Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia
Date: 2008-02-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: CCT duties, China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, North Macedonia, Russia, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, iron, originating product, semi-metal

L 55/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.2.2008

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 172/2008

of 25 February 2008

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
from countries not members of the European Community (1)
(the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

1. PROCEDURE

1.1. Provisional measures

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 994/2007 (2)
(the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports of ferro-silicon (FeSi), currently
classifiable within CN codes 7202 21 00, 7202 29 10
and 7202 29 90, originating in the People’s Republic of
China (PRC), Egypt, Kazakhstan,
the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia and Russia.

1.2. Subsequent procedures

several

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional
disclosure),
interested parties made written
submissions making their views known on the pro-
findings. The parties who so requested were
visional
granted an opportunity to be heard. The Commission
continued to seek and verify all information it deemed
necessary for its definitive findings.

The Commission continued its investigation with regard
to Community interest aspects and carried out analysis of
data within the questionnaire replies provided by some
the
users in the Community after the imposition of
provisional anti-dumping measures.

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

In recital 166 of
the provisional Regulation the
Commission undertook to analyse further and in more
detail the effect of provisional measures on the situation
of the users, before any final determination is made.

For this purpose, the Commission contacted and sent
questionnaires directly and via associations to around
500 foundries located in the Community, since this
category of user industry had not shown any particular
interest in the current proceeding prior to the imposition
of provisional measures. In addition, all steel producers
cooperating at provisional
stage were requested to
provide additional
information in order to enable the
Commission to analyse the possible effect of provisional
measures on their activity.

Questionnaire replies were received from only seven
foundries and additional information was received from
eight steel producers. All seven of the former and three
of the latter undertakings provided the necessary infor-
mation to analyse in depth the effect of the provisional
measures on their economic situation.

In view of the complex structure in which the Chinese
exporting producer granted market economy treatment
(MET) was operating during the period under investi-
gation, additional
information was requested in order
to reach definitive findings. Moreover, as indicated in
recital 49 of the provisional Regulation, because of the
fact that the Chinese exporting producer was purchasing
electricity from a related supplier,
its costs associated
with the production of FeSi were also further inves-
tigated.

(8)

In view of the above, three additional verification visits
were carried out at
the following
companies:

the premises of

— Erdos, Ordos City, Inner Mongolia, electricity supplier

in the PRC,

— Trompetter Guss, Chemnitz, Germany, user (foundry)

in the Community,

— Arcelor Mittal, Genk, Belgium, user (steel producer) in

the Community.

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

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

(2) OJ L 223, 29.8.2007, p. 1.

(9)

The oral and written comments
submitted by the
interested parties were considered and, where appro-
priate, the findings have been modified accordingly.

28.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/7

(10) All parties were informed of

the essential

facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping
measures on imports of FeSi originating in the PRC,
the former Yugoslav Republic of
Egypt, Kazakhstan,
Macedonia and Russia and the definitive collection of
the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty.
They were also granted a period within which they
could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

2.2. Like product

(15)

In the absence of any comments concerning the like
product,
the provisional Regulation is
hereby confirmed.

recital 17 of

3. DUMPING

3.1. Market economy treatment (MET)

(11)

the

period

from 1 October

It is recalled that the investigation of dumping and injury
2005 to
covered
30 September 2006 (investigation period or IP). With
respect to the trends relevant for the injury assessment,
the Commission analysed data covering the period from
1 January 2003 to the end of the IP (period considered).

(16)

Following
the provisional disclosure, one Chinese
exporting producer reiterated its comments described in
recital 26 of the provisional Regulation as to the change
life of its assets. However, the
in the estimated useful
exporting
new
provide
arguments not brought forward in the earlier stages of
the investigation, which would substantiate its claim that
the provisional findings concerning the MET situation as
described in recital 23 of the provisional Regulation were
not correct.

producer

failed

any

to

2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

2.1. Product concerned

(12) As indicated in recitals 15 and 16 of the provisional
Regulation, several exporters alleged that slag containing
significantly less then 45 % silicon, i.e. low purity FeSi,
should be excluded from the scope of the investigation
due to alleged lack of the same basic physical character-
same basic uses. The Commission
istics
undertook
Further
comments were received from several interested parties
on this issue after provisional disclosure.

the matter

to clarify

and the

further.

(13)

is

regard that

silicon. The

than 96 % of

firstly noted in this

the product
It
concerned by the current
investigation refers to FeSi
containing at least 4 % iron and more than 8 % and
less
investigation also
revealed that slag with silicon content below 45 % can
be used in the steel industry under the form of briquettes
as it is the case for FeSi with silicon content above 45 %.
Therefore, it can be concluded that slag shares the same
basic physical characteristics and is interchangeable with
other types of FeSi with higher silicon content. On the
basis of the above, the provisional conclusions set out in
recital 16 of the provisional Regulation that low purity
FeSi should be considered as product concerned are
hereby confirmed.

(14) One unrelated importer claimed that

‘atomised’ FeSi
powder of 15 % and of 45 % silicon content should be
excluded from the product scope of this investigation.
However, an exclusion of ‘atomised powder FeSi’ from
the present investigation is not warranted, in particular
since FeSi with 15 % and 45 % of silicon content falls
under
In
addition,
this importer did not
submit any evidence to substantiate its claim, despite a
request by the Commission. The claim had therefore to
be rejected.

the product concerned.

following a hearing,

the definition of

(17)

In the absence of any other comments concerning MET,
recitals 18 to 26 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

3.2. Individual treatment (IT)

(18)

In the absence of any comments with regard to IT,
recitals 27 to 31 of
the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

3.3. Normal value

3.3.1. Analogue country

(19)

compared
producer

Following
the provisional disclosure, one Chinese
exporting producer argued that Norway is not an appro-
priate analogue country due to high electricity costs
which are allegedly not representative for the industry
worldwide, and due to differences in access to raw
producers.
materials
The
exporting
that Norwegian
producers mainly sell to export markets since most of
that
domestic
their
captive
Norwegian producers
focused largely on specialty
grades FeSi while Chinese exporting producers manu-
facture only standard grades during the IP. On that
basis,
the exporting producer claimed adjustments to
the Norwegian normal value.

consumption is

Chinese
also

to
claimed

and

(20)

It should be noted that, while it is true that Norwegian
producers sell large quantities on export markets, given
the size of the domestic market and the conditions of
competition thereon, as stated in recital 35 of the pro-
visional Regulation, Norway is considered to be an ap-
propriate analogue country.

