Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 of 30 October 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Russian Federation, and repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Thailand and Turkey
Date: 2007-10-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, Thailand, Türkiye, anti-dumping duty, import, iron, non-flat product, originating product, steel

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/1

(Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory)

I

REGULATIONS

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1279/2007

of 30 October 2007

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the
Russian Federation, 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
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1)
(the
basic Regulation), and in particular 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 Regu-
lation (EC) No 230/2001 (2) (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
the countries
last countries will be referred to as
imposed,
concerned). On 2 August 2001, the Council

by Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 (3) (the original Regu-
lation), 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.

On 26 July 2001, the Commission accepted, by Decision
2001/602/EC (4), undertakings offered by one Russian
and one Thai exporter in connection with the anti-
dumping measures referred to in recital 1.

On 8 November 2005, the Council imposed, by Regu-
lation (EC) No 1858/2005 (5) definitive anti-dumping
measures on imports of certain steel ropes and cables
India,
originating in the People's Republic of China,
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.

(2)

(3)

(4)

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

(EC) No 564/2005 (OJ L 97, 15.4.2005, p. 1).

(EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

(2) OJ L 34, 3.2.2001, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(4) OJ L 211, 4.8.2001, p. 47.
(5) OJ L 299, 16.11.2005, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation

(EC) No 1274/2003 (OJ L 180, 18.7.2003, p. 34).

(EC) No 121/2006 (OJ L 22, 26.1.2006, p. 1).

(3) OJ L 211, 4.8.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

L 285/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

As explained in a notice published in the Official Journal
of the European Union (1), 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
Severstal-Metiz. This name
change applied as of 1 January 2006.

Stock Company

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

determined,
that

Having
committee,
initiation of
initiated these reviews on 10 August 2004 (2).

consulting
evidence
two interim reviews,

after
sufficient

advisory
existed for
the
the Commission

the

(b) Partial

interim review of the anti-dumping measures in

force against one exporting producer in Turkey

impending
Following the publication of a notice of
expiry (3),
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.

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

(11) Having

determined,
that

after
sufficient

consulting
evidence

committee,
initiation of
initiated this review on 3 August 2006 (4).

an interim review,

the

advisory
existed for
the
the Commission

(1) OJ C 51, 1.3.2006, p. 2.
(2) OJ C 202, 10.8.2004, p. 12.
(3) OJ C 270, 29.10.2005, p. 38.
(4) OJ C 181, 3.8.2006, p. 15.

(12)

(13)

(14)

(c) Expiry review of

the anti-dumping measures

in force

against Russia, Thailand and Turkey

Following the publication of a notice of
impending
expiry, 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).

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 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,
that

after
sufficient
expiry

committee,
initiation of
initiated this review on 3 August 2006.

the

the

consulting
evidence
review,

advisory
existed for
the
the Commission

(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
lasting nature.
changed and these changes were of
Moreover,
the
existing level of anti-dumping measures was no longer
necessary to offset dumping.

exporting producer alleged that

the

(18) Having

determined,
that

committee,
initiation of
initiated this review on 22 March 2007 (5).

consulting
evidence
interim review,

after
sufficient

the

the

advisory
existed for
the
the Commission

(5) OJ C 66, 22.3.2007, p. 14.

(19)

(20)

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/3

3. Parties concerned by the investigations

the

the
the

advised
of

officially
representatives

exporting
The Commission
exporting
producers,
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
interested parties, who so
the notice of initiation. All
requested and showed that
there were particular
reasons why they should be heard, were granted a
hearing.

if so,
the Community importers were
to Article 17(2) of

to enable the Commission to decide whether
order
to select a
sampling would be necessary and,
requested,
sample,
pursuant
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.

the basic Regulation,

(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.

