Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2010-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, household article, import, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.3.2010 
COM(2010)80 final 

2010/0049 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China 

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 
1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from 
countries not members of the European Community1 (‘the basic Regulation’) 
in the proceeding concerning imports of certain ironing boards originating in, 
inter alia, 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  carried  out  in  line  with  the 
substantive and procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation.  

  •  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/20072  imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping 
duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing 
boards originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine. 

  •  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  proceedings  have  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.  

1 
2 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.  
OJ L 109, 26.4.2007, p. 12. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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 8 January 2009, the European Commission ('the Commission')  initiated a 
partial  interim  review  limited  to  dumping  aspects  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures  applicable  to  imports  of  ironing  boards  originating  in  the  People's 
Republic  of  China  imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007  of  23 
April 2007. 

The  request  for  the  review  was  lodged  by  a  Chinese  exporting  producer, 
namely  Power  Team  Houseware  Co.  Ltd.,  Guangzhou.  In  its  request  the 
company claimed that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were 
imposed  have  changed  and  that  these  changes  are  of  a  lasting  nature.  The 
applicant  provided  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  continued  imposition  of  the 
measure  at  its  current  level  is  no  longer  necessary  to  offset  dumping  and 
notably that it operates under market economy conditions. 

The review investigation showed that the applicant did not fulfil the relevant 
provisions  of  the  basic  Regulation  to  be  granted  market  economy  treatment 
and  its  individual  margin  of  dumping  had  to  be  revised.  Additionally,  the 
residual rate applicable to all non-cooperating producers had to be revised.  

Therefore,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation amending the anti-dumping duty applicable to Power Team and the 
residual  duty.  The  Regulation  should  be  published  in  the  Official  Journal  no 
later than 7 April 2010.  

  •  Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1225/2009  of  30  November  2009  on  protection 
against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European 
Community and in particular Article 11(3) thereof.  

  •  Subsidiarity principle 

The  proposal  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  Union.  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 basic Regulation and leaves no scope for 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
national decision. 

Indication of how financial and administrative burden falling upon the Union, 
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: Council Regulation. 

  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 Union budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
2010/0049 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,  

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community3 ('the basic 
Regulation'), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

PROCEDURE  

1.1.  Measures in force 

(1) 

The  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/20074,  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping 
duty on imports  of ironing boards  originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of 
China ('PRC'). The  measures  consist of an ad valorem duty rate of 38,1  %, with  the 
exception of five companies expressly mentioned which are subject to individual duty 
rates. 

1.2. 

Request for a review 

(2) 

In  2008,  the  Commission  received  a  request  for  a  partial  interim  review  pursuant  to 
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation ('interim review'). The request, limited in scope 
to  the  examination  of  dumping,  was  lodged  by  a  Chinese  exporting  producer 
Guangzhou  Power  Team  Houseware  Co.  Ltd.,  Guangzhou  ('Power  Team'  or  'the 

3 
4 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.  
OJ L 109, 26.4.2007, p. 12. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

applicant'). The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the applicant is 
36,5 %. 

In  its  request,  the  applicant  claimed  that  the  circumstances  on  the  basis  of  which 
measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. 
The  applicant  provided  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  continued  imposition  of  the 
measure at its current level is no longer necessary to offset dumping. 

In  particular,  the  applicant  has  claimed  that  it  now  operates  under  market  economy 
conditions,  i.e.  that  it  meets  the  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. The applicant therefore alleged that its normal value should be determined 
in  accordance  with  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  A  comparison  of  this 
normal value and its export prices to the European Union indicated that the dumping 
margin appears to be substantially lower than the current level of the measure. 

(5) 

Therefore,  the  applicant  claimed  that  the  continued  imposition  of  measures  at  the 
existing  level, which was based on  the  level of dumping previously established, was 
no longer necessary to offset dumping. 

1.3. 

Initiation of a review 

(6) 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed for the initiation of an interim review, the Commission decided to initiate an 
interim  review  in  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  limited  in 
scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the applicant5. 

1.4. 

