Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Russia and repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Thailand and Turkey
Date: 2007-10-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Russia, Thailand, Türkiye, anti-dumping duty, import, iron, non-flat product, originating product, steel

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 2.10.2007 
COM(2007) 564 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables 
originating in Russia and repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain 
iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Thailand and Turkey 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of 
22 December  1995  on  protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not 
members of the European Community, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2117/2005  of  21  December  2005  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  proceeding 
concerning imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables ('SWR') originating in the 
Russian Federation, Thailand and Turkey. 

General context 

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

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

There are no existing provisions in the area of the proposal. 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  already  had  the  possibility  to 
defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic 
Regulation. 

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. 

The  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

a) 

Partial  interim  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  against 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
producers in Russia 

In 2004, the Commission received two requests for a partial interim review pursuant 
to  Article  11(3)  ('interim  reviews')  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  requests,  limited  in 
scope  to  dumping,  were  lodged  by  Open  Joint  Stock  Company  Cherepovetsky 
Staleprokatny  Zavod  and  Joint  Stock  Company  Beloretsk  Iron  &  Steel  Works 
respectively, both exporting producers of SWR in Russia. 

Having  determined  that  sufficient  evidence  existed  for  the  initiation  of  the  partial 
interim review, the Commission initiated this review on 10 August 20041. 

b) 

Expiry  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  against  the 
Russian Federation, Thailand and Turkey and partial interim review of 
the anti-dumping measures in force against one exporting producer in 
Turkey 

Following  the  publication  of  a  notice  of  impending  expiry2,  the  Commission,  on  28 
April  2006,  received  a  combined  request  for  a  review  pursuant  to  Articles  11(2) 
('expiry review') and for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic 
Regulation. 

The  request  was  lodged  by  the  Liaison  Committee  of  EU  Wire  Ropes  Industries 
('EWRIS' or 'the applicant'), on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, 
in this case more than 50 %, of the total Community production of certain iron  and 
steel ropes and cables. The scope of the interim review requested by the applicant was 
limited to the level of dumping by one single exporting producer in Turkey.  

Having determined that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of the expiry and 
interim reviews, the Commission initiated these reviews on 3 August 2006(3). 

c) 

Partial  interim  review  of  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  against 
exporting producers in Thailand 

Finally,  the  Commission  received  a  request  for  a  partial  interim  review  pursuant  to 
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to dumping, was 
lodged by Usha Siam Steel Industries Public Company Ltd., an exporting producer of 
SWR in Thailand. 

Having determined that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of the expiry and 
interim reviews, the Commission initiated this review on 22 March 20074. 

The enclosed Commission proposal for a Council Regulation contains the definitive 
conclusions  regarding  likelihood  of  a  continuation  and/or  recurrence  of  dumping, 
likelihood of a continuation and/or recurrence of injury and Community interest. 

Member States were consulted during the Anti-Dumping Committee of 14 September 

1 
2 
3 
4 

OJ C 202, 10.8.2004, p.12 
OJ C 270, 29.10.2005, p.38 
OJ C 181, 3.8.2006, p.15 
OJ C 66, 22.3.2007, p.14 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2007. 9 Member States were in favour of the proposed course of action, 2 opposed, 12 
abstained and 4 did not react. 

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  on  2  November 
2007 at the latest. 

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 21 December 2005. 

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): 

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

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

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Regulation. 

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

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

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables 
originating in Russia and repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain 
iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Thailand and Turkey 

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 Community5 ('the basic 
Regulation'), and in particular Articles 11(2) and 11(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

1. Measures in force 

(1) 

On  2  February  2001,  the  Council  imposed,  by  Regulation  No  230/20016  ('the 
provisional Regulation') provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron 
or steel ropes and cables ('SWR') originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand 
and  Turkey  (the  three  last  countries  will  be  referred  to  as  'the  countries  concerned'). 
On  2  August  2001,  the  Council  imposed,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1601/20017  ('the 
original  Regulation'),  definitive  anti-dumping  measures.  The  measures  imposed  on 
imports of SWR originating in the Czech Republic lapsed after the enlargement of the 
European Union on 1 May 2004. 

(2) 

On  26  July  2001,  the  Commission  accepted,  by  Decision  No  2001/602/EC8, 
undertakings  offered  by  one  Russian  and  one  Thai  exporter  in  connection  with  the 
anti-dumping measures referred to in Recital (1).  

5 

6 
7 

8 

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 34, 3.2.2001, p.4 
OJ  L  211,  4.8.2001,  p.1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  564/2005  (OJ  L  97, 
15.4.2005, p.1) 
OJ 211, 4.8.2001, p.47 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3) 

On  8  November  2005,  the  Council  imposed,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1858/20059 
definitive  anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  of  certain  steel  ropes  and  cables 
originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  India,  South  Africa  and  Ukraine  ('the 
parallel proceeding'). 

2. Request for reviews 

(a)  Partial  Interim  reviews  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  against 

exporting producers in Russia 

In 2004, the Commission received two requests for partial interim reviews pursuant to 
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation ('interim reviews'). The requests, limited in scope 
to dumping, were lodged by Open Joint Stock Company Cherepovetsky Staleprokatny 
Zavod  ('ChSPZ')  and  Joint  Stock  Company  Beloretsk  Iron  &  Steel  Works  ('BMK') 
respectively, both exporting producers of SWR in Russia. 

As  explained  in  a  notice  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union10, 
ChSPZ's name was changed to Closed Joint Stock Company Severstal-Metiz ('SSM') 
as a result of a merger with Open Joint Stock Company Orlovsky Staleprokatny Zavod 
('OSPAZ')  and  Closed  Joint  Stock  Company  Severstal-Metiz.  This  name  change 
applied as of 1 January 2006. 

According  to  the  applicants,  the  circumstances  on  the  basis  of  which  measures  had 
been  established  had  changed  and  these  changes  were  of  lasting  nature.  Moreover, 
both  exporting  producers  alleged  that  the  existing  levels  of  anti-dumping  measures 
were no longer necessary to offset dumping. 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed  for  the  initiation  of  two  interim  reviews,  the  Commission  initiated  these 
reviews on 10 August 200411. 

(b)  Partial  interim  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  against  one 

exporting producer in Turkey 

Following  the  publication  of  a  notice  of  impending  expiry12,  the  Commission 
received a request on 28 April 2006 for an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of 
the basic Regulation (received jointly with a request for a review pursuant to Article 
11(2) ('expiry review') referred to in Recitals (12) to (15) below). 

The  request  was  lodged  by  the  Liaison  Committee  of  EU  Wire  Ropes  Industries 
('EWRIS' or 'the applicant'), on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in 
this case more than 50 %, of the total Community production of certain iron and steel 
ropes and cables. 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10)  The scope of the interim review requested by the applicant was limited to the level of 
dumping  by  one  single  exporting  producer  in  Turkey  (which  at  present  has  a  zero 

9 
10 
11 
12 

OJ 299, 16.11.2005, p.1 
OJ C 51, 1.3.2006, p. 2 
OJ C 202, 10.8.2004, p.12 
OJ C 270, 29.10.2005, p.38 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
duty). According to the applicant, the level of the measures is no longer sufficient to 
counteract the injurious dumping. 

(11)  Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed for the initiation of an interim review, the Commission initiated this review on 
3 August 200613.  

(c)  Expiry  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  against  Russia, 

Thailand and Turkey 

(12)  Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry14, the Commission received 
a request on 28 April 2006 for an expiry review (received jointly with the request for 
an interim review referred to in Recitals (8) to (11) above). 

(13)  The  request  was  lodged  by  the  Liaison  Committee  of  EU  Wire  Ropes  Industries 
('EWRIS' or 'the applicant'), on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in 
this case more than 50 %, of the total Community production of certain iron and steel 
ropes and cables.  

(14)  The  request  for  the  expiry  review  related  to  all  countries  currently  covered  by  the 
original  Regulation,  and  was  based  on  the  grounds  that  the  expiry  of  the  measures 
would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the 
Community industry. 

(15)  Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed for the initiation of the expiry review, the Commission initiated this review on 
3 August 200615. 

(d)  Partial  Interim  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  against  one 

exporting producer in Thailand 

(16)  The  Commission  received  a  request  for  a  partial  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article 
11(3) of the basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to dumping, was lodged 
by Usha Siam Steel Industries Public Company Ltd., an exporting producer of SWR in 
Thailand. 

(17)  According to the applicant, the circumstances on the basis of which measures had been 
established  had  changed  and  these  changes  were  of  lasting  nature.  Moreover,  the 
exporting  producer  alleged  that  the  existing  level  of  anti-dumping  measures  was  no 
longer necessary to offset dumping. 

(18)  Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed for the initiation of the interim review, the Commission initiated this review on 
22 March 200716. 

3. Parties concerned by the investigations 

13 
14 
15 
16 

OJ C 181, 3.8.2006, p.15 
OJ C 270, 29.10.2005, p.38 
OJ C 181, 3.8.2006, p.15 
OJ C 66, 22.3.2007, p.14 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(19)  The Commission officially advised the exporting producers, the representatives of the 
exporting  countries,  importers,  Community  producers,  users  and  the  applicant  of  the 
initiation of the expiry review and the partial interim reviews. Interested parties were 
given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing 
within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so 
requested  and  showed  that  there  were  particular  reasons  why  they  should  be  heard, 
were granted a hearing. 

3.1 Sampling of Community producers 

(20) 

In  view  of  the  apparent  large  number  of  Community  producers,  it  was  considered 
appropriate  to  examine  whether  sampling  should  be  used  in  the  expiry  review  in 
conformity with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission 
to  decide  whether  sampling  would  be  necessary  and,  if  so,  to  select  a  sample,  the 
Community  producers  were  requested,  pursuant  to  Article  17(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the relevant 
reviews and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of 
initiation. 