3.1. Sampling of Community producers

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
to enable the Commission to decide whether
order
to select a
sampling would be necessary and,
requested,
sample,
pursuant
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.

if so,
the Community producers were
to Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation,

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

considered that

— Bridon GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany,

— Casar Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH (Casar), Saarbrücken,

Germany,

— Wire

and Rope

Factory Drumet SA (Drumet),

Wloclawek, Poland,

— Manuel Rodrigues

de Oliveria

SA & Filhos

SA

(Oliveira), Gemunde, Portugal,

4. Questionnaires and verification

(24) Questionnaires were

therefore

sent

exporting producers in the countries concerned,
single importer
referred to in recital 23 above,
Community producers in the sample and users.

to all known
the
the

(25)

Replies to the questionnaires were received from:

— two exporting producers in Russia for the purposes
of the interim review and one for the purposes of the
expiry review,

— one exporting producer in Thailand and its related

importer in the United Kingdom,

— two exporting producers in Turkey,

— one importer related to the exporting producers in

the countries concerned,

— five Community producers included in the sample,

— one unrelated importer.

(26)

The Commission sought and verified all the information
it deemed necessary for its analysis and carried out veri-
fication visits at the premises of the following companies:

— Tréfileurope SA, Bourg-en-Bresse, France.

(a) Russia:

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
examine whether
sampling should be used in the expiry review in
conformity with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In

appropriate

considered

to

— Severstal-Metiz, Cherepovets,

— BMK, Beloretsk;

(b) Thailand:

— Usha Siam Ltd, Bangkok;

L 285/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

(c) Turkey:

— Celik Halat, Izmit-Kocaeli,

— Has Çelik ve Halat Sanayi Ticaret A.S.(Has Celik),

Hacilar Kayseri;

(30)

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

(d) Sampled Community producers:

— Bridon GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany,

— Casar Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH (Casar), Saar-

brücken, Germany,

— Wire and Rope Factory Drumet SA, Wloclawek,

Poland,

— Manuel Rodrigues de Oliveria SA & Filhos SA,

Gemunde, Portugal,

— Tréfileurope SA, Bourg-en-Bresse, France;

(e) Related importer in the Community:

— 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 investi-

gations

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 exam-
ination of trends relevant for the assessment of the like-
lihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered
the period from 1 January 2003 up to the end of the
ERIP (period considered).

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 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
to this
they could make representations
disclosure. Their comments were considered and taken
into account where appropriate.

subsequent

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 83,
ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98.

ex 7312 10 81,

(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
the latter, which allegedly were not
also argued that
produced
be
countries,
excluded from the proceedings because, according to
some importers,
the SWR types under that category
were different from the SWR in the other category and
there was no competition amongst these SWR.

exporting

in the

should

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

(34)

First, the interested party did not bring any elements
imported
which would demonstrate that
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.

the product

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.

(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 Regu-
lation, were erroneous.

(27)

(28)

(29)

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/5

(36)

The definition of the product concerned in the original
Regulation is therefore confirmed.

the findings of dumping for each of

tation of
countries concerned therefore only describes what
specific for each exporting country.

the
is

2. Like product

(37)

concerned,

it was
In recitals 14 to 19 of the original Regulation,
concluded that
the SWR
the product
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 inves-
tigation 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 demon-
imported from the countries
strate that
concerned is not alike the one manufactured and sold
in the Community, the claim had to be rejected.

the product

(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 investi-

gation 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,
the
in accordance with the basic Regulation,
possible implications of
the interim reviews on the
the original Regulation on a country-by-
findings of
country basis were examined.

G e n e r a l m e t h o d o l o g y

(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 presen-

(43)

(44)

(45)

N o r m a l v a l u e

For the determination of normal value it was first estab-
lished for each exporting producer whether its total
domestic sales of the product concerned were represen-
tative in comparison with its total export sales to the
Community.
the
basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered repre-
sentative when the total domestic sales volume of each
exporting producer was at least 5 % of its total export
sales volume to the Community.

In accordance with Article 2(2) of

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.

export

types of SWR sold for

For each type sold by the exporting producers on their
domestic markets and found to be directly comparable
with the
to the
it was established whether domestic sales
Community,
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
interim review
that
investigation period represented 5 % or more of
the
total
comparable SWR type
the
sales volume of
exported to the Community.

type during the ERIP or relevant

(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 inde-
pendent customers on the domestic market of each
exported type of
concerned on the
the product
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
the
average price of all domestic sales of the product
type in question irrespective of whether these sales
were profitable or not.

calculated as

L 285/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

(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
type concerned was not sold in the
the product
trade and therefore, normal
ordinary course of
value had to be constructed in accordance with
Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.