Product concerned and like product 

(7) 

(8) 

The product concerned by the interim review is the same as that in the investigation 
that led to the imposition of the measures in force ('original investigation'), i.e. ironing 
boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating 
top  and/or  blowing  top,  including  sleeve  boards,  and  essential  parts  thereof,  i.e.  the 
legs, the top and the iron rest originating in the People's Republic of China currently 
falling within CN codes ex 3924 90 006, ex 4421 90 98, ex 7323 93 90, ex 7323 99 91, 
ex 7323 99 99, ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00.  

The product produced and sold on the Chinese domestic market and that exported to 
the  European  Union  ('EU'),  as  well  as  that  produced  and  sold  in  Ukraine  (used  as 
analogue country) have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and uses 
and are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic 
Regulation. 

5 
6 

OJ C 3, 8.1.2009, p. 14 ('Notice of Initiation'). 
The  modified  code  (3924  90  00  instead  of  3924  90  90  as  mentioned  in  the  Notice  of  Initiation)  is  a 
result of the new Combined Nomenclature which became applicable on 1.1.2010 (see Regulation (EC) 
948/2009). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.5. 

Parties concerned 

(9) 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  representative  of  the  Union  industry,  the 
applicant  and  the  representatives  of  the  exporting  country  of  the  initiation  of  the 
review.  Interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in 
writing and to be heard. 

(10)  The  Commission  sent  a  market  economy  treatment  ('MET')  claim  form  and  a 
questionnaire  to  the  applicant  and  received  a  reply  within  the  deadline  set  for  that 
purpose. The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary 
for  the  determination  of  dumping,  and  a  verification  visit  was  carried  out  at  the 
premises of the applicant. 

1.6. 

Review investigation period 

(11)  The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 
2008  ('the  review  investigation  period'  or  'RIP').  It  is  recalled  that  the  investigation 
period  of  the  original  investigation  leading  to  the  imposition  of  the  measures  was  1 
January 2005 to 31 December 2005 ('the original investigation period'). 

2. 

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

2.1.  Market Economy Treatment ('MET') 

(12)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  anti-dumping  investigations 
concerning  imports  originating  in  the  PRC,  normal  value  shall  be  determined  in 
accordance  with  paragraphs  1  to  6  of  the  Article  2  of  the  basic  Regulation  for  those 
producers  which  were  found  to  meet  the  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the 
basic  Regulation,  i.e.  where  it  is  shown  that  market  economy  conditions  prevail  in 
respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product. These criteria are set out in a 
summarised form below:  

–  business  decisions  are  made  in  response  to  market  signals,  without  significant 

State interference, and costs reflect market values,  

–  firms  have  one  clear  set  of  basic  accounting  records  which  are  independently 
audited in line with International Accounting Standards ('IAS') and applied for all 
purposes,  

–  there  are  no  significant  distortions  carried  over  from  the  former  non-market 

economy system,  

–  bankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty, 

–  currency exchanges are carried out at market rates. 

(13)  The applicant requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and 

was invited to complete a MET claim form.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(14)  The  investigation  established  that  the  applicant  did  not  meet  the  MET  criterion 
referred to in the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) (criterion 1) of the basic Regulation as 
regards costs of major inputs. It was established that after the investigation period in 
the original investigation, i.e. after 2005, export restrictions were imposed by the State 
on  several  steel  products,  including  the  main  raw  materials  for  the  production  of 
ironing  boards,  i.e.  steel  plate,  steel  pipes  and  steel  wire.  It  is  noted  that  the  cost  of 
these  raw  materials  represent  significant  part  of  the  total  raw  materials  cost.  The 
imposition of export taxes decreased the incentive to export and thereby increased the 
volumes available domestically, leading in turn to lower prices. It was also found that 
a number of subsidy schemes were available for Chinese steel producers7, as well as 
publicly  available  accounts  of  a  number  of  steel  producers  confirm  that  the  Chinese 
State is actively supporting the development of the steel sector in the PRC. 

(15)  As  a  consequence,  domestic  steel  prices  in  the  PRC  were  during  the  review 
investigation  period  far  below  prices  on  other  sizeable  world  markets,  notably  steel 
prices  in  North  America  and  North  Europe8,  and  these  price  differences  cannot  be 
explained by any competitive advantage in the production of steel.  

