Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain pre- and post-stressing wires and wire strands of non-alloy steel (PSC wires and strands) originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2009-04-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, EU Member State, anti-dumping duty, electric cable, export, import, production, steel, trade-mark law, wire

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.4.2009 
COM(2009) 165 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain pre- and post-stressing wires and wire strands of non-
alloy steel (PSC wires and strands) originating in the People's Republic of China 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

Context of the proposal 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of 
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members 
of  the  European  Community,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2117/2005  of  21  December  2005  (‘the  basic  Regulation’)  in  the  proceeding 
concerning  imports  of  certain  pre-  and  post-stressing  wires  and  wire  strands  of  non-
alloy steel (PSC wires and strands) 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 

Commission Regulation (EC) N°1129/2008 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty 
on imports of PSC wires and strands originating in the People's Republic of China. 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

Consultation of interested parties and impact assessment 

Consultation of interested parties 

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

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

Impact assessment 

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

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

3. 

Legal elements of the proposal 

Summary of the proposed action 

On  16  February  2008,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  proceeding 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
concerning  imports  of  certain  pre-  and  post-stressing  wires  and  wire  strands  of  non-
alloy  steel  ('PSC  wires  and  strands')  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China 
('PRC'). 

By Regulation (EC) N° 1129/2008, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping 
duties on these imports. 

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings on 
dumping, injury, causation and Community interest. As far as dumping is concerned, it 
was  found  that  two  exporting  producers  to  whom  individual  treatment  was  granted 
omitted essential information during the course of the investigation. Consequently, and 
in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation,  their  claim  for  individual 
treatment was rejected. Another exporting producer to whom individual treatment was 
not granted at provisional stage could clarify the  composition  of its  management and 
their voting rights and thus show that there was no significant State interference within 
the  meaning  of  Article  9(5)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  A  specific  duty  rate  was 
therefore  calculated  for  this  exporting  producer.  With  regard  to  other  aspects  of  the 
investigation the provisional findings were confirmed while introducing some changes 
to the calculation of the dumping margins and the injury margins and consequently the 
duties. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which should be published no later than 13 May 2009. 

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 above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no 
scope for national decision. 

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

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument: Regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other  means  would  not  be  adequate  because  the  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee 
alternative options. 

4. 

Budgetary implication 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain pre- and post-stressing wires and wire strands of non-
alloy steel (PSC wires and strands) 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  consulting  the  Advisory 
Committee, 

Whereas: 

1. 

PROCEDURE 

1.1. 

Provisional measures 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1129/20082  (the  'provisional  Regulation') 
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain pre- and post-stressing 
wires and wire strands of non-alloy steel ('PSC wires and strands') originating in the 
People's Republic of China ('PRC'). 

It  is  noted  that  the  proceeding  was  initiated  following  a  complaint  lodged  by 
Eurostress  Information  Service  (ESIS)  on  behalf  of  producers  representing  a  major 
proportion  of  the  total  Community  production  of  PSC  wires  and  strands  in  this  case 
more than 57%. 

As set out in recital 13 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and 
injury  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2007  to  31  December  2007  ('investigation 
period' or 'IP'). The examination of the trends for the assessment of injury covered the 
period from 1 January 2004 to the end of the investigation period ('period considered'). 

1.2. 

Subsequent procedure 

1 

2 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.1,.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2117/2005  (OJ  L  340, 
23.12.2005, p. 17). 
OJ L 306, 15.11.2008, p. 5. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

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

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

(6) 

Four  additional  verification  visits  were  carried  out  at  the  premises  of  the  following 
user companies: 

–  Hormipresa SL, Santa Coloma de Queralt, Spain 

–  Group Pacadar SA, Madrid, Spain 

–  Strongforce Engineering PLC, Dartford, United Kingdom  

–  Hanson Building Products Limited, Somercotes, United Kingdom  

(7) 

All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping 
measures on imports of PSC wires and strands originating in the People's Republic of 
China and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional 
duty. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations 
subsequent to this disclosure. 

(8) 

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

2. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

2.1. 

