Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China
Date: 2009-01-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping measure, iron, metal product, steel

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 6.1.2009 
COM(2008) 901 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners 
originating in the People’s Republic of China  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

Context of the proposal 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of 
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members 
of  the  European  Community,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2117/2005  of  21  December  2005  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  proceedings 
concerning  imports  of  certain  iron  or  steel  fasteners  originating  in  the  People’s 
Republic of China. 

General context 

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

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Not applicable 

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

Consultation of interested parties and impact assessment 

Consultation of interested parties 

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

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

Impact assessment 

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

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

Legal elements of the proposal 

Summary of the proposed action 

On 9 November 2007,  the Commission  opened  an  anti-dumping  proceeding pursuant 
to Article 5 of the basic Regulation.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The investigation concluded that there was injurious dumping during the investigation 
period and that it was not against the Community interest to impose measures.  

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation. 

Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005.  

Subsidiarity principle 

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

Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons: 

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

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

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

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

The aforementioned basic Regulation does not provide for alternative options. 

Budgetary implication 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners 
originating in the People’s Republic of China  

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 ('the basic 
Regulation'), and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. Initiation 

A. PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

On  26  September  2007,  the  Commission  received  a  complaint  lodged  pursuant  to 
Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports 
from countries not members of the European Community2 (‘the basic Regulation’) by 
the  European  Industrial  Fasteners  Institute  (EIFI,  ‘the  complainant’)  on  behalf  of 
producers  representing  a  major  proportion,  in  this  case  more  than  25%,  of  the  total 
Community production of certain iron or steel fasteners. 

This complaint contained evidence of dumping of certain iron or steel fasteners from 
the  People’s  Republic  of  China  (‘PRC’)  and  of  material  injury  resulting  therefrom, 
which was considered sufficient to justify the opening of a proceeding. 

On 9 November 2007, the proceeding  was initiated by the publication of a notice of 
initiation3 in the Official Journal of the European Union (the 'Notice of Initiation'). 

2. Non-imposition of Provisional measures 

Given the need to further examine certain aspects of the investigation, it was decided 
to  continue  the  investigation  without  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures  on 
imports of certain iron or steel fasteners from the PRC.  

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.  
OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. 
OJ C 267, 9.11.2007, p. 31. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

On 4 August 2008, all interested parties were provided with an information document 
detailing the preliminary findings of the investigation at that stage of the investigation 
("the information document") and inviting the parties to comment on those findings. 

Subsequent  to  that  date,  the  investigation  was  continued  with  regard  to,  inter  alia, 
Community  interest  aspects  and  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  product  scope/product 
comparability carried out, as it had been disputed by various interested parties. 

3. Parties concerned by the proceeding 

the 

importers,  users,  associations  known 

The  complainant  Community  producers,  other  Community  producers,  the  exporting 
producers, 
to  be  concerned  and 
representatives of the government of the PRC were officially advised of the initiation 
of  the  proceeding.  Interested  parties  were  given  an  opportunity  to  make  their  views 
known  in  writing  and  to  request  a  hearing  within  the  time  limit  set  in  the  notice  of 
initiation. 

A  number  of  interested  parties  made  their  views  known  in  writing,  in  particular 
concerning  the  choice  of  analogue  country, the  type  and  quality  differences  between 
Chinese fasteners and those produced and sold by the Community producers, standing 
of  the  complainants  and  injury  and  Community  interest  aspects.  Moreover,  all 
interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why 
they should be heard, were granted a hearing. 

All  interested  parties  (Community  producers,  Community  importers  and  Chinese 
exporting producers) that had made submissions regarding the product scope attended 
an  adversarial  meeting  organised  in  accordance  with  Article  6(6)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  under  the  auspices  of  the  Hearing  Officer  on  18  September  2008 
('adversarial meeting').  

(10)  Given the large number of known exporting producers in the PRC, as well as the large 
the 
number  of  known  Community  producers  and 
determination  of  dumping  and  injury  was  provided  for  in  the  Notice  of Initiation,  in 
accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. 

importers,  sampling  for 

4. Sampling 

4.1. Sampling of exporting producers in the PRC 

(11)  As  stated  above,  in  view  of  the  large  number  of  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC, 
sampling was proposed in the Notice of Initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of 
the basic Regulation. 

(12) 

In  order  to  enable  the  Commission  to  decide  whether  sampling  would  be  necessary 
and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers were requested to make themselves 
known  within  15  days  from  the  date  of  the  initiation  of  the  investigation  and  to 
provide  basic  information  on  their  exports  and  domestic  sales,  and  the  names  and 
activities of all their related companies involved in the production and/or selling of the 
product concerned. The authorities in the PRC were also consulted. 

(13)  A  total  of  120  companies  or  groups  of  companies  in  the  PRC  came  forward  and 
provided  the  requested  information  within  the  given  deadline.  However,  it  appeared 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
from  the  data  provided  that  some  of  these  companies  or  groups  did  not  produce 
fasteners  themselves  and  some  reported  exports  to  the  Community  of  fasteners 
produced  by  related  companies.  Those  companies  or  groups  that  produced  and 
exported the product concerned to the Community during the investigation period and 
expressed  a  wish  to  be  included  in  the  sample  were  considered  as  cooperating 
companies  and  were  taken  into  account  in  the  selection  of  the  sample.  These 
companies accounted for  110 out of the total of 120 companies or  groups that  made 
themselves known after initiation. 

(14)  Exporting  producers  which  did  not  make  themselves  known  within  the  aforesaid 

period were considered as not cooperating with the investigation. 

(15)  According  to  Article  17(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  exporters  with  the  largest 
exported  volume  to  the  Community  were  selected  so  as  to  achieve  the  largest 
representative  volume  of  exports  which  could  reasonably  be  investigated  within  the 
time available.  

(16)  On this basis, a sample  of nine Chinese exporting producers or groups was selected. 
The  selected  companies  represented  61%  of  the  exports,  by  the  cooperating 
companies, of the product concerned to the Community, and 39% of the total exports 
from the PRC. 

(17) 

In  accordance  with  Article  17(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  cooperating  exporting 
producers and the authorities of the PRC were given an opportunity to comment on the 
selection of the sample. 

(18)  A  number  of  Chinese  exporters  argued  that  they  should  have  been  included  in  the 
sample because of particular circumstances regarding their companies, such as the fact 
that  they  manufactured  specific  product  types  allegedly  not  produced  by  the 
companies  selected  for  the  sample.  However,  the  types  of  the  iron  or  steel  fasteners 
manufactured by exporters were not part of the criteria used to select the sample. As 
stated  in  recital  (15)  above,  the  criterion  used  was  the  exporters  with  the  largest 
exported  volume  to  the  Community.  This  is  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  Article 
17(1) of the basic Regulation.  

(19)  Questionnaires  were  sent  for  completion  to  the  sampled  companies  and  replies  from 

all of them were received within the given deadlines. 

(20)  Five companies not selected in the sample submitted replies to the questionnaire with 
a view to requesting individual examination in application of Articles 9(6) and 17(3) 
of  the  basic  Regulation.  Four  of  these  requests  were  accepted.  Since  the  other 
company did not produce the product concerned itself, its request was refused. 

(21)  Following  the  definitive  disclosure,  one  exporter  argued  that  the  companies  which 
were  individually  investigated  should  be  counted  as  part  of  the  sample  for  the 
application  of  article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Another  exporter  argued  that  the 
Commission should have enlarged the original sample, rather than accepting requests 
for individual examination under article 17(3). In this respect, it should be noted that 
the  sample  is  still  considered  sufficiently  representative.  Even  after  four  of  the 
sampled  companies  failed  to  cooperate,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (62),  the  remaining 
sampled companies represented 54% of the total exports by cooperating companies of 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
the product concerned to the Community. Moreover, it is considered appropriate, for 
reasons  of  objectivity  and  transparency,  to  select  a  sample  at  the  beginning  of  the 
proceeding,  and  maintain  it  throughout  the  proceeding  unless  there  are  grounds  to 
consider that this sample is no longer representative. Finally, for the same reasons the 
sampling exercise should be considered as distinct and separate from the granting of 
individual examination under article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.  

4.2. Sampling of Community producers 

(22)  As  stated  above,  in  view  of  the  large  number  of  producers  in  the  Community, 
sampling was proposed in the Notice of Initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of 
the basic Regulation. 

(23) 

In  order  to  enable  the  Commission  to  decide  whether  sampling  would  be  necessary 
and if so to select a sample, Community producers were requested to make themselves 
known  within  15  days  from  the  date  of  the  initiation  of  the  investigation  and  to 
provide basic information on their production and sales, and the names and activities 
of all their related companies involved in the production and/or selling of the product 
concerned.  

(24)  A  total  of  46  Community  producers  that  produced  the  product  concerned  in  the 
Community during the investigation period and expressed a wish to be included in the 
sample  within  the  aforesaid  period  were  considered  as  cooperating  companies  and 
were taken into account in the selection of the sample.  

(25)  These Community producers represented over 30% of the estimated production in the 
Community  in  2006.  These  producers  are  considered  to  constitute  the  Community 
industry as mentioned in recital (114) below.  

(26)  The  issue  of  the  standing  of  the  Community  industry  was  questioned  by  some 
importers  in  the  Community  and  also  by  some  exporting  producers.  Indeed,  certain 
interested  parties  provided,  after  the  publication  of  the  Notice  of  Initiation,  lists  of 
Community  producers  that  allegedly  had  not  been  consulted  as  to  their  support  or 
otherwise  for  the  proceeding.  A  questionnaire  was  subsequently  sent  to  all  such 
producers. Moreover, several companies came forward on their own initiative without 
having received a questionnaire. However, none of the responses received from these 
producers has reduced the level of standing mentioned in the preceding recital. In fact, 
many of these companies supported the complaint.  

(27) 

In accordance with Article 17(1) of  the basic Regulation, the Community producers, 
from among those that constitute the Community industry, with the largest production 
volume were selected in the sample so as to achieve the largest representative volume 
of production of the like product produced in the Community which could reasonably 
be investigated within the time available.  

(28)  On  this  basis,  a  sample  of  seven  producers  was  selected.  The  selected  companies 
accounted  for  around  70%  of  the  production  of  the  Community  industry.  After  one 
sampled  producer  was  considered  as  not  cooperating,  this  percentage  decreased  to 
around 65%. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(29) 

In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the cooperating Community 
producers were given the opportunity to comment on the selection of the sample. No 
comments were received that warranted changes to the sample. 

(30)  Questionnaires  were  sent  for  completion  to  the  sampled  companies  and  replies  from 

all of them were received within the given deadlines. 

4.3. Sampling of Community importers 

(31)  As stated above, in view of the large number of importers in the Community, sampling 
was proposed in the Notice of Initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic 
Regulation. 

(32) 

In  order  to  enable  the  Commission  to  decide  whether  sampling  would  be  necessary 
and if so to select a sample, Community importers were requested to make themselves 
known  within  15  days  from  the  date  of  the  initiation  of  the  investigation  and  to 
provide basic information on their imports and sales, and the names and activities of 
all  their  related  companies  involved  in  the  production  and/or  selling  of  the  product 
concerned.  

(33)  A total of 45 companies or groups of companies in the Community came forward and 
provided  the  requested  information  within  the  given  deadline  representing  close  to 
29% of the total imported volume in the Community.  

(34)  According to Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Community importers with the 
largest sales volume were selected so as to achieve the largest representative volume 
which  can  reasonably  be  investigated.  Therefore,  the  7  largest  importers  in  terms  of 
volumes of sales were selected to be part of the sample. Questionnaires were sent for 
completion  to  the  sampled  companies  and  replies  from  all  of  them  were  received 
within the given deadlines. 

5. Market Economy Treatment ('MET') and Individual Treatment ('IT') 

(35) 

In order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for MET or IT, if 
they so wished, claim forms were sent to the Chinese exporting producers known to be 
concerned, to the  known  associations of  exporters and  to the authorities  of the PRC. 
106  exporting  producers  requested  MET  pursuant  to  Article  2(7)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. All these companies also claimed IT should the investigation establish that 
they did not meet the conditions for MET. Two other companies claimed only IT. All 
the nine companies selected in the sample claimed MET and IT. 

6. Questionnaires and verification visits 

(36)  Questionnaires were sent to the sampled exporting producers in the PRC and the four 
exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  who  requested  and  were  granted  individual 
examination, the sampled Community producers and importers as well as to users in 
the Community. Replies were received from all 9 sampled exporting producers in the 
PRC,  the  4  exporting  producers  granted  individual  examination,  one  exporter  in  the 
PRC not selected in the sample who requested but was eventually refused individual 
examination  as  mentioned  in  recital  (20)  above,  7  sampled  Community  producers,  7 
sampled unrelated importers, 3 users, and 2 producers in the analogue country, India. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(37)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  the  information  deemed  necessary  for  a 
determination  of  dumping,  resulting  injury  and  Community  interest  and  carried  out 
verifications at the premises of the following companies: 

(a) 

Community producers 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

A. Agrati SpA, Milano, (Italy) 

Societa Bulloneria Europea SpA, Monfalcone and Reggio Emilia, (Italy)  

Fontana Luigi SpA and LOBO SpA, Milano, (Italy) 

Finnveden Bulten, AB Göteborg, (Sweden) 

Srubex Fabryca Lancut S.A, Lancut, (Poland)  

Growermetal SRL, Lecco, (Italy) 

Invitea SpA, Milano, (Italy) 

(b) 

Exporting producers and their related companies in the PRC 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Changshu  City  Standard  Parts  Factory  and  Changshu  British  Shanghai 
International Fastener Co. Ltd., Changshu 

Zhangjiagang City Jinli Standard Fastener Co. Ltd., Zhangjiagang, and 

Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd., Ningbo 

Ningbo Jinding Fastening Piece Co., Ltd., Ningbo 

Kunshan Chenghe Standard Component Co., Ltd., Kunshan 

Pol Shin Fastener (ZheJiang) Co., Ltd., Jiashan 

Biao Wu Tensile Fasteners Co., Ltd and Shanghai Prime Machinery Co., Ltd. ., 
Shanghai 

Zhejiang  Zhapu  Industrial  Co.,  Ltd,  Jiaxing  Washan  Fasteners  Co.,  Ltd  and 
Zhejiang WB Auto Fasteners Co., Ltd, Jiaxing 

Eastport Fastener Manufacturing Co., Ltd, Ningbo 

CELO Suzhou Precision Fasteners Co., Ltd, Taicang 

Golden Horse (Dong Guan) Metal Manufactory Co., Ltd, Dongguan City 

Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd, Yantai 

Zhejiang Guanglong Hardware and Plastic Co., Ltd, and Zhejiang Guanglong 
Plating Machinery & Product Co., Ltd, Anji 

(c) 

Related companies in the Community 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
– 

Celo S.A., Barcelona, Spain 

(d) 

Related company in Taiwan 

– 

Sunny Corp., Taipei 

(e) 

Unrelated importers in the Community 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Adolf Würth GmbH, Kunzelsau, Germany 

Chaves Bilbao, S.A., Larrabetzu, Spain 

FM Bulloneria Viterie SpA, Reggio Emilia, Italy 

F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH &CO KG, Hamburg, Germany 

Hexstone Ltd t/a Owlett Jaton, Stone, UK 

VIPA SpA, Reggio Emilia, Italy 

(38) 

In view of the need to establish a normal value for exporting producers in the PRC to 
which MET might not be granted, a verification to establish normal value on the basis 
of data from the analogue country (India) took place at the premises of the following 
companies: 

(f) 

Producers in the analogue country, India 

– 

Pooja Forge Ltd., Faridabad 

–  Mohindra Fasteners Ltd, New Delhi 

7. Investigation period 

(39)  The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 
September 2007 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). With respect to the trends relevant for 
the injury assessment, data covering the period from 1 January 2003 to the end of the 
investigation period (‘period considered’) was analysed. 