(16)  Moreover,  from  the  information  on  the  file,  it  was  found  that  the  applicant  was 
benefiting from these artificially low and distorted prices of steel, as it purchased its 
raw materials on the domestic Chinese market. 

(17) 

It  was  thus  concluded  that  major  inputs  of  Power  Team  do  not  substantially  reflect 
market values. Consequently, it was concluded that the applicant has not shown that it 
fulfils all the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and, thus, could 
not be granted MET. 

(18)  The applicant, the exporting country and the Union industry were given an opportunity 
to  comment  on  the  above  findings.  Comments  were  received  from  the  applicant  and 
the Union industry. 

(19)  The applicant put forward three main arguments within the deadline. Firstly, it stated 
that Power Team's raw material prices were still in line with domestic prices and that 
this  finding  was  sufficient  to  fulfil  criterion  1  in  the  original  investigation.  As  a 
consequence,  the  company  considered  it  a  breach  of  Article  11(9)  of  the  basic 
Regulation to compare the prices on the Chinese domestic market with prices on other 
international steel markets. In this context, the company also questioned the relevance 
of the North European and North American steel market prices to which a comparison 
was made. The applicant stated that there would be also prices of other international 
markets such as the Turkish export prices that were lower than the domestic prices in 
the PRC.  

7 

8 

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, ‘The China Syndrome:  How Subsidies 
and  Government  Intervention  Created  the  World's  Largest  Steel  Industry’  by  Wiley  Rein  &  Fielding 
LLP, July 2006 and “The State-Business Nexus in China’s Steel Industry – Chinese Market Distortions 
in Domestic and International Perspective” by Prof. Dr. Markus Taube & Dr. Christian Schmidkonz of 
THINK!DESK China Research & Consulting, 25.2.2009. 
Source: Steel Business Briefing, average prices for 2005 and 2008. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(20) 

It is indeed true that the applicant fulfilled criterion 1 in the original investigation, but 
failed criterion 2. It is however considered that there is no breach of Article 11(9) of 
the  basic  Regulation  as  there  is  no  change  in  methodology  to  assess  whether  the 
company operates under market economy conditions and notably whether it still fulfils 
criterion  1.  In  both  investigations,  the  original  investigation  and  the  review 
investigation, the question of raw materials reflecting market values was assessed. In 
both investigations one of the indicators examined were domestic steel prices, but in 
the  original  investigation  there  were  no  other  significant  factors  that  appeared  to 
influence  raw  material  prices.  Thus,  the  methodology  remained  the  same,  only  the 
findings were different.  

(21)  The review investigation revealed that after the original investigation period, i.e. since 
2006,  the  circumstances  have  changed  as  several  measures  were  imposed  by  the 
Chinese  State  to  discourage  exports  of  steel  plate,  pipes  and  wire  by  introducing  an 
export  tax  and  by  eliminating  the  export  VAT  refund.  This,  together  with  the 
mentioned  subsidy  schemes,  had  a  distorting  effect  on  the  Chinese  domestic  steel 
prices because the price difference found between those prices and the domestic prices 
published  for  North  America  and  North  Europe,  increased  significantly  to  around 
30 %.  This  price  difference  has  not  been  challenged  by  the  applicant  following  the 
disclosure of the MET findings. 

(22)  As regards the argument that the domestic North American and North European steel 
prices are not the only internationally relevant prices, it is noted that both steel markets 
were selected for a comparison of prices as both markets have a high consumption of 
steel  and  are  competitive  markets  with  several  active  producers.  It  could  thus 
reasonably be assumed that those domestic prices were representative for competitive 
market  prices.  Moreover,  the  claim  that  Turkish  export  prices  would  be  lower  than 
Chinese  domestic  prices  was  not  further  substantiated  at  this  stage,  i.e.  no  concrete 
prices  were  submitted  within  the  deadline.  Furthermore,  no  explanation  as  to  why 
Turkish  export  prices,  given  the  apparent  relative  small  size  of  the  Turkish  export 
market  compared  to  the  domestic  North  American  and  North  European  markets, 
should be considered as more relevant. 