(21)  After  examination  of  the  information  submitted  by  17  Community  producers,  it  was 
considered  that  five  companies  should  be  selected  for  a  sample  on  the  basis,  in 
particular,  of  the  volume  of  their  production  and  sales  during  the  IP.  The  sample 
consists of the following companies: 

– 

– 

Bridon GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany 

Casar Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH ("Casar"), Saarbrücken, Germany 

–  Wire and Rope Factory Drumet S.A. ("Drumet"), Wloclawek, Poland 

–  Manuel Rodrigues de Oliveria SA & Filhos S.A. ("Oliveira"), Gemunde, 

Portugal 

– 

Tréfileurope S.A., Bourg-en-Bresse, France 

3.2 Sampling of Community importers 

(22) 

In view of the apparent large number of Community importers (32 importers listed in 
the application), it was considered appropriate to examine whether sampling should be 
used  in  the  expiry  review  in  conformity  with  Article  17  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In 
order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, 
if so, to select a sample, the Community importers were requested, pursuant to Article 
17(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  to  make  themselves  known  within  15  days  of  the 
initiation of the relevant reviews and to provide the Commission with the information 
requested in the notice of initiation. 

(23)  However,  since  only  a  single  importer  made  itself  known  by  replying  to  the  sample 

questionnaire, it was decided that sampling was not warranted in this case. 

4. Questionnaires and verification 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(24)  Questionnaires were therefore sent to all known exporting producers in the countries 
concerned,  the  single  importer  referred  to  in  recital  (23)  above,  the  Community 
producers in the sample and users.  

(25)  Replies to the questionnaires were received from 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

2 exporting producers in the Russian Federation for the purposes of the 
interim review and one for the purposes of the expiry review; 

1  exporting  producer  in  Thailand  and  its  related  importer  in  the  United 
Kingdom; 

2 exporting producers in Turkey, 

1 importer related to the exporting producers in the countries concerned, 

5 Community producers included in the sample, 

1 unrelated importer. 

(26)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  the  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  its 
analysis and carried out verification visits at the premises of the following companies: 

(a)  Russia 

– 

– 

Severstal-Metiz, Cherepovets  

BMK, Beloretsk  

(b)  Thailand 

– 

Usha Siam Ltd., Bangkok 

(c)  Turkey 

– 

– 

Celik Halat, Izmit-Kocaeli 

Has Çelik ve Halat Sanayi Ticaret A.S.('Has Celik'), Hacilar Kayseri 

(d)  Sampled Community producers 

– 

– 

Bridon GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany 

Casar Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH ("Casar"), Saarbrücken, Germany 

–  Wire and Rope Factory Drumet S.A., Wloclawek, Poland 

–  Manuel Rodrigues de Oliveria SA & Filhos S.A., Gemunde, Portugal 

– 

Tréfileurope S.A., Bourg-en-Bresse, France 

(e) Related importer in the Community 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
– 

Usha Martin UK Ltd., Clydebank, United Kingdom 

(f)  Unrelated importers in the Community 

– 

HEKO Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH, Hemer, Germany 

5. Relevant periods covered by the review investigations 

(27)  The investigation of the likelihood of continuation and/or recurrence of dumping and 
injury  for  the  expiry  review  covered  the  period  from  1  July  2005  to  30  June  2006 
('expiry review investigation period' or 'ERIP'). The examination of trends relevant for 
the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the 
period from 1 January 2003 up to the end of the ERIP ('period considered').  

(28)  The investigation period for the partial interim review pursuant to article 11(3) of the 
basic Regulation concerning imports from two exporting producers in Russia covered 
the period from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 ("Russia-interim review period").  

(29)  The  relevant  investigation  period  for  the  partial  interim  review  pursuant  to  article 
11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  concerning  imports  from  the  exporting  producer  in 
Turkey ("Turkey-interim review period") is the same as the ERIP. 

(30)  The investigation period for the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the 
basic Regulation concerning imports from the exporting producer in Thailand covered 
the period from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 ("Thailand-interim review period").  

6. Disclosure and opportunity to comment 

(31)  All  interested  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposing a definitive anti-dumping 
duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Russia and terminating the 
investigations concerning the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain 
iron  or  steel  ropes  and  cables  originating  in  Thailand  and  Turkey.  They  were  also 
granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  make  representations  subsequent  to  this 
into  account  where 
disclosure.  Their  comments  were  considered  and 
appropriate. 

taken 

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT  

1. 

Product concerned 

(32)  The product concerned by this expiry review is the same as the product defined in the 
original Regulation, i.e. ropes and cables, including locked coil ropes, of iron or steel 
but  not  stainless  steel,  with  a  maximum  cross-sectional  dimension  exceeding  3  mm, 
with  attached  fittings  or  not,  originating  in  the  countries  concerned  ('the  product 
concerned'). SWR are currently classifiable within CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 
10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 1098. 

(33)  One  interested  party  argued  that  the  product  concerned  should  be  divided  into  two 
different groups namely (a) general purpose SWR and (b) high performance SWR. It 
also  argued  that  the  latter,  which  allegedly  were  not  produced  in  the  exporting 
countries,  should  be  excluded  from  the  proceedings  because,  according  to  some 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
importers,  the  SWR  types  under  that  category  were  different  from  the  SWR  in  the 
other category and there was no competition amongst these SWR.  

(34)  First, the interested party did not bring any elements which would demonstrate that the 
product  imported  from  the  countries  concerned  is  not  like  the  one  produced  by  the 
Community industry or that the SWR  in  question were not in  competition  with each 
other or were not interchangeable. Therefore, the claim had to be rejected. 

(35)  Furthermore, the party was not able to show that the definition and the description of 
the product concerned, as defined in recitals (10) to (13) of the provisional Regulation, 
was erroneous. 

(36)  The  definition  of  the  product  concerned  in  the  original  Regulation  is  therefore 

confirmed. 

2. 

Like product  

(37) 

In  recitals  (14)  to  (19)  of  the  original  Regulation,  it  was  concluded  that  the  product 
concerned, the SWR produced and sold by Community producers and the SWR sold 
on the domestic markets and exported to the Community from the countries concerned 
shared  the  same  basic  physical  and  chemical  characteristics.  These  products  were 
considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(38)  One interested party argued that the imported SWR differ substantially from the ones 
manufactured and sold in the Community and could not be compared for the purpose 
of the current investigations. It argued that the products imported into the Community 
were not in direct competition with the SWR manufactured in the Community.  

(39)  The  same  arguments  had  been  put  forward  in  the  investigation  leading  up  to  the 
conclusions  reached  in  recital  (15)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  As  the  interested 
party  did  not  bring  any  new  elements  which  would  demonstrate  that  the  product 
imported from the countries concerned is not alike the one manufactured and sold in 
the Community, the claim had to be rejected. 

(40)  The conclusions reached in recitals (14) to (19) of the original Regulation concerning 

the like product can therefore be confirmed.  

C. 

DUMPING AND LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION AND/OR RECURRENCE 

OF DUMPING 

1.  Dumping  of  imports  during  the  Review  investigation  periods  –  General 

principles 

(41)  For reasons of consistency it has been, as a first step, examined whether dumping was 
currently taking place and whether or not the expiry of the measures would be likely to 
lead  to  a  continuation  of  dumping.  As  a  second  step,  in  accordance  with  the  basic 
Regulation,  the  possible  implications  of  the  interim  reviews  on  the  findings  of  the 
original Regulation on a country-by-country basis were examined. 

General methodology 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(42)  The general methodology set out below has been applied to all exporting producers in 
the  countries  concerned  and  is  the  same  as  in  the  original  investigation.  The 
presentation of the findings of dumping for each of the countries concerned therefore 
only describes what is specific for each exporting country. 

Normal value  

(43)  For  the  determination  of  normal  value  it  was  first  established  for  each  exporting 
producer whether its total domestic sales of the product concerned were representative 
in comparison with its total export sales to the Community. In accordance with Article 
2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered representative when the 
total  domestic  sales  volume  of  each  exporting  producer  was  at  least  5  %  of  its  total 
export sales volume to the Community. 

(44)  Subsequently, those types of the product concerned sold domestically by the exporting 
producers  having  overall  representative  domestic  sales  and  that  were  identical  or 
directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Community, were identified. 

(45)  For each type sold by the exporting producers on their domestic markets and found to 
be  directly  comparable  with  the  types  of  SWR  sold  for  export  to  the  Community,  it 
was  established  whether  domestic  sales  were  sufficiently  representative  for  the 
purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type of 
SWR were considered sufficiently representative when the total domestic sales volume 
of  that  type  during  the  ERIP  or  relevant  interim  review  investigation  period 
represented  5  %  or  more  of  the  total  sales  volume  of  the  comparable  SWR  type 
exported to the Community. 

(46)  An  examination  was  also  made  of  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  each  type  of  SWR 
could  be  regarded  as  having  been  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  pursuant  to 
Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing, for each exporting 
producer in the countries concerned, the proportion of profitable sales to independent 
customers on the domestic market of each exported type of the product concerned on 
the domestic market during the investigation period. 

(a)  For  those  product  types  where  more  than  80  %,  by  volume,  of  sales  on  the 
domestic market were not below unit costs, i.e. where the average sales price of 
the product type concerned was equal to or higher than the average production 
cost  for  the  product  type  concerned,  normal  value  was  calculated  as  the 
average price of all domestic sales of the product type in question irrespective 
of whether these sales were profitable or not. 

(b)  For those product types where at least 10 % but no more than 80 %, by volume, 
of sales on the domestic market were not below unit costs, normal value was 
calculated as the weighted average sales price of those transactions which were 
made at or above unit costs of the type in question. 

(c)  For  those  product  types  where  less  than  10  %,  by  volume,  was  sold  on  the 
domestic  market  at  a  price  not  below  unit  cost,  it  was  considered  that  the 
product  type  concerned  was  not  sold  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  and 
therefore, normal value had to be constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) 
of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(47) 

(48) 

(49) 

In  the  cases  where  normal  values  had  to  be  constructed,  they  were  constructed  in 
accordance  with  Article  2(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  i.e.  on  the  basis  of  the 
manufacturing cost of the type concerned, to which was added an amount for selling, 
general  and  administrative  (SG&A)  expenses  and  a  margin  of  profit.  The  amount  of 
SG&A  was  that  incurred  by  the  exporting  producer  for  the  like  product  and  the 
amount  of  profit  equated  to  the  average  profit  realised  by  the  exporting  producer  on 
sales of the like product in the ordinary course of trade. 