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. Product concerned 

(40)  The  product  concerned  is  certain iron  or  steel  fasteners,  other  than  of  stainless  steel, 
i.e. wood screws (excluding coach screws), self-tapping screws, other screws and bolts 
with  heads  (whether  or  not  with  their  nuts  or  washers,  but  excluding  screws  turned 
from bars, rods, profiles or wire, of solid section, of a shank thickness not exceeding 6 
mm  and  excluding  screws  and  bolts  for  fixing  railway  track  construction  material), 
and  washers,  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  (all  together  hereinafter 
referred to as 'fasteners' or 'product concerned').  

(41)  The product concerned is normally declared within CN codes 7318 12 90, 7318 14 91, 
7318 14 99, 7318 15 59, 7318 15 69, 7318 15 81, 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 
21 00 and ex 7318 22 00. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(42)  Fasteners  are  used  to  mechanically  join  two  or  more  elements  in  construction, 
engineering,  etc  and  are  used  in  a  wide  variety  of  industrial  sectors,  as  well  as  by 
consumers. Based on their basic physical and technical characteristics and end uses, all 
fasteners  are  considered  to  constitute  a  single  product  for  the  purpose  of  the 
proceeding.  Within  the  same  national  or  international  standards,  fasteners  should 
comply  with  the  same  basic  physical  and  technical  characteristics  including  notably 
strength, tolerance, finishing and coating. 

(43)  During  the  investigation,  and  in  particular  at  the  adversarial  meeting,  a  number  of 
importers  or  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  argued  that  some  types  of  screws, 
washers,  or  bolts  with  low  resistance  grades  should  be  excluded  from  the  product 
scope of the investigation, on the grounds that they are neither being produced by the 
Community industry nor similar to the typical products of the Community industry. In 
this  respect,  the  investigation  found  that  there  is  significant  production  by  the 
Community  industry  of  the  same  or  similar  types  of  fasteners.  Moreover,  the  basic 
Regulation does not require that exported products be identical in all respects in order 
to  be  considered  as  a  single  product  for  the  purpose  of  the  investigation.  These 
arguments had therefore to be dismissed.  

(44)  One  Community  distributor,  in  particular,  argued  that  wood  screws  should  be 
excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  investigation  as  allegedly  they  i)  were  not 
manufactured in large quantities by the Community industry, and ii) those Community 
producers  who  specialise  in  wood  screws  were  not  in  support  of  the  proceeding. 
However,  the  investigation  has  shown  that  there  is  significant  production  of  wood 
screws  among  Community  producers,  including  some  of  those  supporting  the 
proceeding. Moreover, it is recalled that the minimum level of support stipulated in the 
basic Regulation is not required for each product type, and that this cannot serve as a 
basis  for  defining  the  product  scope  of  the  investigation.  Therefore,  the  arguments 
above had to be dismissed. 

(45)  Another  Community  distributor  argued  that  fasteners  destined  for  the  do-it-yourself 
('DIY')  market  segment  should  be  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  investigation  as 
allegedly  they  were  not  substitutable  with  fasteners  produced  by  the  Community 
industry, and are the product of a separate 'industry branch'. Following the disclosure, 
this distributor requested and was granted an additional hearing, during which they re-
iterated  their  arguments  that  DIY  fasteners  can  clearly  be  separated  from  the  other 
products, and that they are of no interest to the Community industry. Firstly, it should 
be  noted  that  DIY  fasteners  are  not  fundamentally  different  from  other  fasteners 
destined  for  a  more  professional  use,  and  fasteners  used  in  DIY,  professional  or 
industrial  uses  are  to  some  extent  overlapping  categories.  The  same  distributor 
described  some  of  the  typical  characteristics  of  the  so-called  DIY  fasteners,  such  as 
packaging, resistance, markings or coating and argued that on this basis, fasteners for 
the DIY segment of the market could be distinguished from fasteners intended for use 
in  other  segments.  However,  it  was  considered  that  those  characteristics  were  not 
sufficient to draw a clear line distinguishing the fasteners destined for the DIY market 
segment,  from  other  types  of  fasteners.  Finally,  during  the  investigation  and  in 
particular the adversarial meeting, the representatives of the Community industry also 
provided  examples  of  Community  companies  which  are  producing  screws  and 
standard fasteners, in which the so-called DIY fasteners should be included. It has also 
been ascertained that the remaining Community producers have the technical capacity 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
to produce those fasteners if the market conditions so allowed. The arguments of this 
distributor had therefore to be dismissed. 

(46)  A  Community  producer  of  anchors  imported,  from  the  PRC,  nail-screws  used  in  the 
production  of  anchors  and  argued  that,  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge,  there  is  no 
production capacity of those nail-screws in the Community. They further claimed that 
nail-screws  should  not  be  included  in  the  product  scope  as  they  cannot  be  used  as  a 
normal screw. However, the investigation has shown that nail-screws share the same 
basic  physical  characteristics  as  other  fasteners  and  are  also  being  produced  by  the 
Community  industry.  These  findings  have  not  been  disputed  by  the  company  in 
question.  Accordingly,  there  were  no  reasons  to  exclude  these  products  from  the 
product scope. 

(47)  Two  Community  producers  argued  that  fasteners  without  heads,  and  "female" 
fasteners  should  be  included  in  the  scope  of  the  investigation,  on  the  grounds  they 
have  similar  physical  characteristics  to  those  of  the  product  concerned,  and  are  also 
subject  to  injury  from  imports  originating  in  the  PRC.  In  this  respect,  it  should  be 
pointed  out  that  those  products  were  not  included  in  the  scope  of  the  complaint 
mentioned in recital (1) and that, as a consequence, there is no information about these 
products  in  the  investigation  file.  Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to  accept  at  this  stage 
such changes to the product scope of the investigation.  

2. Like product 

(48)  A number of parties claimed that the fasteners manufactured in the PRC for export to 
the  Community  were  not  comparable  to  those  manufactured  by  the  Community 
industry,  and  that  the  latter  are  used  in  applications  which  differed  from  fasteners 
produced  in  the  PRC,  thus  not  being  in  direct  competition  with  them.  In  particular, 
they  claimed  that  the  majority  of  fasteners  produced  in  the  PRC  i)  are  standard 
products  (mainly  ranging  between  4.8  and  8.8  class  of  resistance)  having  no  special 
characteristics  regarding  raw  material,  resistance,  coating,  or  certification/safety 
related aspects; ii) they are destined for lower-end applications (non-professional use 
and  general  distribution)  as  opposed  to  high  tech  applications;  and  iii)  they  do  not 
meet the strict requirements of specific end-users such as the automotive, chemical or 
aerospace industry. Those claims were stated in a number of written submissions and 
in  the  adversarial  meeting.  They  were  also  stated  in  a  written  submission  received 
from the PRC authorities.  

(49)  Some  importers  and  their  associations  also  claimed,  during  the  adversarial  meeting, 
that  fasteners  manufactured  in  the  PRC  were  sold  at  consistently  lower  price  levels 
compared  to  those  produced  by  the  Community  industry,  and  that  this  demonstrated 
that  the  Chinese  and  Community-produced  fasteners  were  destined  for  different 
applications. Also to support their claim, they noted that the Community industry had 
been able to increase the volume of its sales and the average unit selling price, even 
though the imports from the PRC had increased significantly during the same period.  

(50) 

In that respect it is recalled that during the adversarial meeting it was recognised by all 
parties that there is an important distinction in the fasteners industry between standard 
and so-called 'special' fasteners. Standard products are described in detail by industry 
standards  such  as,  for  example,  Deutsches  Institut  für  Normung  ('DIN')  or  German 
Institute  for  Standardisation  standards.  These  standards  ensure  that  the  products 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
manufactured  by  different  suppliers 
in  different  countries  are  essentially 
interchangeable  from  a  user  point  of  view.  Special  fasteners,  on  the  other  hand, 
conform  to  a  particular  user's  design  and/or  requirements.  It  is  also  generally 
recognised that special fasteners tend to be used in more demanding applications such 
as  the  automotive,  chemical  and  other  industries  and  are,  on  average,  significantly 
more expensive to produce and sell than standard fasteners. 

(51)  Although the distinction between standard and special fasteners was not originally part 
of  the  product  type  classification  (product  control  numbers  or  'PCN')  used  in  the 
investigation,  it  was  decided  after  the  adversarial  meeting  that  it  should  be  added  to 
the  product  characteristics  being  considered  for  the  dumping  and  injury  margin 
calculations. Given that the vast majority of the exports of the product concerned by 
the  investigated  companies  were  of  standard  products,  this  means  that  in  most  cases 
the  comparison  made  are  between  standard  products  produced  in  the  PRC,  the 
analogue country and the Community. 

(52)  The  submission  from  the  PRC  authorities  mentioned  in  recital  (48)  enclosed  an 
analysis  report  detailing  alleged  quality  differences  between  fasteners  of  a  given 
standard  (DIN  933  is  used  as  an  example)  manufactured  in  the  Community  and  the 
PRC.  This  analysis  took  into  account  variations  in  geometry,  hardness  and  chemical 
composition. It was claimed that, although both products tested conformed to the DIN 
standard,  the  Community-produced  fasteners  had  a  greater  consistency,  i.  e.  less 
variation with respect to all parameters analysed, than the PRC-produced fasteners. On 
this basis, the PRC authorities concluded that the Community-produced product, given 
its superior quality, could be compared to the PRC product. In that respect, it should 
be noted that the purpose of DIN and other widely accepted standards is to ensure that 
products  satisfy  certain  essential  user  requirements.  Any  residual  variation  must  be 
within  limits  which  do  not  substantially  affect  the  fastener's  quality  and  function. 
Therefore,  a  fastener  which  is  marketed  as  a  DIN  933  bolt  must  be  essentially 
comparable  to  another  fastener  marketed  under  the  same  standard.  Any  perceived 
differences in quality, which may subsist from a user's point of view, can be dealt with 
through an adjustment for physical differences (see recital (103)) but do not mean that 
the two products are not comparable.  

(53) 

(54) 

In  the  same  submission  it  was  also  argued  that  the  fasteners  manufactured  by  the 
Community industry benefit from superior coating techniques which are not available 
to  manufacturers  in  the  PRC  and  that  therefore  those  products  cannot  be  considered 
alike. However, the differences in types of coating have been taken into account by the 
PCN used in the investigation, and do not imply that the fasteners manufactured by the 
Community  industry  and  those  manufactured  in  the  PRC  are  not  alike  within  the 
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, this article requires only that 
the  like  product  has  characteristics  closely  resembling  those  of  the  product  under 
consideration. This argument could therefore not be accepted. 

In summary, as far as the alleged differences in physical and technical characteristics 
are concerned, the investigation showed that despite the wide range of product types 
on  the  market,  many  of  the  types  manufactured  in  the  PRC  for  export  to  the 
Community  and  those  manufactured  by  the  Community  industry  were  largely 
marketed  under  similar  industry  standards.  Furthermore,  for  the  purpose  of  the 
investigation,  price  comparisons  were  made  almost  exclusively  between  fasteners  of 
the  'standard'  types.  In  this  respect,  it  is  recalled  that  fasteners  manufactured  and 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
classified under the same standards must, in principle, satisfy all requirements in terms 
of the mechanical properties of the raw material used, form, tolerances etc. While it is 
recognised that not all types of fasteners can be used for all applications, and that this 
is  particularly  the  case  for  'special'  fasteners  and  high-end  applications,  it  was  found 
that, within the same standard, all types of fasteners were found to be interchangeable 
for  most  of  the  other  applications.  Moreover,  notwithstanding  the  lower  prices 
observed  in  the  PRC,  the  European  Association  of  the  Iron  and  Steel  Industry 
('Eurofer')  confirmed  that  there  is  no  major  quality  difference  between  the  steel 
produced  in  the  PRC  and  the  steel  produced  in  the  Community  when  the  steel 
corresponds  to  a  standardised  grade.  As  a  result,  it  is  concluded  that  raw  material 
quality differences do not affect the comparability between fasteners exported from the 
PRC and those produced and sold in the Community. 

(55)  As far as the different price levels are concerned, it is considered that price differences 
between  products  per  se  do  not  justify  the  conclusion  that  a  certain  product  type 
should  be  considered  as  a  different  product.  As  it  has  been  found  that  all  types  of 
fasteners within the same standard had similar basic characteristics and end-uses, the 
above argument had to be rejected.  

(56) 

It  was  also  argued  by  several  importers  and  exporting  producers  that  the  fasteners 
produced in the analogue country, India, are mostly high-value product types destined 
for the automotive industry and similar applications, and therefore are not alike to the 
fasteners  exported  to  the  Community  by  the  PRC  producers.  The  investigation  has 
shown, however, that both special and standard products are also produced and sold in 
India.  As  explained  above  those  fasteners  have  been  found  to  have  the  same  basic 
physical and technical characteristics as products exported from the PRC. 

(57) 

It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  fasteners  produced  and  sold  by  the  Community 
industry in the Community, fasteners produced and sold on the domestic market in the 
PRC and those produced and sold on the domestic market in India, which served as an 
analogue country, and fasteners produced in the PRC and sold to the Community are 
alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

C. DUMPING 

1. Market economy treatment (MET)  

(58)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  anti-dumping  investigations 
concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value is determined in accordance 
with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which are found to meet 
the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. 

