average  retail  price  refers  to  all  such  sales  in  the 
Community,  including  inter  alia  value  added  tax.  The  total  mark-up  applied  by 
importers, retailers and any other operator involved in distribution of dumped imports 
to consumers thus established is around 450 %. Finally, it is recalled and reconfirmed 
that the individual mark-ups may vary significantly from one operator to the other, but 
they are on average substantial, in particular in the retail stage. 

(55)  One Chinese exporting producer argued that the Community consumers should not be 
deprived of the high quality Chinese products sold at the most reasonable price. In this 
respect,  reference  is  made  to  recital  (53)  above  and  recital  (59)  below  and  it  is 
concluded that the Community market would not be deprived of such products. 

(56) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  respect,  recitals  (147)  to  (150)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Interest of distributors/retailers 

(57) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  in  this  respect,  reference  is  made  to  recitals  (52)  to 
(54) above and recital (151) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Interest of the unrelated importers in the Community 

(58)  Following the provisional disclosure, two importers referred to in recital (152) of the 
provisional  Regulation  came  forward  with  comments  concerning  their  interest.  No 
other comments were received in this respect. 

(59)  One of these importers disagreed with the assessment concerning the allocation of the 
burden  of  anti-dumping  measures  and  the  level  of  the  mark-ups  applied  at  different 
stages of the sale (see recitals (52) to (54) above). It submitted that it will not be able 
to  absorb  any  of  the  additional  cost  and,  thus,  it  will  have  to  pass  it  on  in  full  to 
retailers.  Consequently,  it  may  see  its  Community  sales  of  the  product  concerned 
decreased and may allegedly even be forced to lay off employees. However, given the 
small contribution of the product concerned on its total turnover (less than 5 %), the 
size of this company and its position on Community and export markets, as well as its 
different  sources  of  supply  for  the  product  concerned,  any  adverse  effect  on  its 
business would certainly be minor. 

(60)  The  importer  referred  to in  recital  (154)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  reiterated  that 
the  impact  of  the  measures  on  its  business  may  be  significant,  even  though  its  total 
sales of ironing boards do not represent more than 10 % of its total turnover. It argued 
that any loss of the market of ironing boards would result in even higher loss of  the 
market  of  the  covers  which  are  produced  by  this  company.  It  explained  that  ironing 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
boards  and  their  covers  are  closely  linked  even  when  not  sold  together,  since  most 
retailers prefer to buy these products from the same supplier. Thus, any loss of sales of 
the  imported  ironing  boards  equipped  with  covers  produced  by  this  importer  would 
result  in  corresponding  loss  of  sales  of  the  company's  replacement  covers.  In  this 
respect it is accepted that the impact of the measures on certain Community sales of 
this  importer  might  be  significant.  However,  the  impact  on  its  total  turnover  will 
remain  limited  since  ironing  boards  and  replacement  covers  taken  together  represent 
around  30  %  of  its  total  turnover.  Moreover,  the  impact  will  in  part  depend  on  the 
importer's  export  performance,  since  its  re-exports  of  the  product  concerned  are  not 
negligible and these sales should normally not be affected by the measures. 

(61) 

In  this  respect  and  with  reference  to  recitals  (152)  to  (156)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation  and  recitals  (52)  to  (54)  above,  the  following  definitive  conclusions  are 
drawn  in  respect  of  the  impact  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  on  the  situation  of 
unrelated importers of ironing boards in the Community: (i) the importers would likely 
bear a somewhat higher burden than the retailers, (ii) the situation of certain importers 
could  be  affected  more  significantly,  however  (iii)  on  average  the  adverse  impact  of 
the measures would not be decisive for their operations and not disproportionate when 
compared with the expected benefits for the Community industry.  

5. 

Conclusion on Community interest 

(62)  The above additional analysis concerning the interest of the consumers and unrelated 
importers in the Community has not altered the provisional conclusions in this respect. 
Even  if  in  certain  cases  the  burden  could  be  fully  passed  on  to  consumers,  any 
negative financial impact on the latter would in any event be negligible. It was further 
confirmed that any adverse impact on certain importers would not be decisive for their 
business. On this basis, it is considered that the conclusions regarding the Community 
interest  as  set  out  in  recitals  (157)  to  (162)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  not 
altered.  In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  they  are  therefore  definitively 
confirmed. 

G. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

(63)  The complainants argued that the injury elimination level, as provisionally set out, was 
not sufficient to eliminate the injury to the Community industry. In particular, it was 
argued  that:  (a)  the  pre-tax  profit  margin  used  in  the  calculation  is  lower  than  the 
margin that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, and 
(b) the cost of production, as calculated by the Commission for establishing the injury 
elimination level, does not reflect the actual cost of production of the different product 
types. As regards the profit margin that could reasonably be expected in the absence of 
injurious dumping, it is recalled that the 7 % margin is based on the profitability of the 
Community industry before the influx of the dumped imports (see recital (44) above). 
Such  margin  is  thus  considered  reasonable  and  the  Community  industry  did  not 
provide any evidence to refute this. Its claim is therefore rejected. As regards the cost 
of  production,  it  is  noted  that  no  precise  and  verifiable  details  on  the  actual  cost  of 
production  per  product  type  was  submitted  by  the  Community  industry  for  the  IP. 
Therefore,  the  cost  of  production  per  product  type  can  only  be  based  on  the  actual 
prices of each Community producer adjusted by the actual overall profit it realised in 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
the  IP  for  the  like  product.  Given  that  the  profit  margin  of  the  Community  industry 
was  revised  as  explained  in  recital  (44)  above,  the  injury  elimination  level  was 
amended accordingly. 