(23)  The company secondly claimed that it was discriminated in the application of EU law, 
as  in  a  number  of  recent  other  cases  in  which  steel  constituted  a  major  input,  there 
were  some  Chinese  steel  companies  fulfilling  criterion  1.  These  cases  were  all 
examined  and  it  was  found  that  none  of  the  companies  involved  in  those  cases  was 
granted  MET  as  they  all  failed  at  least  one  other  criterion  of  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the 
basic Regulation. So, for reasons of administrative economy, it was not necessary to 
expand on criterion 1 in great detail when it was clear that the company would fail for 
another  reason.  In  any  event,  in  none  of  those  recent  cases  the  Commission  had 
concluded  that  there  are  no  distortions  on  the  Chinese  domestic  steel  market,  but  on 
the contrary, in recent cases, MET was denied whenever raw material distortions could 
be identified9.  

9 

See Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain 
iron  or  steel  fasteners  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  (OJ  L  29,  31.1.2009,  p. 1); 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  287/2009  imposing  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of 
certain  aluminium  foil  originating  in,  inter  alia,  the  People's  Republic  of  China  (OJ  L  94,  8.4.2009, 
p. 17).  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(24)  Lastly,  the  applicant  argued  that  an  adjustment  of  the  normal  value  would  be  more 
appropriate than denying MET. However, an adjustment to the normal value appears 
not appropriate given that one of the criteria to be granted MET is that costs of major 
inputs  have  to  reflect  market  values.  If  this  is  not  the  case,  the  consequence  should 
rather  be  that  MET  is  denied  and  the  normal  value  will  be  replace  by  an  analogue 
country  normal  value,  in  particular  if  the  raw  materials  constitute  such  a  significant 
part of the cost of the inputs.  

(25)  To conclude, none of the arguments raised by Power Team were convincing or led to a 

different assessment of the findings.  

(26)  The Union industry pointed out that the Chinese State had massively intervene in the 
steel  industry  which  already  prompted  the  EU  and  the  US  to  request  WTO 
consultations to resolve this matter.  

(27)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  findings  and  the  conclusion  that  MET  should  not  be 

granted to Power Team were confirmed.  

(28)  Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which 
it  was  intended  to  recommend  an  amendment  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
452/2007, the applicant submitted further comments on the MET finding. 

(29)  The applicant mainly reiterated its argument that its main inputs would reflect market 
values  in  the  PRC  and  that  Chinese  prices  would  be  broadly  in  line  with  other 
international  markets.  While  it  acknowledged  the  fact  that  the  price  increase  for  the 
main inputs was less pronounced in the PRC in 2008 compared to other international 
steel  markets,  the  applicant  alleged  that  this  was  not  due  to  any  distortions  but  that 
other pure commercial factors could be the reason for the lower prices on the Chinese 
domestic market. The applicant pointed to increased production in 2008 and indicated 
that the existing anti-dumping or countervailing duties in place against exports of most 
of the steel inputs produced in the PRC had led the Chinese producers to decrease their 
prices in the domestic market. 

(30) 

It is noted that the additional price information submitted by the applicant supported 
the  finding  that  the  main  raw  materials  for  the  production  of  ironing  boards  in  2008 
were on average significantly cheaper on the Chinese domestic market than on other 
sizeable world markets.  

(31)  As  to  the  argument  that  pure  commercial  factors  were  the  reason  for  that  price 
difference, i.e. the increased production in the PRC, it is noted that this argument was 
not  sufficiently  substantiated  in  particular  with  regard  to  any  possible  correlation 
between  the  alleged  increase  in  production  and  the  situation  on  the  demand  side.  At 
the  same  time,  the  argument  raised  by  the  applicant  that  there  were  countervailing 
duties  in  place  against  exports  of  a  number  of  steel  products  from  the  PRC,  only 
demonstrates that indeed the Chinese steel producers were benefiting from subsidies. 

(32)  Consequently,  the  applicant's  argument  that  the  steel  market  in  the  PRC  is  not 
distorted cannot be upheld and it is definitively concluded that the MET determination 
should not be revised and that MET should not be granted to Power Team. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
2.2. 