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 manufac-
turing 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.

E x p o r t p r i c e

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,
the basic
in accordance with Article 2(9) of
Regulation. The appropriate profit margin was estab-
lished on the basis of
information provided by
unrelated cooperating traders/importers operating on
the Community market.

(47)

(48)

(49)

C o m p a r i s o n

(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.

(52)

(53)

D u m p i n g m a r g i n

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.

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

producer with

(54)

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

gation periods — Country specific findings

2.1. Russia

P r e l i m i n a r y r e m a r k s

(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 coop-
erated 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 during
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).

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/7

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.

N o r m a l v a l u e

(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.

E x p o r t p r i c e

(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
in the
independent buyer
Community during Russia-interim review period.

(61)

(62)

In that context,

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.
the determination of export
prices was not limited only to an examination of the
exporters' past behaviour, but the likely development of
In
export prices
particular,
this
undertaking had influenced the level of
the export
prices, so as to make them unreliable for the estab-
lishment of future export behaviour.

in the future was also examined.
the question whether the existence of

by

the

exporter

further examined whether
to

the export prices
It was
Community-based
charged
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,
investigation attempted to show
whether the current export prices to the Community

the

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, sales to other countries were taken as a proxy
for those export prices.

C o m p a r i s o n

(64)

Regarding the comparison between normal value and
the approach as described in recital 50
export price,
was followed.

(65) As the related trader in Switzerland of one of 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.

D u m p i n g m a r g i n

(66) As provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regu-
lation, 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.

L 285/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

(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 %.

D e f i n i t i v e a n t i - d u m p i n g m e a s u r e s

(69)

In the light of the results of the dumping margins estab-
lished in the
is
considered appropriate
to amend the anti-dumping
duty applicable to BMK to 36,2 % and to SSM to 9,7 %.

interim review investigations,

it

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 cooperated in the expiry review investigation. On
the basis of
this company
the information collected,
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 tonnes during the ERIP, repre-
senting 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
cooperating company to the Community are subject to a
price undertaking agreement.

N o r m a l v a l u e

(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
type was used, as provided by SSM and
product
verified by the Commission.

E x p o r t p r i c e

(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
concern the product
the one
concerned and was therefore not
taken into consid-
eration in the calculations.

transaction did not

C o m p a r i s o n

(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.

(75)

(76)

D u m p i n g m a r g i n

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.

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
the cooperating exporting producer
was high, since,
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

N o r m a l v a l u e

technical

standards

the different

(72) As concerns cost of production, it was claimed by SSM
the cost structure for EU exports was different
that
because of
in the
Community and 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
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
for others the Community COP was slightly
higher,
lower. Therefore,
this alleged
difference could not affect the dumping calculations.

it was concluded that

in Russia. The

(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)
the basic Regulation. During the Thailand-interim
of
company sold the
review investigation period the
to end-users on the
product
domestic market. Normal value was based on profitable
sales only.

concerned

directly

(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.

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/9

E x p o r t p r i c e

(79)

The applicant and cooperating 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.

sented almost 100 % of Thailand's total exports to the
Community during the ERIP. The company also repre-
sented around 80 % of total Thai production. Exports to
the Community were at a very low level during the
review investigation period. Exports by the cooperating
company to the Community are subject to a price under-
taking.

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.

(85)

(80)

(81)

(82)

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
including selling, general and
importation and resale,
administrative costs and the profit
realised in the
Community by the related importer during the investi-
gation period.

C o m p a r i s o n

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
factors which
purpose of ensuring a fair comparison,
were claimed and demonstrated to affect price and
price
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.

comparability were

taken

into

D u m p i n g m a r g i n

(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 investi-
gation period.

2.2.2. Expiry review on measures in force against

exporting producers in Thailand

(84) Out of the three known producers of SWR in Thailand,
one company cooperated in the investigation. On the
basis of the information collected, this company repre-

N o r m a l v a l u e

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 cooperating exporting
producer.