L 55/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.2.2008

(21) With regard to the other claims of the company, it was
the share of electricity in the costs of
found that
production of Chinese producers was
significantly
greater than that of Norwegian companies. In addition,
the Chinese exporter did not provide any evidence that
the price of electricity was higher in Norway or that the
alleged difficulty in access to raw material had an impact
on normal value in Norway. These claims were therefore
rejected.

(27)

investigation showed that the exporting
The additional
producer’s purchase price of electricity from a related
supplier had to be rejected as it did not allow for the
recovery of all the costs incurred in producing the elec-
the selling, general and administrative
tricity. Further,
(SG&A) costs of the exporting producer were adjusted
to take account of the full amount of financial costs
associated with
product
concerned. Indeed, the investigation showed that some
of these costs were borne by related parties and had not
been taken into account in the calculation of the pro-
visional normal value.

production

the

the

of

(22)

It was found, however, that the types of FeSi sold by
Norwegian producers in Norway were different to those
insofar as
exported from the PRC to the Community,
purity is concerned. It was therefore considered that an
adjustment was warranted, as explained in recital 25
below.

(23)

In the absence of any other comments concerning the
analogue country, recitals 32 to 36 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

3.3.2. Methodology applied for the determination of normal

value

(24)

In the absence of any comments concerning the meth-
odology applied for the determination of normal value,
recitals 37 to 47 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

3.3.3. Determination of normal value

A. PRC

(25) One Chinese exporting producer which did not obtain
the normal value was incorrectly
MET claimed that
calculated as it did not reflect
the differences in the
various types of the product concerned sold in Norway
and the like product exported from the PRC. Having
examined this claim,
it was considered appropriate to
recalculate the normal value to take into account the
differences in physical characteristics between product
types
sold on the Norwegian domestic market and
those exported from the PRC to the Community.
Normal value was calculated on a product type basis
with adjustments for the titanium impurity and FeSi
contents in case of product types which could not be
matched directly.

(26)

industrial

sectors. Because of

The one Chinese exporting producer which was granted
MET is part of a very large Chinese group comprising
almost one hundred related companies operating in
various
complex
structure of the group and the operations of consoli-
dation which concerned companies
involved in the
production and the sale of FeSi, updated data concerning
the
examined.
Moreover, it had been foreseen in recital 49 of the pro-
visional Regulation that
the costs associated with the
production and sale of electricity would be further inves-
tigated.

group was

requested

further

and

the

(28) Having made

the

above

to costs

adjustments

in
accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, it
was found that the domestic sales prices of all types of
the product concerned that were sold for export to the
Community were unprofitable. As a result, the normal
the company had to be constructed. The
value for
normal value was constructed on the basis of
the
company’s own cost of manufacturing plus amounts
for adjusted SG&A costs as described above. In regard
to profit, in the absence of profitable transactions of the
company and lack of possibility of using profits for the
same general category of products of other Chinese
a profit margin of 5 % was
exporting producers,
applied for
in
accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.
This margin is in line with that used in constructing
normal value for the exporting producer in the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as stated in recital 45 of
the provisional Regulation. No information was provided
that
this amount of profit would exceed the profit
normally realised by other exporters or producers on
sales of products of the same general category on the
Chinese market.

construction of normal

value

the

(29)

(30)

B. EGYPT

Following the imposition of provisional measures, one of
the Egyptian exporting producers claimed that, when
determining the normal value based on constructed
value, a lower profit margin should be used in line
with that used for the exporting producer in former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

the market

It should be noted that constructed normal values were
established in line with the methodology set out
in
recitals 43 to 45 of
the provisional Regulation. The
situation in
profit margin used reflects
Egypt and has been applied in accordance with the
requirements of the introductory words of Article 2(6)
of the basic Regulation. Hence, the margin applied was
based on the exporting producer’s own actual profitable
domestic sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like
product during the IP. The basic Regulation does not
provide that this profit level be substituted by another
level as suggested by the company concerned. Conse-
quently, this claim had to be rejected.

28.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/9

C. KAZAKHSTAN

(31)

In the absence of any comments concerning the deter-
mination of normal value for Kazakhstan, recital 51 of
the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

(37)

In the absence of any other comments concerning
Chinese export prices, recitals 55 to 56 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

D. THE

FORMER

YUGOSLAV

REPUBLIC

OF

MACEDONIA

(38)

(32)

In the absence of any comments concerning the deter-
the former Yugoslav
mination of normal value for
Republic of Macedonia, recital 52 of
the provisional
Regulation is hereby confirmed.

B. EGYPT

Following the imposition of provisional measures, one of
the Egyptian exporting producers claimed that there were
some errors in the exchange rates applied for export
transactions to the Community and also in the deter-
mination of the weighted average net export value for
some types of the product concerned. It was found that
these claims were justified and the export prices were
revised accordingly.

(33)

(34)

E. RUSSIA

the provisional

disclosure, one Russian
Following
exporting producer claimed that
the exchange rates
applied in the calculation of normal value did not
correspond to the actual timing of sales. After verifi-
cation it was found that the claim was justified, and
the calculation was amended accordingly.

the provisional

demonstrated by

indicative. This was

disclosure, one Russian
Following
exporting producer contested the adjustment of
its
energy costs by arguing that the prices of energy set
by the Russian authorities are not compulsory but
the
rather
company’s claim that they paid above the recommended
price and that its electricity supplier was profitable. The
company also argued that the electricity supplier is one
of the few independent electricity suppliers in Russia that
does not belong to the United Electricity System of
Russia and therefore this supplier is not
involved in
any cross-subsidisation practices highlighted in the
OECD report which is referred to in the provisional
Regulation.

(35)

In the light of the substantiated arguments submitted by
the company concerning electricity, it is considered that
an energy cost adjustment should not be made in the
definitive calculation of its normal value.

3.4. Export price

A. PRC

(36)

the

rate

exchange

that was

the provisional disclosure, one Chinese
Following
exporting producer pointed out that in calculating its
export price,
applied
between the RMB and the euro was that at the end of
the IP, which overstated the value of the exchange rate.
The company suggested using the IP average exchange
rate instead. Having examined this claim, in the definitive
calculation, it has been decided that the average exchange
rate of the month during which the actual sale trans-
actions took place should be used.