Export price  

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

In cases where sales were made via a related importer or trader, the export price was 
constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  resale  prices  of  that  related  importer  to  independent 
customers.  Adjustments  were  made  for  all  costs  incurred  between  importation  and 
resale  including  sales,  general  and  administrative  expenses,  and  a  reasonable  profit 
margin, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. The appropriate profit 
margin was established on the basis of information provided by unrelated cooperating 
traders/importers operating on the Community market. 

Comparison  

(50)  The  normal  value  and  export  price  were  compared  on  an  ex-works  basis.  For  the 
purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting the price 
and  price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation. 
Appropriate  adjustments  were  granted  in  all  cases  where  they  were  found  to  be 
reasonable, accurate and supported by evidence. 

(51)  Adjustments  were  made  for  inland  and  ocean  freight,  insurance  costs,  handling  and 
packaging  costs,  credit  costs  and  import  duties,  which  were  all  deducted  from  the 
resale price in order to arrive at an ex-works basis. 

Dumping margin  

(52) 

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, a dumping margin 
was  calculated  for  each  cooperating  exporting  producer,  by  comparing  the  weighted 
average normal value with the weighted average export price. 

(53)  For those countries where the level of co-operation was found to be high (above 80 % 
of  all  volumes  imported  to  the  Community  during  the  ERIP  or  relevant  RIP),  and 
where  there  was  no  reason  to  believe  that  any  exporting  producer  abstained  from 
cooperating,  the  residual  dumping  margin  was  set  at  the  level  of  the  cooperating 
exporting  producer  with  the  highest  dumping  margin  in  order  to  ensure  the 
effectiveness of the measures. 

(54)  For  those  countries  where  the  level  of  co-operation  was  found  to  be  low  (less  than 
80 % of all volumes imported to the Community during the ERIP or relevant RIP), the 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
residual  dumping  margin  was  determined  in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic 
Regulation, i.e. on the basis of facts available. 

2.  Dumping  of  imports  during  the  review  investigation  periods  –  Country 

specific findings  

2.1.  Russia  

Preliminary remarks 

(55)  There are two exporting producers known to produce SWR in Russia: Severstal-Metiz, 
Cherepovets  ('SSM')  and  BMK,  Beloretsk  ('BMK').  They  thus  account  for  100%  of 
production and represented a share of 1,5 % of imports into the Community market in 
the ERIP. Both producers cooperated in the interim review but only one cooperated in 
the  expiry  review  investigation.  The  other  producer  indicated  that  it  did  not  want  to 
cooperate in the expiry review. It argued that, besides the fact that the company only 
exported small quantities to the EU in the Russia-interim review period, the company 
situation  did  not  change  significantly  after  the  interim  review  which  was  initiated  in 
August 2004 (see recitals (4) to (7) above).  

2.1.1.  Partial  interim  review  on  measures  in  force  against  exporting 

producers in Russia 

(56)  The  partial  interim  reviews  were  limited  to  the  level  of  dumping  of  both  known 
Russian producers to the EU. Full questionnaire replies were received from both.  

Normal value 

(57)  Normal  value  was  determined  according  to  the  general  methodology  described  in 

recitals (43) and (47) above. 

(58)  For one Russian exporting producer, normal value was based on the actual domestic 
prices in accordance with the methodology set out in recital (46) above. For the other 
Russian  exporting  producer,  normal  value  was  mainly  based  on  the  actual  domestic 
prices,  but  it  had  to  be  constructed  for  certain  product  types  in  accordance  with  the 
methodology explained in recital (47) above. 

Export price 

(59)  For the determination of the export price, the general principles explained in detail in 

recitals (48) and (49) above were applied. 

(60)  As  regards  the  export  sales  to  the  Community  made  by  one  Russian  exporting 
producer  via  a  related  trading  company  in  Switzerland,  the  export  price  was 
established on the basis of the resale prices actually paid or payable to the latter by the 
first independent buyer in the Community during the Russia-interim review period.  

(61) 

It should be noted that almost all exports by one Russian exporter to the Community 
were made under a price undertaking, accepted by the Commission in August 2001. In 
that context, the determination of export prices was not limited only to an examination 
of  the  exporters'  past  behaviour,  but  the  likely  development  of  export  prices  in  the 
future  was  also  examined.  In  particular,  the  question  whether  the  existence  of  this 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
undertaking  had  influenced  the  level  of  the  export  prices,  so  as  to  make  them 
unreliable for the establishment of future export behaviour. 

(62) 

It  was  further  examined  whether  the  export  prices  charged  by  the  exporter  to 
Community-based  customers  were  reliable  and  could  form  a  proper  basis  for  the 
calculation of its dumping margin for the current investigation, despite the existence of 
a  price  undertaking.  In  particular,  the  investigation  attempted  to  show  whether  the 
current export prices to the Community were artificially set in relation to the minimum 
import  prices  ('MIPs')  or  not  and  therefore  whether  these  were  sustainable  in  the 
future.  However,  the  investigation  showed  that  the  system  used  to  establish  product 
control  numbers  ('PCNs')  for  this  investigation  was  more  sophisticated  than  the 
classification system applied at the time when the undertaking was accepted in 2001. 
This  led  to  the  conclusion  that  any  comparison  between  the  PCNs  of  the  MIPs  and 
those of the current investigation would not be reliable. 

(63)  A  comparison  on  a  type-by-type  basis  between  the  export  prices  to  the  Community 
with prices charged to other third countries was made. This showed that export prices 
to third countries were on average substantially lower. It was therefore concluded that 
the  export  price  of  this  company  to  the  Community  could  not  be  used  to  establish 
reliable  export  prices  in  the  meaning  of  Article  2(8)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  the 
context of the present review. In the absence of reliable export prices for sales to EU-
15 therefore sales to other countries were taken as a proxy for those export prices.  

Comparison 

(64)  Regarding  the  comparison  between  normal  value  and  export  price,  the  approach  as 

described in recital (50) was followed. 

(65)  As  the  related  trader  in  Switzerland  of  one  of  the  Russian  exporting  producers  has 
functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis, an adjustment to 
the export price for a commission was made in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the 
basic Regulation. The level of the commission was calculated based on direct evidence 
pointing to the existence of a mark-up related to such functions. 

Dumping margin 

(66)  As  provided  for  under  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  weighted  average 
normal  value  by  type  was  compared  with  the  weighted  average  export  price  of  the 
corresponding type of the product concerned. 

(67)  As  further  explained  in  recitals  (104)  to  (107)  below,  the  comparison  showed  the 
existence  of  continued  dumping  for  BMK.  For  SSM,  the  comparison  between  the 
weighted average normal value and weighted average sales price to countries where an 
undertaking was not in force also showed the existence of continued dumping. 

(68)  BMK's  dumping  margin  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  net,  free-at-Community-
frontier price, duty unpaid, was found to be 36,2 %. SSM's dumping margin expressed 
on the same basis was found to be 9,7 %. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
Definitive anti-dumping measures 

(69) 

In  the  light  of  the  results  of  the  dumping  margins  established  in  the  interim  review 
investigations, it is considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping duty applicable 
to BMK to 36,2 % and to SSM to 9,7 %. 

2.1.2. Expiry review on measures in force against exporting producers in 

Russia 

(70)  Out  of  the  two  known  producers  of  SWR  in  Russia,  only  SSM  co-operated  in  the 
expiry  review  investigation.  On  the  basis  of  the  information  collected,  this  company 
represented almost 100% of Russia’s total exports to the Community during the ERIP. 
The company also represented around 50% of total Russian production. The exports to 
the  Community  were  at  a  low  level  and  consisted  of  around  3  300  tons  during  the 
ERIP, representing 1,5,% of EU consumption. This apparent low market share should 
not hide the fact that large spare production capacity is available in Russia. The share 
of the exports to the Community in quantity was less than 5% of the total sales of the 
cooperating company. As mentioned above in recital (61) almost all exports by the co-
operating company to the Community are subject to a price undertaking agreement. 

Normal value  

(71)  Wherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by SSM could not be used 
in order to establish normal value because it had not been sold on the domestic market 
in representative quantities, another method had to be applied. In the absence of any 
other reasonable method, the constructed normal value per product type was used, as 
provided by SSM and verified by the Commission.  

(72)  As concerns cost of production, it was claimed by SSM that the cost structure for EU 
exports  was  different  because  of  the  different  technical  standards  in  the  Community 
and  the  Russian  market.  According  to  the  company,  SWR  sold  on  the  Community 
market  have  to  be  in  conformity  with  the  so-called  DIN  standard,  which  is  not  a 
requirement in Russia. The table including the cost of production (COP) of SWR sold 
domestically and to the Community showed that there were no significant differences 
between  the  various  types.  For  some  product  types,  the  domestic  COP  was  slightly 
higher,  for  others  the  Community  COP  was  slightly  lower.  Therefore,  it  was 
concluded that this alleged difference could not affect the dumping calculations. 

Export price 

(73)  With regard to the exports to the Community, except for one transaction, the producer 
sold the product concerned directly in the Community without the intervention of any 
related party. The exporter submitted evidence that the one transaction did not concern 
the  product  concerned  and  was  therefore  not  taken  into  consideration  in  the 
calculations.  

Comparison 

(74)  For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export 
price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting the 
price and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Dumping margin 

(75) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  dumping  margin  was 
established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  with 
the  weighted  average  export  prices  per  product  type.  This  comparison  showed  the 
absence of dumping during the expiry review investigation period.  

(76)  The  comparison  of  the  data  concerning  exports  to  the  Community  provided  by  the 
exporting  producers  and  the  total  volume  of  imports  as  derived  from  the  Eurostat 
import statistics indicated that the level of cooperation was high, since, the cooperating 
exporting  producer  represented  roughly  the  totality  of  all  Community  imports  from 
Russia during the IP. 

