Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 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: 2007-04-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, household article, import (EU), originating product

L 109/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2007

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 452/2007

of 23 April 2007

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

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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)

(3)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Provisional measures

On 30 October 2006,
the Commission imposed by
Regulation (EC) No 1620/2006 (2) (the provisional Regu-
lation) a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into
ironing boards originating in the
the Community of
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

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 Regu-
lation was based (the provisional disclosure). All parties
were granted a period within which they could make
in relation to this
representations
written and oral
disclosure.

(1) 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).

(2) OJ L 300, 31.10.2006, p. 13.

Some interested parties submitted comments in writing.
Those parties who so requested were also granted an
to be heard orally. The Commission
opportunity
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
the provisional duty (the final
secured by way of
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
been
and, where
modified accordingly.

findings have

appropriate,

the

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

ironing boards, whether or not

It is recalled that, as set out in recital 12 of the pro-
the product concerned by this
visional Regulation,
proceeding is
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).

two or more product

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 EUR
200, whilst the average retail price of an ironing board
is EUR 35. 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
EUR 500. 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
types (models) should be
considered as one single product for the purpose of an
anti-dumping proceeding. It is the basic physical charac-
teristics 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.

26.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 109/13

(8)

(9)

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.

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
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 pro-
visional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

2. Like product

(10)

In the absence of any comments, recital 14 of the provi-
sional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

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 provi-
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(11)

(12)

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.

(17)

(18)

C. DUMPING

1. Market economy treatment (MET)

Following the imposition of provisional measures, one
Chinese cooperating 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

3.2. Determination of normal
producers granted MET

value

for

the

exporting

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
companies concerned.

the premises of

is furthermore recalled that

the Chinese and the
It
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. P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a

(19) With reference to recital 44 of the provisional Regu-
lation,
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
reported by the company
concerned from the corresponding world prices was
confirmed. The cost of production submitted by this
company is therefore definitively accepted.

steel

L 109/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2007

(20)

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

for

(24)

3.2.2. U k r a i n e

4. Export price

4.1. People’s Republic of China

excluded from the

the provisional Regulation maintained that

Following the imposition of provisional measures, one
exporting producer from the PRC referred to in recital
57 of
its
export sales via unrelated trading companies should not
be
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.

(21)

(22)

Following the imposition of provisional measures, the
Ukrainian authorities requested the Commission to re-
calculate normal value for the sole Ukrainian exporter
on the basis of
It
sole Ukrainian
should be
recalled
exporting producer,
the
product concerned during the IP were not made in repre-
sentative 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.

sales on the Ukrainian market.
the
the overall domestic sales of

that,

for

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

sole Ukrainian

value

the

for

(26)

3.3. Determination of normal value in the analogue country

for

the

in analogue countries.

(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
In this
no anti-dumping duties
imposed.
shall be
the basic Regulation, and in
respect,
it is noted that
particular Article 2(7)
thereof, does not preclude the
imposition of the measures in case of low or no coop-
eration from producers
is
sake of ensuring as
however added that,
accurate a finding as possible, the Commission never-
theless compared the information received from the
sole cooperating producer in the analogue country with
the information received from another Turkish producer
fully
and from one US producer, which did not
cooperate in the investigation but agreed to provide
certain information on prices, costs and volume of
sales,
Such
the data from the coop-
comparison confirmed that
erating Turkish producer
an appropriate
constitute
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.

from the Community

industry.

and

It

(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 inde-
pendent customers in the Community were actually paid.
Also, the Hong Kong trader’s purchases were not re-
concilable with its audited accounts. The claim is
therefore rejected.

it

In this respect,

The same party argued that the Commission should have
used its own exchange rates when calculating export
the company
is noted that
prices.
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
calculations
rate used by the Commission in its
represents more accurately the real situation because it
neutralises 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 cooperating 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 un-
verifiable or it did not show any discrepancies. The alle-
gations 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.

26.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 109/15

(29)

(30)

4.2. Ukraine

Following the imposition of provisional measures, the
Ukrainian authorities and the sole Ukrainian exporting
producer claimed that when determining the export
price, no 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 ‘im-
portation 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
the related company could not be
argued that
considered as an export department of
the exporting
producer it should be considered as a sales agent.

if

to reflect

is noted that

In this respect,

it
types were grouped in order

the different
types.
product
the
major physical characteristics and cost/pricedrivers on
the one hand and to permit sufficiently representative
matching of the exported types with the types sold by
the cooperating Turkish producer on its domestic market
on the other hand. The following main characteristics
type, size,
were considered for comparison purposes:
construction and 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.

top, material of

to

its

the

free

invoiced

company

negotiated

the Community,

relevant payment. Thus,

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
related
company in Switzerland for each consignment and
exporting
received a
functions of an exporter. The
producer performed all
related
sales
Switzerland
in
contracts and invoiced the first independent buyer in
the Community. The related company also performed
import functions in respect of the goods entering
all
into
it
circulation in the Community,
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
inter alia, through its sales
VAT number and operates,
in the
facilities
offices
Community. It should thus be considered as performing
the functions of a related importer as set out in recital 59
those of an
of
the provisional Regulation and not
the claim
exporter or a sales agent. Consequently,
findings
be
should
confirmed.

several warehousing

provisional

rejected

and

and

the

i.e.