C. KAZAKHSTAN

(39)

In the absence of any comments concerning Kazakh
export prices, recital 58 of the provisional Regulation is
hereby confirmed.

D. THE

FORMER

YUGOSLAV

REPUBLIC

OF

MACEDONIA

(40)

In the absence of any comments concerning export
prices for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
the provisional Regulation is hereby
recital 59 of
confirmed.

(41)

(42)

E. RUSSIA

Following
the provisional disclosure, one Russian
exporting producer claimed that the profit margin of
its related importer in the EC used in constructing the
export price in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic
Regulation was overstated. It is recalled that the profit
used in constructing the export price at the provisional
the related importer concerned.
stage was
institutions’
consistent
However,
practice,
to be used should be
based on that achieved by unrelated importers. In these
circumstances, the profit margin used at the provisional
stage had to be corrected. The effect of this change was
to slightly increase the profit used contrary to the claim
of the company that the profit level was overstated.

that of
in line with the
the amount of profit

Following the provisional disclosure, another Russian
exporting producer claimed that the provisional calcu-
lation of
its export price was incorrect as the SG&A
and profit of its related trading company based in the
British Virgin Islands, as well as transport costs, were
deducted from the price
independent
customer to arrive at ex-factory level. The company
claimed that the trading company is,
in fact, the sales
the manufacturer. Both companies are
department of

to the

first

L 55/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.2.2008

under common control and perform complementary
tasks which would normally fall under the responsibility
of a single management structure. Additionally,
it was
stressed that the trading company does not handle any
other product. On this basis, the company claimed that
excessive deductions were made in establishing the ex-
factory price. In this regard, it was found that invoices
were issued by the trading company to customers in the
Community and payments were received by the trading
in the Community.
customers
company from the
Furthermore,
it is to be noted that the sales made by
the related trader included a markup. Also, the financial
accounts of the trader showed that it bore selling, general
and administrative costs. The company did not demon-
strate that these costs were not incurred in selling, inter
alia, the product concerned to the Community. On this
basis, the company’s claim was rejected. Similar to the
adjustment mentioned in the preceding recital concerning
the level of profit used in constructing the export price
the profit
for the other Russian exporting producer,
margin used at
stage had to be
corrected. The effect of
this change was to slightly
reduce the profit used.

the provisional

3.5. Comparison

3.5.1. Import charges

Following the imposition of provisional measures, one of
the Egyptian exporting producers argued that it should
be granted an allowance for the payment of customs
duties on imported raw materials used in producing
the product concerned that was sold on the domestic
market.

3.5.2. Level of trade

(46) One of the Egyptian exporting producers made a claim
for a level of
trade adjustment based on an alleged
difference between sales on the domestic market and
on the export market. The company claimed that sales
on the domestic market were all made to end-users while
sales to the Community were made to distributors. The
company provided information and claimed that a
under
should
special
Article 2(10)(d)(ii) of the basic Regulation.

adjustment

made

be

(47)

(48)

In this regard, it should be noted that a claim for a level
of trade adjustment, pursuant to Article 2(10)(d)(i) of the
basic Regulation, can only be considered where it
is
there exist consistent and distinct
demonstrated that
differences in functions and prices for
the different
levels of trade in the domestic market.

In the present case, following the provisional disclosure,
it was confirmed that all domestic sales in Egypt were
made to end-users. In accordance with Article 2(10)(d)(i)
of the basic Regulation, a difference in level of trade
between domestic and export sales could not be quan-
tified because of the absence of the relevant different
levels of trade on the domestic market in Egypt.

(49) As

is

to

sales

export

company’s
the
the
regards
it
confirmed, having analysed the
Community,
the company following the provisional
comments of
disclosure that all sales were made to distributors.
In
accordance with the provisions of Article 2(10)(d)(ii) of
the basic Regulation, it was examined whether there were
grounds for making a special adjustment for a level of
trade as claimed by the company on the basis of its own
data.

In reply to this,
it should be recalled that pursuant to
Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation, an adjustment
shall be made for an amount corresponding to any
taxes borne by the like
import charges or
incorporated
product
consumption in the
therein, when intended
refunded in
exporting country and not collected or
respect of the product concerned exported to the EC.

indirect
and by materials physically

for

(50)

The claim for an allowance for import charges for one
raw material used for the production of
the product
concerned sold on the domestic market was accepted,
since it was demonstrated that appropriate customs
imported and
duties were paid for the raw material
physically incorporated in the product concerned sold
in Egypt. However, the claim for an allowance relating
to two other imported raw materials had to be rejected,
since the investigation revealed that, during the IP, all
such imports were used for exports of
the product
concerned. The company did not demonstrate that
during the IP it had paid import duties which were not
subsequently reimbursed and consequently borne by the
like product when sold on the domestic market.

any

Given

special

adjustment.

It was considered, however, that the data provided by the
company did not provide an appropriate basis for quan-
that
tifying
Article 2(10)(d)(i) of the basic Regulation provides that
‘the amount of the adjustment shall be based on the
market value of the difference’ it was considered that, if
it could be shown that there was a price difference on
the Community market for sales to different types of
customers, this could be deemed an appropriate basis
to quantify the market value of the difference equally
under Article 2(10)(d)(ii) of the basic Regulation. In this
regard, the information received from various interested
parties in the Community in relation to their sales to
different
It was
types of customers was examined.
found
in prices on the
Community market when sold by the Community
industry to different types of customers (in this case,
sales prices
to end-users and to distributors were
examined). It was considered that a special adjustment
equivalent
should
said difference
therefore be made to the Egyptian exporter’s normal
value.

differences

in prices

to the

existed

that

(43)

(44)

(45)

28.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/11

(51)

the facts and con-
Following the final disclosure of
siderations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of definitive measures, one
Russian exporter claimed that to not grant it a claimed
level of trade adjustment was discriminatory as one of
the Egyptian exporters had been granted a similar
adjustment. In the case of the Russian exporter’s claim,
it was found that there was no justification for such an
adjustment. On the basis of verified data provided by the
there was no consistent price difference in
company,
prices for sales of FeSi to the different levels of trade
on the Russian market. On this basis, no adjustment
was warranted under Article 2(10)(d)(i) of the basic Regu-
lation.