2.2.  Thailand 

2.2.1. Interim review on measures in force against one exporting producer in 

Thailand 

Normal value  

(77)  Normal value was based on the price paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade by 
independent customers on the domestic market in accordance with Article 2(1) of the 
basic  Regulation.  During  the  Thailand-interim  review  investigation  period  the 
company  sold  the  product  concerned  directly  to  end-users  on  the  domestic  market. 
Normal value was based on profitable sales only. 

(78)  Normal value was based on the price paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade by 
independent customers on the domestic market in accordance with Article 2(1) of the 
basic Regulation. 

Export price 

(79)  The  applicant  and  co-operating  producer  Usha  Siam  exported  a  limited  quantity  of 
SWR  to  the  Community  during  the  Thailand-interim  review  period.  These  exports 
were subject to a price undertaking.  

(80)  For  the  direct  sales  to  the  Community  market,  the  export  prices  were  based  on  the 
price paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade by independent customers in the 
Community in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. 

(81)  For  the  export  sales  made  via  the  related  importer,  Usha  Martin  UK,  export  prices 
were  constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  prices  at  which  the  imported  product  was  first 
resold to independent customers in the Community, in accordance with Article 2(9) of 
the basic Regulation. Allowance was made for all costs incurred between importation 
and resale, including selling, general and administrative costs and the profit realised in 
the Community by the related importer during the investigation period. 

Comparison 

(82)  The  normal  value  was  compared  with  the  average  export  price  for  each  type  of  the 
product concerned, on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In accordance 
with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  and  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  a  fair 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
comparison,  factors  which  were  claimed  and  demonstrated  to  affect  price  and  price 
comparability were taken into account. Adjustments were made for inland and ocean 
freight, insurance costs, handling and packaging costs, credit costs and import duties, 
which were all deducted from the resale price in order to arrive at an ex-works basis. 

Dumping margin 

(83) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  dumping  margin  was 
established  per  product  type  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  weighted  average 
normal value with the weighted average export prices at the same level of trade. This 
comparison  showed  the  absence  of  dumping  during  the  interim  review  investigation 
period.  

2.2.2.  Expiry  review  on  measures  in  force  against  exporting  producers  in 

Thailand 

(84)  Out of the 3 known producers of SWR in Thailand, one company co-operated in the 
investigation.  On  the  basis  of  the  information  collected,  this  company  represented 
almost  100%  of  Thailand's  total  exports  to  the  Community  during  the  ERIP.  The 
company  also  represented  around  80%  of  total  Thai  production.  Exports  to  the 
Community were at a very low level during the review investigation period. Exports 
by the co-operating company to the Community are subject to a price undertaking. 

Normal value  

(85)  The full cost of production for each exported product type was found to be higher than 
the domestic price during the ERIP. As a consequence, it was not possible to establish 
normal value on the basis of prices paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade by 
independent customers on the domestic market, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the 
basic  Regulation  for  any  of  the  types  of  SWR  exported  by  the  Thai  co-operating 
exporting producer.  

(86)  The  domestic  prices  were  constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  exporting  producer's  own 
cost  of  manufacturing  and  selling,  general  and  administrative  expenses  and  a 
reasonable  margin  of  5%  for  profit  on  the  basis  of  article  2(6)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation and in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.  

Export price 

(87)  The  co-operating  exporting  producer  exported  the  product  concerned  via  a  related 
company in the Community. As a consequence, and in accordance with Article 2(9) of 
the basic Regulation, export prices were constructed on the basis of the prices at which 
the  imported  product  was  first  resold  to  independent  customers  in  the  Community. 
Allowance was made for all costs incurred between importation and resale, including 
selling, general and administrative costs and the profit realised in the Community by 
the importing company during the review investigation period. 

Comparison 

(88)  The  normal  value  was  compared  with  the  average  export  price  for  each  type  of  the 
product concerned, on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In accordance 
with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  and  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  a  fair 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
comparison,  differences  in  factors  which  were  claimed  and  demonstrated  to  affect 
price  and  price  comparability  were  taken  into  account.  Adjustments  were  made  for 
inland  and  ocean  freight,  insurance  costs,  handling  and  packaging  costs,  credit  costs 
and import duties, which were all deducted from the resale price in order to arrive at 
an ex-works basis. 

Dumping margin 

(89) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  dumping  margin  was 
established  per  product  type  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  weighted  average 
normal value with the weighted average export prices at the same level of trade. This 
comparison  showed  the  existence  of  relatively  low  dumping  during  the  ERIP, 
compared  to  the  original  Regulation.  The  weighted  average  dumping  margin 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF value at the Community frontier was 7,6 %. 

2.3.  Turkey 

Preliminary remarks 

(90)  There  are  two  exporting  producers  in  Turkey;  both  Celik  Halat  ("Halat")  and  Has 
Celik ("Has") cooperated in the expiry review investigation and Has cooperated in the 
partial interim review concerning its level of dumping. The two producers account for 
100% of EU exports from Turkey.  

2.3.1. Interim review on measures in force against one exporting producer in 

Turkey 

(91) 

It is recalled that the partial interim review mentioned in recital (10) above concerns 
one Turkish exporter allegedly dumping its SWR in the Community. 

Normal value  

(92)  The  investigation  showed  that  most  of  the  domestic  prices  to  establish  normal  value 
for the product types exported by the Turkish exporter concerned were profitable. The 
price used was therefore the price paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade by 
independent customers on the domestic market in accordance with Article 2 (1) of the 
basic Regulation. 

(93)  For  certain  product  types,  the  normal  value  was  constructed  on  the  basis  of  the 
producer's own cost of production including SG&A and a reasonable margin of 5% for 
profit, in accordance with article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. 

Export price  

(94)  As  regards  the  exports  to  the  Community,  the  Turkish  producer  concerned  sold  the 
product concerned directly in the Community without the intervention of any related 
party. The export price considered was therefore the price actually paid or payable for 
the  product  when  sold  for  export  from  the  exporting  country  to  the  Community  in 
accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. 

Comparison 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
(95)  The  normal  value  was  compared  with  the  average  export  price  for  each  type  of  the 
product concerned, on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade in accordance 
with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  For  the  purpose  of  ensuring  a  fair 
comparison,  differences  in  factors  which  were  found  to  affect  prices  and  price 
comparability were taken into account in the calculations. Adjustments were made for 
inland  and  ocean  freight,  insurance  costs,  handling  and  packaging  costs,  credit  costs 
and import duties, which were all deducted from the resale price in order to arrive at 
an ex-works basis. 

Dumping Margin 

(96) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  dumping  margin  was 
established  per  product  type  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  weighted  average 
normal  value  with  the  weighted  average  export  prices  at  the  same  level  of  trade. 
Overall, this comparison showed that the weighted average dumping margin expressed 
as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  value  at  the  Community  frontier  was  0.12%,  i.e.  at  de 
minimis level. 

2.3.2. Expiry review on measures in force against Turkey 

Normal value  

(97)  After the tests described in the general methodology at recital (46) above were carried 
out,  it  was  found  that  normal  value  should  be  constructed  for  the  majority  of  SWR 
types  exported  to  the  EC  by  one  Turkish  exporting  producer.  The  normal  value  was 
thus  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  producer's  own  cost  of  production  including  a 
reasonable  margin  of  5%  for  profits,  in  accordance  with  article  2(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(98)  For the other producer, as explained in recitals (92) and (93) above, the domestic sales 
price could be used to establish normal value for a majority of product types. Thus, the 
normal value was based on the price paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade by 
independent customers on the domestic market in accordance with Article 2 (1) of the 
basic Regulation. 

Export price 

(99)  As  regards  to  the  exports  to  the  Community,  the  Turkish  producers  sold  the  product 
concerned  directly  in  the  Community  without  intervention  of  any  related  party.  The 
export  price  considered  was  the  price  actually  paid  or  payable  for  the  product  when 
sold  for  export  from  the  exporting  country  to  the  Community  in  accordance  with 
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. 

Comparison 

(100)  The  normal  value  was  compared  with  the  average  export  price  for  each  type  of  the 
product concerned, on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade. In accordance 
with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  and  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  a  fair 
comparison,  differences  in  factors  which  were  claimed  and  demonstrated  to  affect 
price  and  price  comparability  were  taken  into  account.  Adjustments  were  made  for 
inland  and  ocean  freight,  insurance  costs,  handling  and  packaging  costs,  credit  costs 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
and import duties, which were all deducted from the resale price in order to arrive at 
an ex-works basis. 

Dumping  

(101)  The comparison of the average export price with the normal value for each type of the 
product concerned showed the existence of dumping only for one exporter in Turkey, 
and a de minimis margin for the other producer (see recital (96)). The dumping margin 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF value at the Community frontier was 33.6% for 
the said exporter. 

(102)  It should be noted that for that exporter the dumping margin established in the initial 
investigation was high (more than 50%), leading to a duty based on the injury margin 
in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation. The investigation carried out 
under  the  present  review  indicates  that  dumping  still  persists,  even  at  lower  export 
volumes, although at a lower level.  

D. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES 

(103)  In  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  also  examined 
whether the changed circumstances which were found to exist in the relevant reviews 
could reasonably be of a lasting nature. 

Russia 

BMK  

(104)  This company is currently subject to a residual duty set at 50,7 % established during 
the original investigation on the basis of data pertaining to another Russian exporter, 
as  BMK  did  not  co-operate  in  that  investigation.  However,  the  current  dumping 
margin  set  at  36,2  %  was  calculated  based  on  information  relating  to  BMK  for  the 
whole RIP. 

(105)  In addition, there were no indications that the level of the normal value or the export 
price established for BMK in the current investigation is not reliable. The export price 
of  BMK  to  the  Community  during  the  RIP  was  found  to  be  similar  to  that  of  its 
exports to other countries, where considerably higher quantities were sold during the 
RIP. 

(106)  Although the dumping margin found in the RIP is based on a relatively low volume of 
exports  of  SWR  to  the  Community,  there  are  reasons  to  consider  that  the  dumping 
margin found is based on changed circumstances of a lasting nature. 