(33)

requested more

Following the imposition of provisional measures, several
parties
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 cooperating party gave an exhaustive list of the
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.

(31)

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

(35)

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

5. Comparison

(32)

exporting

Following the imposition of provisional measures, one
Chinese
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

producer

argued

that

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:

L 109/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2007

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

34,9 %

(41)

— 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.

4. Imports from the countries concerned

justification was

Following the imposition of provisional measures, one of
the parties referred to in recital 83 of the provisional
Regulation reiterated its claim to analyse 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.
submitted to
However, no further
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 Regu-
lation). As regards volumes,
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
the claim should be
injury in the IP. Consequently,
the
rejected again, and the cumulative assessment of
effects of the dumped imports set out in recitals 79 to
86 of the provisional Regulation confirmed.

the volume of

(42) One importer argued that the import prices of the coop-
erating 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 im-
portation 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 coop-
erating exporting producers from the PRC were amended
In the case of all other additional costs
accordingly.
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 under-
cutting margins for the dumped imports from the PRC
were accordingly amended as follows:

2. Definition of the Community industry

Country

Price Undercutting

(39)

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

PRC

29,2 %-44,2 %

3. Community consumption

(40)

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

(43) No comments were received concerning the 6,6 % under-
cutting found for Ukraine, which is hereby confirmed. In
the absence of any other comments concerning the
dumped imports from the countries concerned, recitals
87 to 92 of
the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

26.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 109/17

5. Situation of the Community industry

6. Conclusion on injury

(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
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:

situation of

economic

(48)

injury factors set out

return on investment and cash flow of

The above revised factors, i.e. price undercutting, profit-
ability,
the
left unaffected the
Community industry in the IP,
in the pro-
conclusions on all
visional Regulation confirming that
the Community
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.

2002

2003

2004

IP

(49)

Pre-tax profit margin

6,8 %

6,4 %

0,7 %

2,1 %

Index: 2002 = 100

100

94

10

31

Source: verified questionnaire replies

E. CAUSATION

Following the imposition of provisional measures, certain
parties referred to in recital 134 of the provisional Regu-
lation 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.

(45)

Thus, over the period considered profitability of
the
Community industry deteriorated. Profit margin in the
IP was by 69 % lower than in 2002.

(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.

(46)

the

Consequently, the return on investment and cash flow of
the Community industry were amended in order to
reflect
re-
above described corrections
munerations 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:

to the

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

2002

2003

2004

IP

61,98 %

68,19 %

4,77 %

13,72 %

(52)

100

110

8

22

3 463 326 4 184 515 1 246 671 2 565 562

100

121

36

74

Return on
investment

Index:
2002 = 100

Cash flow
(EUR)

Index:
2002 = 100

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.

Following the provisional disclosure, one
importer
disagreed with certain assessments quoted in recital
148 of the provisional Regulation. In particular, it chal-
lenged 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
markup 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
likely to reduce their margin,
and retailers are not
although the latter
the
markup 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 of 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 calcu-
lation. According to this importer,
the total markup
would rather be at most 300 %.

is considerable. As

far as

L 109/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2007

(53)

(54)

the importer

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,
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,
the burden would be fully passed on to
even if
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
it is highly unlikely that any of the operators
market,
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
Indeed, no other party involved in this
realistic.
proceeding
the
conclusion drawn in recital 149 of the provisional Regu-
lation can be confirmed.

assessment.

disputed

Thus,

such

In respect of the markups applied by the operators, it is
hereby recalled that no retailer cooperated in the inves-
tigation 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 infor-
mation received from importers and the Community
the average
industry. According to this information,
retail price refers to all such sales in the Community,
including inter alia value added tax. The total markup
applied by importers, retailers and any other operator
to
involved
consumers thus established is around 450 %. Finally, it
is recalled and reconfirmed that the individual markups
may vary significantly from one operator to the other,
but they are on average substantial, in particular in the
retail stage.

distribution

dumped

imports

of

in

(55) One Chinese

argued that

exporting producer

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

sold at

(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
Community

the unrelated importers

in the

(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.

level of

the burden of

(59) One of these importers disagreed with the assessment
anti-
allocation of
concerning the
dumping measures
the markups
and the
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
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
sources of
supply for the product concerned, any adverse effect
on its business would certainly be minor.

to retailers. Consequently,

its different

(60)

It explained that

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
the covers which are produced by this
market of
company.
ironing 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 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
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.

represent around 30 % of

the impact of

its

26.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 109/19

(61)

(62)

(63)

In this respect and with reference to recitals 152 to 156
the provisional Regulation and recitals 52 to 54
of
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,
the
situation of certain importers could be affected more
significantly, however
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.