(59)  Briefly,  and  for  ease  of  reference  only,  the  MET  criteria  are  set  out  in  summarised 

form below: 

(1) 

(2) 

Business decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions and 
without significant State interference;  

Firms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently 
audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all 
purposes; 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

There are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market 
economy system; 

Bankruptcy and property laws guarantee legal certainty and stability; and 

Exchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates. 

1.1 Sampled companies 

(60)  As mentioned in recital (35), 106 exporting producers, including all the nine sampled 

companies claimed MET. 

(61)  The  Commission  verified  all  information  submitted  in  these  companies'  or  groups' 

MET applications at the premises of the nine sampled companies or groups. 

(62)  Of  the  nine  companies  or  groups  inspected  for  MET,  four  were  deemed  to  have 
provided  false  or  misleading  information.  The  four  companies  or  groups  concerned 
were notified of this and given an opportunity to comment in accordance with Article 
18  of  the  basic  Regulation.  However,  no  new  evidence  or  information  was  received 
from any of the four companies that would prevent the application of Article 18 of the 
basic Regulation to these companies. Given the application of the said article to these 
four companies, no MET determination was made. 

(63)  All  five  of  the  remaining  sampled  companies  or  groups  were  denied  MET  on  the 
grounds that the costs of the major input, steel wire rod, did not substantially reflect 
market values, as required by Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. It was found that 
the prices of steel wire rod, or in some cases, drawn steel wire, charged on the Chinese 
market were significantly lower than those charged on other markets, such as Europe, 
India,  North  America  and  Japan4.  Given  that  China  has  to  import  the  majority  of  its 
iron  ore  at  international  market  prices,  it  is  clear  that  it  does  not  benefit  from  any 
natural  comparative  advantage,  which  would  explain  these  abnormally  low  prices  of 
steel wire rod on the Chinese domestic market. At the same time various studies5, and 
even  the  annual  reports  of  some  large  steel  wire  rod  producers6  (which  supply 
producers  of  fasteners  with  their  raw  material,  albeit  mostly  via  traders)  point  to 
significant  State  interference  in  this  sector.  For  instance  according  to  the  audited 
financial  statements  of  the  producers  referred  to  above,  both  of  them  obtained 
significant Government subsidies in 2006 and 2007. Moreover, thanks to various tax 
concessions and grants one of the above companies paid only around 4.5% of tax on 
its profit of 2.8 billion CNY in 2007 instead of the standard corporate income tax of 
33%. One of the reports referred to above, "Money for Metal", summarises the various 
types  and  amounts  of  Government  subsidies  received  by  the  major  Chinese  steel 
producers over the last decade. The same report identifies more than 393 billion CNY 

4 
5 

6 

Source: Steel Bulletin Board and data obtained from and verified at the companies investigated.  
For instance "Money for Metal: A detailed Examination of Chinese Government Subsidies to its Steel 
Industry" by Wiley Rein LLP, July 2007, "China Government Subsidies Survey" by Anne Stevenson-
Yang,  February  2007,  "Shedding  Light  on  Energy  Subsidies  in  China:  An  Analysis  of  China's  Steel 
Industry from 2000-2007" by Usha C.V. Haley, "China's Specialty Steel Subsidies: Massive, Pervasive 
and  Illegal"  by  the  Specialty  Steel  Industry  of  North  America  and  "The  China  Syndrome:  How 
Subsidies and Government Intervention Created the World's Largest Steel Industry" by Wiley Rein & 
Fielding LLP, July 2006. 
Annual Reports 2007 of Maanshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd and Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in subsidies granted to Chinese steel producers and concludes that this has resulted in 
artificial  growth  of  China's  steel  capacity  and  production  at  the  expense  of  its 
international competitors. 

(64)  The interested parties were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings. 

(65)  Several  exporting  producers  argued  that  the  decision  to  refuse  MET  to  all  sampled 
companies  under  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  based  on  distorted  raw 
material  costs,  was  a  misinterpretation  of this  Article,  which  they  claimed  should  be 
understood to apply to companies individually, rather than to the sector in general. In 
addition  some  companies  argued  that  market  values  referred  to  in  the  said  article 
should  be  interpreted  as  market  values  in  the  PRC  rather  than  international  market 
values.  

(66) 

In  reply  to  these  arguments,  it  is  noted  that  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
requires, inter alia, that the costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values. 
The  main  input  of  fasteners,  steel  wire  rod,  accounts  for  around  50%  of  the  cost  of 
manufacturing. Based on data obtained and verified during the investigation as well as 
from independent market sources, such as the "Steel Bulletin Board", it is undisputable 
that  prices  of  steel  wire  rod  on  the  Chinese  domestic  market  are  significantly  below 
prices  on  other  markets.  Given  that  the  PRC  does  not  benefit  from  any  natural 
comparative advantage with regard to iron ore, which it imports at international market 
prices,  it  is  considered  that  there  is  no  justification  for  the  abnormally  low  prices  of 
steel  wire  rod,  which  do  not  substantially  reflect  market  values.  This  conclusion 
applies equally to the sector as a whole as well as individually to all of the investigated 
sampled  companies.  Therefore  criterion  1  of  Article  2(7)(c)  is  not  considered  to  be 
met. 

(67)  As regards the interpretation of "market value", "market value" has to be understood as 
a  non-distorted  market  price.  In  this  regard,  as  mentioned  above,  there  are  several 
sources  and  studies  which  point  to  State  interference  in  the  Chinese  steel  sector. 
Moreover,  as  mentioned  above,  some  of  the  largest  Chinese  producers  of  steel  wire 
rod  received  various  types  of  subsidies  in  2006  and  2007,  as  evidenced  by  their 
audited  financial  statements.  It  should  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is  up  to  the 
exporting  producers  to  demonstrate  that  they  operate  under  market  economy 
conditions and that the costs of their major inputs substantially reflect market values. 
This has not been demonstrated in this case. 

(68)  Some exporting producers have also argued that even if there was a price difference 
between  raw  material  prices  on  the  Chinese  domestic  market  and  other  international 
markets, this difference could be explained by quality differences. It is clear however, 
that even if some quality differences existed, they could not explain the huge price gap 
found  for  steel  of  similar  grades  used  by  the  Chinese  exporting  producers  and  the 
Community and Indian producers. Moreover, the difference between Chinese prices of 
steel  wire  rod  and  prices  on  other  markets,  as  apparent  from  published  sources,  and 
referring to the same type of wire rod is very significant; according to data published 
by  the  Steel  Bulletin  Board,  Chinese  domestic  prices  of  steel  wire  rod  were  in  the 
range  of  300-350  EUR/MT  in  the  IP  whereas  prices  in  North  America,  Europe  and 
Japan ranged between 400 and 500 EUR/MT for the same quality. Data obtained and 
verified during the investigation at the sampled exporting producers and Community 
producers  is  in  line  with  the  above  published  data.  Therefore  it  is  maintained,  that, 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
even  if  there  were  any  quality  differences,  these  could  not  explain  the  huge  price 
difference  between  raw  material  prices  found  on  the  Chinese  domestic  market  and 
those charged on other international markets.  

(69)  Some  exporting  producers  also  argued  that  any  distortions  in  raw  material  prices 
should be dealt with by adjusting the normal value in the dumping calculation rather 
than denying MET. However, in this case, given the high proportion of steel wire rod 
in the total cost, it is clear that Article 2(7)(c), which requires, inter alia, that the "costs 
of major inputs substantially reflect market values" is not met. Hence, any adjustment 
in the dumping calculations in order to address the distorted input costs would render 
Article 2(7)(c) largely meaningless.  

(70)  One  exporting  producer  group  disputed  the  conclusion  that  MET  should  be  refused 
also because it was found that the Chinese State (with a 47.18% shareholding) was in a 
position  to  either  significantly  influence  or  block  any  decisions  regarding  the 
company, and submitted evidence in this regard. In particular, it argued that decisions 
on  prices,  costs  and  inputs  were  taken  by  the  general  manager  and  vice  general 
managers, appointed by the Board of Directors and not by the share-holders. Therefore 
it claimed that the fact that certain decisions were adopted by the shareholder meeting 
with  a  2/3  majority  was  irrelevant,  as  none  of  those  decisions  concerned  business 
decisions regarding prices, costs and inputs.  

(71) 

It is considered that the fact that the Board of Directors, appointed by the controlling 
shareholder,  remained  unchanged  during  the  privatisation  process  casts  doubts  over 
the independence of the Board members vis-à-vis the State. It is also noteworthy that 
the  composition  of  the  Board  of  Directors  did  not  reflect  the  proportion  of 
shareholding in the group following the privatisation. Therefore it cannot be excluded 
that business decisions were indirectly influenced by the State and the company was 
unable to provide any evidence to the contrary.  

(72)  Therefore  the  initial  finding  that  MET  should  be  denied  to  this  group  also  on  this 

ground is maintained. 

(73)  A  second  exporting  producer  which  was  denied  MET  disputed  the  Commission's 
conclusions  regarding  its  accounting  standards  and  distortions  carried  over  from  the 
former  non-market  economy  system  and  submitted  arguments  that  these  findings 
should not be a basis to deny them MET. These findings have been analysed in detail. 
As  regards  the  accounting  standards,  it  is  still  undisputed  that  the  company  did  not 
comply  with  international  and  Chinese  accounting  standards  with  regard  to  the 
depreciation of a fixed asset. As regards the distortions carried over from the former 
non-market economy system linked to the privatisation of the company prior to the IP, 
the company did not submit any new evidence which would allow the Commission to 
alter its conclusions as to the privatisation process.  

(74)  Therefore  the  initial  finding  that  MET  should  be  denied  to  this  company  on  these 

further two grounds is maintained. 

(75)  A  third  exporting  producer  argued  that  the  fact  that  a  majority  of  its  capital  was 
controlled through a Trade Union did not imply that the first MET criterion was not 
fulfilled.  However,  the  company  could  not  demonstrate  how  the  shareholders  were 
able to exert control over the company freely and according to their share capital, as is 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
the  case  in  a  market  economy  environment.  Therefore,  State  interference  cannot  be 
excluded.  The  same  company  disputed  the  finding  that  it  had  received  financial 
support from the State on especially favourable conditions, given that its debts to the 
State  carried  a  certain  interest  rate  which  was  close  to  the  prevailing  market  rates. 
However, not only was the agreed interest rate below market levels, but also the debts 
to  the  State  had  not  been  serviced  in  accordance  with  the  agreed  schedules.  This 
company  also  claimed  that  only  Chinese  accounting  standards  should  be  used  as  a 
criterion for granting MET.  

(76)  However, Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation requires that companies are audited 
in  line  with  international  accounting  standards,  as  mentioned  above.  Moreover,  this 
company's  accounting  practices  were  also  found  not  to  be  in  line  with  Chinese 
accounting regulations. Their claims therefore had to be dismissed. 

1.2 Companies granted individual examination 

(77)  As  mentioned  above,  four  exporting  producers  not  selected  in  the  sample  requested 
and were granted individual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic 
Regulation.  

(78)  One  producer  group  provided  misleading  information  and  thus  the  provisions  of 
Article  18(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  were  applied.  MET  was  denied  to  two  of  the 
remaining  three  companies  on  the  same  grounds  as  described  above  for  the  sampled 
companies, i.e. they did not meet the first MET criterion under Article 2(7)(c) of the 
basic Regulation as costs of their major input, steel wire, did not substantially reflect 
international  market  values.  As  for  the  fourth  company,  MET  was  denied  as  this 
company did not fulfil the second and third MET criteria. 

(79)  One  of  the  companies  granted  individual  examination  disputed  the  Commission's 
finding that MET should be refused to it based on the failure to fulfil the first MET 
criterion, claiming that steel wire was not a main input in its production process and in 
addition,  part  of  it  had  been  sourced  from  sources  other  than  Chinese  steel  mills. 
However, this company's costs in the IP were inflated by start-up costs, hence making 
the proportion of steel wire in the total cost appear less significant than it would be in 
normal  circumstances.  As  regards  the  proportion  of  steel  wire  sourced  from  Chinese 
steel  mills,  it  accounted  for  the  majority  of  steel  wire  purchased  in  the  IP.  These 
claims were therefore rejected.  

2. Individual treatment (IT) 

2.1 Sampled companies 

(80)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a  country-wide  duty  (if  any)  is 
established  for  countries  falling  under  that  Article,  except  in  those  cases  where 
companies  are  able  to  demonstrate,  in  accordance  with  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, that their export prices and quantities as well as the conditions and terms 
of sales are freely determined; that exchange rates are carried out at market rates; and 
that  any  State  interference  is  not  such  as  to  permit  circumvention  of  measures  if 
exporters are given different rates of duty. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(81)  All five exporting producers in the sample which were denied MET also claimed IT in 
the event that they were not granted MET. On the basis of the information available it 
was  initially  found  that  four  of  these  companies  met  all  of  the  requirements  to  be 
granted IT in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. 

(82)  As  disclosed  to  the  interested  parties  in  the  information  document  setting  out  the 
preliminary findings of the investigation, it was initially intended not to grant IT to the 
fifth company on the grounds that it could not demonstrate that foreign shareholders 
were  free  to  repatriate  capital  and  profits,  as  required  by  the  basic  Regulation. 
Following  disclosure  of  the  preliminary  findings,  however,  the  company  submitted 
additional explanations, which were confirmed during a hearing with a representative 
of the foreign shareholder. It is therefore accepted that there were no restrictions to the 
repatriation of capital and profits, and the company can thus be granted IT.  

(83) 

It was therefore concluded that of the nine sampled exporting producers in the PRC, 
IT should be granted to the following ones: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Biao Wu Tensile Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Kunshan Chenghe Standard Components Co., Ltd. 

Changshu  City  Standard  Parts  Factory  and  Changshu  British  Shanghai 
International Fastener Co., Ltd. 

2.2 Companies granted individual examination 

(84)  All of the three exporting producers denied MET also claimed IT in the event that they 
were not granted MET. On the basis of the information available it was found that they 
met  all  of  the  requirements  to  be  granted  IT  in  accordance  with  Article  9(5)  of  the 
basic Regulation.  