SSM 

(107)  It  is  important  to  recall  that  SSM's  export  prices  to  the  Community  are  subject  to  a 
price  undertaking  which  became  applicable  to  exports  to  the  new  10  Member  States 
(EU10)  which  joined  the  EU  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  two  months  of  the  Russia-
interim  review  period,  namely  in  May  2004.  Although  the  export  prices  charged  to 
customers  located  in  the  15  Member  States  comprising  the  EU  before  the  1st  May 
2004 were at the level required by the undertaking, the sales to EU10 customers were 
found to be made at a lower price level. Furthermore, it was also found that exports to 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
other  third  countries  in  the  Russia-interim  review  period  were  made  at  significantly 
lower  prices  and  in  significantly  bigger  quantities  than  those  exported  to  the 
Community. 

(108)  SSM's  low  quantity  of  exports  of  SWR to the Community during  the  Russia-interim 
review  period  cannot  be  attributed  to  capacity  constraints  as  it  was  found  that  the 
company had significant spare production capacity available. It seems therefore clear 
that  the  low  quantity  of  exports  is  the  result  of  the  prices  imposed  by  the  price 
undertakings.  This  suggests  that  if  the  price  undertaking  ceased  to  exist,  it  is  very 
likely that SSM would sell larger quantities at lower (and thus dumped) prices on the 
Community market. 

(109)  As indicated above, all exports – both to the Community and to third countries – were 

taken into account in this analysis.  

(110)  The investigation showed that SSM has the spare capacity to significantly increase its 
exports both to the Community and to third countries. If, as is likely, SSM would try 
to recover the market share it held on the Community market prior to the imposition of 
measures,  it  could  do  so  by  selling  at  dumped  prices  on  the  Community  market.  In 
addition to this, prices to other countries were on average lower than prices to the EU 
market and the investigation concluded that the product concerned was sold at dumped 
prices to non EU-countries. 

(111)  SSM's normal value in the RIP was based on a large volume (the vast majority of its 
production)  sold  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  on  a  competitive  domestic  market. 
This indicates that the level of normal value found in the current investigation is of a 
lasting nature. 

(112)  Consequently,  it  is  considered  that,  in  the  absence  of  anti-dumping  measures  SSM 
export volumes to the Community would increase sharply and that export prices would 
fall  significantly.  Therefore,  it  is  concluded  that  the  alleged  changed  circumstances 
with regard to SSM export prices cannot reasonably be considered to be of a lasting 
nature.  

Thailand 

(113)  The interim review investigation showed that the exports to the Community made by 
the cooperating Thai exporter were not made at dumped prices. It was also found that 
the  export  prices  charged  by  the  Thai  exporter  to  the  Community  were  similar  to 
prices charged to parties located in other third countries, where larger quantities were 
sold.  

(114)  In addition, it was found that the Thai exporter developed its distribution network and 
delivered  SWR  to  a  wider  range  of  customers  in  the  rest  of  the  world.  Sales 
subsidiaries were established in Australia, Singapore and the United States. Usha's low 
quantity  of  exports  of  SWR  to  the  Community  cannot  therefore  be  attributed  to 
capacity constraints as the company has virtually no spare capacity. 

(115)  It  is  considered  that,  in  the  absence  of  anti-dumping  measures  (i.e.  currently  a  price 
undertaking),  Usha's  export  volumes  to  the  Community  would  not  increase 
significantly and its export prices would hardly be affected. Based on the above facts 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
and  considerations  it  can  be  concluded  that,  in  the  absence  of  significant  spare 
capacity  and  taking  into  account  that  the  company  mainly  focuses  its  exports  on 
several other export markets than the Community where export prices are considerably 
higher than on the Community market, the changed circumstances found with regard 
to Usha can be considered to be of a lasting nature. 

Turkey (Has Celik) 

(116)  Imports to the Community of SWR originating in Turkey have increased significantly 
since the year 2005. At that time, an interim review concluded that, in the absence of 
dumping,  it  was  appropriate  to  repeal  the  measures  insofar  as  they  concern  the 
applicant Turkish exporter. 

(117)  The current interim review for the same producer has confirmed that its exports to the 
Community were made at prices which were not found to be dumped. In addition, the 
production capacity of that company was found to be limited compared to Community 
consumption. As a consequence, it can be concluded that the change of circumstances 
as established in the interim review is of a lasting nature. 

Developments of imports should measures be repealed 

Preliminary remarks 

(118)  The cooperating producers in this investigation represent almost the totality of imports 
into  the  EU  from  the  countries  concerned.  The  examination  of  whether  it  would  be 
likely that dumping would continue should measures be repealed was therefore based, 
to  a  large  extent,  on  the  information  provided  by  these  cooperating  exporting 
producers. In particular, the pricing behaviour of the cooperating exporting producers 
to  other  export  markets  and  their  production,  production  capacity  and  stocks  were 
examined. 

(119)  In order to determine whether there was a likelihood of continuation of dumping, the 
Commission looked at the current situation of the countries concerned and the parties 
concerned by the investigation. Where relevant, it also looked at the possible existence 
of dumping on exports to the Community. An analysis was also made as to the pricing 
behaviour,  production  and  production  capacity  of  other  exporting  producers  in  the 
countries  concerned  by  the  investigations.  This  analysis  was  based  on  market 
intelligence  data  supplied  by  the  Community  industry  and  exporting  producers, 
Eurostat  imports  statistics  and  when  available,  export  statistics  from  the  countries 
concerned.  

Russia 

Production, production capacity and investments 

(120)  SSM managed to increase production in the expiry review investigation period by 7% 

compared to 2005.  

(121)  While  the  production  capacity  remained  stable  during  the  period  considered,  the 
average capacity utilisation in Russia was found to be around 60 to 65% for the review 
investigation  period.  It  therefore  can  be  concluded  that  the  exporting  producers  in 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
Russia  have  the  capacity  to  increase  their  exports  to  the  Community  market  should 
measures be repealed.  

(122)  Moreover,  the  overall  capacity  of  Russia  concerning  the  product  concerned  is 
estimated to be approximately at the level of total EU consumption during the ERIP, 
namely  220  000  tonnes.  Since  the  Russian  market  is  not  able  to  handle  this  level  of 
supply,  Russian  producers  may  choose  to  redirect  this  spare  capacity  to  the 
Community at dumped prices if measures are repealed.  

Relationship between export prices third countries and the price level in 

the Community 

(123)  In  recitals  (61)  and  (62),  it  was  explained  that  because  of  the  existence  of  a  price 
undertaking the exports made to the Community were not made at dumped levels. It 
was also demonstrated that the MIP's established with the price undertaking influenced 
the  pricing  of  the  Russian  company  concerned  in  the  Community  market.  It  was 
therefore concluded that the export price to the Community was not reliable within the 
meaning of Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.  

(124)  Prices to third countries were therefore considered to be more reliable as they were not 

subject to any constraints during the ERIP. 

(125)  Also  during  the  ERIP,  Russian  export  prices  to  third  countries  were  generally  lower 
than the price level in the Community. Therefore, if measures were repealed, Russian 
exporters are likely to export SWR in large quantities to the Community and at lower 
prices  than  under  the  current  price  undertaking.  As  a  consequence,  it  appears  likely 
that dumping would recur should the anti-dumping measures in force be repealed. This 
is  particularly  relevant  in  view  of  the  current  situation  concerning  the  price 
undertaking.  

Conclusion on Russia 

(126)  The behaviour of the Russian exporters and the influence of the price undertaking on 
the level of the export price to the Community, the prevailing lower level of prices in 
third countries and the large spare production capacities available are clear indications 
that  Russian  producers  would  be  likely  to  revert  to  the  Community  market  in 
significant quantities at dumped prices in case measures are repealed.  

Thailand 

Production, production capacity and investments 

(127)  The  Thai  co-operating  producer  is  the  dominant  producer  in  Thailand  representing  a 
major  share,  namely  around  80%,  of  installed  production  capacity  and  actual 
production of SWR in Thailand. The investigation showed that this producer produced 
at  full  capacity  and  that  the  other  two  known  Thai  producers  are  almost  completely 
absent  from  the  Community  market  and  that  they  did  not  have  large  production 
capacities available.  

(128)  The investigation showed that even if the co-operating exporting producer was selling 
at dumped prices at the Community market, its sales volumes were extremely low. It 
was  observed  on  the  basis  of  the  company's  worldwide  exports  that  the  company 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
focuses on several other export markets than the Community, most notably the United 
States,  Singapore,  Indonesia,  Australia,  Japan  and  Malaysia.  Sales  subsidiaries  were 
even established in these countries.  

Relationship between export prices and the price undertaking 

(129)  The  co-operating  exporting  producer  respected  the  price  undertaking  and,  given  the 
currently  high  market  prices,  it  sold  at  prices  above  the  agreed  minimum  prices  on 
many occasions. There are no other Thai companies exporting the product concerned 
to the Community market 

Relationship between export prices to third countries and the price level 

in the Community 

(130)  During  the  ERIP,  sales  volume  of  Usha  to  the  rest  of  the  world  was  significantly 
higher  than  sales  to  the  Community,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  export  price 
level in the Community was on average 9,5% higher than in the rest of the world.  

(131)  Based  on  the  above  facts  and  considerations,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  co-operating 
exporting producer in Thailand will export large quantities to the Community market, 
even if measures were repealed. The other two Thai producers do not seem to have an 
international  distribution  network  in  place  that  would  allow  them  to  enter  the 
Community market aggressively and gain market share. 

Turkey  

Production, production capacity and investments  

(132)  According  to  the  information  gathered  during  the  investigation,  the  production 
capacity  remained  unchanged  during  the  period  under  investigation  and  capacity 
utilisation has increased. As a consequence, it was found that both Turkish companies 
reach about 90% of their production capacity. There are no other companies producing 
the PC in Turkey.  

(133)  Moreover, it was observed that the share of dumped imports from Turkey (from Celik 
Halat) on the EU market is less than 0,5% of which 10% were not even in competition 
with  Community  production,  because  it  concerned  product  types  which  were  not 
produced  by  the  Community  industry.  Since  Has  was  found  not  to  be  dumping,  the 
market share of dumped imports from Turkey thus very low. Therefore, only a small 
share  of  exports  from  Turkey  is  dumped  and  in  direct  competition  with  the 
Community industry. 