(52) With the exception of

the adjustment mentioned in
recital 50 above, recitals 61 to 63 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

3.6. Dumping margins

3.6.1. General Methodology

(53)

Further analysis after the provisional stage proved that
the level of cooperation from Russia had been incorrectly
estimated.
In fact, while the cooperation was around
100 %, it was wrongly estimated to be 32 % (see recital
76 of the provisional Regulation). Therefore, the residual
dumping margin should be set at
the
company with the highest dumping margin (rather
than on the methodology used at provisional stage, i.e.
the weighted average dumping margin of the most rep-
resentative product
type with the highest dumping
margin).

the level of

(54)

In the absence of any other comments concerning the
general methodology of the dumping margin calculation,
recitals 64 to 68 (except for the change described in
the provisional Regulation are
recital 46 above) of
hereby confirmed.

3.6.2. Dumping margins

A. PRC

(55)

the weighted
For the companies granted MET or IT,
average normal value of each type of
the product
concerned exported to the Community was compared
with the weighted average export price of
the corre-
sponding type of the product concerned, as provided
for in Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

(61)

The basis for establishing the countrywide dumping
margin was set out in recital 71 of the provisional Regu-
lation. In light of the changes to Chinese normal values
and export prices as set out above,
the countrywide
margin has also been adjusted and should be now set
at 55,6 % of
the cif Community frontier price, duty
unpaid.

B. EGYPT

Following the imposition of provisional measures, one of
the Egyptian companies complained about the method of
calculation of the anti-dumping duty without elaborating
any further. In reply to this, it should be noted that the
company did not substantiate its comments. Conse-
quently, the claim had to be rejected.

definitive

The
a
dumping margins,
percentage of the cif import price at the Community
border, duty unpaid, are the following:

expressed

as

— The Egyptian Ferroalloys Company, Cairo 15,4 %,

— Egyptian Chemical Industries KIMA, Cairo 24,8 %,

— All others 24,8 %.

C. KAZAKHSTAN

In the absence of cooperation, only a countrywide
definitive
dumping margin was
dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the cif
import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, is
set at 37,1 %.

established.

The

D. THE

FORMER

YUGOSLAV

REPUBLIC

OF

MACEDONIA

The cooperating exporting producer is the only known
FeSi producer
in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia. The definitive dumping margins, expressed
as
the
at
the
Community border duty unpaid, are the following:

a percentage of

import price

cif

— SILMAK DOOEL Export Import, Jegunovce 5,4 %,

— All others 5,4 %.

(56) On this basis, the definitive dumping margins expressed
as a percentage of the cif Community frontier price, duty
unpaid, are:

E. RUSSIA

— Erdos Xijin Kuangye Co., Ltd 15,6 %,

— Lanzhou Good Land Ferroalloy Factory Co., Ltd

29,0 %.

(62)

The two cooperating Russian exporting producers are the
only known FeSi producers in Russia. The definitive
dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the cif
import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, are
the following:

L 55/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.2.2008

— Chemk Group (Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Inte-
and Kutznetsk Ferroalloy Works),

grated Plant
Chelyabinsk and Novokuznetsk 22,7 %,

Community market, profit and thus the cost devel-
opment of the Community industry during the period
considered. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.

— ICT Group of Companies (Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant, TD
North West Ferro Alloy Company and Bakersfield
Marketing Ltd), Bratsk and Saint Petersburg 17,8 %,

4.3. Imports into the Community from the countries

concerned

(63)

(64)

— All others 22,7 %,

4.

INJURY

4.1. Definition of the Community industry

claimed that

Certain interested parties
injury
assessment should not be made on an aggregate basis
in view of
but on a company-by-company basis,
alleged divergent
injury trends between the different
Community producers.

the

to Article 3(5) of

Pursuant
the basic Regulation the
examination of injury shall include an evaluation of the
factors having a bearing on the Community
relevant
industry. The term ‘Community industry’
is defined in
the basic Regulation as Community
Article 4 of
producers as a whole of
the like products or those
whose collective output represents a major proportion
of the total Community production. From the above it
is clear
injury shall be
that
the Community industry
conducted at
examined as a whole, rather than on the individual
situation of each Community producer in isolation.

the determination of
the level of

(65) On the basis of the above, the claims were rejected and
recitals 78 to 80 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

4.2. Community consumption

(66) One interested party claimed that the Commission did
not provide in its provisional Regulation essential infor-
mation for
such as a monthly
breakdown of demand of FeSi, price development on
the EU market,
including Community industry price
and cost developments.

injury analysis,

its

(68) One interested party claimed that imports from Russia
should not be cumulated with those from the PRC for
the purpose of the injury assessment since these imports
allegedly did not operate under similar conditions of
competition on the Community market. In particular, it
(i)
the majority of Chinese exporting
claimed that
economy
operate
producers
non-market
through
conditions,
(ii)
exporting
related companies whereas
(iii)
producers sell directly to independent customers,
for Chinese
the dumping and undercutting margins
companies are significantly higher than those of
the
Russian companies and that
(iv) Chinese exporting
producers have been increasingly penetrating the EU
in the first six months of 2006 being 50 %
market
higher than Russian exporting producers.

the Russian companies

the Chinese

under

sell

(69)

Regarding the first claim, the fact that the majority of
Chinese exporting producers operate under non-market
economy conditions is not one of the reasons for de-
cumulation foreseen in Article 3(4) of the basic Regu-
lation. The fact whether or not the product concerned is
in the
produced under market economy conditions
domestic market is therefore not relevant for deciding
on the cumulation of imports.

(70) As to the second claim concerning the alleged difference
in sales channels,
is noted that, even though the
Russian exporting producers were using related traders,
the like products imported both from the PRC and
Russia are sold to the same type of end-customers in
the Community, namely to users and distributors.

it

(71) As to third claim regarding the dumping and under-
for both countries
cutting margins,
dumping margins have been established above
de
minimis levels as required by Article 3(4)(a) of the basic
Regulation and that for both countries undercutting was
found to exist.

is noted that

it

(67)

It

interested parties and it

The basic Regulation does not
require Community
producers or other interested parties to provide data
is
for the period considered on a monthly basis.
considered that this would be unduly burdensome for
all
is common practice to
request data on a yearly basis for the investigation of
the party did not
In addition,
dumping and injury.
provide any evidence demonstrating that a monthly
analysis was necessary in the current case to assess
In fact, the tables provided in recitals 81, 85,
injury.
96 and 97 of
the provisional Regulation reflect
adequately the Community consumption, prices on the

(72)

Regarding the last claim on import volumes, it is noted
that the volumes imported from Russia (and the PRC)
were not negligible as required by Article 3(4)(a) of the
basic Regulation as they reached a market share of 18 %
and 21 %, respectively, during the IP.