Product concerned 

(9) 

One interested party has claimed that a specific type of strand with 19 wires should be 
excluded from the scope of the proceeding on the grounds that this product type was 
used  for  very  specific  applications,  could  not  be  used  in  concrete  reinforcement  or 
suspension elements or for stay-cable bridges, which are the main applications of the 
product  concerned  and  furthermore  was  not  produced  in  the  Community.  The 
Community  industry  was  consulted  and  confirmed  that  the  product  described,  i.e. 
strand  of  19  wires  but  also  strands  of  more  than  19  wires,  was  not  the  product 
concerned. The claim has therefore been accepted and strands with 19 wires or more 
will be excluded from the product scope. 

(10) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning the product concerned and the like 
product, recitals 14 to 20 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

3. 

DUMPING 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
3.1. 

Market economy treatment (MET) 

(11)  One Chinese exporting producer contested the provisional findings with regard to the 
determination of MET and claimed that the criteria laid out in Article 2(7)(c) criterion 
1 to 3 of the basic Regulation were met. 

(12)  As  regards  criterion  1,  the  investigation  with  regard  to  MET  determined  that  the 
electricity costs incurred by the exporting producer concerned and which constitute an 
important part in the total cost of manufacturing were unreliable. It has been found that 
electricity costs were invoiced via a third company in liquidation (instead of directly 
by  the  supplier  of  the  electricity).  It  was  explained  that  the  company  in  liquidation 
which  was  originally  the  owner  of  the  production  facilities  where  the  product 
concerned was produced but which was meanwhile in liquidation was still considered 
as  the  owner  of  part  of  the  facilities.  The  electricity  company  would  therefore  still 
invoice all electricity consumption to the company in liquidation which in turn would 
invoice these costs to the exporting producer concerned. 

(13)  However,  it  was  verified  that  the  exporting  producer  purchased  the  production 
facilities during the IP in 2007 and was at least during part of the IP the legal owner of 
the  production  facilities.  Furthermore,  the  amounts  reported  could  not  be  reconciled 
with the exporting producer's accounts. Finally, subsequent to provisional disclosure, 
the company did not submit any information or evidence which would have shown the 
reliability of the electricity costs and which could thus have reversed the provisional 
findings in this respect.  

(14)  The same exporting producer reiterated that the limited duration of its business licence 
would not indicate significant State interference within the meaning of Article 2(7)(c) 
criterion 1 of the basic Regulation as determined by the investigation on MET. In this 
regard it is noted that the limited duration of the business licence was found to be an 
obstacle for long term business decisions and planning. In particular, it was found that 
companies in similar situations usually benefitted from a significantly longer duration 
of  business  licences.  However,  subsequent  to  the  provisional  disclosure,  it  could  be 
clarified  that  the  timely  extension  of  the  business  license  of  the  exporting  producer 
was  a  simple  formality  which  could  not  be  considered  as  an  obstacle  for  long  term 
business decisions and planning anymore.  

(15)  On  the  above  basis,  it  was  concluded  that  in  this  particular  case,  the  duration  of  the 
business licence cannot indeed be qualified as significant State interference within the 
meaning  of  Article  2(7)(c)  criterion  1  and  the  exporting  producer's  arguments  were 
accepted. The provisional findings were revised accordingly. 

(16)  The exporting producer concerned also contested the findings that it did not fulfil the 
conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) criterion 2 of the basic Regulation, i.e. that it had 
one clear set of basic accounting records audited in line with international accounting 
standards. It is noted that the investigation concerning MET revealed that significant 
amounts  of  a  recurring  loan  were  booked  under  a  wrong  position.  Although  the 
exporting producer claimed that this finding would not correspond to the real facts it 
did  not  submit  any  convincing  explanation  or  any  valid  evidence  in  support  of  its 
claim. This claim had therefore to be rejected. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(17)  Finally, the same exporting producer claimed that there were no significant distortions 
carried  over  from  the  non-market  economy  system  as  set  out  in  Article  2(7)(c) 
criterion 3 of the basic Regulation. In particular, the exporting producer contested the 
finding that it could  borrow money at  an  interest rate which was  significantly below 
the market rate. However, the exporting producer did not provide any new information 
or evidence which could revise the provisional findings in this respect and this claim 
had therefore to be rejected.  

(18)  On the basis of the above, and despite the findings as described in recital (14) above, 
the  findings  on  MET  with  regard  to  this  exporting  producer  as  set  out  in  the 
provisional Regulation in recital (35) are herewith confirmed. 

(19) 

In the absence of any other comments with regard to the determination of MET, the 
provisional findings as set out in recitals (25) to (36) of the provisional Regulation are 
herewith confirmed. 