(iii) on average

the

(ii)

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 coop-
erating exporting producers were amended as explained
in recital 42 above. Thus, the injury elimination level for
these exporters was also amended accordingly.

5. Conclusion on Community interest

(65)

In the absence of any other comments concerning the
injury elimination level, recitals 164 to 166 of the provi-
sional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

in

and

unrelated

importers

consumers

The above additional analysis concerning the interest of
the
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
In the
absence of any other comments, they are therefore defi-
nitively confirmed.

the provisional Regulation are not altered.

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.

G. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(67) On the basis of the above, the definitive duty rates for

the PRC and Ukraine are as follows:

(a)

(b)

the

and

lower

competition,

it was argued that:

the injury elimination
The complainants argued that
to
level, as provisionally set out, was not sufficient
In
eliminate the injury to the Community industry.
the pre-tax profit
particular,
than the
margin used in the calculation is
margin that could be reasonably achieved under normal
conditions of
cost of
production, as calculated by the Commission for estab-
lishing 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
is
recalled that the 7 % margin is based on the profitability
of
the
the Community industry before the influx of
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 the IP for the like

injurious dumping,

it

Country

Company

PRC

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

Anti-dumping
duty

34,9 %

Guangzhou
Houseware
Guangzhou

Power
Co.

Team
Ltd.,

36,5 %

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

Shunde

Foshan
Housewares
Co. Ltd., Foshan

Yongjian
and Hardware

Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware
Products Co. Ltd., Guzhou

All other companies

Ukraine

All companies

0 %

18,1 %

26,5 %

38,1 %

9,9 %

L 109/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2007

(68)

(69)

Following the disclosure of the essential facts and con-
siderations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping
measures, the sole exporting producer in Ukraine and
four 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
types, which often
considerable number of product
change depending on the orders of the customers and
which have significant price variations between them.
together with
Moreover,
the exporting producers sell
the product concerned other products
to the same
risk of cross
thus creating a significant
customers
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
their
given an opportunity to comment. However,
comments have not altered the above conclusion.

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
investigation.
basis of
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
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’.

(e.g.

(70) 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
in particular any modification in
relevant information,
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,

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. Regu-
lation (EC) No 1620/2006, be collected definitively to
the extent 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,

the amount of

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

the

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
including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof,
top,
i.e.
top and the iron rest originating in the
the
legs,
People’s Republic of China
and Ukraine,
falling within
ex 7323 93 90,
ex 4421 90 98,
CN codes
ex 7323 99 91,
and
ex 8516 90 00 (TARIC codes 3924 90 90 10, 4421 90 98 10,
7323 93 90 10,
7323 99 99 10,
7323 99 91 10,
8516 79 70 10 and 8516 90 00 51).

ex 3924 90 90,

ex 7323 99 99,

ex 8516 79 70

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

Country

Manufacturer

PRC

Foshan City Gaoming
Daily Necessities Co.
Foshan

Lihe
Ltd.,

Guangzhou
Houseware
Guangzhou

Power
Co.

Team
Ltd.,

Rate of duty
(%)

TARIC
additional
code

34,9

A782

36,5

A783

Since Hardware
Co., Ltd., Guangzhou

(Guangzhou)

0

A784

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

18,1

A785

Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware
Products Co. Ltd., Guzhou

26,5

A786

All other companies

38,1

9,9

A999

—

(1) European Commission, Directorate General for Trade, Directorate H,

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

Ukraine

All companies

26.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 109/21

Unless otherwise

3.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

Article 2

Amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty
pursuant
to Regulation (EC) 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,
i.e.
iron rest originating in the
the
top and the
the
People’s Republic of China
falling within
and Ukraine,

and essential parts

thereof,

legs,

ex 4421 90 98,

ex 7323 99 99,

ex 3924 90 90,

ex 7323 93 90,
CN codes
ex 7323 99 91,
and
ex 8516 90 00 (TARIC codes 3924 90 90 10, 4421 90 98 10,
7323 99 99 10,
7323 93 90 10,
7323 99 91 10,
shall be definitively
8516 79 70 10 and 8516 90 00 51)
collected. The amounts secured in excess of the amount of
the definitive anti-dumping duty shall be released.

ex 8516 79 70

Article 3

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 Luxembourg, 23 April 2007.

For the Council
The President

F.-W. STEINMEIER