(73)

For all these reasons, a decumulation of imports from
Russia is not warranted and the claim is rejected.

28.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/13

(74) Another interested party claimed that the Commission
did not analyse the conditions of competition between
the products imported from the countries concerned and
the dumped Egyptian
submitted that
the Community industry
imports on the situation of
should, therefore, be assessed separately.

the effects of

the

likeness of

the import volume level,

(75) As suggested in recitals 83 and 89 of the provisional
Regulation, the conditions of competition between the
imported products
the
regarding
product and the similarity of the exporters’ behaviour
the
the significance of
(i.e.
development and level of
imports and
their undercutting of prices of the Community industry
and the similarity of sales channels) were analysed. It was
thereby found that the conditions justifying the cumu-
countries
imports
lative
concerned were met. On this basis, this claim had to
be rejected and recital 84 of the provisional Regulation
is confirmed.

assessment of

the price of

from the

(76) One Egyptian exporting producer also claimed that its
limited export volume during the IP had not caused
thus its
injury to the Community industry and that
situation should be assessed separately. In this regard, it
is noted that pursuant to Article 3(4) of the basic Regu-
lation the effect of dumped imports on the situation of
the Community industry shall be cumulatively assessed if,
from each
amongst others,
country subject
to the investigation is not negligible.
Since imports from Egypt were found to have reached
a market share of 3,7 % during the IP, they were not
negligible within the meaning of Article 5(7) of
the
basic Regulation. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.

the volume of

imports

(77)

In the absence of any other comments in this regard,
recitals 82 to 89 of
the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

4.4. Price undercutting

(78) One interested party claimed that

the undercutting
margins found in the provisional Regulation should be
reduced by 3 % to 5 % in order to reflect ‘locally sourced’
FeSi, since the steel producer in the Community would
allegedly pay a premium for locally (EU)-sourced material
reflecting reliability, quality and timing of supply.

that

reveal

the investigation did not

the
of supply,
payment of any such premium was taking place or
that this potential competitive advantage was included
in the price charged by the Community industry to
the interested party did not
steel producers. Finally,
provide any evidence to substantiate its claim which
therefore had to be rejected.

(80)

(81)

(82)

(83)

4.5. Situation of the Community Industry

Certain interested parties questioned the methodology
the provisional Regulation to
used in recital 93 of
the Community
calculate the production capacity of
industry.
suggested applying a
they
capacity figure taking into account closures for main-
instead of the ‘theoretical
tenance and electricity cuts,
nominal capacity’ as used in the provisional Regulation.

In particular,

The investigation has shown that any closures of the
Community industry machinery for maintenance or elec-
tricity cuts were of a temporary nature and that these did
not occur on a
regular basis within the period
considered. It is worth noting that, even if adjustments
were to be made to production capacity, as suggested by
trends
these
concerning the
the
interested parties,
production capacity and of
the capacity utilisation
would remain unchanged. The conclusions reached on
the
the
Community industry would also remain the same.
Consequently, the claim to apply a different definition
of production capacity has to be rejected.

existence of material

suffered by

injury

the
Based on the above
conclusion that
suffered
the Community
material injury, in recitals 107 to 110 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

facts and considerations,

industry

5. CAUSATION

Certain interested parties claimed that the assessment of
the causal
link between the injury suffered by the
Community industry and the dumped imports should
not be made on an aggregate basis but on a company-
by-company basis, in view of alleged divergent causation
factors between the different Community producers.

(79)

the comparison of

Recitals 38 and 87 to 89 of the provisional Regulation
the prices
explain the basis for
charged by the Community industry with those charged
concerned. The comparison took
by the
account of
the product
various qualities of
concerned as defined in recital 13 of the provisional
Regulation. Moreover, as regards reliability and timing

exporters
the

(84) As already noted in recital 64 above concerning injury,
there is no legal ground in Article 3(5), 3(6) and 3(7) of
the basic Regulation suggesting that causation should be
assessed on the basis of individual Community producers
included in the definition of the Community industry.
The latter is defined in Article 4 of the basic Regulation
as Community producers as a whole of the like products
or those whose collective output represents a major
proportion of the total Community production.

L 55/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.2.2008

5.1. Effect of dumped imports

5.3. Competitiveness of the Community industry

(85)

It is recalled that the dumped imports volume from the
countries concerned and market share increased signifi-
cantly during the period considered. There was also a
clear coincidence in time between the surge of dumped
imports and the deterioration of the economic situation
of the Community industry. That industry was not able
to increase its sales prices to the necessary level to cover
its full costs, as its prices were undercut during the IP by
dumped imports.

(91) One interested party claimed that the injury suffered by
the Community industry had to be attributed solely to
the alleged lack of competitiveness of the Community
producers and not to the dumped imports. In particular,
this interested party cited a working document (1) where
raw materials and energy were cited as
the most
important competitiveness factors for
the EU metals
industry.

(86) On that basis, the findings and the conclusions reached
in recitals 112 to 114 of the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.

(92)

5.2. Price setting of ferro-silicon

indicates

The analysis of the aforementioned working document
showed, however, that no conclusion is drawn in the text
the
which refers to any lack of competitiveness of
this
European ferro-alloys industry. On the contrary,
ferro-alloy
working
document
‘are
from third
producers
countries e.g.
the PRC, Russia, Ukraine, Brazil and
Kazakhstan. This might become a threat to the long-
term sustainability of the EU Ferro-alloys industry if a
level playing field with third country competitors is not
rapidly ensured (2)’. On the basis of the above, the claim
was rejected.

the
facing growing imports

that

(87)

(88)

(89)

a
Certain interested parties
commodity traded on the global market and that
market prices for FeSi were set by fluctuating demand
of the steel industry and were not cost-based.

claimed that

FeSi

is

there might be other

In market economies and in normal market conditions,
the prices are generally set by the levels of the demand
in the market.
for a certain product
and the offer
However,
factors such as the
presence of
low-priced dumped imports, which are
playing a major role in the level of the prices. In the
current case, the investigation showed that indeed the
price setting mechanisms for FeSi were influenced by
the presence of
significant quantities of dumped
imports. While it is certainly true that global demand
for FeSi, in particular from the steel industry, influenced
the price setting in certain parts of the period considered,
there were
the information available has shown that
periods
in which FeSi contractual prices decreased
despite the growing demand.

same

The
information
interested parties provided
showing the development of EU crude and stainless
steel production and EU FeSi spot prices from 2002
onwards. From this data the interested parties drew the
conclusion that FeSi prices could only have been driven
by demand (primarily from steel producers). However,
the analysis of this information confirmed the conclusion
even on the
reached in recital 88, namely that
Community level, FeSi prices were in certain periods
decreasing despite an increasing demand from the steel
industry.