(85) 

It was therefore concluded that IT should be granted to the following three exporting 
producers in the PRC: 

– 

– 

– 

CELO Suzhou Precision Fasteners Co., Ltd 

Golden Horse (Dong Guan) Metal Manufactory Co., Ltd 

Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd 

3.  Determination  of  normal  value  for  the  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  not 

granted MET 

3.1 Analogue country 

(86)  According  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  for  the  exporting 
producers  not  granted  MET  has  to  be  established  on  the  basis  of  the  prices  or 
constructed value in an analogue country. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
(87) 

In the Notice of Initiation, the intention was indicated to use India as an appropriate 
analogue  country  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  normal  value  for  the  PRC  and 
interested parties were invited to comment on this. 

(88)  Several importers in the Community and exporting producers in the PRC opposed the 
choice  of  India,  arguing  that  its  product  range  is  not  comparable  with  that  of  the 
Chinese exporting producers. Most of those parties suggested using Taiwan instead. 

(89)  The  Commission  actively  sought  cooperation  from  known  producers  of  fasteners 
worldwide, including in Taiwan. However, none of the Taiwanese producers agreed to 
cooperate.  Neither  did  any  other  third  country  producers  offer  to  cooperate  in  the 
proceeding. By contrast, two Indian producers agreed to cooperate by replying to the 
questionnaire  intended  for  producers  in  the  analogue  country.  The  data  submitted  in 
their  questionnaire  replies  were  verified  at  the  premises  of  these  two  companies. 
However only one of the companies provided sufficiently detailed data to be used as a 
basis for establishing normal value. 

(90)  Following  the  definitive  disclosure,  a  number  of  importers  and  exporters  questioned 
the  appropriateness  of  using  the  data  from  the  latter  Indian  producer  on  the  grounds 
that i) the quantity produced and sold in the Indian domestic market by this producer 
would  allegedly  not  be  representative  of  the  quantity  exported  from  the  PRC  to  the 
Community and ii) this Indian producer has alleged commercial links with one of the 
Community producers supporting the complaint. In this respect, it should be noted that 
i) the sales volume of the Indian producer were considered sufficiently representative 
to  allow  for  the  establishment  of  reliable  normal  ,values  and  ii)  the  fact  that  the 
analogue  country  producer  has  links  to  a  Community  producer  supporting  the 
complaint does not make the choice of that analogue country unreasonable. It was also 
noted that these links were established after the IP. Given the above and the absence of 
cooperation  from  other  third  country  producers,  the  choice  of  India  as  analogue 
country was considered reasonable.  

(91) 

In  view  of  the  foregoing,  considering  the  conditions  of  competition  and  openness  of 
the  Indian  market,  and  the  fact  that  cooperating  Indian  producer  sold  product  types 
comparable to those exported by the PRC exporting producers, it was concluded that 
India was a suitable market economy third country within the meaning of Article 2(7) 
of the basic Regulation. 

3.2 Normal value  

(92)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  for  the  exporting 
producers  not  granted  MET  was  established  on  the  basis  of  verified  information 
received from the producer in the analogue country as set out below. 

(93) 

It  was  examined  whether  each  type  of  the  product  concerned  sold  in  representative 
quantities  on  the  Indian  domestic  market  could  be  considered  as  being  sold  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  trade  pursuant  to  Article  2(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  This  was 
done  by  establishing  for  each  product  type  the  proportion  of  profitable  sales  to 
independent customers on the domestic market during the investigation period. 

(94)  Where the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above 
the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above 
the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price. This price 
was  calculated  as  a  weighted  average  of  the  prices  of  all  domestic  sales  of  that  type 
made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not. 

(95)  Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the 
total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was 
below  the  cost  of  production,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic  price, 
calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only.  

(96)  Depending  on  the  product  type,  normal  value  was  established  based  on  weighted 
average  sales  prices  of  all  sales  or  weighted  average  sales  prices  of  profitable  sales 
only, on the domestic market of the analogue country based on the verified data of one 
producer in that country. 

(97)  One of the companies granted individual examination and some importers claimed that 
the normal value  obtained  from  a  single  producer in India, which allegedly does not 
produce similar types of fasteners as the company in question, would not provide for 
the best basis for a proper comparison. Therefore it suggested that, as provided for by 
Article 2(7)(a) of the basic regulation, the normal value should be calculated "on any 
other reasonable basis", in this case on the basis of the exporters' own figures, adjusted 
for the alleged distortions in raw material costs. 

(98)  The  above  claim  was  rejected,  since  it  was  found  that  the  Indian  producer,  as 
mentioned in recital (91), also sold types of fasteners which were comparable to those 
exported  by  the  PRC  exporting  producers.  In  addition,  as  explained  in  recital  (103) 
below, appropriate adjustments affecting price comparability were made to the normal 
value.  

3.3 Export prices 

(99) 

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. 

(100)  As regards two exporting producers, all or part of their export sales to the Community 
were made via related companies located in the Community and subsequently resold 
to  unrelated  companies  in  the  Community.  In  these  cases  the  export  price  was 
constructed, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the price 
at  which  the  imported  products  were  first  resold  to  an  independent  buyer,  duly 
adjusted for all costs incurred between importation and resale, and profits. The profit 
margin  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  information  available  from  cooperating 
unrelated importers.  

3.4. Comparison 

(101)  The  normal  value  and  export  prices  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  prices 
and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
(102)  The price comparison between the fasteners exported from the PRC and those sold on 
the  Indian  market  by  the  Indian  cooperating  producer  was  made  by  distinguishing 
between standard and special fastener types. 

(103)  In  addition,  based  on  evidence  collected  on  the  spot,  the  quality  control  procedures 
applied by the Indian producer whose data was used for establishing the normal value 
were  more  advanced  than  those  observed  at  the  Chinese  cooperating  exporting 
producers  who  produced  and  exported  mainly  standard  types  of  fasteners.  In  these 
cases an adjustment based on the cost of quality control found at the Indian producer 
was made to the Indian normal value 

(104)  In  addition  to  the  above,  appropriate  adjustments  concerning  transport,  insurance, 
handling  and  ancillary  costs,  packing,  credit,  and  bank  charges  were  granted  in  all 
cases  where  they  were  found  to  be  reasonable,  accurate  and  supported  by  verified 
evidence.  

4. Dumping margins 

4.1. For the sampled cooperating exporting producers granted IT 

(105)  For  the  four  sampled  companies  granted  IT,  dumping  margins  were  established  by 
comparing the weighted average normal value established for the Indian producer who 
cooperated  fully  with  each  company's  weighted  average  export  price  to  the 
Community, as provided for in Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation. 

(106)  The sample average was calculated as a weighted average of the dumping margins of 
all  five  co-operating  sampled  companies,  with  or  without  IT,  in  accordance  with 
Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation. 

(107)  The definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at 

the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: 

Company 

Dumping margin 

Biao Wu Tensile Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Kunshan Chenghe Standard Components Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Changshu British 
Shanghai International Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Cooperating exporting producers not selected to form part of 
the sample  

69,9% 

93,2% 

74,5% 

105,3% 

63,1% 

78,1% 

4.2. For the cooperating exporting producers granted individual examination 

(108)  Dumping margins were established as described above, in recital (107). 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
(109)  The definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at 

the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: 

Company 

Dumping margin 

CELO Suzhou Precision Fasteners Co., Ltd 

Golden Horse (Dong Guan) Metal Manufactory Co., Ltd 

Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd 

4.3 For all other exporting producers  

0,0% 

26,5% 

0,0% 

(110)  In  order  to  calculate  the  country-wide  dumping  margin  applicable  to  all  other 
exporters  in  the  PRC,  the  level  of  cooperation  was  first  established.  The  degree  of 
cooperation can be considered low, i.e. approximately 53% of total imports from the 
PRC.  Therefore  the  dumping  margin  for  the  non-cooperating  companies  was 
established  as  an  average  of  the  value  found  from  Eurostat  data  and  the  highest 
margins  found  for  product  types  sold  in a  representative  quantity  by  the  cooperating 
exporting producer with the highest dumping margin.  

(111)  On  this  basis  the  country-wide  dumping  margin  amounts  to  115,4%  of  the  CIF 

Community frontier price, duty unpaid. 

D. INJURY 

1. Community production 

(112)  The investigation established that the like product is manufactured by a high number 
of producers in the Community, estimated at over 300 mostly small and medium-sized 
enterprises but including a few larger companies. A majority of Community producers 
did not make themselves known following the publication of the Notice of Initiation. 
The  complaining  producers  on  whose  behalf  the  complaint  was  lodged  co-operated 
with the investigation, although one of the companies, selected in the sample, did not 
provide  sufficient  information  during  the  on-spot  verification  to  be  considered  as 
cooperating.  This  company  was  therefore  excluded  from  the  data  relating  to  the 
Community industry. A number of other producers, either supporting or opposing the 
complaint, supplied general data on their volume of production and sales. Since many 
producers  in  the  Community,  mostly  small  enterprises,  did  not  cooperate  with  the 
investigation,  it  was  not  possible  to  define  precisely  the  total  volume  of  Community 
production on the basis of individual company data.  

(113)  Consequently,  the  volume  of  Community  production  has  been  estimated  by  using 
Eurostat  industrial  production  data.  Based  on  this  data,  the  total  Community 
production in 2006 was found to be 1.431.602. MT.  

2. Definition of the Community industry 

(114)  The  production  of  the  Community  producers  that  supported  the  complaint  and  fully 
cooperated  in  the  investigation  represents  27,0  %  of  the  production  of  the  product 
concerned in the Community. It is therefore considered that these companies constitute 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
the  Community  industry  within  the  meaning  of  Articles  4(1)  and  5(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

(115)  It was alleged by some Community importers and exporting producers, and confirmed 
by  the  investigation,  that  a  number  of  the  co-operating  Community  producers,  in 
addition  to  their  own  manufacturing  facilities  in  the  Community  had  also  imported 
significant  quantities  of  the  product  concerned  from  the  PRC  for  resale  on  the 
Community market. 

(116)  Moreover,  it  was  argued  that  three  of  the  co-operating  Community  producers  had 
partly relocated their production by establishing production sites in the PRC and that, 
therefore,  should  be  excluded  from  the  standing  calculation.  However,  it  was  found 
that  the  Chinese  subsidiaries  of  these  producers  were  established  predominantly  to 
serve the PRC market and the centre of interest of these companies had remained in 
the Community. 

(117)  As far as the volume of imports by the co-operating manufacturers in the Community 
is concerned, the investigation revealed that some companies imported relatively low 
quantities  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  the  PRC,  when  compared  to  the 
sales  of  their  own  production  in  the  Community.  Those  sales,  through  related  and 
unrelated  companies,  were  in  much  lower  quantities  than  what  was  alleged  by  the 
aforementioned parties.  

(118)  The  investigation  revealed  that  the  centre  of  interest  of  these  companies  was 
undoubtedly  in  the  Community,  and  that  despite  their  imports  from  the  PRC  they 
should all be considered as part of the Community production.  

3. Community consumption 

(119)  Community consumption in 2006 was established on the basis of the total production 
volume reported to Eurostat by the Member States authorities, plus imports and minus 
exports. The apparent consumption was found to be in line with that mentioned in the 
complaint.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  any  other  information,  the  data  found  in  the 
complaint for 2004-2005 were also used. For the years between 2003 and the IP the 
import  and  export  volumes  were  based  on  Eurostat  data.  For  2003  no  data  were 
available and therefore an estimate of the Community consumption and market shares 
was not possible.  

(120)  On the basis of these data, it was found that between 2004 and the IP demand for the 

product concerned in the Community increased by 29%. 

Sources: Eurostat, Comext, 
complaint 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Community consumption (MT) 

N/A 

1.761.838 

1.744.473 

2.104.425 

2.272.981 

Index 2004 = 100 

N/A 

100 

99 

119 

129 

4. Imports into the Community from the country concerned 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
4.1 Volume and market share of imports concerned 

(121)  The  volume  of  imports  from  the  PRC  was  obtained  from  Eurostat  data.  In  terms  of 
volume  and  market  share,  the  evolution  of  imports  from  the  PRC  has  been  the 
following:  

Source : Eurostat 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Import volumes from PRC (MT) 

216.085 

295.227 

387.783 

485.435 

601.887 

Index  

Market share PRC 

100 

N/A 

137 

179 

225 

279 

17% 

22% 

23% 

26% 

(122)  While consumption of the product concerned increased by 29% between 2004 and the 
IP,  imports  from  the  PRC  rose  continuously,  by  103%  during  the  same  period. 
Consequently,  the  market  share  of  the  PRC  during  the  period  considered  increased 
from 17% to 26% in the same period.  

4.2 Prices of imports and undercutting 

(123)  The  following  table  shows  the  development  of  average  import  prices  from  the  PRC. 
Over the period considered, these prices remained fairly stable, with a slight increase 
until 2005 and a decrease in 2006. 

Source : Eurostat 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Import prices from the PRC EUR/MT 

938,70 

968,11 

992,56 

931,30 

958,28 

Index  

100 

103 

106 

99 

102 

(124)  Concerning  the  selling  price  on  the  Community  market  of  the  product  concerned 
during the IP, a comparison was made between the prices of the sampled Community 
producers and those of the sampled exporting producers in the PRC. The relevant sales 
prices  of  the  Community  industry  were  those  to  independent  customers,  adjusted 
where  necessary  to  an  ex-works  level,  i.e.  excluding  freight  costs  in  the  Community 
and  after  deduction  of  discounts  and  rebates.  These  prices  were  compared  with  the 
sales prices charged by the Chinese exporting producers net of discounts and adjusted 
where necessary to CIF Community frontier prices with an appropriate adjustment for 
the  customs  clearance  costs  and  post-importation  costs.  Given  that  the  Community 
industry  sells  its  production  both  to  distributors  and  end-users,  whereas  the  Chinese 
goods are sold via related or unrelated importers and/or traders, an adjustment to the 
import price was made where appropriate to ensure that the comparison is made at the 
same level of trade. 

(125)  As  mentioned  above,  Community  importers  and  exporting  producers  submitted  that 
the  Chinese  products  are  mostly  standard  fasteners  of  basic  quality,  while  the 
Community industry tends to cater to the most expensive fasteners market segments. 
Therefore, it was claimed that any price comparisons based on average prices would 
be  misleading.  In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  undercutting  margin  was 
established  on  the  basis  of  company  data  by  product  type,  which  takes  into 
consideration  the  characteristics  of  the  products  being  compared.  In  particular,  a 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
similar method was used as the one described in recitals (102) and (103) and standard 
the  Chinese  exports,  were 
the  vast  majority  of 
fasteners,  which  constitute 
distinguished from special fastener types. 

(126)  The comparison shows that, during the IP, imports of the product concerned were sold 
in  the  Community  at  prices  which  undercut  the  Community  industry’s  prices,  when 
expressed as a percentage of the latter, by an average of more than 40 %. 