3.2. 

Individual treatment (IT) 

(20)  The exporting producer to which IT was not granted claimed that its decision making 
was  sufficiently  independent  from  State  interference  within  the  meaning  of  Article 
9(5)(c) of the basic Regulation.  

(21) 

In support of this claim, the exporting producer was able to clarify the composition of 
the  company's  board  of  directors  and  the  voting  rights  of  its  shareholders.  Thus,  the 
exporting  producer  could  show  that  it  was  sufficiently  independent  from  potential 
State interference in its price setting within the meaning of Article 9(5)(c) of the basic 
Regulation.  In  addition,  the  exporting  producer,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (14)  above, 
could also demonstrate that the duration of its business licence cannot be qualified as 
significant State interference. As a consequence, since this exporting producer met the 
requirements  for  IT  as  set  out  in  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  an  individual 
definitive duty should be calculated applicable to products produced and exported by 
it.  

(22)  As regards two of the exporting producers to whom IT was granted, new information 
available after the imposition of the provisional measures showed that key personnel 
of  these  companies  were  members  of  State  bodies  within  the  meaning  of  Article 
9(5)(c) of the basic Regulation. Both companies omitted this information in their claim 
for MET/IT.  

(23) 

It  was  considered  that  the  omission  of  such  information  was  misleading  within  the 
meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation and the information provided in their 
respective claims for MET/IT should be disregarded. The companies concerned were 
given the opportunity to provide further explanations in accordance with Article 18(4) 
of  the  basic  Regulation.  However,  none  of  the  companies  concerned  provided 
satisfactory explanations. On this basis IT was denied to the above companies.  

(24)  As  regards  the  third  company  to  which  IT  was  granted,  the  Community  industry 
questioned  whether  it  was  in  fact  a  wholly  foreign  owned  company  and  whether  it 
therefore  fulfilled  the  criterion  set  out  in  Article  9(5)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation. 
However, all relevant payments and bank transfers when acquiring the company could 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
be  verified  and  reconciled  during  the  investigation  demonstrating  that  the  company 
was a wholly foreign owned company. This claim had therefore to be rejected.  

4. 

NORMAL VALUE 

4.1. 

Analogue country 

(25)  Certain  interested  parties  claimed  that  the  choice  of  the  analogue  country  was 
inappropriate. It was claimed, in particular that due to the fact that only one producer 
of  PSC  existed  in  the  Turkish  market,  the  level  of  competition  in  Turkey  would  be 
insufficient to base normal value on data of that producer.  

(26)  These  parties,  however,  did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  in  this  regard  but  only 
reiterated  the  claims  made  prior  to  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  measures.  As 
outlined in recital (44) of the provisional Regulation, even though there was only one 
producer in Turkey, imports into Turkey were substantial, i.e. they accounted for more 
than 50% of the total market. On this basis, and considering that none of the producers 
of  other  potential  analogue  countries  co-operated  in  the  present  investigation,  it  is 
confirmed that Turkey constitutes an appropriate analogue country within the meaning 
of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.  

(27) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  with  regard  to  the  analogue  country,  the 
provisional  conclusions  as  outlined  in  recitals  (40)  to  (45)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are herewith confirmed. 

4.2. 

Method for calculating the normal value 

(28)  One exporting producer claimed that the normal value used was not appropriate since 
for  most  product  types,  as  indicated  in  recitals  (48)  and  (49)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, normal value was constructed on the basis of the costs of manufacturing of 
the  Turkish  producer.  This  exporting  producer  argued  that  normal  value,  for  those 
product types exported by the Chinese exporters, should have been based on the cost 
of production of the Chinese exporters themselves. 

(29) 

It is noted that the basic Regulation in Article 2(7)(a) expressly foresees that normal 
value  shall  be  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  price  or  constructed  value  of  a  market 
economy country. Therefore, the fact that normal value was determined on the basis of 
constructed  values  does  not  allow  the  conclusion  that  the  values  used  were 
inappropriate. It is noted that since MET was not granted to the exporter in question its 
cost  related  to  the  exported  models  was  considered  unreliable.  The  purpose  of  the 
selection of an analogue country is to establish reliable costs and prices based on the 
information gathered in an appropriate analogue country. Since it has been determined 
that  Turkey  was  an  appropriate  choice  there  were  no  grounds  to  consider  that  costs 
related to the product concerned were not reliable or inappropriate. 