(90)

Therefore, the claim that the low level of FeSi prices was
determined by demand and not by the dumped imports
has to be rejected.

(93)

The same interested party further argued that most of the
Community producers were already unprofitable before
any injurious dumping took place in the Community
market. Therefore, it would not be the dumped imports
but vulnerable costs structures that have caused the weak
economic situation of the Community industry.

(94) As it is clearly demonstrated in recital 97 of the pro-
visional Regulation, the Community industry was prof-
itable in 2003 with a pre-tax profit margin of 2,3 %,
which increased to 2,7 % in 2004. In 2005, however, a
significant downwards trend in profitability took place
and losses reached – 9,2 % of
turnover. The highest
losses of – 12,9 % were incurred during the IP. In this
context, it is recalled that part of 2005 is covered by the
IP. Consequently,
the Community
industry was already unprofitable before any injurious
dumping took place has to be rejected.

the argument

that

5.4. Imports from other third countries

(95) With regard to imports form other third countries, in the
absence of any new comments, the conclusion reached in
recital 121 of
these
imports have not materially contributed to the injury
suffered by the Community industry is confirmed.

the provisional Regulation that

(1) Commission Staff Working Document, Analysis of economic indi-
cators of the EU metals industry: the impact of raw materials and
energy supply on competitiveness, Brussels 2.8.2006, SEC(2006)
1069.
(2) Ibid. p. 88.

28.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/15

5.5. Effects of further factors

5.5.1. Comments by the interested parties

(96)

reiterated the

imposition of

interested parties

the
the material

claims put
Various
the provisional
forward before
measures,
injury suffered by the
that
Community industry was allegedly caused by factors
other
than the dumped imports. These claims were
already duly addressed in the provisional Regulation.
the claims referring to alleged self-
More specifically,
injury were addressed in recitals 134
inflicted material
the provisional Regulation and the claims
to 136 of
concerning
demand were
downturn in steel
the
addressed in recital 124 of the provisional Regulation.
Even though no new elements were provided to
support these claims, the main findings and conclusions
set out in the provisional Regulation are further clarified
below.

5.5.1.1. I n c r e a s e i n c o s t s o f p r o d u c t i o n
o f t h e C o m m u n i t y i n d u s t r y

(97)

in particular

Several interested parties claimed that the sharp increase
in costs,
raw materials and electricity,
suffered by the Community industry and the reduction
in production capacity of one Community producer have
caused the material injury found during the IP.

(98) With regard to the alleged reduction in production
capacity of one Community producer, it is recalled that
an adjustment to capacity was made as mentioned in
the provisional Regulation to take full
recital 93 of
account of this particular situation.

(99) With regard to cost increases, the Community industry
alleged that cost increases observed in the alloy industry
usually occur on a worldwide scale thereby affecting
equally the worldwide industry. An analysis of the price
development of major cost
the period
considered shows that costs have increased (electricity,
quartzite and electrode paste). However, the investigation
has shown that even if
these increases were partly
compensated by sale price increases the presence of
allow the
low-priced
imports
Community industry to pass on the full effect of
its
increases in costs in its sales price. Recitals 131 to 140
of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.

items over

dumped

not

did

(100) Several

interested parties

argued that one

specific
Community producer had problems with its electricity
supplier
leading to reduced production quantities in
2005 and 2006. They argued that this fully explained
the decrease in production and sales volume by the
Community industry and the loss in profitability.

(101) As already mentioned in recital 84 above, the cause of
the injury suffered shall be analysed at the level of the
Community industry as a whole. However, for the sake
of argument, even if the data pertaining to this producer
could be excluded from the injury assessment, the trends
observed for the remainder of the Community industry
would remain highly negative and continue to show
material injury. Therefore this claim had to be rejected.

5.5.2. Conclusion on causation

(102) Given the above analysis which has properly dis-
tinguished and separated the effects of all other known
factors on the situation of the Community industry from
the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it is hereby
confirmed that these other factors as such do not reverse
the fact
injury assessed must be
attributed to the dumped imports.

the material

that

(103) Given the above,

it

is concluded that

the dumped
imports of FeSi originating in the PRC, Kazakhstan,
Egypt, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and
injury to the Community
Russia have caused material
industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of
the
basic Regulation.

(104)

In the absence of other comments in this respect, the
conclusions in recitals 137 to 140 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

6. COMMUNITY INTEREST

6.1. Interest of the Community industry and of the

other Community producer

(105) Certain interested parties argued that the market of FeSi
has recovered since the end of the IP and that prices have
allegedly reached record levels. The Community industry
could thus resume production and increase its profit-
ability without the need to impose any anti-dumping
it was also alleged that only
measures.
exporting producers
located in third countries not
concerned by anti-dumping measures would be the ben-
eficiary from the imposition of measures rather than the
Community industry.

In addition,

(106) According to Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, infor-
mation relating to a period subsequent to the IP shall
normally not be taken into account to reach a finding. In
any event, while the information available shows that
FeSi prices have indeed followed an upward trend in
the months following the IP, the prices for major cost
inputs of FeSi have also increased in the same period. On
this basis, it cannot be concluded that the Community
industry has recovered to the extent that the imposition
of measures would not be warranted. This argument had
therefore to be rejected.

L 55/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.2.2008

(107) With regard to the argument

rather

imposition of measures

that only exporting
producers located in third countries not concerned by
anti-dumping measures would in fact be the beneficiary
from the
than the
Community industry, it is recalled that the aim of anti-
dumping measures is to correct
the trade distorting
effects of dumping and restore effective competition on
the Community market. On the one hand, the imports
from the countries concerned will
therefore not be
prevented from entering the Community market where
effective competition will prevail for the benefit of all
operators. Likewise, the Community industry will reap
the benefits of the restoration of effective competition
on the Community market. On that basis, it is considered
that the argument is unfounded and must therefore be
rejected.