5. Situation of the Community industry 

(127)  In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact 
of the dumped imports from the PRC on the Community industry included an analysis 
of all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry from 
2003  to  the  IP.  The  analysis  of  the  situation  of  the  Community  industry  was  carried 
out for the sampled companies as mentioned above, except for production, production 
capacity, capacity utilisation, sales, market share, employment and productivity, where 
the  figures  are  for  the  total  Community  industry  and  are  based  on  the  information 
provided by the co-operating Community producers.  

5.1 Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation 

(128)  The  evolution  of  production,  production  capacity  and  capacity  utilisation  for  the 

Community industry was the following:  

Total Community Industry 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Production in volume (MT) 

379.354  407.185 

 371.884  387.057  403.040 

Index 

100 

107 

98 

102 

106 

Production Capacity (MT) 

712.567  726.171 

731.200 

742.901  768.689 

Index 

100 

102 

102 

104 

108 

Capacity utilisation (%) 

53% 

56% 

51% 

52% 

52% 

(129)  Despite  the  significant  increase  in  demand  of  29%  between  2004  and  the  IP,  the 
Community industry’s production volume fluctuated throughout the period considered 
and was only 6% higher in the IP compared to 2003. 

(130)  Production capacity grew only slightly over the period considered, which means that 
capacity utilisation remained at a very low level of 52 to 53% throughout the period. 
Some  Community  importers  claimed  that the  figures  regarding  production  capacities 
had  been  overestimated,  for  example  by  assuming  continuous  production  (24 
hours/365  days)  or  by  underestimating  the  time  necessary  to  switch  the  tooling  for 
new  production  types  or  by  including  old  equipment.  However,  capacity  was 
calculated  on  the  basis  of  3  shifts  on  220  days,  with  due  regard  to  the  production 
bottlenecks  which  in  most  cases  were  found  to  be  in  the  heat  treatment  line.  The 
number  of  cold  forging  machines  available  has  been  verified,  and  the  average  time 
needed  to  adapt  the  tooling  to  new  production  batches  (which  can  range  between  2 
hours  and  12  hours)  has  been  taken  into  account  in  the  calculation  of  the  capacity 
available. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
(131)  The evolution of production and capacity indicators of the Community industry can be 

explained as follows:  

– 

– 

The  Community  industry maintained or tried to improve its presence into the 
market segments of higher quality product (special products), which command 
a higher unit price, but are also produced in smaller quantities. 

The  Community  industry  had  therefore  to  upgrade  their  equipment  and  adapt 
production  patterns  in  order  to  produce  these  more  specialised  product  types, 
which  explains  the  slight  increase  in  overall  capacity  and  also  the  high 
percentage of idle capacity, previously dedicated to the production of standard 
types. 

(132)  Community  unrelated  importers  also  argued  that,  had  the  Community  producers 
additionally  produced  the  equivalent  quantities  that  were  imported  from  the  PRC  in 
the  period  considered,  the  impact  upon  capacity  utilisation  would  have  been  very 
small and it would have remained below 60%. In this respect, it should be noted that 
the quantities imported from the PRC during the period considered are significant as 
they represent about 26,9% of the total Community production in 2006. Consequently, 
the  positive  effect  on  capacity  utilisation  would  have  been  more  significant  than 
alleged  if  these  quantities  had  been  produced  in  the  Community,  for  which  the 
capacity was available. 

(133)  Following  the  definitive  disclosure,  several  Community  unrelated  importers  argued 
that should the measures be finally adopted, they would lead to a shortage of supply in 
the  Community  market,  of  more  than  200.000  MT.  However,  based  on  the  spare 
capacity  levels  found  in  the  IP,  the  actual  production  capacity  available  in  the 
Community is estimated to be above 2,5 million MT i.e. well in excess of the level of 
Community  consumption  of  2,27  million  MT.  Therefore,  it  was  found  that  the  spare 
production capacity available in the Community is well above the alleged shortage of 
200.000 MT and would easily meet the demand for the product concerned. 

5.2 Stocks 

(134)  The figures below represent the Community industry's volume of stocks at the end of 

each period. 

Sampled Community Industry 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Stock in volume of finished goods 

78.722 

82.275  77.293 

72.360 

74.859 

Index 

100 

105 

98 

92 

95 

(135)  Stocks  decreased  by  5  %  during  the  period  considered,  despite  the  7%  increase  in 
production. This is mainly related to the decreasing share of standard products in the 
Community industry's portfolio. However, considering that the production of the like 
product  in  the  Community  is  predominantly  by  order,  the  level  of  inventories  is  not 
considered to be a very meaningful indicator for this product. 

5.3 Sales, market share, growth and average unit prices in the Community 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
(136)  The figures below represent the Community industry’s sales to independent customers 

in the Community. 

Total Community industry 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Sales of the Community industry in the 
Community (000 €)  

722.974 

739.563 

754.101 

816.532 

874.380 

Index 

100 

102 

104 

113 

121 

Sales of the Community industry in the 
Community (MT) 

338.417 

383.625 

351.296 

378.650 

377.966 

Index 

100 

113 

104 

112 

112 

Unit selling price of the Community 
industry in the Community (€/MT) 

2.136 

1.928 

2.147 

2.156 

2.313 

Index 

100 

90 

100 

101 

108 

Market share of Community Industry in 
(MT) 

N/A 

22% 

20% 

18% 

17% 

Index 

N/A 

100 

92 

83 

76 

(137)  The  Community  industry's  sales  volumes  increased  by  12  %  during  the  period 
considered and by 21% in value as a result of the increasing share of special products 
based on customers' drawings. 

(138)  At  the  same  time,  it  was  found  that  average  sales  prices  to  unrelated  buyers  in  the 
Community market increased during the period considered. This price increase should 
be seen in the light of the significant increase in raw material prices and the fact that 
the  Community  industry  has  concentrated  its  efforts  on  the  higher  segment  of  the 
market  (special  products)  which  was  less  affected  by  the  dumped  imports.  High 
quality  products,  meeting  specific  needs  from  the  customers,  as  opposed  to  standard 
products,  are  generally  more  expensive  on  a  unit-selling  price  basis.  Hence,  the 
increase  in  sales  prices  reflects  both  the  increase  in  raw  material  costs  but  also  the 
changes in the product range produced by the Community industry. 

(139)  After  an  increase  between  2003  and  2004,  the  volume  of  sales  of  the  Community 
producers decreased by 1%. At the same time, Community consumption increased by 
29%,  meaning  that  the  Community  industry  was  unable  to  take  advantage  of  the 
increase in Community consumption and thus that the market share of the Community 
producers  declined  by  24%  in  less  than  3  years.  In  all  likelihood  the  drop  in  the 
Community producers' market share, if calculated for the whole period considered (i.e. 
including 2003), would be even higher. 

(140)  It was thus found that the Community industry could not benefit from the growth of 
the market resulting from the increase in Community consumption as dumped imports 
from  the  PRC  deprived  Community  producers  of  the  opportunity  to  continue 
production of standard products on a larger scale.  

5.4 Profitability and cash flow 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
Sampled Community industry 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Profitability of sales of the like product in 
the Community  

2.1% 

4.7% 

3.4% 

2.9% 

4.4% 

Cash flow from sales of the like product in 
the Community 000€ 

60,772 

69,501 

80,874 

73,372 

65,200 

Index 

100 

114 

133 

121 

107 

(141)  The  levels  of  profits  from  the  sale  of  the  like  product  by  the  Community  industry 
fluctuated  throughout  the  period  considered  while  only  reaching  moderately  positive 
levels.  

(142)  Profitability was at its lowest level in 2003 (2.1%) but it has since improved, which is 
linked partly to the efforts of the Community industry to reduce manufacturing costs 
and increase productivity and the fact that they concentrated their efforts on the supply 
of high quality products generating higher revenues than standard products, the former 
being less affected by dumped imports from the PRC than the latter. 

(143)  It  should  be  noted  that  the  overall  positive  profitability  during  the  period  under 
consideration  coincided  with  an  expanding  market  during  an  expansion  phase  of  the 
economic cycle which took place during 2004 and beginning of 2008, and it is likely 
to  deteriorate  significantly  when  these  trends  are  reversed.  Indeed,  as  a  widespread 
industrial  product,  fasteners  are  highly  sensitive  to  the  variations  of  the  general 
economic situation and the industrial production in particular. 

(144)  The  evolution  of  the  cash  flow  from  the sales  in  the  Community  of  the  like  product 
increased by 33% up to 2005, but returned in the IP to close to its initial level.  

5.5 Investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital 

(145)  The  production  of  fasteners  is  relatively  capital  intensive.  The  Community  industry 
has  argued  that  the  optimisation  of  production  is  needed  to  respond  to  a  more  and 
more  challenging  market  environment.  In  order  to  achieve  this  flexibility,  the 
Community  industry  has  maintained  relatively  high  levels  of  investment,  which  has 
declined somewhat during the period considered but still remains at a significant level. 
This  investment  was  mainly  for  the  purchase  of  new  machinery  to  optimise 
production.  

Sampled Community 
industry 

Total investments in the PC 
(000 EUR) 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

35,294 

23,965 

31,373 

30,634 

31,442 

Index 

100 

68 

89 

87 

89 

(146)  During the period considered, the return on investment, expressed as a percentage of 
net  sales,  increased  by  7  percentage  points  between  2003  and  the  IP.  This  was 
explained by the fact that the Community industry has tried to maximise the use of its 
existing  production  capacities  without  making  large  scale  investments.  As  shown 
during  the  investigation,  all  sampled  producers  have  developed  their  internal  tooling 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
resources so as to adapt their production facilities to their new customer base (special 
products based on customers' drawings). 

Sampled Community 
industry 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Return on investment  

6% 

16% 

12% 

12% 

13% 

(147)  No evidence was found in respect of a reduced or increased ability to raise capital over 

the period considered. 

5.6 Employment and productivity  

(148)  The  evolution  of  employment,  productivity  and  labour  costs  in  the  Community 

industry were as follows: 

Total Community industry 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Number of employees  

5.600 

6.353 

6.359 

6.272 

6.257 

Index 

Productivity (MT/employee)  

Index 

100 

68 

100 

113 

114 

112 

112 

64 

95 

58 

86 

62 

91 

64 

95 

(149)  The Community industry increased its number of employees between 2003 and the IP. 
This was a result of both an effort to maintain production volume and production of 
more  diversified  complex  products  requiring  a  constant  flexibility  of  tooling  and 
machineries. The results of this strategic process within the Community industry was 
also  reflected  in  productivity,  which  remained  stable  during  the  period  considered 
although  they  had  to  adapt  to  their  new  customer  base  (special  products  based  on 
customers' drawings) requiring more human resources. 

5.7 Wages 

(150)  Average wage levels increased moderately during the period considered. 

Sampled Community industry 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Labour costs per employee for the PC 

30.478 

32.042 

32.089 

34.232 

35.662 

Index 

100 

105 

105 

112 

117 

5.8  Magnitude  of  the  actual  margin  of  dumping  and  recovery  from  past 

dumping 

(151) 

As  indicated  in  recital  above,  the  dumping  margins  found  are  clearly  above  de 
minimis.  Furthermore,  given  the  volume  and  the  price  of  the  dumped  imports,  the 
impact of the actual margin of dumping cannot be considered negligible. 

(152) 

The  Community  is  not  recovering  from  the  effects  of  past  dumping  since  no 

investigations have been carried out prior to the current one. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
5.9 Conclusion on injury 

(153) 

Between 2003 and the IP the volume of dumped imports of the product concerned 
from  the  PRC  increased  by  almost  180  %,  reaching  a  26  %  market  share  in  the  IP. 
Moreover,  in  the  IP,  the  sales  prices  of  the  Community  industry  were  substantially 
undercut  by  those  of  the  dumped  imports  of  the  product  concerned.  On  a  weighted 
average basis, price undercutting was over 40%. 

(154) 

At the same time, while the Community consumption increased by 29 %, the sales 
volume of the Community industry only decreased by 1 %. Its market share fell by 24 
%  and  it  could  not  fully  pass  on  the  global  increase  in  raw  material  prices  to  its 
customers, resulting in continuing low levels of profitability. 

(155) 

As  a  consequence,  production  did  not  increase  at  the  same  pace  as  Community 
consumption,  and  capacity  utilisation  remained  very  low,  at  around  50%,  during  the 
period considered. This has also had a negative impact on profitability, as it kept the 
industry from fully taking advantage of economies of scale. 

(156) 

The  impact  of  the  dumped  imports  upon  the  profitability  of  the  Community 
industry  was  somewhat  mitigated  during  the  period  under  consideration  by  the 
Community  market  expansion  and  the  favourable  economic  cycle.  However,  this 
situation could be reversed when this cycle comes to an end. 

(157) 

(158) 

(159) 

(160) 

Notwithstanding the industry’s considerable efforts to maintain production volume, 
through flexible production throughout the period considered and its continuing efforts 
to increase productivity and competitiveness, its profitability, cash flow and return on 
investment did not reflect the  continuing  increase  of  the  Community  demand  for  the 
product  concerned.  This  trend  could  severely  impact  the  Community  industry's 
capacity to maintain the production of high quality parts.  

Subsequent to the disclosure of the information document, exporting producers in 
China  and  the  Community  importers  argued  that  since  some  indicators  such  as  sales 
volume, prices, and profit show a positive evolution during the period considered, the 
Commission  should  conclude  that  the  Community  industry  has  not  suffered  material 
injury.  

The Community industry, on the other hand, has argued that the current low levels 
of  profitability  are  increasingly  affecting  its  ability  to  maintain  and  improve  the 
production  equipment  at  a  level  which  would  allow  them  to  maintain  a  significant 
presence in the higher end of the market. Hence, the loss of high production volumes 
of standard products is also affecting the Community industry capacity to continue to 
provide high quality products. 

The  investigation  has  since  confirmed  that  material  injury  resulted  from  the 
significant  displacement  of  Community  products  by  Chinese  imports  in  some 
important  market  segments,  with  a  negative  impact  on  capacity  utilisation  and 
profitability,  although  this  impact  has  been  somewhat  attenuated  by  the  fact  hat  the 
industry  managed  to  compensate  lower  production  volumes  by  focusing  on  market 
segments and products generating higher revenues.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
(161) 

In the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Community industry suffered 

material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.  

E. CAUSATION 

1. Preliminary remark 

(162)  In  accordance  with  Articles  3(6)  and  (7)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined 
whether  there  was  a  causal  link  between  the  dumped  imports  from  the  PRC  and  the 
material  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry.  Known  factors  other  than  the 
dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Community industry, 
were also examined to ensure that the possible injury caused by these other factors was 
not attributed to the dumped imports.  