(30)  The  exporting  producer  concerned  did  not  come  forward  with  any  specific  reason 
(other than the ones mentioned in recital (25) above) that the choice of the analogue 
country was  inappropriate, in particular  on  which grounds  it  was  considered that the 
product types produced and sold by this exporting producer and the ones produced and 
sold by the producer in the analogue country were not comparable. These claims had 
therefore to be rejected. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(31) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  with  regard  to  the  method  for  calculating  the 
normal  value,  the  provisional  conclusions  as  outlined  in  recitals  (46)  to  (50)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are herewith confirmed. 

4.3. 

Export price 

(32)  The  exporting  producer  mentioned  in  recital  (52)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  who 
made  export  sales  via  its  related  importer  in  the  Community  claimed  that  when 
constructing the export price in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, 
the actual profit realised by the related importer when reselling PSC in the Community 
should have been used.  

(33) 

(34) 

It is noted that sales prices between related parties are considered unreliable due to the 
relationship  between  the  buyer  and  the  seller.  Consequently,  the  profit  margin 
resulting from a re-sale has also to be considered as unreliable. The exporting producer 
did  not  submit  any  evidence  that  the  profit  margin  of  its  related  importer  would  be 
nonetheless reliable. This claim had therefore to be rejected. 

It is noted that for the exporting producer mentioned in recital (32) IT was denied for 
the reasons set out in recitals (22) and (23) and since its dumping margin was therefore 
determined on the basis of the methodology outlined in recital (41) below, the question 
of  the  methodology  applied  when  determining  this  exporting  producer's  export  price 
has become irrelevant. 

(35)  With  regard  to  one  of  the  exporting  producers  to  whom  IT  was  granted,  the 
Community  industry  questioned  the  reliability  of  its  export  price  reported.  It  was 
argued  that  given  the  low  quantity  exported  during  the  IP,  as  well  as  the  particular 
circumstances  (in  particular  the  product  exported  did  not  have  the  required 
homologation certificate) would indicate a relationship between the importer and the 
exporting  producer  and 
therefore  be 
disregarded.  However,  the  Community  industry  could  not  submit  any  evidence  in 
support  to  their  claim.  The  investigation  did  furthermore  not  reveal  any  relationship 
between the exporting producer and the unrelated importer. This claim had therefore to 
be rejected.  

the  corresponding  export  price  should 

(36) 

In the absence of any other comments with regard to the determination of the export 
price,  the  provisional  conclusions  as  outlined  in  recital  (51)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are herewith confirmed. 

4.4. 

Comparison 

(37) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  with  regard  to  the  comparison  of  the  normal 
value and the export price, the provisional conclusions as outlined in recitals (53) and 
(54) of the provisional Regulation are herewith confirmed. 

5. 

DUMPING MARGINS 

5.1. 

Co-operating producers granted IT 

(38)  For the companies granted IT, the weighted average normal value was compared with 
the weighted average export price as provided for in Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic 
Regulation.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(39)  The definitive weighted average dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF 

Community frontier price, duty unpaid, is: 

Company 

Kiswire Qingdao, Ltd. 

Ossen  MaanShan  Steel  Wire  and  Co.  Ltd,  Maanshan,  and 
Ossen Jiujiang Steel Wire Cable Co. Ltd, Jiujinag 

Definitive 
dumping margin 

26.8% 

49.8% 

5.2. 

All other exporting producers 

(40)  As outlined in recital (57) of the provisional Regulation, the level of co-operation was 

low.  

(41) 

It was therefore considered appropriate to determine the country wide dumping on the 
basis of data provided by companies to whom neither MET nor IT was granted. 

(42)  On this basis the country-wide level of dumping for all exporting producers to whom 
individual treatment was not granted, was established at 50.0% of the CIF Community 
frontier price, duty unpaid.  

6. 

INJURY 

6.1. 

Community production and definition of the Community industry 

(43) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  production  and  definition  of  the 
Community  industry,  recitals  60  to  63  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed.  

6.2. 

Community consumption 

(44) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  Community  consumption,  recitals  64  to 
66 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6.3. 

Imports into the Community from the PRC 

(45)  One interested party claimed that the average price of Chinese imports was similar to 
the  average  sales  price  of  the  Community  industry.  In  this  regard,  the  Commission 
findings which were based on Eurostat for the import prices from the PRC and verified 
data for the Community industry showed that this statement was not correct. Therefore 
this claim had to be rejected.  