Conclusion on the likelihood of continuation of dumping 

(134)  Considering  the  above  arguments,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  co-operating  exporting 
producers  would  export  large  quantities  to  the  Community  market,  even  if  measures 
were  repealed.  On  this  basis,  there  is  no  likelihood  of  recurrence  or  continuation  of 
dumping.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
E. 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY 

1. Definition of Community production and Community industry 

Community production 

(135)  SWR  are  manufactured  by  29  Community  producers  in  the  Community  and 

production was found to amount to around 202 000 tonnes during the ERIP.  

(136)  As  in  the  original  investigation,  some  of  the  Community  producers  were  found  to 
import  the  product  concerned.  However,  the  quantities  imported  were  negligible  in 
comparison with their production (less than 1 % of their production volume) and there 
were  no  imported  products  originating  in  the  countries  concerned.  It  was  therefore 
concluded that there were  no  grounds for  excluding any of these producers from the 
definition of Community production. 

(137)  SWR  manufactured  by  these  29  Community  producers  thus  constitute  the  total 

Community production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.  

Community industry 

(138)  The application for the interim and expiry reviews was supported by 22 Community 
producers  and  they  all  agreed  to  cooperate  with  the  investigation.  It  was  examined 
whether  these  co-operating  producers  represented  a  major  proportion  of  the  total 
Community production of the product concerned and it was found that they accounted 
for 87% of the total Community production of the product concerned during the ERIP 
and the various interim review investigation periods.  

(139)  It  was  therefore  considered  that  the  22  co-operating  and  supporting  Community 
producers represented the Community Industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and 
5(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  They  are  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  'Community 
Industry'. 

2. 

Situation on the community market 

2.1 Consumption on the Community market 

(140)  Community consumption was established on the basis of  

– 

– 

– 

the  sales  volumes  of  the  Community  producers  constituting  the  Community 
industry, 

estimates  of  sales  of  the  other  producers  on  the  Community  market  based  on 
data provided in the application, and  

Eurostat-data of imports of the product concerned from the countries concerned 
as well as from third countries. 

(141)  Between  2003  and  the  ERIP,  Community  consumption  grew  by  more  than  46.000 
tonnes,  or  by  26  %,  to  reach  a  total  volume  of  consumption  of  more  than  222.000 
tonnes during the RIP. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
Table 1 

2003 

2004 

2005 

ERIP 

Community  consumption 
(tonnes) 

Index 

176.438 

195.363 

214.529 

222.456 

100 

111 

122 

126 

2.2 Development of imports and price undercutting from Russia 

2.2.1 Volumes, market share and prices of imports from Russia 

(142)  The volumes and market shares of imports of the product concerned from the Russian 

Federation developed as set out in the table below.  

Table 2 

Volume 
(tonnes) 

Index 

Market share 

Index 

2003 

of 

imports 

2.198 

2004 

1.844 

84 

0,9 

75 

2005 

2.908 

ERIP 

3.323 

132 

151 

%

1,4 

% 

1,5 

%

117 

125 

100 

1,2 % 

100 

(143)  During the period considered, imports from the Russian Federation increased by 51 %, 
from 2.198 tonnes in 2003 to 3.323 tonnes during the ERIP. The share of Community 
consumption accounted for by imports in the meanwhile increased from 1,2 % to 1,5 
%, or by 25 %.  

(144)  The  approach  followed  to  calculate  the  price  undercutting  is  this  case  is  identical  to 
that  described  in  Recitals  (136)  to  (140)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  The  price  at 
Community  border  charged  by  the  exporters  concerned  was  compared  on  a  type-by-
type  basis  with  the  Community  Industry's  ex-works  price.  The  result  of  the 
comparison  was  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  Community  Industry's  ex-works 
price. 

(145)  The  level  of  the  price  charged  by  SSM  to  Community-based  customers  has,  in  all 
likelihood,  been  affected  by  the  undertaking  accepted  in  the  context  of  the  original 
Regulation. However, a significant level of undercutting of 49 % has been found.  

(146)  In  view  of  the  above  findings,  it  seems  that  the  relatively  low  market  share  of  the 
Russian exports is certainly due to the anti-dumping measures in force against Russia. 
Given the level of Russian prices and the magnitude of the dumping currently found 
for Russia, it is very likely that the large spare capacities available in the country could 
easily be used to increase exports to the Community market. 

2.3  Volumes,  market  shares  and  prices  of  imports  from  other  countries 

concerned by this review 

(147)  It is recalled that in recitals (131) and (134), it was concluded that there was no risk for 
recurrence for dumping for imports of SWR originating in Thailand and Turkey. The 
trends  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned  from  other  countries  concerned  by  this 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
review were also examined. Import volumes and market shares of the other countries 
concerned by this review have developed as follows: 

Table 3 

Thailand 

Volume 
(tonnes) 

2003 

2004 

2005 

ERIP 

of 

imports 

368 

160 

86 

118 

which 

Of 
imports 

dumped 

0 

Total Market share 

0,21 % 

0,08 % 

0,04 % 

0,05 % 

Turkey 

Volume 
(tonnes) 

of 

imports 

2.248 

2.223 

4.246 

4.805 

which 

Of 
imports  

dumped 

1 089 

Total Market share 

1,27 % 

1,11 % 

1,98 % 

2,16 % 

(148)  The table shows that imports from Thailand have been insignificant in volumes during 

the period considered, with a market share of 0,1 % during the ERIP. 

(149)  Total imports from Turkey increased from 2.248 tonnes to 4.805 tonnes from 2003 to 
the end of the ERIP, or by 113 %. In terms of market share, they almost doubled, from 
1,3  %  to  2,2  %.  Still,  in  relation  to  the  overall  size  of  the  Community  market,  the 
volumes of imports from Turkey are not very important  

(150)  It should be noted however that the main exporting producer in Turkey has zero duties 
in  force  against  its  exports.  This  has  probably  enabled  this  exporting  producer  to 
increase its sales to the EU at relatively high prices.  

(151)  The  approach  followed  to  calculate  the  price  undercutting  is  this  case  is  identical  to 
that described in Recitals (136) to (140) of the provisional Regulation as above. The 
price at the Community border charged by the exporters concerned was compared on a 
type-by-type  basis  with  the  Community  Industry's  ex-works  price.  The  result  of  the 
comparison  was  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  Community  Industry's  ex-works 
price. 

(152)  Notwithstanding  the  above  considerations,  a  price  undercutting  of  24  %  has  been 
found for dumped imports from Turkey, whereas the level of undercutting of imports 
originating in Thailand was found to be around 1 %. 

2.4. Volumes and market shares of imports from other countries concerned by 

anti-dumping measures but not concerned by this review 

(153)  It  is  recalled  that  anti-dumping  measures  are  imposed  on  steel  ropes  and  cables 
originating in the People's Republic of China, India, South Africa and Ukraine. These 
anti-dumping measures were in force during the whole period considered : 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 

2003 

2004 

2005 

ERIP 

People's  Republic  of 
China 

Imports (tonnes) 

1.545 

3.374 

6.581 

7.560 

Index 

100 

Average price (€/ tonne) 

1.088 

Market share 

0,9 % 

218 

1.120 

1,7 % 

426 

1.063 

3,1 % 

489 

947 

3,4 % 

India 

Imports (tonnes) 

4.218 

4.832 

6.551 

6.108 

Index 

100 

Average price (€/ tonne) 

902 

Market share 

2,3 % 

South Africa 

Imports (tonnes) 

Index 

184 

100 

Average price (€/ tonne) 

1.303 

Market share 

0,1 % 

Ukraine 

115 

1.036 

2,5 % 

795 

433 

1.471 

0,4 % 

155 

1.130 

3,1 % 

577 

314 

1.584 

0,3 % 

Imports (tonnes) 

1.222 

1.438 

1.149 

Index 

100 

Average price (€/ tonne) 

866 

118 

712 

94 

752 

145 

1.123 

2,7 % 

941 

512 

1.573 

0,4 % 

776 

63 

662 

Market share 

Total tonnes 

Total market share 

0,7 % 

6.785 

3,7 % 

0,7 % 

0,5 % 

0,3 % 

10.978 

16.177 

16.012 

5,6 % 

7,5 % 

7,2 % 

(154)  It  is  noteworthy  that  imports  from  the  countries  under  anti-dumping  measures 
increased significantly during the period considered, both in terms of volume, with an 
increase by 135 %, and in terms of market share with an increase from 3,7 % to 7,2 % 
during the same period. 

2.5. Volumes and market shares of imports from other countries not concerned 

by any anti-dumping measures. 

(155)  Imports from other third countries have developed as shown below. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5 

2003 

2004 

2005 

ERIP 

Total  volumes  (tonnes) 
of which: 

42.486 

54.983 

58.843 

61.271 

Index 

100 

129 

138 

144 

South Korea 

22.400 

32.121 

34.634 

36.408 

Index 

Malaysia 

Index 

North Korea 

Index 

100 

143 

155 

163 

4.836 

4.426 

5.123 

6.642 

100 

150 

100 

92 

1.626 

1084 

106 

2.212 

1475 

137 

3.324 

2216 

(156)  Imports  from  countries  not  subject  to  anti-dumping  measures  have  increased  by 
around  19.000  tonnes  or  by  44  %  during  the  period  considered.  The  major  part  of 
these imports originates in South Korea. 

3. 

Economic situation of the Community Industry 

3.1 Preliminary remarks 

(157)  In  view  of  the  large  numbers  of  Community  producers  constituting  the  Community 
industry it was decided to select a sample of Community producers in accordance with 
Article 17 of the basic Regulation, as explained in Recitals (20) and (21) above. The 
five  Community  producers  that  are  included  in  the  sample  were  selected  as  they 
represent  the  largest  representative  volume  of  production  that  can  reasonably  be 
investigated within the time available. They are mentioned in Recital (26) above. 