(108)

In the absence of any other comments in this particular
regard, the findings set out in recitals 143 to 149 of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

6.2. Interest of the suppliers of raw materials

(109)

In the absence of comments from suppliers, following
findings, recitals 150 to
the disclosure of provisional
152 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

6.3. Interest of the importers

(110) One interested party importing FeSi from the PRC and
delivering it mainly to foundries alleged that the impo-
sition of any anti-dumping measures will have serious
negative effects on the iron casting industry resulting in
the closing down of undertakings in such industry and
consequently in job losses in the Community market.

(111) However, as outlined in recital 115 below, despite a very
limited cooperation from foundries, the further investi-
gation carried out after the imposition of provisional
the imposition of measures is
measures showed that
not
likely to have a significantly negative effect on
foundries. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.

(112)

In the absence of any other comments in this particular
regard, the findings set out in recitals 153 to 158 of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(114) The additional analysis concentrated on the two main
groups of users, namely steel producers and foundries.
Based on additional
it was
confirmed that on average FeSi accounts for approxi-
steel
mately 0,7 % of
producers. For foundries, this share was found to be
higher (1,4 % of the cost of production).

cost of production of

information received,

the

(115) On that basis, and taking into account that the average
definitive duty rate is 23,4 %, the impact of measures on
the steel and the foundry industry is not expected to be
significant as it will effect at maximum their financial
results by 0,16 % and 0,33 %, respectively. This worst
case scenario situation should be seen in the light of
the beneficial effects the correction of the trade distortion
will have on the Community market overall. Moreover, if
imports from the countries concerned
the fact
account for about 50 % of Community consumption is
factored into this analysis, then the effect of the measures
to the financial results of
the user industries would
indeed be significantly lower.

that

(116) Given the above, recital 166 of the provisional Regu-

lation is hereby confirmed.

6.5. Previous proceedings

the

institutions decided to let

(117) Several interested parties claimed that because the anti-
dumping measures imposed in the past allegedly did not
have the expected remedial effect on the Community
industry,
anti-
dumping measures lapse in 2001, see recital 129 of
Commission Decision 2001/230/EC of 21 February
2001
proceeding
concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil,
the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia,
Ukraine and Venezuela (1).

anti-dumping

terminating

the

the

(118) Without commenting on the correctness of the above
claim, the basic Regulation requires that decisions are
taken on the basis of
the information gathered and
analysed during the relevant investigation and not on
the
above
is
these
assumption made
therefore not relevant in the present case and must be
rejected.

investigations. The
interested

previous

parties

basis

by

of

6.4. Interest of users

(113) As outlined in recitals 3 to 5 above, the possible effect of
the user
provisional measures on the situation of
industries,
in particular foundries and steel producers,
was further examined. Although more than 500 ques-
tionnaires were sent
their coop-
eration, as explained in recital 5 above, was very poor.

to interested parties,

6.6. Conclusion on Community interest

the
(119) Given the results of
case described
Community interest
above,
contained in
findings
the
recitals 141 to 168 of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.

the further investigation of
the
aspects of
and conclusions

(1) OJ L 84, 23.3.2001, p. 36.

28.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/17

7. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

7.1. Injury elimination level

(120) Several

interested parties

contested the provisional
finding that a profit margin of 5 % would be the profit
margin that could reasonably be achieved by an industry
of this type in the sector under normal conditions of
competition.

(121) One interested party claimed that the profit margin for
the Community industry used for the determination of
the injury elimination level should be set at the level of
the profit realised by the Community industry in the year
2003, i.e. 2,3 %, and in no case more than that of the
year 2004 which was an exceptionally prosperous year
for the alloy sector.

(122) The determination of the injury elimination level has to
be based on an evaluation of the level of the profit
margin which the Community industry can reasonably
expect to achieve in the absence of dumped imports,
on the sales of
the like product on the Community
market. The profit margin realised at the beginning of
the period considered in a given investigation may be
realised in the absence of
considered as
dumped imports. However,
is also recalled that
during the expiry review investigation which led to the
termination of the anti-dumping measures applicable to
imports of
PRC,
Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine and Venezuela the profits

FeSi originating

in Brazil,

the profit

the

it

reached levels up to 11,2 %,

realised by the Community industry in the absence of
dumped imports
see
recital 105 of Commission Decision 2001/230/EC.
Accordingly,
the applied target profit of 5 % used in
the present investigation as explained in recital 171 of
the provisional Regulation reflects a rather conservative
approach. On the basis of the above, the claim had to be
rejected.

(123)

In the absence of any other comments concerning the
injury elimination level, recitals 169 to 171 of the pro-
visional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

7.2. Form and level of the duties

(124)

In the light of the foregoing and in accordance with
Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-
dumping duty should be imposed at the level sufficient
to eliminate the injury caused by the dumped imports
without exceeding the dumping margin found.

(125)

In view of the comments received by certain interested
parties following the provisional disclosure and in view
of
the revisions described in this Regulation, certain
margins have been amended.

(126) The rate of the definitive duties are definitively set as

follows:

Country

Company

Injury elimin-
ation margin

Dumping
margin

Anti-dumping
duty rate

PRC

Erdos Xijin Kuang Co., Ltd., Qipanjing Industry
Park

21,4 %

15,6 %

15,6 %

Lanzhou Good Land Ferroalloy Factory Co., Ltd.,
Xicha Village

31,4 %

29,0 %

29,0 %

All other companies

31,2 %

55,6 %

31,2 %

Russia

Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant,
Chelyabinsk and Kuznetsk Ferroalloy Works,
Novokuznetsk

31,3 %

22,7 %

22,7 %

Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant, Bratsk

18,8 %

17,8 %

17,8 %

all other companies

31,3 %

22,7 %

22,7 %

Egypt

The Egyptian Ferroalloys Company, Cairo

27,1 %

15,4 %

15,4 %

Egyptian Chemical Industries KIMA, Cairo

18,0 %

24,8 %

18,0 %

all other companies

18,0 %

24,8 %

18,0 %

L 55/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.2.2008

Country

Company

Injury elimin-
ation margin

Dumping
margin

Anti-dumping
duty rate

Kazakhstan

All companies

33,9 %

37,1 %

33,9 %

The former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia

All companies

19,0 %

5,4 %

5,4 %

(127) Some interested parties proposed to impose a minimum
import price instead of an ad valorem duty. However, it
the imposition of a minimum
was considered that
import price was not appropriate in this case.
It was
found that FeSi
imported in a wide range of
different
types with significantly different price levels.
In addition, all cooperating exporters have different
duty levels (some based on dumping margins, some on
the injury margins) requiring a multitude of different
minimum import prices. The imposition of a minimum
import price would, in these circumstances, be a highly
inefficient measure. This proposal was therefore rejected.

is

(128) The

the

duty

rates

company

individual

findings of

the present

anti-dumping

(as opposed to the

rates
specified in this Regulation were established on the
basis of
investigation.
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that
to these companies. These
investigation with respect
duty
countrywide duty
applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively
applicable to imports of products originating in the
countries concerned and produced by the companies
and thus by the
entities mentioned.
Imported products produced by any other company
not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this
Regulation with its name and address, including entities
related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit
from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate
applicable to ‘all other companies’.

specific

legal

(e.g.