(46) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  in  this  regard,  recitals  67  to  70  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6.4. 

Situation of the Community industry 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
(47)  One user claimed that the average prices of the Community industry in 2004 and 2005 
were higher than the ones presented in the provisional Regulation and thus not correct. 
Concerning this claim, it should be stressed that the current findings are the result of 
an  investigation  at  EU  level  and  not  at  regional  or  country  level.  As  no  evidence  in 
regard  to  this  claim  was  submitted  by  the  interested  party,  it  had  therefore  to  be 
rejected.  

(48) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  the  situation  of  the  Community 
industry,  the  conclusion  in  recitals  71  to  91  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  that  the 
Community industry has suffered material injury, is hereby confirmed. 

7. 

CAUSATION 

7.1. 

Effects of the dumped imports  

(49)  Certain interested parties claimed that the market share of the Chinese imports was not 
enough  to  cause  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry.  As  clearly 
demonstrated  in  recital  93  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  massive  increase  of 
2 106%  in  the  volume  of  the  dumped  imports  between  2004  and  the  IP  and  their 
corresponding  increase  in  market  share  from  0.4%  in  2004  to  8.2%  in  the  IP  on  the 
Community market, as well as the 18% undercutting found during the IP, coincided in 
time with the deterioration of the economic situation of the Community industry.  

(50) 

In  addition,  despite  the  rise  in  the  cost  of  the  main  raw  material,  wire  rod,  which 
accounts for 75% of the manufacturing costs, which should have affected all operators 
in the market, the average Chinese prices decreased by 45% between 2004 and the IP. 
It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  pressure  exerted  by  the  dumped  imports,  which 
significantly  increased  their  volume  and  market  share  from  2006  onwards  played  a 
determining  role  in  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry.  This  claim  is 
therefore rejected. 

(51)  On  that  basis,  the  findings  and  the  conclusions  reached  in  recitals  92  to  94  of  the 

provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

7.2. 

Effects of other factors 

(52)  Certain interested parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Community industry 
was caused by imports from other third countries. As shown in recitals 95 and 96 of 
the provisional Regulation, the volume of imports from other third countries increased 
by 112% from 2004 till the end of the IP. However, the average prices of these imports 
were  far  above  those  of  the  Chinese  exporting  producers  and  even  those  of  the 
Community industry. Consequently, they cannot be considered as having contributed 
to the injury suffered by the Community industry. 

(53)  Two of the other third countries holding a combined market share of 2.5% were found 
to  have  prices  below  the  import  prices  of  the  product  concerned  from  the  PRC. 
However,  given  the  relatively  low  volume  of  imports  involved  this  cannot  be 
considered  sufficient  to  break  the  causal  link  between  the  dumped  imports  from  the 
PRC and the injury suffered by the Community industry.  

(54)  On  that  basis,  the  findings  and  the  conclusions  reached  in  recitals  95  and  96  of  the 

provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
7.3. 

Export performance of the sampled Community industry 

(55)  Certain interested parties claimed that the injury suffered by the Community industry 
was  caused  by  exports  made  at  prices  below  cost  of  production.  Exports  to  non-
Community countries represented only around 14% of the Community industry’s total 
sales  of  the  like  product  in  the  IP.  These  exports  increased  by  about  16%  between 
2004 and the IP. However, the unit export selling price of the Community producers 
decreased  by  8%  from  €715  per  tonne  in  2004  to  €660  per  tonn e  in  the  IP.  As 
explained in recital 98 of the provisional Regulation, it cannot be assumed that these 
sales were made at prices below cost of production since there were a lot of variations 
in costs and prices between companies and in time. The decrease in the export price 
was due to the pressure from the Chinese exports also in the principal export markets 
of the Community industry through severe price suppression.  

(56)  On  that  basis,  the  findings  and  the  conclusions  reached  in  recitals  97  to  99  of  the 

provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

(57) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  rise  in  costs  of  production,  and 
competition  from  other  producers  in  the  Community,  the  conclusions  reached  in 
recitals 100 to 102 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

7.4. 

Conclusion on causation 

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

(59)  Given  the  above,  it  is  confirmed  that  the  dumped  imports  of  PSC  wires  and  strands 
originating in the PRC have caused material injury to the Community industry within 
the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation. 