2. Effect of the imports from the PRC 

(163)  Between 2004 and the IP, the apparent Community consumption increased by 29% (in 
volume),  while  the  Community  producers'  sales  only  increased  by  17%.  The 
Community producers therefore lost over 6,8 percentage points of market share in the 
same period.  

(164)  Community  unrelated  importers  argued  that  if  sales  were  expressed  in  value  rather 
than quantities, the picture would be significantly different, as the unit selling price of 
Community  produced  fasteners  is  significantly  higher  than  PRC  products  and  has 
increased during the period considered. However, when analysing the impact of low-
priced imports on the Community market, it was considered appropriate, in line with 
past practice, to assess import trends and market shares primarily by volumes and not 
values. Sales values furthermore are affected by changes in the product mix, as is the 
case here where the Community industry moved to higher value products. Finally, it 
should  be  noted  that  trends  in  sales  are  only  one  of  the  injury  factors  and  is  not 
decisive as such. 

(165)  The significant increase in the volume of the dumped imports from the PRC by over 
170 % between 2003 and the IP and of their market share in volume of the Community 
market  from  17%  to  26%  between  2004  and  the  IP  coincided  with  the  continuously 
declining loss of market share of the Community producers.  

(166)  In the period considered, the prices of the dumped imports remained relatively stable 
and  low,  in  spite  of  the  increase  in  raw  material  prices  experienced  at  a  world  wide 
level.  Unlike  PRC  exporters,  the  selling  prices  applied  by  Community  producers 
followed the upward trend in raw material costs.  

(167)  In reaction to the increasing quantities of imports of standard products originating in 
the  PRC,  the  Community  industry  has  developed  its  production  activities  of  special 
parts  (based  on  drawings  from  customers),  thus  managing  to  maintain  its  production 
volumes  and  avoid  a  further  deterioration  of  profitability.  However,  these  products, 
belonging to the higher end of the market cannot fully compensate for the loss of high 
volumes of production of standards products.  

(168)  In  addition,  the  prices  of  the  dumped  imports  significantly  undercut  those  of  the 
Community industry exerting a strong downward pressure at a time when the costs of 
raw  materials  increased  significantly.  The  investigation  showed  that  the  Community 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
industry was not in a position to pass on all cost increases to its customers due to the 
fierce price pressure exerted by the significant volumes of dumped products imported 
from the PRC. This led to a lack of sufficient levels of profitability, and low return on 
investment and cash flow.  

(169)  A  number  of  exporters,  importers  and  their  associations  submitted  that  the  Chinese 
exports are not in competition with the Community industry products since they are in 
different,  and  complementary,  product  categories.  While  it  seems  to  be  the  case  that 
Chinese  exports  during  the  IP  were  concentrated  in  some  market  segments  such  as 
standard  screws  and  bolts,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  is  nevertheless  a 
significant  market  overlap  between  products  produced  and  sold  by  the  Community 
industry and Chinese exporters, and that this is a dynamically evolving situation. The 
Community  industry  has  already  lost  most  of  its  market  share  to  imports  in  some 
market segments, but it could also lose the market in its current strong products, if the 
present trends continue.  

(170)  Moreover,  Eurostat  data  showed  substantial  quantities  of  production 

the 
Community  for  each  CN  code,  in  competition  with  imports  from  the  PRC.  Some 
importers have argued that although there is Community production in all CN codes, 
this  is  not  the  case  for  some  product  types  and  qualities  within  each  CN  code. 
However,  no  data  were  provided  to  support  this  statement.  Moreover,  as  shown  in 
section  4.5.1,  Community  producers  are  currently  using  about  one-half  of  their 
production capacity, and are technically capable of producing all kinds of fasteners if 
justified by market conditions. 

in 

(171)  It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  pressure  exerted  by  the  dumped  imports,  which 
significantly increased their volume and market share from 2003 onwards, and which 
were made at dumped prices, played a determining role in the injury suffered by the 
Community industry.  

3. Effect of other factors 

3.1 Imports from other third countries 

(172)  As mentioned above, the PRC was the most significant exporter of the like product to 
the  Community  market  during  the  period  considered.  The  share  of  imports  from  the 
PRC  of  the  product  concerned  out  of  the  total  imports  from  the  rest  of  the  world 
increased by 20% during the period considered reaching 61% at the end of the IP.  

Source : Comext 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Total  imports  from  the  rest  of  the  world 
(excluding PRC) - MT 

321.059 

337.402 

306.525 

359.860 

391.590 

Index  

100 

105 

95 

112 

122 

Total  imports  from  the  rest  of  the  world 
(excluding PRC) - 000 EURO 

725.264 

799.161 

825.250 

929.873 

1.052.993 

Index  

100 

110 

114 

128 

145 

Unit Price: (EURO/MT) 

2.258 

2.368 

2.692 

2.583 

2.689 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
Index  

100 

105 

119 

114 

119 

Share  of  PRC  Imports  out  of  Total  rest  of 
the world (%) 

40,23% 

46,67% 

55,85% 

57,43% 

60,58% 

(173)  Furthermore,  as  shown  in  the  graph  below  (source:  Comext),  it  was  found  that  the 
average  unit  selling  prices  (in  Euro)  of  imports  from  the  rest  of  the  world  did  not 
follow  the  same  trend  as  imports  from  the  PRC,  as  the  former  increased  by  19% 
during the period considered against  2% for the imports from the PRC. The  average 
unit price (in Euro) per MT of the rest of the world was 180% higher than the average 
unit price per MT imported from the PRC.  

Unit Price China

Unit Price Rest of the World

3500

3000

2500

o
r
u
E

2000

1500

1000

500

0

3
0
0
2

.
n
a
J

3
0
0
2

.
r
p
A

3
0
0
2

.
l
u
J

3
0
0
2

.
t
c
O

4
0
0
2

.
n
a
J

4
0
0
2

.
r
p
A

4
0
0
2

.
l
u
J

4
0
0
2

.
t
c
O

5
0
0
2

.
n
a
J

5
0
0
2

.
r
p
A

5
0
0
2

.
l
u
J

5
0
0
2

.
t
c
O

6
0
0
2

.
n
a
J

6
0
0
2

.
r
p
A

6
0
0
2

.
l
u
J

6
0
0
2

.
t
c
O

7
0
0
2

.
n
a
J

7
0
0
2

.
r
p
A

7
0
0
2

.
l
u
J

7
0
0
2

.
t
c
O

8
0
0
2

.
n
a
J

8
0
0
2

.
r
p
A

8
0
0
2

.
l
u
J

(1) 

(174)  Accordingly, it is considered that imports originating in other third countries could not 
have contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry. More specifically, 
the table below which includes information for the main exporting countries, namely 
Taiwan, Japan and the United States of America, shows exactly the same trends as for 
the Rest of the World.  

Source: Comext 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Taiwan (MT) 

Japan (MT) 

USA (MT) 

171.770 

180.176 

160.765 

169.777 

186.901 

22.392 

17.289 

21.735 

52.056 

56.852 

6.537 

6.132 

6.059 

7.254 

7.459 

Index (aggregated) 

100 

101 

94 

114 

125 

Aggregated Unit Price: (EURO/MT) 

2.238 

2.297 

2.626 

2.456 

2.510 

3.2 Export performance of the Community industry 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(175)  It  was  also  examined  whether  or  not  the exports  of  the  Community  industry  to  non-
Community  countries  may  have  contributed  to  the  injury  suffered  during  the  period 
considered. Exports to non-Community countries represented only around 11% of the 
Community industry’s production of the like product in 2006. These exports increased 
by about 81% between 2003 and the IP. Furthermore, these exports were consistently 
made  at  prices  significantly  above  sales  prices  on  the  Community  market.  It  is 
therefore concluded that the export performance to third countries was not a source of 
material injury to the Community industry. 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

114.211 

135.656 

149.463 

171.240 

197.722 

Community  Exports  to  the 
Rest of the World for the PC 
(MT) 

Index 

100 

119 

131 

150 

173 

Community  Exports  to  the 
Rest of the World for the PC 
(000 EUR) 

513.286 

611.366 

683.624 

825.528 

927.644 

Index 

100 

119 

133 

161 

181 

Unit Price: (EURO/MT): 

4.494 

4.,506 

4.573 

4.820 

4.691 

3.3 Increase in raw material prices 

(176)  While the evidence available points to some increase of steel prices in the Community 
during  the  IP,  it  appears  that  these  increases  were  not  the  decisive  factor  behind  the 
deterioration of the situation of the Community industry. This deterioration was rather 
due to the loss of market share as pointed out above in recital (x). The investigation 
revealed  that  the  increased  average  unit  selling  prices  during  the  period  considered 
were mainly due to the increase of the share of special types in the product mix of the 
Community industry as these types are more costly to manufacture.  

(177)  However,  the  Community  industry  could  not  increase  its  sales  prices  sufficiently  to 
make up for the cost increase generated by the production of high end products. This 
inflexibility  in  prices  was  caused  by  the  simultaneous  surge  of  dumped  imports 
originating  in  the  PRC,  at  prices  significantly  undercutting  those  of  the  Community 
industry.  Under  these  circumstances  it  has  to  be  concluded  that  the  Community 
industry  was  exposed  to  heavy  price  pressure  by  these  dumped  imports  and 
consequently  had  no  possibility  to  compensate  fully  for  the  increase  in  costs  by 
increasing its sales prices.  

(178)  Finally, it should be noted that the increase in raw material prices should have affected 
all  operators  in  the  market,  including  the  Chinese  exporting  producers  and  can 
therefore  not  be  considered  as  a  particular  factor  causing  injury  to  the  Community 
industry, especially since the unit selling prices of the product concerned originating in 
the PRC remained stable despite the increase of raw material prices.  

(179)  Based on the above, it is concluded that the increase in prices of raw materials per se 
would not break the causal link between dumped imports from the PRC and the injury 
suffered by the Community industry. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
4. Conclusion on causation 

(180)  The  injury  in  this  case  mainly  takes  the  form  of  loss  of  potential  sales  volume  in  a 
growing  market  and  market  share.  The  resulting  price  depression  and  loss  of 
economies  of  scale  due  to  low  capacity  utilisation  led  to  an  insufficient  level  of 
profitability despite the favourable general economic conditions which have prevailed 
during the period considered. 

(181)  The  investigation  has  shown  that  the  lack  of  improvement  regarding  the  situation  of 
most injury indicators of the Community industry coincided with a sharp increase in 
import  volumes  and  market  share  from  the PRC  and a  substantial price undercutting 
by  these  imports.  It  was  also  found  that  imports  originating  in  other  third  countries 
could not have contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry since the 
average  import  prices  are  significantly  higher  than  the  PRC  imports  prices  and  the 
market  share  of  non  PRC  imports  has  decreased  compared  to  PRC  imports  in  the 
Community. 

(182)  The  positive  evolution  of  exports  of  the  Community  industry  to  non-EC  countries 
means that the potential effect of that evolution cannot break the causal link between 
dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Community industry. 

(183)  Furthermore,  although  raw  material  prices  experienced  an  unprecedented  increase  in 
the  period  considered,  this  should  have  affected  all  operators  in  the  market  and, 
moreover, the time pattern of the injury indicators does not suggest that this was the 
main cause of the injury suffered by the Community industry. 

(184)  It is therefore concluded that the dumped imports originating in the PRC have caused 
material injury  to the Community industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of  the 
basic Regulation. 

F. COMMUNITY INTEREST 

1. General considerations 

(185)  Pursuant to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was investigated whether compelling 
reasons exist that could lead to the conclusion that it would not be in the Community 
interest  to  impose  anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  from  the  country  concerned. 
Questionnaires  were  sent  to  all  importers,  traders  and  industrial  users  which  were 
mentioned  in  the  complaint.  Replies  to  the  questionnaire  were  received  from  seven 
importers, and some information was also received from industrial users.  

2. Interest of the Community industry 

(186)  The imposition of measures is expected to prevent further distortions and restore fair 
competition  on  the  market.  The  Community  industry  is  a  competitive  and  viable 
industry;  this  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  it  can  export  a  variety  of  products  in 
strongly competitive world markets. Thus, the imposition of measures should allow it 
to reach reasonable capacity utilisation levels, and improve its financial situation. This 
will also allow it to continue investments in technology and modernise its production 
facilities, thus guaranteeing the Community industry’s survival. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
(187)  On the other hand, should anti-dumping measures not be imposed, it is likely that the 
situation of the Community industry would deteriorate. It would not be able to carry 
out  the  necessary  investments  in  order  to  compete  effectively  with  the  imports  from 
third  countries  and  in  particular  the  PRC.  This  will  force  some  companies  to  cease 
production  and  lay  off  their  employees  in  the  near  future.  With  the  closure  of  the 
Community production, the Community industry in a number of downstream sectors 
would become more dependent on suppliers outside the Community. 

(188)  Accordingly,  it  is  concluded  that  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  would 
allow  the  Community  industry  to  recover  from  the  effects  of  injurious  dumping 
suffered and that it therefore is in the interest of the Community industry. 

3. Interest of unrelated importers/traders in the Community 

(189)  Seven importers selected in the final sample (see recitals (28) above) cooperated in the 
investigation  by  submitting  a  questionnaire  reply.  These  seven  importers  represent 
about 15% of the total imports of the product concerned into the Community  during 
the  IP.  However,  one  importer  did  not  accept  a  verification  visit  and  information 
regarding this company had to be disregarded. For the importers who fully cooperated, 
the product concerned represents a significant part of their turnover. It was found that, 
on  average,  the  profitability  for  the  product  concerned  is  higher  than  the  companies' 
general profitability. A surge of imports of the product concerned by these importers 
during the period considered could be observed, as well as a diminution of purchases 
from Community producers. 