(129) Any claim requesting the application of these individual
company anti-dumping duty rates
following a
the entity or following the
change in the name of
setting up of new production or sales entities) should
be addressed to the Commission (1) forthwith with all
relevant information,
in particular any modification in
the company’s activities linked to production, domestic
and export sales associated with, for example, that name
that change in the production and sales
change or
entities.
then be
amended accordingly by updating the list of companies
benefiting from individual duty rates.

the Regulation will

If appropriate,

7.3. Undertakings

(130) The undertaking offered by the exporting producer in the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was accepted at

(131)

(132)

the provisional
stage by the provisional Regulation.
Following the disclosure of the definitive findings, one
two cooperating
in Egypt,
exporting producer
producers in Russia and one Chinese exporter offered
price undertakings in accordance with Article 8(1) of
the basic Regulation.

the

It is noted, however, that since the imposition of the
provisional measures the product concerned and the
like product have shown a considerable volatility in
is not considered anymore
prices and therefore FeSi
suitable for a fixed price undertaking.
to
the possibility to index the
overcome this problem,
minimum import price to the price of the main cost
input was examined.
It was concluded, however, that
the volatility in prices on the market cannot be merely
explained by an increase in the price of the main cost
input, thus it is not possible to index the minimum
import prices to the price of the main cost input. On
the basis of the above, it was concluded that the under-
takings offered by the exporters cannot be accepted.

In order

the price,

the disclosure of

should be accepted,

the four undertakings
In examining whether or not
the definitive
offered following
findings
the Commission also
examined the workability of the undertaking accepted
at provisional stage from the exporting producer in the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under
the
changed circumstances of price volatility. Due to the
above described high volatility of
the
minimum import price of the undertaking is no longer
sufficient to eliminate the injurious effect of dumping as
Indeed, prices have
established by the investigation.
considerably increased in the months
following the
acceptance of the undertaking. Given the fact that the
minimum import price cannot be indexed,
it was
form,
concluded that
namely with fixed minimum prices is not workable any
longer. Thus the acceptance of the undertaking offered
in the former Yugoslav
by the exporting producer
In this
Republic of Macedonia should be withdrawn.
regard, the Commission withdrew its acceptance of the
undertaking
(EC) No
by Commission Regulation
174/2008 (2).

the undertaking in its current

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

Office J-79 4/23, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium.

(2) See page 23 of this Official Journal

28.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/19

7.4. Definitive collection of provisional duties and

special monitoring

products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be
as follows:

(133)

(134)

(135)

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found
and in the light of the level of the injury caused to the
Community industry, it is considered necessary that the
amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation should be
definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the
definitive duties imposed. Where the definitive duties are
lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally
secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping
duties shall be released. Where the definitive duties are
higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts
secured at the level of the provisional duties shall be
definitely collected.

In order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to
the high difference in the duty rates, it is considered that
special measures are needed in this case to ensure the
proper application of
the anti-dumping duties. These
special measures, which only apply to companies for
which an individual duty rate is introduced, include the
presentation to the customs authorities of the Member
States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform
to the requirements set out in the Annex. Imports not
accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to
the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other
exporters.

individual duty rates

It is recalled that should the exports by the companies
benefiting from lower
increase
significantly in volume after the imposition of the anti-
dumping measures, such increase could be considered as
constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due
to the imposition of measures within the meaning of
Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circum-
stances, and provided the conditions are met, an anti-
circumvention investigation may be initiated. This inves-
tigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal
of individual duty rates and the consequent imposition of
a countrywide duty,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Country

Company

The People’s
Republic of
China

Erdos Xijin Kuangye Co.,
Ltd., Qipanjing Industry Park

Lanzhou Good Land
Ferroalloy Factory Co., Ltd,
Xicha Village

All other companies

Egypt

The Egyptian Ferroalloys
Company, Cairo

All other companies

Kazakhstan

All companies

All companies

AD duty
rate
(%)

TARIC
additional
code

15,6

A829

29,0

A830

31,2

15,4

18,0

33,9

5,4

A999

A831

A999

—

—

The former
Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia

Russia

Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant,
Bratsk

17,8

A835

All other companies

22,7

A999

3.
The application of the individual duty rates specified for
the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional
upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member
States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the
requirements set out
If no such invoice is
in the Annex.
presented,
the duty rate applicable to all other companies
shall apply.

Unless otherwise

4.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

Article 1

Article 2

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on
1.
imports of ferro-silicon falling within CN codes 7202 21 00,
7202 29 10 and 7202 29 90 and originating in the People’s
Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Egypt,
the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia and Russia.

2.
The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to
the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, of the

Amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 994/2007 on
pursuant
imports of ferro-silicon falling within CN codes 7202 21 00,
7202 29 10 and 7202 29 90 and originating in the People’s
Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan,
the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia and Russia shall be definitely collected.
The amounts secured in excess of the amount of the definitive
anti-dumping duties shall be released. Where the definitive
duties
than the provisional duties, only the
amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties shall be
definitively collected.

are higher

L 55/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.2.2008

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

Article 3

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

Done at Brussels, 25 February 2008.

For the Council
The President

A. VIZJAK

ANNEX

A declaration signed by an official of the company, in the following format must appear on the valid commercial invoice
referred to in Article 1(3):

1. the name and function of the official of the company which has issued the commercial invoice.

2. the following declaration ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the [volume] of ferro-silicon sold for export to the European
Community covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and registered seat) (TARIC additional code)
in (country concerned). I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.

Date and signature’