(86)

The domestic prices were constructed on the basis of the
exporting producer's own cost of manufacturing and
and a
and administrative
selling, general
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.

expenses

E x p o r t p r i c e

(87)

(88)

cooperating

concerned via

exporting producer

exported the
The
product
related company in the
a
Community. As a consequence, and in accordance with
Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, export prices were
the prices at which the
constructed on the basis of
imported product was
resold to independent
first
customers in the Community. Allowance was made for
all
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.

costs

C o m p a r i s o n

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

L 285/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

D u m p i n g m a r g i n

C o m p a r i s o n

(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 %.

(95)

the basic Regulation. For

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
the
with Article 2(10) of
purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, differences in
factors which were found to affect prices and price
comparability were taken into account
in the calcu-
lations. 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.

2.3. Turkey

P r e l i m i n a r y r e m a r k s

(90)

There are two exporting producers in Turkey; both Celik
(Halat) and Has Celik (Has) cooperated in the
Halat
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.

(96)

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.

(92)

(93)

N o r m a l v a l u e

The investigation showed that most of
the domestic
prices to establish normal value for the product types
exported by the Turkish exporter concerned were pro-
fitable. 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.

types,

certain product

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

D u m p i n g M a r g i n

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
this comparison
at
the weighted average dumping margin
showed that
expressed as a percentage of
the
Community frontier was 0,12 %, i.e. at de minimis level.

the same level of

the CIF value at

trade. Overall,

2.3.2. Expiry review on measures in force against

Turkey

N o r m a l v a l u e

(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
in accordance
a reasonable margin of 5 % for profits,
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.

E x p o r t p r i c e

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

E x p o r t p r i c e

(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.

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/11

C o m p a r i s o n

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

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,
the
dumping margin found is based on changed circum-
stances of a lasting nature.

there are reasons

to consider

that

SSM

D u m p i n g

(107)

(101) The comparison of the average export price with the
normal value for each type of the product concerned
showed the
for one
exporter in Turkey, and a de minimis margin for the
other producer (see recital 96). The dumping margin
the
expressed as a percentage of
Community frontier was 33,6 % for the said exporter.

existence of dumping only

the CIF value at

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 (EU-10) which joined the EU at the beginning of
the last
two months of 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 1 May 2004 were at the level
required by the undertaking,
to EU-10
customers were found to be made at a lower price
level. Furthermore,
it was also found that exports to
other third countries in Russia-interim review period
were made at significantly lower prices and in signifi-
cantly bigger quantities
than those exported to the
Community.

sales

the

(108) SSM's low quantity of exports of SWR to the Community
during 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 under-
takings. This suggests that if the price undertaking ceased
to exist, it is very likely that SSM would sell larger quan-
tities
(and thus dumped) prices on the
Community market.

lower

at

(109) As

indicated above,

exports — both to the
Community and to third countries — were taken into
account in this analysis.

all

increase

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

the product concerned was

imposition

and the

prior

the

to

(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 Regu-
lation. 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 cooperate 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
its exports to other
found to be similar to that of

L 285/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

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

(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
found to be limited compared to Community
was
consumption. As a consequence,
it can be concluded
that the change of circumstances as established in the
interim review 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)

(115)

it was

the Thai

exporter
found that
In addition,
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.

in the absence of anti-dumping
It is considered that,
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 and considerations it
can be concluded that, in the absence of significant spare
capacity and taking into account
the company
its exports on several other export
mainly focuses
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.

that

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,
the measures
insofar as they concern the applicant Turkish exporter.

it was appropriate to repeal

imports

should measures be

Developments of
repealed

Preliminary remarks

the totality of

(118) The cooperating producers in this investigation represent
almost
imports into the EU from the
it
countries concerned. The examination of whether
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
investigations. This analysis was
concerned by the
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

P r o d u c t i o n ,
i n v e s t m e n t s

p r o d u c t i o n

c a p a c i t y

a n d

(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 the
Russia was found to be around 60 to 65 % for the
review investigation
can be
period.
concluded that the exporting producers in the Russia
have the capacity to increase their exports
to the
Community market should measures be repealed.

therefore

It

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/13

(122) Moreover, the overall capacity of the 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 Russian market is not
able to handle this level of supply, Russian producers
may choose to redirect
spare capacity to the
this
Community at dumped prices if measures are repealed.