(60) 

In the absence of other comments in this respect, the conclusions in recitals 103 and 
104 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

8. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

8.1. 

Interest of the Community industry and of other Community producers 

(61) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  interest  of  the  Community  industry 
and  the  interest  of  other  producers,  the  conclusions  in  recitals  105  to  111  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

8.2. 

Interest of importers 

(62)  One interested party importing PSC wires and strands from the PRC alleged that the 
imposition of any anti-dumping measures would have serious effects on the situation 
of  importers  since  they  would  be  unable  to  pass  on  the  price  increase  to  their 
customers. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(63)  The investigation revealed that the importers' profit margins for the product concerned 
were  relatively  high.  Moreover,  the  low  proportion  of  the  costs  of  the  product 
concerned in their customers' total costs should make it possible for the importers to 
pass  any  price  increase  on  to  them.  In  addition,  the  terms  of  their  contracts  with  the 
suppliers are not such as to prevent importers from switching the source of supply of 
the product concerned, either to companies with low or no duties or to other supplying 
countries such as Thailand and South Africa. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected. 

(64) 

In the absence of any other comments in this particular regard, the findings set out in 
recitals 112 to 114 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

8.3. 

Interest of users 

(65)  Some  interested  parties  claimed  that  the  imposition  of  any  anti-dumping  measures 
would  have  serious  effects  on  the  situation  of  users  of  PSC  wires  and  strands  since 
they would be unable to pass on the price increase to their customers. 

(66)  As outlined in recitals 4 and 5 above, the possible effect of measures on the situation 
of  the  user  industries  was  further  examined  after  the  imposition  of  provisional 
measures  by  carrying  out  additional  on-spot  investigations  at  the  premises  of  four 
users.  These  users  were  all  intermediate  users  producing  and  supplying  the  concrete 
elements for concrete reinforcement, suspension elements and stay-cable bridges. 

(67)  The Commission's  findings  showed that for  the  most  representative  user  visited,  and 
for  most  of  the  applications,  the  product  concerned  represented  only  5%  of  its  total 
cost of production. However on average the proportion for users can reach up to 13%. 
The  impact  of  the  anti-dumping  duty  on  their  costs  was  estimated  at  between  0  and 
6%.  Nonetheless,  with  regard  to  their  final  customers  (mainly  construction 
companies), the impact of the duty will be minimal and in any case below 1% of their 
total cost of production. As a result, they should not have much difficulty in passing 
on the duty to their customers. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected. 

(68)  One  interested  party  claimed  that  the  imposition  of  any  anti-dumping  measures  will 
lead to a shortage of PSC wires and strands in the United Kingdom (UK) due to the 
UK  market's  reliance  on  imports.  In  this  respect,  it  has  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
current findings were established at EU level and not  at a  regional or single country 
level.  However,  if  ones  looks  only  at  the  UK  market,  the  findings  showed  that  the 
investigated UK producers have large spare capacity to supply the market. Moreover, 
as a whole, the Community industry has sufficient spare capacity to supply total EU 
consumption. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.  

(69)  Allegations on the existence of a cartel in the Community industry of PSC wires and 
strands  were  made  by  certain  interested  parties.  In  this  regard,  it  is  noted  that  the 
Commission  issued  a  Statement  of  Objections  in  October  2008  to  a  number  of 
companies active in the supply of pre-stressing steel. However, no final decision has 
yet  been  taken  by  the  Commission  on  this  matter.  Indeed  sending  a  Statement  of 
Objections does not prejudge the final outcome of the procedure. If the existence of a 
cartel should be shown to have existed on the Community market, the measures may 
be reviewed as appropriate. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(70) 

In the absence of any other comments in this particular regard, the findings set out in 
recitals 115 to 117 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

8.4. 

Conclusion on Community interest 

(71)  Given  the  results  of  the  further  investigation  of  the  Community  interest  aspects,  the 

findings contained in recital 118 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

9. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

9.1. 

Injury elimination level 

(72)  Several  interested  parties  contested  the  provisional  finding  that  a  profit  margin  of 
8.5% would be the profit margin that could reasonably be achieved by an industry of 
this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition. 