(158)  The  injury  data  provided  below  is  therefore  based  on  both  the  findings  made  at  the 
level of sampled Community producers and on the  basis  of  the  findings  made  at  the 
level of the 22 producers constituting the Community industry. For reasons of clarity, 
it has been expressly stated when the injury factors refer to information obtained from 
the sample. In the absence of such reference, it should be considered that the data was 
obtained from the 22 Community producers constituting the Community industry.  

(159)  3.2 Production, installed production capacity and capacity utilisation rate 

Table 6 

2003 

2004 

2005 

ERIP 

Production (tonnes) 

149.957 

148.536 

161.611 

176.119 

Index 

100 

99 

108 

117 

Installed 
capacity (tonnes) 

Production 

229.066 

229.654 

245.343 

247.833 

Index 

100 

100 

107 

108 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Capacity utilisation rate 

65 

%

65 

%

66 

% 

71 

% 

Index 

100 

99 

101 

109 

(160)  During the period considered, production of the whole Community industry increased 
by around 26.000 tonnes, or by 17 %. This increase should be seen in the light of the 
Community  consumption  which  increased  by  46.000  tonnes  or  by  26  %  and  the 
increased exports of the Community industry during the same period.  

(161)  The  increase  in  production  also  triggered  an  8%  increase  in  production  capacity,  to 

reach almost 248.000 tonnes during the ERIP.  

(162)  The rate of capacity utilisation remained relatively stable during the first years of the 
period  considered.  However,  during  the  ERIP,  due  to  the  increase  in  production,  the 
capacity utilisation rate increased from around 65 % to more than 70 %. 

3.3 Stock - information collected from the sample 

Table 7 

2003 

2004 

2005 

ERIP 

Stock (tonnes) 

11.565 

10.236 

11.465 

12.652 

Index 

100 

89 

99 

Stock  as  %  of  overall 
sales 

20 % 

17 % 

18 % 

109 

18 % 

(163)  Level of stock has remained relatively stable during the period considered, especially 

in relation to sales. 

3.4 Sales volumes and market share of Community consumption and growth 

Table 8 

2003 

2004 

2005 

ERIP 

Sales Volumes (tonnes) 

107.032 

106.542 

112.687 

116.625 

Index 

100 

100 

105 

109 

Market 
of 
Community consumption 

share 

60,7 

%

54,5 

%

52,5 

% 

52,4 

%

Index 

100 

90 

87 

86 

Growth of Sales turnover 
(thousands of €) 

217.912 

230.267 

262.495 

297.009 

Index 

100 

106 

120 

136 

(164)  Sales  volumes  of  the  Community  industry  on  the  Community  market  remained 
relatively stable in absolute terms during the period considered. A 9% increase in sales 
volumes was noted during the ERIP but this performance should be seen in the light of 
the evolution of Community consumption which increased by 26%.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(165)  In view of the development of Community consumption and despite increasing sales 
volume,  the  market  share  of  the  Community  industry  has  decreased  considerably 
throughout  the  period  considered.  The  Community  industry  has  lost  more  than  8 
percentage points of the share of the Community consumption during that period.  

(166)  The overall sales turnover of the Community industry has grown by 36% during the 
period considered. This should primarily be seen in the light of increased sales prices 
per tonne, which mainly reflects higher costs and purchase prices of raw materials. 

3.5 Sales prices and factors affecting Community prices - information collected 

from the sample 

2003 

Sales 

price 

1.902 

Table 9 

Average 
(€/tonne) 

Index 

100 

511 

Average  cost  of  Raw 
materials 
rods) 
(€/tonne) 

(wire 

2004 

2.058 

108 

559 

2005 

2.170 

114 

662 

ERIP 

2.142 

113 

734 

Index 

100 

109 

129 

143 

(167)  The Community industry average sales price on the Community market increased by € 
240/tonne,  or  by  13  %  during  the  period  considered.  The  investigation  showed  that 
this was clearly a reflection of the increase of prices of raw materials, primarily steel 
wire rod. The cost of purchased wire rods increased by € 223/tonne during the period 
considered,  or  by  43  %  in  comparison  with  the  cost  at  the  beginning  of  the  period 
considered 

(168)  One of the producers included in the definition of the Community industry was found 
to  purchase  raw  materials,  including  wire  rods,  from  related  parties  ('vertically 
integrated steel groups'). It was therefore examined whether the prices from the related 
suppliers to the Community producers were in line with those charged by the related 
supplier  to  independent  customers.  It  was  found  that  the  prices  charged  to  the 
Community producers were in line with prices to independent customers and that this 
increase  also  reflected  the  general  increase  of  prices  of  steel  during  the  period 
considered.  It  was  therefore  concluded  that  the  average  costs  of  raw  materials 
purchased  by  Community  producers  which  were  vertically  integrated  should  also  be 
included in the calculations. 

3.6 Employment and Wages - information collected from the sample 

Table 10 

Employees 

Index 

2003 

1.023 

100 

2004 

999 

98 

2005 

1.064 

104 

ERIP 

1.087 

106 

Wages / employee (€) 

33.943 

36.674 

37.987 

38.348 

Index 

100 

108 

112 

113 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wages 
produced 

Index 

per 

tonne 

606 

100 

634 

105 

614 

101 

592 

98 

(169)  Given  the  increased  production  and  sales  volume  noted  above,  the  Community 
industry increased the number of employees by 6% during the period considered. 

(170)  Wages per employee have also increased during the period considered, in line with the 
general increase in salaries during this period. However, it was found that the average 
cost  of  wages  per  tonne  produced  could  be  decreased  slightly  during  the  period 
considered. 

3.7 Productivity - information collected from the sample 

Table 11 

2003 

2004 

2005 

ERIP 

Tonne 
produced/employee 

56 

58 

62 

65 

Index 

100 

103 

110 

116 

(171)  The  level  of  productivity  observed  for  the  Community  industry  has  increased 
considerably  during  the  period  considered.  This  shows  that  the  industry  is  able  to 
adapt itself to the situation in the Community market. 

3.8 Magnitude of the actual margin of dumping and recovery from the effects 

of past dumping 

(172)  As  concerns  the  impact  on  the  Community  industry  of  the  magnitude  of  the  actual 
margin of dumping, given the volume and the prices of the imports from the countries 
concerned, this impact cannot be considered to be negligible. 

3.9  Profitability,  return  on  investment  and  cash  flow  -  information  collected 

from the sample 

Table 12 

2003 

2004 

2005 

ERIP 

profit  on  Community 
sales  

- 0,1 % 

+ 0,4 % 

+ 4,6 % 

+ 5,3 % 

Return on total assets 

- 18,8 % 

+ 14,1 % 

+ 26 % 

+ 24,4 % 

Cash  Flow  (%  on  total 
sales) 

+ 0,1 % 

+ 1,2 % 

+ 4,3 % 

+ 6,2 % 

(173)  Given the positive development of profitability during the period considered the cash 
flow and return on assets also showed positive trends during that period. From a slight 
loss in 2003, the Community industry has been able to slowly but steadily increase its 
profits, both in relation to sales and in relation to its assets. This performance is likely 
due to the strong improvement in productivity. 

(174)  Nonetheless, it is recalled that this situation may rapidly change because of the high 
price  levels  of  steel  prevailing  on  the  market,  but  especially  if  the  anti-dumping 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
measures  were  allowed  to  lapse  and  large  volumes  of  dumped  imports  would  be 
allowed to enter the market .  

Table 13 

2003 

2004 

2005 

ERIP 

Investments 

46.570 

43.158 

51.362 

56.538 

Index 

100 

93 

110 

121 

3.10  Investments  and  ability  to  raise  capital  -  information  collected  from  the 

sample 

(175)  The level of investments observed at the level of the sampled companies has increased 
by  21  %  during  the  period  considered  and  should  be  seen  in  light  of  increased 
production capacity.  

(176)  None of the Community producers have reported any specific problems in relation to 

their ability to raise capital. 

3.11  Conclusion on the economic situation of the Community Industry 

(177)  The investigation showed that since the imposition of anti-dumping measures on SWR 
the  Community  industry  managed  to  improve  its  economic  situation.  Most  injury 
factors such as sales volume, production and production capacity, productivity could 
be  increased.  This  performance  was  reached  in  a  booming  market  as  consumption 
increased by 26 % during the period considered.  

(178)  The fact that the Community industry lost market share however indicates that it could 

not take full benefit of this positive situation on the Community market.  

(179)  The investigation also showed that the Community industry has been able to improve 
its  overall  financial  situation.  The  13%  increase  in  sales  prices  during  the  ERIP 
allowed the industry to become profitable despite significant increase in raw material 
prices.  As  a  consequence,  return  on  assets  and  cash  flow  also  improved  during  the 
period  considered.  It  is  therefore  concluded  that,  although  the  situation  of  the 
Community industry has improved as compared to the period preceding the imposition 
of measures, it is still fragile. 

4. 

Export activities of the Community Industry - information collected from 
the sample 

Table 14 

2003 

2004 

2005 

ERIP 

Export sales (tonnes) 

8.475 

11.870 

10.618 

13.374 

Index 

% of total sales 

100 

15 % 

Average price (€/ tonne) 

2.123 

Index 

100 

140 

21 % 

2.302 

108 

125 

19 % 

2.835 

134 

157 

22 % 

3.063 

144 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(180)  The  export  performance  by  the  sampled  Community  industry  has  improved 
considerably during the  period  considered.  The  export  sales  have  increased  by  57  % 
during  the period  considered.  Also  in proportion to its  overall sales, the export sales 
have increase from 15% to 22 %. 

(181)  The  average  price  per  tonne  for  export  sales  is  also  considerably  higher  than  the 
average price for sales on the Community market (see recital (167)). The higher prices 
for  exported  SWR  are  due  to  them  being  more  sophisticated  products,  triggering 
higher  costs  for  raw  materials  and  higher  manufacturing  costs.  Notwithstanding  the 
higher  cost  of  production,  the  Community  industry's  export  performance  contributed 
significantly to the overall profitability for the Community industry.  