R e l a t i o n s h i p
t h i r d c o u n t r i e s
t h e C o m m u n i t y

b e t w e e n

e x p o r t
a n d t h e p r i c e

p r i c e s ,
i n

l e v e l

(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
to the
therefore
Community was not reliable within the meaning of
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

concluded that

export price

the

(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
in
countries were generally lower than the price level
the Community. Therefore,
if measures were repealed,
Russian exporters are likely to export SWR in large quan-
tities 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 par-
ticularly relevant
situation
concerning the price undertaking.

in view of

current

the

Thailand

P r o d u c t i o n ,
i n v e s t m e n t s

p r o d u c t i o n

c a p a c i t y

a n d

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

the other

It was observed on the basis of

(128) The investigation showed that even if the cooperating
exporting producer was selling at dumped prices at the
its sales volumes were extremely
Community market,
low.
the company's
worldwide exports that the company 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.

R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e x p o r t p r i c e s a n d
t h e p r i c e u n d e r t a k i n g

(129) The cooperating 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.

R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e x p o r t p r i c e s
l e v e l
t h i r d c o u n t r i e s
t h e C o m m u n i t y

a n d t h e p r i c e

t o
i n

(130) During the ERIP, sales volume of Usha to the rest of the
to the
significantly higher
the export
in the Community was on average 9,5 %

world was
Community, notwithstanding the fact
price level
higher than in the rest of the world.

than sales
that

C o n c l u s i o n o n R u s s i a

(126) The behaviour of 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 the case where
measures are repealed.

(131) Based on the above facts and considerations, it is unlikely
that the cooperating 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.

L 285/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

Turkey

P r o d u c t i o n ,
i n v e s t m e n t s

p r o d u c t i o n

c a p a c i t y

a n d

(132) According to the information gathered during the inves-
tigation,
the production capacity remained unchanged
during the period under investigation and capacity utili-
sation has increased. As a consequence, it was found that
their
both Turkish companies
production capacity. There are no other companies
producing the PC in Turkey.

reach about 90 % of

(133) Moreover,

from Turkey

it was observed that the share of dumped
(from Celik Halat) on the
imports
Community 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 is thus very low.
Therefore, only a small share of exports from Turkey is
dumped and in direct competition with the Community
industry.

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 cooperating producers repre-
sented 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.

C o n c l u s i o n o n t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f c o n t i -
n u a t i o n o f d u m p i n g

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

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.

(139)

It was therefore considered that the 22 cooperating and
the
supporting Community
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.

represented

producers

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

(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

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

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/15

(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.

Community consumption
(tonnes)

Index

Table 1

2003

2004

2005

ERIP

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 Russia developed as set

out in the table below.

Volume of imports
(tonnes)

Index

Market share

Index

Table 2

2003

2 198

100

1,2 %

100

2004

1 844

84

0,9 %

75

2005

2 908

132

1,4 %

117

ERIP

3 323

151

1,5 %

125

(143) During the period considered, imports from Russia 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 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 review were also examined.
Import
volumes and market shares of the other countries concerned by this review have developed as
follows:

L 285/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

Thailand

Volume of imports
(tonnes)

Of which dumped imports

Table 3

2003

2004

2005

ERIP

368

160

86

118

0

Total market share

0,21 %

0,08 %

0,04 %

0,05 %

Turkey

Volume of imports
(tonnes)

Of which dumped imports

2 248

2 223

4 246

4 805

Total market share

1,27 %

1,11 %

1,98 %

1 089

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 large.