(64) 

It  is  recalled  that  the  import  prices  of  the  Chinese  co-operating  exporting  producers 
were amended as explained in recital (42) above. Thus, the injury elimination level for 
these exporters was also amended accordingly. 

(65) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning the injury elimination level, recitals 
(164) to (166) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Form and level of measures 

(66) 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the 
dumping  margins  found,  since  for  all  the  exporting  producers  concerned  the  injury 
elimination level was found to be higher than the dumping margin. 

(67)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  definitive  duty  rates  for  the  PRC  and  Ukraine  are  as 

follows: 

Country  Company 

Anti-dumping duty 

PRC 

Foshan City Gaoming Lihe Daily 
Necessities Co. Ltd., Foshan 

Guangzhou Power Team Houseware Co. 
Ltd., Guangzhou 

Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., 
Guangzhou 

Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and 
Hardware Co. Ltd., Foshan 

Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. 
Ltd., Guzhou 

All other companies 

Ukraine  All companies 

34,9 % 

36,5 % 

0 % 

18,1 % 

26,5 % 

38,1 % 

9,9 % 

(68)  Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which 
it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures, the 
sole exporting producer in Ukraine and two Chinese exporting producers not granted 
MET  (one  of  which  was  not  even  granted  individual  treatment)  proposed  price 
undertakings  in  accordance  with  Article  8(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  However,  it  is 
noted that the product concerned is characterised by a considerable number of product 
types, which often change depending on the orders of the customers and which have 
significant  price  variations  between  them.  Moreover,  the  exporting  producers  sell 
together  with  the  product  concerned  other  products  to  the  same  customers  thus 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
creating a significant risk of cross compensation of prices. The nature of the product 
and  its  complex  marketing  make  virtually  impossible  to  establish  meaningful 
minimum import prices for each product type, which could be properly monitored by 
the  Commission  without  serious  risk  of  circumvention.  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  it 
was  concluded  that  such  undertakings  are  impractical  and  therefore  they  cannot  be 
accepted.  The  parties  were  informed  accordingly  and  given  an  opportunity  to 
comment. However, their comments have not altered the above conclusion. 

(69)  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 
country  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 and address, 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’. 

(70)  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  Commission4  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. 

Collection of provisional duty 

(71) 

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 1620/2006, be collected 
definitively to the extent of the amount of the duty definitively imposed by the present 
Regulation. Where the definitive duty is lower than the provisional duty, the duty shall 
be recalculated and the amounts secured in excess of the definitive duty rate should be 
released, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  ironing  boards, 
whether  or  not  free  standing,  with  or  without  a  steam  soaking  and/or  heating  top 
and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, 
the top and the iron rest originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine, 

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

1. 

4 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
falling within CN codes ex 3924 90 90, ex 4421 90 98, ex 7323 93 90, ex 7323 99 
91, ex 7323 99 99, ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00 (TARIC codes 3924 90 90 10, 
4421 90 98 10, 7323 93 90 10, 7323 99 91 10, 7323 99 99 10, 8516 79 70 10 and 
8516 90 00 51).  

2. 

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 

Manufacturer 

Rate of 
duty(%) 

TARIC 
additional code 

PRC 

Foshan City Gaoming Lihe Daily 
Necessities Co. Ltd., Foshan 

34,9 

A782 

Guangzhou Power Team 
Houseware Co. Ltd., Guangzhou 

36,5  

A783 

Since Hardware (Guangzhou) 
Co., Ltd., Guangzhou 

Foshan Shunde Yongjian 
Housewares and Hardware Co. 
Ltd., Foshan 

Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware 
Products Co. Ltd., Guzhou 

All other companies 

Ukraine 

All companies 

0  

A784 

18,1 

A785 

26,5 

A786 

38,1 

9,9 

A999 

- 

3. 

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 No 1620/2006 on imports of ironing boards, whether or not free standing, with or 
without a steam soaking and/or heating top and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and 
essential  parts  thereof,  i.e.  the  legs,  the  top  and  the  iron  rest  originating  in  the  People's 
Republic of China and Ukraine, falling within CN codes ex 3924 90 90, ex 4421 90 98, ex 
7323 93 90, ex 7323 99 91, ex 7323 99 99, ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00 (TARIC codes 
3924 90 90 10, 4421 90 98 10, 7323 93 90 10, 7323 99 91 10, 7323 99 99 10, 8516 79 70 10 
and  8516  90  00  51)  shall  be  definitively  collected.  The  amounts  secured  in  excess  of  the 
amount of the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be released.  

EN 

19 

   EN 

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

20 

   EN