5.  Conclusion on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury 

(182)  The  investigation  showed  that  Russian  available  spare  capacities  are  significant  and 
that there are no apparent reasons that would hamper the activation of such capacities 
if  measures  expire.  In  addition,  Russian  producers  are  likely  to  redirect  a  substantial 
amount of their current sales away from third markets and into the Community, given 
the higher prevailing prices there. Together, these quantities would be substantial—a 
process  facilitated  by  the  existence  of  well  established  distribution  channels  in  the 
Community for Russian exports. 

(183)  Furthermore, the significant levels of dumping and undercutting observed, the fact that 
undertakings appear to act as a price floor, as well as the low level of prices practiced 
in Russian exports to other third countries, indicate that the substantially higher export 
volumes to the Community mentioned supra would be made at dumped prices which 
would lie significantly below the prices and costs of the Community industry.  

(184)  The  combined  effect  of  such  volumes  and  prices  would  be  likely  to  lead  to  a 
significant deterioration of the Community industry's situation, whose situation is still 
fragile. Whether the Community industry's response thereto was a drop in sales (and 
hence in production), a reduction in prices, or both, the financial deterioration would 
be  substantial,  returning  to  the  difficulties  observed  prior  to  the  imposition  of  the 
original measures. 

(185)  On this basis, it is concluded that there is a clear likelihood of recurrence of injurious 
dumping should anti-dumping measures on imports of SWR originating in the Russian 
Federation be allowed to lapse. 

F. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(186)  In  accordance  with  Article  21  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined  whether  the 
maintenance  of  the  existing  anti-dumping  measures  would  be  against  the  interest  of 
the Community as a whole. The determination of the Community interest was based 
on  an  appreciation  of  all  the  various  interests  involved.  The  present  investigation 
analyses a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place and 
allows  for  assessment  of  any  undue  negative  impact  on  the  parties  concerned  due  to 
the current anti-dumping measures. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
(187)  On this basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a 
continuation  or  recurrence  of  injurious  dumping,  compelling  reasons  existed  which 
would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  not  in  the  Community  interest  to  maintain 
measures in this particular case. 

2. 

Interest of the Community industry 

(188)  As  outlined  above,  there  is  a  clear  likelihood  of  recurrence  of  injurious  dumping  if 

measures applicable to Russian exporters were to be repealed.  

(189)  It  is  recalled  that  no  less  than  22  producers  in  the  Community,  representing 
approximately 87 % of the overall production of SWR in the Community, co-operated 
with the Commission in the investigation and expressed their support for the ongoing 
measures.  

(190)  The  continuation  of  anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  from  countries  concerned 
would  enhance  the  possibility  for  the  Community  industry  to  maintain  and  even 
strengthen  its  current  situation.  There  is  a  clear  likelihood  of  recurrence  of  injurious 
dumping in substantial volumes which the Community industry is not likely to sustain. 
The Community industry would therefore continue to benefit from the maintenance of 
the  current  anti-dumping  measures,  in  particular  as  there  are  also  measures  against 
imports  of  steel  ropes  and  cables  originating  in  the  PRC,  India,  South  Africa  and 
Ukraine.  

3. 

Interest of importers 

(191)  In the provisional Regulation (Recital (202)), it was explained that the distribution of 
SWR in the Community was characterised by the existence of a significant number of 
importers/traders.  However,  although  the  application  for  the  present  expiry  review 
contained  a  list  of  32  importers/traders,  all  of  whom  were  contacted,  only  three 
importers  co-operated  in  the  investigation,  of  whom  one  importer  were  found  to 
import the product concerned. 

(192)  The core activity of this importer was indeed focused on SWR (between 55 % and 85 
%), and it was found that its financial performance had not been seriously affected by 
the measures in force. 

4. 

Interest of suppliers 

(193)  As explained  in more  detail  in Recitals (197) to (198) in the provisional Regulation, 
the principal raw material used in the production of SWR is industrial steel wire which 
is manufactured from steel wire rod. 

(194)  Some of the Community producers of SWR were found to be vertically integrated, i.e. 
they  had  related  suppliers  of  industrial  steel  wire.  Whereas  2  related  suppliers 
responded to questions concerning prices of raw materials (see recital (168)) above, no 
unrelated suppliers of raw materials made themselves known. 

(195)  Whether  being  a  related  or  unrelated  supplier  of  raw  materials  to  the  Community 
industry,  it  is  clear  that  those  Community  suppliers  would  suffer  significantly  if 
measures were allowed to lapse and, as a consequence, the Community industry's sales 
volumes would decrease. It could therefore clearly be concluded that the maintenance 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
of  anti-dumping  measures  would  be  in  the  interest  of  Community  suppliers  of  raw 
materials. 

5. 

Interest of users 

(196)  The  Commission  directly  contacted  21  users  of  SWR  in  the  Community  but  not  a 

single user made itself known or cooperated in the investigation. 

(197)  On that basis it was considered that the users had no compelling reasons against the 

maintenance of anti-dumping measures. 

6.  Conclusion on Community Interest 

(198)  Taking  into  account  all  of  the  above  factors,  it  is  concluded  that  there  are  no 

compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures. 

G. 

UNDERTAKINGS 

(199)  As  stated  in  recital  (2)  above  the  Commission  accepted  SSM's  undertaking  offer  by 
Decision No 2001/602/EC on 26 July 2001. The interim review revealed that since the 
acceptance  of  the  undertaking  in  2001  the  product  range  of  SSM  had  changed 
significantly.  

(200)  The  undertaking  classified  the  SWR  produced  by  them  in  a  considerable  number  of 
product  types  with  significant  price  variations  within  each  type.  The  review 
investigation  confirmed  that  the  company  had  serious  problems  in  classifying  the 
different product types properly and in accordance with the terms of the undertaking. 
This  was  partly  due  to  accounting  system  limitations  which  did  not  allow  them  to 
properly  distinguish  between  different  SWR  product  types.  Similar  problems  were 
already identified during the monitoring of the undertaking and led to a warning letter. 

(201)  It  has  therefore  been  concluded  that  the  undertaking  in  its  current  form  is  no  longer 

workable and has to be withdrawn. 

(202)  Both Russian exporters offered an undertaking within the deadline following definitive 
disclosure, but neither offered an acceptable undertaking within the time limit set out 
in  Article  8(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  i.e.  an  undertaking  that  would  reflect  the 
findings  of  the  reviews  and  that  would  group  different  products  in  categories  which 
would be workable and have limited price variances. 

(203)  Given that the issues relating to the withdrawal of the undertaking have been disclosed 
at  a  late  stage  of  the  proceeding,  both  Russian  exporters  should  exceptionally  be 
allowed to complete their undertaking offer beyond  the normal  deadlines, but within 
10  calendar  days  from  entry  into  force  of  this  Regulation.  If  necessary,  the 
Commission is allowed to propose an amendment to this Regulation accordingly. 

H. 

FINAL PROVISIONS 

(204)  All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  that  the  existing  measures  on  imports  from 
Russia  be  maintained  and  that  the  level  of  the  measures  would  be  amended  where 
warranted.  They  were  also  granted  a  period  to  submit  comments  and  claims 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
subsequent  to  disclosure.  No  comments  were  received  which  were  of  a  nature  to 
change the above conclusions. 

(205)  It  follows  from  the  above  that,  as  provided  for  by  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  SWR  originating  in 
the countries concerned should be maintained for Russia and repealed for Turkey and 
Thailand. 

I. DUTIES 

(206)  In view of the conclusions reached with regard to continuation of dumping, likelihood 
of recurrence of injury and Community interest, the anti-dumping measures on imports 
of SWR originating in Russia should be confirmed in order to prevent a recurrence of 
injury being caused to the Community industry by the dumped imports.  

(207)  With  regards  to  the  findings  of  the  interim  reviews  concerning  the  two  Russian 
companies, it is considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping duty applicable to 
BMK to 36,2% and to SSM to 9,7%. 

(208)  However, in light of the findings as regards Turkey, and the absence of any indications 
of risk for recurrence of dumping in the future, anti-dumping measures against imports 
of SWR originating in this country should be repealed. 

(209)  Furthermore, in light of the findings as regards Thailand, i.e. the absence of dumping 
during the Thailand-interim-review period and the absence of any indications of risk 
for  recurrence  of  dumping  in  the  future,  anti-dumping  measures  against  imports  of 
SWR originating in this country should equally be repealed, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of iron or steel ropes and 
cables  including  locked  coil  ropes,  excluding  ropes  and  cables  of  stainless  steel,  with  a 
maximum  cross-sectional  dimension  exceeding  3  mm,  with  fittings  attached  or  not,  falling 
within CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 
98 (TARIC codes 7312 10 81 11, 7312 10 81 12, 7312 10 81 19, 7312 10 81 90, 7312 10 83 
11, 7312 10 83 12, 7312 10 83 19, 7312 10 83 90, 7312 10 85 11, 7312 10 85 12, 7312 10 85 
19, 7312 10 85 90, 7312 10 89 11, 7312 10 89 12, 7312 10 89 19, 7312 10 89 90, 7312 10 98 
11, 7312 10 98 12, 7312 10 98 19 and 7312 10 98 90) , originating in the Russian Federation. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
2. 
The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community 
frontier  price,  before  duty,  of  the  products  described  in  paragraph  1  and  produced  by  the 
companies below shall be as follows:  

Company 

Rate of duty (%) 

TARIC additional code 

& 

Joint  Stock  Company  Beloretsk 
Iron 
Works
1  Blukhera  Street,  Beloretsk, 
Republic 
Bashkortostan, 
of 
453500, Russia 

Steel 

36,2 

A694 

Joint  Stock  Company  Severstal-
Metiz 

9,7 

All other companies  

50,7 

A217 

A999 

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

3. 
apply. 

Article 2 

The anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of iron or steel ropes and cables including 
locked  coil  ropes,  excluding  ropes  and  cables  of  stainless  steel,  with  a  maximum  cross-
sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm, with fittings attached or not, falling within CN codes ex 
7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98 originating in 
Thailand  and  Turkey  are  hereby  terminated  and  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  on  those 
countries by Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 are repealed. 

Article 3 

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

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

39 

   EN