(73)  One  interested  party  claimed  that  the  2005  profitability  should  not  be  taken  into 
account when calculating the profit margin of the Community industry, since it was an 
exceptionally  prosperous  year  for  the  sector.  This  was  found  to  be  the  case  and  the 
claim  was  therefore  accepted.  As  a  result,  a  6.2%  profit  margin  was  used  for  the 
calculation of the injury elimination level, as achieved in 2004 at a time when import 
quantities from the PRC were not significant and prices were above those of the CI. 

(74)  The necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the 
weighted average import price, as established for the price undercutting calculations, 
with  the  non-injurious  price  of  products  sold  by  the  Community  industry  on  the 
Community  market.  Any  difference  resulting  from  this  comparison  was  then 
expressed as a percentage of the total CIF import value.  

(75)  One interested party claimed that the weighted average underselling margin should be 
calculated by using the quantity of each product type sold by the Community industry 
as  the  weight.  It  is  consistent  practice  to  use  the  CIF  value  of  the  exports  of  each 
product type as the weight to calculate the weighted average underselling margin. The 
rationale for this calculation is that a duty calculated in this way would, if applied to 
the company's sales during the IP, result in zero underselling, i.e. a non-injurious price. 
This would not be the case if the quantity of each product type sold by the Community 
industry was used as weights, as claimed.  

(76)  The  injury  elimination  level  of  one  of  the  Chinese  exporting  producers  to  whom  IT 
was  granted  mentioned  in  recital  (24)  above,  was  recalculated  further  to  a  clerical 
mistake  in  the  provisional  determination.  As  a  result,  the  injury  elimination  level 
amounted to less than 2% which was considered to be de minimis. Consequently, no 
duty should be imposed with regards of imports of the product concerned produced by 
that company. 

(77) 

In the absence of any other comments concerning the injury elimination level, recitals 
119 to 122 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(78)  The  countrywide  injury  elimination  level  was  recalculated  on  the  basis  of  data 

provided by companies to whom neither MET nor IT was granted. 

9.2. 

Form and level of the duties 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(79) 

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

(80)  The rate of the definitive duties are definitively set as follows: 

Company 

Dumping margin 

Kiswire Qingdao, Ltd 26.8% 

49.8% 

MaanShan 
Ossen 
Steel  Wire  and  Co. 
Ltd,  Maanshan,  and 
Ossen  Jiujiang  Steel 
Wire  Cable  Co.  Ltd, 
Jiujinag 

Injury 
margin 

0% 

31.1%  

elimination 

Definitive  anti-dumping 
duties rate 

0% 

31.1%  

All other companies 

50.0% 

46.2% 

46.2% 

(81)  The  individual  company  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  country-wide  duty  applicable  to  "all  other 
companies") are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the 
country  concerned  and  produced  by  the  companies  mentioned.  Imported  products 
produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this 
Regulation  with  its  name  and  address,  including  entities  related  to  those  specifically 
mentioned,  cannot  benefit  from  these  rates  and  shall  be  subject  to  the  duty  rate 
applicable to "all other companies". 

(82)  Any  claim  requesting  the  application  of  this  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  Commission3  forthwith 
with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities 
linked  to  production,  domestic  and  export  sales  associated  with,  for  example,  that 
name  change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the 
Regulation  will  then  be  amended  accordingly  by  updating  the  list  of  companies 
benefiting from individual duty rates. 

9.3. 

Definitive collection of provisional duties  

(83) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the 
amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by  the 
provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  Regulation  (EC)  No  1129/2008,  should  be  definitively 
collected  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  of  the  definitive  duties  imposed.  Where  the 

3 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Trade,  Directorate  H,  Office  N-105  4/92,  1049 
Brussels, Belgium. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally secured 
in  excess  of  the  definitive  rate  of  anti-dumping  duties  shall  be  released.  Where  the 
definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts secured at the 
level  of  the  provisional  duties  shall  be  definitely  collected.  Amounts  provisionally 
secured  for  products  excluded  from  the  product  scope,  in  accordance  with  recital  9, 
should be released. 

9.4. 

Special monitoring 

(84) 

In order to minimize 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: 

(85)  The  presentation  to  the  Customs  authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  a  valid 
commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex 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. 

(86)  Should  the  exports  by  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. 

10. 

UNDERTAKINGS 

(87)  Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which 
it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures, one 
of the exporting producers to whom individual treatment was granted offered a price 
undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation.  