Individual Treatment ('IT') 

(33)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)  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 that they meet all criteria for individual treatment 
set  out  in  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  These  criteria  are  set  out  in  a 
summarised form below:  

–  in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are 

free to repatriate capital and profits; 

–  export  prices  and  quantities,  and  conditions  and  terms  of  sale  are  freely 

determined; 

–  the majority of the shares belong to private persons, and it must be demonstrated 

that the company is sufficiently independent from State interference; 

–  exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; 

–  State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual 

exporters are given different rates of duty. 

(34)  The applicant,  as  well as requesting  MET, also claimed IT in the event of not being 

granted MET.  

(35)  The  investigation  showed  that  the  applicant  met  all  the  above  criteria  and  it  is 

concluded that IT should be granted to Power Team.  

2.3. 

Normal value  

(36)  According to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, in case of imports from non-market-
economy  countries  and  to  the  extent  that  MET  could  not  be  granted,  for  countries 
specified in Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, normal value has to be established 
on the basis of the price or constructed value in an analogue country. 

(37) 

In the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use again Turkey, 
which was used as an analogue country in the original investigation, as an appropriate 
analogue  country  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  normal  value  for  the  PRC,  but  no 
Turkish  producer  co-operated  in  this  interim  review.  However,  co-operation  was 
received  from  an  Ukrainian  exporting  producer  that  was  subject  to  a  parallel 
investigation  for  another  interim  review.  The  interested  parties  were  informed 
accordingly  and  no  comments  against  using  Ukraine  as  an  analogue  country  were 
received at that stage.  

(38)  As  there  were  no  apparent  reasons  found  not  to  select  Ukraine  as  analogue  country, 
and in particular as no other third country producer cooperated, the normal value was 
established  pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  i.e.  on  the  basis  of 
verified information received from the cooperating producer in the analogue country.  

(39) 

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, it was found that the volume 
of  domestic  sales  of  the  like  product  of  the  cooperating  producer  in  the  analogue 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
country was representative in comparison with the export sales of the applicant to the 
EU.  Furthermore,  for  all  exported  product  types,  the  comparable  domestic  sales  (if 
necessary  adjusted  for  physical  characteristics)  were  considered  representative  since 
their sales volume was at least 5 % of the volume of the corresponding export sales to 
the EU. 

(40)  The  Commission  subsequently  examined  whether the  domestic sales in  the analogue 
country  of  each  type  of  ironing  board  sold  domestically  in  representative  quantities 
could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing 
the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers of the ironing board type in 
question.  

(41)  Domestic  sales  transactions  were  considered  profitable  where  the  unit  price  of  a 
specific product type was equal to or above the cost of production. Cost of production 
of each type sold on the domestic market of the analogue country during the IP was 
therefore determined. 

(42)  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 
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. 

(43)  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 only profitable sales of that type. 

(44)  Following the disclosure, the applicant commented that in cases where profitable sales 
would represent less than 10 % of total sales volume of a particular type, a constructed 
normal value should normally be used.  

(45) 

In  this  regard,  it  is  noted  that  a  situation  of  less  than  10  %  profitable  sales  did  not 
occur  in  this  investigation.  Moreover,  the  practice  of  automatically  constructing  a 
normal value in such circumstances is no longer in place.  

2.4. 

Export price  

(46) 

In all cases the product concerned was sold for export to independent customers in the 
Union  via  independent  traders  in  the  PRC,  and  therefore,  the  export  price  was 
established  in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  namely  on  the 
basis of prices actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export to the EU.  

(47)  Following  disclosure,  the  applicant  submitted  that  the  export  price  should  be 
established on the basis of the sales invoice price of the independent Chinese trader to 
independent  customers  in  the  EU,  and  not,  as  it  was  done,  on  the  basis  of  the  price 
paid or payable for the product when sold from Power Team to the independent trader 
in the PRC for export. Such an approach, however, would not be in line with Article 
2(8) of the basic Regulation that requires that when products are sold for export, the 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
first  independent  transaction  should  be  the  basis  for  establishing  the  export  price. 
Consequently, this claim has to be rejected. 

2.5. 