(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 in this case is identical to that described in
recitals 136 to 140 of the provisional Regulation. 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:

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/17

People's Republic of China

Imports (tonnes)

Index

Average price (EUR/tonne)

Market share

India

Imports (tonnes)

Index

Average price (EUR/tonne)

Market share

South Africa

Imports (tonnes)

Index

Average price (EUR/tonne)

Market share

Ukraine

Imports (tonnes)

Index

Average price (EUR/tonne)

Market share

Total tonnes

Total market share

Table 4

2003

2004

2005

ERIP

1 545

100

1 088

0,9 %

4 218

100

902

2,3 %

184

100

1 303

0,1 %

1 222

100

866

0,7 %

6 785

3,7 %

3 374

218

1 120

1,7 %

4 832

115

1 036

2,5 %

795

433

1 471

0,4 %

1 438

118

712

0,7 %

10 978

5,6 %

6 581

426

1 063

3,1 %

6 551

155

1 130

3,1 %

577

314

1 584

0,3 %

1 149

94

752

0,5 %

16 177

7,5 %

7 560

489

947

3,4 %

6 108

145

1 123

2,7 %

941

512

1 573

0,4 %

776

63

662

0,3 %

16 012

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:

Table 5

2003

2004

2005

ERIP

Total volumes (tonnes) of which:

42 486

54 983

58 843

61 271

Index

South Korea

Index

Malaysia

Index

North Korea

Index

100

22 400

100

4 836

100

150

100

129

138

144

32 121

34 634

36 408

143

4 426

92

1 626

1 084

155

5 123

106

2 212

1 475

163

6 642

137

3 324

2 216

L 285/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

(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 number 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 a reference, it
should be considered that the data was obtained from the 22 Community producers constituting the
Community industry.

3.2. Production, installed production capacity and capacity utilisation rate

(159)

Table 6

2003

2004

2005

ERIP

Production (tonnes)

Index

149 957

148 536

161 611

176 119

100

99

108

117

Installed production capacity (tonnes)

229 066

229 654

245 343

247 833

Index

Capacity utilisation rate

Index

100

65 %

100

100

65 %

99

107

66 %

101

108

71 %

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 %.

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/19

3.3. Stock — information collected from the sample

Table 7

Stock (tonnes)

Index

Stock as % of overall sales

2003

2004

2005

ERIP

11 565

10 236

11 465

12 652

100

20 %

89

17 %

99

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

60,7 %

54,5 %

52,5 %

109

52,4 %

Market share of Community
consumption

Index

Growth of sales turnover (thousands of
EUR)

100

90

87

86

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 %.

(165)

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

the Community industry has decreased considerably throughout

(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.

L 285/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

3.5. Sales prices and factors affecting Community prices — information collected from the sample

Average sales price
(EUR/tonne)

Index

Average cost of raw materials (wire rods)
(EUR/tonne)

Index

Table 9

2003

1 902

100

511

100

2004

2 058

108

559

109

2005

2 170

114

662

129

ERIP

2 142

113

734

143

(167) The Community industry average sales price on the Community market increased by EUR 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 EUR 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
including wire rods, from related parties (vertically integrated steel groups). It was
raw materials,
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

Employees

Index

Table 10

2003

1 023

100

2004

999

98

2005

1 064

104

ERIP

1 087

106

Wages/employee (EUR)

33 943

36 674

37 987

38 348

Index

Wages per tonne produced

Index

100

606

100

108

634

105

112

614

101

113

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.

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/21

3.7. Productivity — information collected from the sample

Tonne produced/employee

Index

Table 11

2003

56

100

2004

58

103

2005

62

110

ERIP

65

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

Profit on Community sales

Return on total assets

Table 12

2003

– 0,1 %

– 18,8 %

2004

+ 0,4 %

+ 14,1 %

Cash flow (% on total sales)

+ 0,1 %

+ 1,2 %

2005

+ 4,6 %

+ 26 %

+ 4,3 %

ERIP

+ 5,3 %

+ 24,4 %

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

Investments

Index

Table 13

2003

46 570

100

2004

43 158

93

2005

51 362

110

ERIP

56 538

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.

L 285/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

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) However, the fact that the Community industry lost market share 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 impo-
sition of measures, it is still fragile.