(190)  In several submissions received from Community unrelated importers, it was claimed 
that should measures be imposed, the negative impact would be twofold: a) absence of 
sufficient capacities in the Community, if any, to maintain the same level of supply of 
the product concerned, and b) increased prices of the product concerned, which could 
not  be  passed  on  to  the  final  customers,  leading  to  a  loss  of  profitability  by  the 
importers. The investigation revealed that the product concerned is only a limited part 
of  the  product  range  offered  by  Community  unrelated  importers,  the  rest  being 
purchased  mostly  in  the  Community.  Furthermore,  in  order  not  to  rely  on  a  single 
source,  the  Community  importers  are  purchasing  the  same  types  of  product  from 
Community  and  PRC  producers  alike,  albeit  buying  the  largest  quantities  from  the 
PRC  exporting  producers.  In  addition,  it  was  found  that  Community  importers  still 
rely  on  Community  producers  for  the  supply  of  small  quantities  of  the  product 
concerned in order to meet short term needs from customers and to continue to offer a 
complete  product  range.  Community  importers  could  not  provide  any  convincing 
evidence to prove that Community producers could not meet the demand for all types 
of  fasteners,  whether  standard  or  corresponding  to  specific  customers'  needs.  The 
investigation  also  revealed  that  Community  importers  are  increasingly  offering 
additional special logistic services to their customers in addition to the simple supply 
of  fasteners.  Therefore,  eventual  measures  which  would  only  be  applied  to  a  limited 
portion  of  the  product  range  would  have  an  even  more  limited  impact  since  the 
provision  of  logistic  services  is  generating  new  costs  and  revenues.  Hence,  should 
measures  be  imposed,  Community  importers  could  still  offer  the  same  level  of 
services to their customers given the significant and diversified production capacities 
available  in  the  Community  which  would  limit  the  impact  of  the  measures  on  the 
Community importers' profitability.  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
(191)  The  investigation  revealed  that  the  six  Community  unrelated  importers  visited 
significantly increased their purchases of PRC products during the period considered 
and this had particularly positive effects on the profitability of their sales of fasteners. 
On  average  the  profit  margin  for  the  product  concerned  was  found  to  be  superior  to 
their  overall  profit  and  close  to  10%  in  average.  The  overall  profitability  for  the  six 
Community  unrelated  importers  visited  was  also  found  to  be  positive  in  all  cases, 
ranging between 5 and 10%.  

(192)  The product mix offered by the investigated companies is very wide and the product 
concerned only represents a portion of it. Furthermore, importers continue to purchase 
the  product  concerned  from  Community  producers  and  import  from  other  third 
countries  in  order  not  to  rely  totally  on  the  supply  from  PRC  producers,  but  also  to 
respond  to  short  term  needs.  Since  the  importers  are  diversifying  their  sources  of 
supply  between  Community  and  Far  East  producers  in  order  to  offer  the  widest 
possible product mix to their customers, it can be considered that the consequences of 
the  eventual  existence  of  an  anti-dumping  measure  on  one  exporting  country  should 
not  be  such  as  to  prevent  them  from  continuing  to  offer  the  same  products  whilst 
maintaining adequate profit margins.  

(193)  Following  the  disclosure  of  the  above  findings,  a  number  of  importers  and  their 
associations claimed that the proposed measures would have a strong negative impact 
upon  their  business,  in  terms  of  business  volume,  profitability  and  employment.  In 
particular, importers have claimed that the imposition of the duties, together with the 
recent  sharp  increases  in  fasteners'  prices due  to  raw  material  price  increases,  would 
severely strain their cash flow, and increase their working capital and financing needs. 
It  was  also  claimed  that  customers  would  have  difficulties  in  accepting  further  price 
increases,  and  the  existing  contracts  would  in  many  cases  mean  that  the  importers 
would  not  be  able  to  pass  on  the  price  increases  resulting  from  the  duties.  Some 
importers also claimed that they are strongly dependent on imports from the PRC and 
that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  alternative  suppliers,  in  the  Community  or  in  other 
third countries. This would particularly be the case for importers who have invested in 
production facilities in the PRC, or who have established technical relationships with 
PRC producers e. g. for the production of particular fastener types. 

(194)  Although  the  above  claims  could  not  be  verified,  it  cannot  be  excluded  that  the 
measures could have a negative impact upon some importers and other traders in the 
Community, at least during a period of time before contracts can be re-negotiated and 
the  distribution  chain  re-organised.  The  negative  impact  is  likely  to  depend  on  the 
particular  market  positioning  of  those  operators,  and  also  on  their  relationships  with 
Chinese  exporting  producers.  However,  it  is  noted  that  significant  spare  production 
capacity exists among Community producers and this is a possible alternative source 
of supply as are other third country suppliers. 

(195)  As  for  the  impact  on  prices,  it  should  be  noted  that  although  there  was  a  steep  and 
unprecedented increase in the price of steel wire rod during the first half of 2008, this 
was  reversed  in  the  second  half  of  the  year,  so  the  imposition  of  the  duty  would  be 
likely to take place in a context of decreasing prices of the product concerned. 

(196)  In  conclusion,  although  the  impact  of  the  proposed  measures  upon  importers  and 
distributors  is  not  considered  to  be  as  strong  as  claimed  by  some  of  those  parties,  it 
cannot be excluded that they would be negatively affected in terms of cash flow and 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
profitability,  in  particular  during  an  initial  period  following  the  imposition  of  the 
measures. 

4. Interest of users and consumers 

(197)  Questionnaires intended for users were sent to 16 companies or groups of companies. 
Only three responses were received. Two car manufacturers indicated that they were 
not concerned by the current proceeding, as they did not directly purchase the product 
concerned  from  the  PRC  and  they  did  not  know  the  situation  with  regard  to  their 
suppliers. Given their specific requirements, it appears that the automotive industry in 
the broad sense (i.e. including car manufacturers and all their parts suppliers) is for the 
moment sourcing the product concerned mainly in the Community. 

(198)  The third response was sent by Verband der Automobilindustries ("VDA") - German 
vehicle  manufacturers'  association,  in  which  it  is  stated  that  VDA's  members  are 
mainly purchasing the product concerned from Community producers, thus confirming 
the statements made by the two users mentioned above. However, VDA opposes the 
imposition of antidumping measures on the grounds that its members have an interest 
in  keeping  as  many  alternative  sources  of  supply  as  possible.  In  this  respect,  it  is 
recalled that it is not the purpose of the measures to close the Community market to 
third country suppliers, but only to restore competition to a level playing field. Even 
with  the  anti-dumping  measures  proposed,  the  number  of  players  from  the 
Community, the PRC and other third countries is expected to be sufficient to ensure a 
competitive supply of fasteners to the Community automotive industry. 

(199)  None  of  the  users  contacted  reacted  to  the  disclosure  of  the  information  document. 
Following the definitive disclosure, however, one producer of self-assembly furniture 
submitted  that  the  proposed  anti-dumping  duties  would  have  a  significant  impact  on 
the costs of its products. It should be noted that the figures put forward could not be 
verified  given  that  the  information  was  provided  at  a  very  late  stage  of  the 
investigation. Having said that, the alleged impact upon the overall furniture costs of 
this  company  appears  to  be  overstated  in  view  of  the  typical  volume  of  the  product 
concerned contained in self-assembly furniture. 

(200)  Before  and  after  definitive  disclosure,  some  importers  and  their  associations  echoed 
similar  concerns  about  the  possible  impact  upon  the  economic  situation  of  the 
construction industry, which is a major user of fasteners and is suffering from a sever 
cyclical  downturn.  In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  firstly  that  the  construction 
industry is not exposed to international competition, which should limit the impact of 
cost increases upon its market situation. Secondly, the weight of the product concerned 
within  the  costs  of  this  industry  was  never  quantified  by  the  parties  who  submitted 
such comments.  

(201)  Overall, on the basis of the information available on the file, fasteners, in most of the 
cases,  only  constitute  a  small  part  of  the  total  production  cost  and  the  anti-dumping 
duties would not have a major impact on the costs and the competitive situation of the 
user industries concerned. 

(202)  Following  the  definitive  disclosure,  one  retailer  and  two  retailer  associations  for  the 
DIY  segment  claimed  that  the  measures  would  have  a  strong  impact  on  the  retail 
prices,  with  negative  consequences  in  terms  of  inflation,  consumer  welfare  and  the 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
economic situation of the DIY sector. Although these claims could not be verified in 
detail due to the lateness of their comments, it should be noted that the proposed duties 
would not represent more than a few percent of the observed retail prices of fasteners 
in the DIY sector. Furthermore, based on information available, the product concerned 
represents only about 0,5% of the turnover of the DIY sector, which also indicates that 
the product concerned does not represent a major component in a typical consumer's 
consumption pattern.  

(203)  One  producer  and  two  associations  representing  the  producers  of  so-called  anchors 
submitted comments following the definitive disclosure. All these parties opposed the 
measures,  although  one  association  recognised  that  its  members  faced  different 
situations,  and  took  diverging  positions,  in  this  respect.  Their  main  claim  was  that 
Community anchor manufacturers would be put at a competitive disadvantage, since 
the  measures  would  not  cover  their  finished  product,  i.e.  anchors,  but  would  cover 
some components which are imported from the PRC. It was furthermore claimed that 
those components could not be sourced in the Community, which was disputed by the 
Community  industry.  As  the  above  claims  have  been  made  relatively  late  in  the 
proceeding, they could not be properly verified. However, it has been established that 
if  necessary,  the  Community  producers  are  in  a  position  to  supply  the  components 
currently imported from the PRC. 

5. Interest of steel suppliers 

(204)  Eurofer  has  claimed  that  the  upstream  Community  steel  industry  i.e.  Community 
producers  of  wire-rods  and  bars  for  cold-heading  applications,  have  faced  a 
deterioration of their capacity utilisation between 2004 and 2007, allegedly due to both 
direct  import  pressure  in  their  product  range  and  the  erosion  of  their  downstream 
markets  by  unfair  competition.  Hence,  this  organisation  claimed  that  Community 
producers  of  wire-rods  and  bars  for  cold-heading  applications  also  have  available 
capacity to serve the Community producers of the product concerned.  

(205)  Shortly  afterwards,  this  claim  was  echoed  by  two  producers  of  steel  wire  based  in 
Spain and the Czech Republic. According to these companies, there is enough capacity 
in the Community  to cater for an eventual increase  of  the Community production of 
the product concerned. 

(206)  On the basis of the above, it is concluded that the imposition of measures would be in 

the interest of the raw material suppliers in the Community. 

6. Competition and trade distorting effects 

(207)  Several  importers,  exporters  and  their  associations  claimed  that  the  imposition  of 
measures would lead to a reinforcement of the allegedly dominant position of the two 
largest Community producers. 

(208)  In  this  respect,  it  was  found  that  there  is  a  large  number  of  producers  in  the 
Community,  as  well  as  imports  from  various  other  third  countries  which  will  ensure 
that users and retailers will continue to have a wide choice of different suppliers of the 
like  product  at  reasonable  prices.  Furthermore,  it  is  considered  that  the  exporting 
producers in the PRC will be able to continue to sell the product concerned, albeit at 
non-injurious prices, as they have a strong market position in the Community. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
(209)  Thus, there will be a significant number of actors in the market, which will be able to 
satisfy  the  demand.  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  it  is  therefore  concluded  that 
competition  will  most  likely  remain  strong  after  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping 
measures. 

7. Developments after the IP 

(210)  Several importers, exporters and their associations submitted that after the IP, due to 
developments in raw material costs, the market situation in the PRC and the increase 
in  transport  costs,  the  prices  of  the  imports  of  the  product  concerned  have  increased 
sharply.  It  has  been  claimed  that  this  would  lead  to  significantly  lower  levels  of 
dumping and injury, making the imposition of measures no longer appropriate.  

(211)  It should be noted that developments of global commodity prices, energy etc. affect all 
actors  in  the  market  in  a  similar  way,  and  therefore  would  not  per  se  lead  to  lower 
levels of dumping or undercutting than those found during the IP.  

(212)  The  issue  was  nonetheless  examined.  According  to  the  last  available  statistical  data, 
imports from the PRC during the first half of 2008 are showing only a small increase 
in unit price compared to the previous year, despite the sharp increase in international 
steel prices. Furthermore, the quantities imported from the PRC have not decreased in 
the first half of 2008. 

(213)  It  is  concluded,  therefore,  that  there  are  no  developments  after  the  IP  which  would 
render the imposition of measures inappropriate from the point of view of Community 
interest. 

8. Conclusion on Community interest 

(214)  Article 21 of the basic Regulation refers to the need to give special consideration to the 
need  to  remedy  the  trade  distorting  effects  of  injurious  dumping  and  to  restore 
effective competition, although this particular provision has to be seen in the overall 
framework of the Community interest test as laid down in the aforementioned Article. 
Thus,  the  effects  of  imposing  measures  or  not  imposing  measures  on  all  parties 
concerned have to be taken into account. 

(215)  It cannot be excluded that the imposition of measures would have a negative impact on 
some  importers  and  traders  in  the  Community.  However,  it  is  considered  that  the 
imposition of measures will bring certain benefits for the Community industry as well 
as  for  its  supplier  industries  in  the  Community,  such  as  increased  production  and 
employment  

(216)  Although the cooperation from users has been limited, it is estimated that the impact 
of the measures upon the costs of those industries would be relatively negligible, and 
that the measures would not lead to a lack of competition in the Community market. 

(217)  In conclusion, in view of the high dumping and injury margins, it is considered that, in 
this  particular  case,  on  the  basis  of  the  information  submitted  there  is  not  sufficient 
evidence  to  conclude  that  the  possible  imposition  of  measures  would  be  clearly 
disproportionate and against the Community interest.  

EN 

G. UNDERTAKINGS 

41 

   EN 

 
(218)  The  Commission  received  undertaking  offers  from  several  individual  exporting 
producers,  and  from  the  China  Chamber  of  Commerce  for  Import  &  Export  of 
Machinery & Electronic Products ("CCCME") representing PRC exporters, on behalf 
of  its  members.  Several  other  exporting  producers  indicated  their  intention  to  offer 
undertakings. 

(219)  Firstly, it should be noted that there are more than 100 exporting producers involved in 
this  proceeding.  The  number  of  actual  and  potential  exporting  producers  was 
considered too great for an undertaking to be workable, as it would render any type of 
price  undertaking  very  difficult  to  monitor.  Furthermore,  only  eight  of  these 
companies have been investigated and granted IT. 

(220)  Secondly, the product concerned is characterised by a considerable number of product 
types, with significantly different prices and some characteristics not easily discernible 
upon importation. This makes it virtually impossible to establish minimum prices for 
each product type which would be meaningful and could be properly monitored by the 
Commission  and  by  the  customs  authorities  of  the  Member  States  upon  importation. 
Moreover, the large number of different product types, classified under no less than 10 
CN-Codes,  increases  the  risk  of  circumvention  considerably.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
noted that there are currently anti-dumping measures imposed on certain stainless steel 
fasteners originating, inter alia, in the PRC7. Due to the fact that only a small number 
of  exporting  producers  could  be  individually  investigated,  it  cannot  be  excluded  that 
some  companies  offering  an  undertaking  also  produce  and  sell  those  stainless  steel 
fasteners to the same customers in the EU. In these cases, there is an additional risk of 
circumvention. 