(88)  This offer was examined and it was found that during the IP, the prices of the product 
were  extremely  variable,  i.e.  the  difference  between  the  lowest and  the  highest  sales 
price to the EU for the same product category could vary by as much as 46% for the 
mentioned company. Moreover, significant price variations were also found for sales 
prices of the Community industry during the period considered. Therefore, the product 
is not suitable for a fixed price undertaking. The company offered that the minimum 
price  should  be  indexed  on  the  basis  of  the  price  development  of  a  raw  material, 
namely wire rod. However in the absence of publicly available price information for 
the raw material used in the product concerned and in view of the opposite price trend 
of a comparable raw material, namely wire rod mesh quality, no correlation could be 
established between the sales prices of the finished product in the community and the 
main  raw  material.  The  undertaking  offer  is  considered  as  impractical  within  the 
meaning of Article 8(3) of the basic Regulation as it would not remove the injurious 
effect of dumping found.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
(89)  Moreover, the product concerned exists in numerous different types. The company, in 
order  to  facilitate  the  requested  reporting  in  the  framework  of  the  investigation, 
simplified  the  product  classification  criteria  and  achieved  to  group  the  number  of 
product  types  produced  and  sold.  This,  however,  does  not  change  the  fact  that  the 
company produced and sold several types of wire and strands to the EU during the IP. 
In  order  to  limit  the  risk  of  cross-compensation  between  different  product  types,  the 
company  offered  to  respect  three  minimum  import  prices,  one  for  wires  and  two  for 
strands  depending  on  the  diameter.  However,  in  view  of  the  reasons  described  in 
recital (88), the undertaking offered by the exporting producer concerned could not be 
accepted. 

11. 

CHANGE OF NAME 

(90)  One  of  the  exporting  producers  concerned,  namely  Ossen  MaanShan  Steel  Wire  and 
Co. Ltd, Maanshan, and Ossen Jiujiang Steel Wire Cable Co. Ltd, Jiujinag, changed its 
name  after  the  IP  during  the  course  of  the  present  investigation  to  Ossen  Innovation 
Materials  Co.  Joint  Stock  Company  Ltd,  Maanshan,  and  Ossen  Jiujiang  Steel  Wire 
Cable Co. Ltd, Jiujinag.  

(91)  The modification does not entail any substantive change which would have an impact 
on  the  findings  in  the  present  investigation  and  it  was  therefore  concluded  that  the 
definitive findings with regard to Ossen MaanShan Steel Wire and Co. Ltd, Maanshan, 
and  Ossen  Jiujiang  Steel  Wire  Cable  Co.  Ltd,  Jiujinag  are  applicable  to  Ossen 
Innovation  Materials  Co.  Joint  Stock  Company  Ltd,  Maanshan,  and  Ossen  Jiujiang 
Steel Wire Cable Co. Ltd, Jiujinag, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  not  plated  or  not 
coated wire of non-alloy steel, wire of non-alloy steel plated or coated with zinc and 
stranded wire of non-alloy steel whether or not plated or coated with not more than 
18  wires,  containing  by  weight  0,6  %  or  more  of  carbon,  with  a  maximum  cross-
sectional  dimension  exceeding  3  mm,  falling  within  CN  codes  ex  7217  10  90,  ex 
7217 20 90, ex 7312 10 61, ex 7312 10 65 and ex 7312 10 69 (TARIC codes 7217 10 
90 10, 7217 20 90 10, 7312 10 61 11, 7312 10 61 91, 7312 10 65 11, 7312 10 65 91, 
7312 10 69 11 and 7312 10 69 91) and originating in the People’s Republic of China. 

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

Company 

Anti-dumping 
duty 

TARIC additional code 

Kiswire Qingdao, Ltd , Qingdao 

0 % 

Ossen  Innovation  Materials  Co.  Joint 
Stock  Company  Ltd,  Maanshan,  and 

31.1% 

A899 

A952 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
Ossen  Jiujiang  Steel  Wire  Cable  Co. 
Ltd, Jiujinag 

All other companies 

46.2 % 

A999 

3. 

4. 

The  application of the individual duty rate  specified  for  the  company  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  the  Annex.  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 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1129/2008 on imports of certain pre- and post-stressing wires and wire 
strands  of  non-alloy  steel  (PSC  wires  and  strands)  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of 
China shall be definitively collected. Amounts provisionally secured for goods not covered by 
article 1(1) shall be released.  

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 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX  

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

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

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

Date and signature" 

EN 

20 

   EN