4. Export activities of the Community industry — information collected from the sample

Export sales (tonnes)

Index

% of total sales

Average price
(EUR/tonne)

Index

Table 14

2003

8 475

100

15 %

2 123

2004

2005

ERIP

11 870

10 618

13 374

140

21 %

2 302

125

19 %

2 835

157

22 %

3 063

100

108

134

144

(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 %.

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.

(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. Notwith-
standing 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 capa-
cities if measures expire. In addition, Russian producers
are likely to redirect a substantial amount of their current

(183) Furthermore,

levels of dumping and
the significant
undercutting observed,
that undertakings
fact
the
appear to act as a price floor, as well as the low level
of prices practised 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
response
fragile. Whether
thereto was a drop in sales (and hence in production),
a reduction in prices, or both, the financial deterioration
returning to the difficulties
would be
observed prior
the original
measures.

the Community industry's

imposition of

substantial,

to the

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/23

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

(191)

3. Interest of importers

the

that

number

distribution of

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

of

(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 and 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 two related suppliers
responded to questions
raw
materials (see recital 168) above, no unrelated suppliers
of raw materials made themselves known.

concerning prices of

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 investi-
gation 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.

(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,

likelihood of
recurrence of injurious dumping if measures applicable
to Russian exporters were to be repealed.

is a clear

there

(189)

representing approximately 87 % of

is recalled that no less than 22 producers in the
It
the
Community,
overall production of SWR in the Community, coop-
erated with the Commission in the investigation and
expressed their support for the ongoing measures.

(195) Whether being a related or unrelated supplier of raw
materials to the Community industry,
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 main-
tenance of anti-dumping measures would be in the
interest of Community suppliers of raw materials.

it

recurrence of

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

from the maintenance of

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
the maintenance of anti-

compelling reasons against
dumping measures.

L 285/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.10.2007

6. Conclusion on Community Interest

(198) Taking into account all of

is
concluded that there are no compelling reasons against
the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.

the above factors,

it

G. UNDERTAKINGS

(199) As stated in recital 2 above the Commission accepted
SSM's undertaking offer by Decision 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.

in classifying the different product

(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 investi-
company had serious
gation confirmed that
the
problems
types
properly and in accordance with the terms of the under-
taking. This was partly due to accounting system
limitations which did not allow them to properly
distinguish between different
types.
Similar problems were already identified during the
monitoring of the undertaking and led to a warning
letter.

SWR product

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 conti-
nuation of dumping,
likelihood of recurrence of injury
and Community interest, the anti-dumping measures on
should be
imports of SWR originating in Russia
injury
confirmed in order to prevent a recurrence of
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 %.

(201)

It has therefore been concluded that the undertaking in
its current form is no longer workable and has to be
withdrawn by Commission Decision.

(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.

(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
reviews and that would group different products in cate-
gories which would be workable and have limited price
variances.

the findings of

(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
imports of SWR originating in this
measures against
country should equally be repealed,

(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
the
Commission is allowed to propose an amendment to
this Regulation accordingly.

this Regulation.

If necessary,

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

or

not,

attached

ex 7312 10 98

falling within

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
1.
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
CN codes
fittings
ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85, ex 7312 10 89
7312 10 81 11,
and
7312 10 81 90,
7312 10 81 12,
7312 10 83 19,
7312 10 83 11,
7312 10 85 12,
7312 10 83 90,
7312 10 89 11,
7312 10 85 19,
7312 10 89 90,
7312 10 89 12,
7312 10 98 11,
and
7312 10 98 90), originating in Russia.

7312 10 81 19,
7312 10 83 12,
7312 10 85 11,
7312 10 85 90,
7312 10 89 19,

7312 10 98 12,

7312 10 98 19

(TARIC

codes

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to
2.
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

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

Rate of
duty (%)

TARIC
addi-
tional
code

36,2

A694

Closed Joint Stock Company Severstal-Metiz
Ul. 50-letiya Oktyabrya 1/33, Cherepovets, Vologda
Region, 162600 Russia

9,7

A217

All other companies

50,7

A999

L 285/25

in force

Unless otherwise

3.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

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
falling within CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83,
not,
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 Luxembourg, 30 October 2007.

For the Council
The President

F. NUNES CORREIA