Comparison  

(48)  The normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis. In order to 
ensure a fair comparison between normal value and export price, account was taken, in 
accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which 
were claimed and demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability. On this basis, 
allowances  for  physical  characteristics,  transport  costs,  insurance,  handling  charges 
and credit costs were made where applicable and justified. Given that the export price 
was  established  exclusively  on  the  basis  of  domestic  sales  to  Chinese  traders  for 
export,  there  was  no  reason  for  an  allowance  for  differences  in  taxation,  since  the 
normal value was also established on domestic sales in the analogue country subject to 
similar taxation regime. Both normal value and export price were therefore calculated 
on a net of VAT basis. 

(49)  Following  disclosure,  the  applicant  submitted  that  the  grouping  of  the  product  types 
(that was indeed performed for comparison purposes) would cast certain doubts with 
regard to the correctness of the price comparison.  

(50) 

In this regard, it is noted that the grouping of product types in this investigation was 
identical as the grouping performed in the original investigation, and was considered 
necessary  in  order  to  increase  comparability  of  the  products  sold  for  export  to  the 
Union by Power Team and those sold on the domestic market in the analogue country. 
It is also noted that the applicant did not substantiate its claim any further, in particular 
with  respect  to  why  the  grouping  as  performed  (and  explained  in  the  specific 
disclosure  addressed  to  the  applicant)  would  not  be  appropriate.  Consequently,  the 
claim has to be rejected. 

2.6. 

Dumping margin  

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

(52)  The  dumping  margin  of  Power  Team  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  net,  free-at-

Union-frontier price was found to be 39,6 %.  

3. 

LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES 

(53) 

In  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  also  examined 
whether the changed circumstances could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting 
nature. 

(54) 

In  this  respect,  it  is  recalled  that  the  applicant  was  denied  MET  in  the  original 
investigation  due  to  established  irregularities  with  regard  to  its  accounting  practices. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
This review concluded that Power Team fulfilled this criterion. However, as indicated 
above, the  applicant did not meet the MET criterion referred to in the first indent of 
Article  2(7)(c)  of 
inputs. 
Consequently, as far as MET is concerned, the circumstances have not changed for the 
applicant. 

the  basic  Regulation  concerning  costs  of  major 

(55)  However,  the  data  collected and verified during  the  investigation (i.e. the  applicant's 
individual  prices  for  export  to  the  EU  and  a  normal  value  established  in  Ukraine  as 
analogue  country)  led  to  a  higher  dumping  margin.  This  change  is  considered 
significant and the continued application of the measure at its current level would no 
longer be sufficient to offset dumping. 

4. 

ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES  

(56) 

In  the  light  of  the  results  of  this  review  investigation,  it  is  considered  appropriate  to 
amend  the  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  imports  of  the  product  concerned  from 
Power Team to 39,6 %.  

(57)  As  concerns  the  level  of  the  residual  duty,  it  is  recalled  that  in  the  original 
investigation, cooperation was low. Thus, the duty for the companies not co-operating 
was set at a level which corresponded to the weighted average dumping margin of the 
most  sold  product  types  of  the  co-operating  exporting  producer  with  the  highest 
dumping  margin.  Applying  the  same  methodology  and  considering  the  relevant  data 
from the applicant, the residual duty has to be amended to 42,3 %.  

(58) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of which it was intended to recommend an amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 
452/2007 and were given an opportunity to comment. The comments submitted by the 
parties  were  considered  and,  when  appropriate,  the  definitive  findings  have  been 
modified accordingly 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The entry concerning Guangzhou Power Team Houseware Co. Ltd., Guangzhou in the table 
in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 shall be replaced by the following: 

Country 

Manufacturer 

Rate of duty 
(%) 

TARIC 
additional code 

PRC 

Guangzhou Power Team 
Houseware Co. Ltd., Guangzhou 

39,6 

A783 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
Article 2 

The entry concerning all other companies in the PRC in the table in Article 1(2) of Regulation 
(EC) No 452/2007 shall be replaced by the following: 

Country 

Manufacturer 

Rate of duty 
(%) 

TARIC 
additional code 

PRC 

All other companies 

42,3 

A999 

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 

14 

   EN