(221)  Finally,  the  product  concerned  has  shown  a  considerable  volatility  in  prices  and 
therefore it is not suitable for a fixed price undertaking for an extended period of time. 
The volatility in prices is due to the volatility, in particular in recent months, of raw 
material  prices,  namely  steel  wire  rod.  This  would  add  to  the  complexity  of  the 
monitoring of the undertakings. 

(222)  Under 

these  circumstances, 
impracticable and could not be accepted. 

it  was  considered 

that  price  undertakings  were 

H. 

DEFINITIVE MEASURES 

1. Injury elimination levels 

(223)  The level of any anti-dumping measures should be sufficient to eliminate the injury to 
the  Community  industry  caused  by  the  dumped  imports,  without  exceeding  the 
dumping  margins  found.  When  calculating  the  amount  of  duty  necessary  to  remove 
the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow 
the Community industry to obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved 
under  normal  conditions  of  competition,  i.e.  in  the  absence  of  dumped  imports.  For 
this purpose, it was considered that a profit margin of 5 % is an appropriate level that 
the  Community  industry  could  be  expected  to  obtain  also  with  regard  to  the  like 
product in the absence of injurious dumping. 

7 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005, OJ L 302, 19.11.2005, p. 1 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(224)  The  necessary  price  increase  was  then  determined  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison,  per 
product  type,  of  the  weighted  average  import  price,  as  established  for  the  price 
undercutting calculations, with the non-injurious price of the like product sold by the 
Community  industry  on  the  Community  market.  The  non-injurious  price  has  been 
obtained by adjusting the sales price of the Community industry in order to reflect the 
above  mentioned  profit  margin.  Any  difference  resulting  from  this  comparison  was 
then expressed as a percentage of the total CIF import value.  

(225)  Following  the  definitive  disclosure,  one  exporter  pointed  out  a  clerical  error  in  the 
injury margin calculation. It was found that this error affected the injury margins for 
all the exporters. All the injury margins were corrected accordingly. 

(226)  The  above-mentioned  price  comparison  showed  the  following  injury  margins  for  the 

sampled exporting producers:  

Company 

injury margin 

Biao Wu Tensile Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Changshu British 
Shanghai International Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Kunshan Chenghe Standard Components Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Cooperating exporting producers not selected to form part of 
the sample  

99,0% 

65,3% 

79,5% 

64,4% 

78,3% 

77,5% 

(227)  For  the  cooperating  exporting  producers  granted  individual  examination,  the  injury 

margins, calculated as explained above, are the following: 

Company 

CELO Suzhou Precision Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Golden Horse (Dong Guan) Metal Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

injury margin 

0,3% 

133,2% 

0% 

(228)  As mentioned in recital (110) above, the degree of cooperation of the PRC exporting 
producers can be considered low. Therefore the injury margin for the non-cooperating 
companies  was  established  on  average  of  the  value  found  in  Eurostat  data  and  the 
highest  margins  found  for  product  types  sold  in  a  representative  quantity  by  the 
cooperating exporting producer with the highest injury margin.  

(229)  On this basis the country-wide injury margin amounts to 85,0% of the CIF Community 

frontier price, duty unpaid. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
(230)  During  the  proceeding,  and  in  particular  following  definitive  disclosure,  some 
importers claimed that they perform a number of operations in the PRC, such as retail 
packaging and quality control, the value of which should not be included in the CIF 
price on the basis of which the duty will be applied. However, this situation was not 
found  in  any  of  the  investigated  exporting  producers  and,  even  if  proven,  would 
appear  to  affect  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  imports  from  PRC.  Nevertheless,  the 
Commission may further investigate this issue. 

(231)  In the light of the foregoing and pursuant to Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, it is 
considered that a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed in respect of imports 
of certain fasteners originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping or 
injury margins.  

2. Definitive measures 

(232)  Consequently, the anti-dumping duties should be as follows: 

Biao Wu Tensile Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

CELO Suzhou Precision Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Changshu  City  Standard  Parts  Factory  and  Changshu  British 
Shanghai International Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Golden Horse (Dong Guan) Metal Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

Kunshan Chenghe Standard Components Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Co-operating  companies  not  included  in  the  sample  (listed  in 
Annex). 

All other companies 

69,9% 

0,0% 

63,1% 

26,5% 

79,5% 

64,4% 

78,3% 

0,0% 

77,5% 

85,0% 

(233)  The  individual  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were  established 
on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  they  reflect  the 
situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty 
rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus 
exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the PRC and produced by 
these companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products 
produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this 
Regulation,  including  entities  related  to  this  specifically  mentioned,  cannot  benefit 
from this rate and shall be subject to the countrywide duty. 

(234)  Any claim requesting the application of an individual company anti-dumping duty rate 
(e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new 
production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission forthwith with all 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked 
to  production,  domestic  and  export  sales  associated  with,  for  example,  that  name 
change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the 
Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting 
from individual duties. 

(235)  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 duties. 
They  were  also  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  make  representations 
subsequent  to  this  disclosure.  The  comments  submitted  by  the  parties  were  duly 
considered, and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly. 

(236)  In  order  to  ensure  equal  treatment  between  any  new  exporters  and  the  cooperating 
companies  not  included  in  the  sample,  mentioned  in  the  Annex  to  this  Regulation, 
provision  should  be  made  for  the  weighted  average  duty  imposed  on  the  latter 
companies to be applied to any new exporters which would otherwise be entitled to a 
review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, 11(4) does not apply where 
sampling has been used.  

3. Special monitoring 

(237)  In order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty 
rates among the exporting producers, it is considered that special measures are needed 
in this case to ensure the proper application of the anti-dumping duties. These special 
measures include the following: 

(238)  The  presentation  to  the  Customs  authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  a  valid 
commercial  invoice,  which  shall  conform  to  the  requirements  set  out  in  Annex  II  to 
this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to 
the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporters. 

(239)  Should  the  exports  by  one  of  the  companies  benefiting  from  lower  individual  duty 
rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, 
such an increase in volume 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 circumstances and provided the conditions are met an 
anti-circumvention  investigation  may  be  initiated.  This  investigation  may,  inter  alia, 
examine  the  need  for  the  removal  of  individual  duty  rates  and  the  consequent 
imposition of a country-wide duty. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on certain iron or steel fasteners, 
other than of stainless steel, i.e. wood screws (excluding coach screws), self-tapping 
screws, other screws and bolts with heads (whether or not with their nuts or washers, 
but excluding screws turned from bars, rods, profiles or wire, of solid section,  of a 
shank  thickness  not  exceeding  6  mm  and  excluding  screws  and  bolts  for  fixing 
railway  track  construction  material),  and  washers,  originating  in  the  People's 
Republic  of  China,  falling  within  CN  codes  7318  12  90,  7318  14  91,  7318  14  99, 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
7318 15 59, 7318 15 69, 7318 15 81, 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 21 00 and 
ex 7318 22 00 (TARIC codes 7318 15 90 19, 7318 15 90 69, 7318 15 90 89, 7318 21 
00 29, 7318 21 00 99, 7318 22 00 29 and 7318 22 00 99). 

2. 

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

Company 

Duty (%) 

TARIC additional 
code 

Biao Wu Tensile Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

CELO  Suzhou  Precision  Fasteners  Co., 
Ltd. 

Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and 
Changshu  British  Shanghai  International 
Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Golden  Horse 
Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

(Dong  Guan)  Metal 

Kunshan  Chenghe  Standard  Components 
Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

 Companies listed in Annex I 

All other companies 

69,9 

0,0 

63,1 

26,5 

79,5 

64,4 

78,3 

0,0 

77,5 

85,0 

A924 

A918 

A919 

A920 

A921 

A922 

A923 

A925 

A928 

A999 

3. 

4. 

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  in  Annex  II.  If  no  such  invoice  is  presented,  the  duty  rate 
applicable to all other companies shall apply. 

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

Article 2 

Where  any  party  from  the  People's  Republic  of  China  provides  sufficient  evidence  to  the 
Commission  that  it  did  not  export  the  goods  described  in  Article1(1)  originating  from  the 
People's Republic of China during the period of investigation, that is 1st October 2006 to 30th 
September  2007;  that  it  is  not  related  to  an  exporter  or  producer  subject  to  the  measures 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
imposed  by  this  Regulation;  and  that  it  has  either  actually  exported  the  goods  concerned  or 
has  entered  into  an  irrevocable  contractual  obligation  to  export  a  significant  quantity  to  the 
Community after the end of the period of investigation, the Council, acting by simple majority 
on  a  proposal  by  the  Commission,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  amend 
Article 1(2) in order to attribute to that party the duty applicable to cooperating producers not 
in the sample, i.e., 78,1%. 

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels, […] 

For the Council 
The President 
[…] 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX I 

Cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample 

TARIC Additional Code A928  

Abel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Autocraft Industrial (Shanghai) Ltd. 

Changshu Fuxin Fasteners Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Changshu Shining Sun Fasteners Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Changzhou Oread Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Chun Yu (Dongguan) Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

Cixi Zhencheng Machinery Co., Ltd. 

Dongguan Danny & Kuen Metal & Co., Ltd. 

Foshan Nanhai Gubang Metal Goods Co., Ltd. 

Gem-year industrial Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Changshu 

Changshu 

Changzhou 

Dongguan 

Cixi 

Dongguan 

Foshan 

Jiashan 

Guangzhou Tianhe District Zhonggu Hardware Screw Manufacture 

Guangzhou 

Haining Xinxin Hardware Standard Tools Co., Ltd. 

Haiyan Flymetal Hardware Co., Ltd. 

Haiyan Haitang Fasteners Factory  

Haiyan Hardware Standard Parts Co., Ltd. 

Haiyan Lianxiang Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 

Haiyan Mengshi Screws Co., Ltd. 

Haiyan Self-tapping Screws Co., Ltd. 

Haiyan Sun's Jianxin Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Haiyan Xinan Standard Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Haiyan Xinglong Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Hangzhou Everbright Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd. 

Hott Metal Part and Fasteners Inc. 

Haining 

Jiaxing 

Jiaxing 

Jiaxing 

Jiaxing 

Jiaxing 

Jiaxing 

Jiaxing 

Jiaxing 

Jiaxing 

Hangzhou 

Hangzhou 

Changshu 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
J. C. Grand (China) Corporation 

Jiangsu Jiangyu Metal Work Co., Ltd. 

Jiashan Yongda Screw Co., Ltd. 

Jiaxiang Triumph Hardware Co., Ltd. 

Jiaxing Victor Screw Co., Ltd. 

Jinan Star Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Jin-Well Auto-parts (zhejiang) Co., Ltd. 

Kinfast Hardware Co., Ltd 

Ningbo Alliance Screws and Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Anchor Fasteners Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Dafeng Machinery Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Development Zone Yonggang Fasteners Co., Ltd 

Ningbo Fastener Factory 

Ningbo Haixin Hardware Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Haixin Railroad Material Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Jinhui Gaoqiang Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Jinpeng High Strength Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Jintai Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Jinwei Standard Parts Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Jiulong Fasteners Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Londex Industrial Co.,Ltd 

Ningbo Minda Machinery & Electronics Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Ningli High-Strength Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Qunli Fastener Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Special - Wind - Fasteners (China) Co., Ltd.  

Ningbo Xinxing Fasteners Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Yonggang Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Jiaxing 

Dongtai 

Jiashan 

Haining 

Jiaxing 

Jinan 

Jiashan 

Haining 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
Ningbo Zhenhai Xingyi Fasteners Co., Ltd 

Ningbo Zhongbin Fastener Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Zhongjiang High Strength Bolt Co., Ltd. 

Robertson Inc. (Jiaxing) 

Shanghai Boxed Screw Manufacturing Company Limited 

Shanghai Fenggang Precision Inc. 

Shanghai Foreign Trade Xiasha No. 2 Woodscrew Factory Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai Great Diamond Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai Hang Hong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai Hangtou Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai Huaming Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai Moregood C&F Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai Moresun Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai Qingpu Ben Yuan Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai Ren Sheng Standardized Item Manufacture Ltd, Co 

Shanghai Shuyuan Woodscrews Factory 

Shanghai SQB Automotive Fasteners Company Ltd. 

Shanghai Tapoo Hardware Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai Yifan High-Intensity Fasteners Co., Ltd 

Shanxi Jiaocheng Zhicheng Foundry Ltd. 

Shenzhen Top United Steel Co., Ltd. 

Sundram Fasteners (Zhejiang) Limited 

Sunfast (Jiaxing) Enterprise Co., Ltd. 

Suzhou Escort Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Taicang Rongtong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

Tangshan Huifeng Standard Component Make Co., Ltd 

Tangshan Xingfeng Screws Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Ningbo 

Jiashan 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Shanghai 

Jiaocheng 

Shenzhen 

Jiaxing 

Jiaxing 

Suzhou 

Taicang 

Tangshan 

Tangshan 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
Tapoo Metal Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 

Tianjin Jiuri Manufacture & Trading Co., Ltd. 

Wenzhou Excellent Hardware Apparatus Packing Co., Ltd. 

Wenzhou Junhao Industry Co., Ltd. 

Wenzhou Tian Xiang Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

Wenzhou Yili Machinery Development Co., Ltd 

Wenzhou Yonggu Fasteners Co., Ltd 

Wuxi Huacheng Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Wuxi Qianfeng Screw Factory 

Xingtai City Ningbo Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Yueqing Quintessence Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Zhejiang Jingyi Standard Components Co., Ltd. 

Zhejiang New Oriental Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Zhejiang Qifeng Hardware Make Co., Ltd. 

Zhejiang Rising Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Zhejiang Yonghua Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Zhejiang Zhongtong Motorkits Co., Ltd. 

Zhongshan City Jinzhong Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai 

Tianjin 

Wenzhou 

Wenzhou 

Wenzhou 

Wenzhou 

Wenzhou 

Wuxi 

Wuxi 

Ningbo 

Yueqing 

Yueqing 

Jiaxing 

Jiaxing 

Hangzhou 

Rui' An 

Shamen 

Zhongshan 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX II 

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.]  

The  following  declaration:  “I,  the  undersigned,  certify  that  the  [volume]  of  fastener 
(2) 
products  sold  for  export  to  the  European  Community  covered  by  this  invoice  was 
manufactured by [company name and registered seat] [TARIC additional code] in the People's 
Republic  of  China.  I  declare  that  the  information  provided  in  this  invoice  is  complete  and 
correct. 

[Date and signature] ” 

EN 

52 

   EN