Proposal for a Council Regulationamending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty onimports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in Ukraine
Date: 2010-06-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, household article, import, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 8.6.2010 
COM(2010)304 final 

2010/0165 (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 Ukraine 

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, Ukraine. 

•  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 

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 proceeding 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. 

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

1 
2 

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

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3. 

Legal elements of the proposal 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On  9  April  2009,  the  European  Commission  (the  Commission)  initiated  a  partial 
interim review limited to the dumping aspects of the anti-dumping measures applicable 
to  imports  of  ironing  boards  originating  in  Ukraine  imposed  by  Council  Regulation 
(EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007. 

The dumping margin found in the investigation that led to Council Regulation (EC) No 
452/2007 was 9,9 %. The review investigation found, for the sole producer of ironing 
boards  in  Ukraine,  that  following  a  restructuring  of  its  sales  channels,  its  dumping 
margin was 7,0 %. 

The review investigation thus concluded that the circumstances on the basis of which 
measures had been established have changed and that the new circumstances are of a 
lasting  nature.  The  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  on  imports  of  ironing  boards 
originating, inter alia, in Ukraine should therefore be amended. 

Therefore,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation amending the measures in force. The Regulation should be published in the 
Official Journal no later than 8 July 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 reason: 

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 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 instrument: Council Regulation. 

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

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

Budgetary implication 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
2010/0165 (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 Ukraine 

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 ('the original Regulation'), imposed a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  ironing  boards  originating,  inter  alia,  in 
Ukraine. The measures consist of an ad valorem duty at a rate of 9,9 %. 

1.2. 

Request for a review 

(2) 

In  August  2008,  the  Commission  received  a  request  for  a  partial  interim  review 
pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  ('the  interim  review').  The  request 
was completed in December 2008. The request, limited in scope to the examination of 
dumping,  was  lodged  by  an  exporting  producer  from  Ukraine,  Eurogold  Industries 
Ltd. ('the applicant' or 'EGI'). The applicant had cooperated in the investigation which 
led to the findings and conclusions laid down in the original Regulation ('the original 
investigation').  The  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  applicant,  which  is  the  only 
known exporting producer of the product concerned in Ukraine, is 9,9 %.  

(3) 

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. 

3 
4 

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

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
The  applicant  provided  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  continued  imposition  of  the 
measure at its current level is no longer necessary to offset dumping. 

1.3. 

Initiation of a review 

(4) 

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence 
existed  for  the  initiation  of  an  interim  review,  the  Commission  decided  to  initiate  a 
partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited 
in scope to the examination of dumping as far as EGI is concerned. The Commission 
published a notice of initiation on 9 April 2009 in the Official Journal of the European 
Union5 ('Notice of initiation') and commenced an investigation.  

1.4. 

Product concerned and like product 

(5) 

The  product  concerned  by  the  interim  review  is  the  same  as  that  in  the  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 Ukraine, currently 
falling within CN codes ex 3924 90 00, 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.  

(6) 

The  product  produced  and  sold  in  Ukraine  and  that  exported  to  the  Union,  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.  

1.5. 

Parties concerned 

(7) 

(8) 

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

The Commission sent 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:  

– 

– 

Eurogold Industries Ltd., Zhitomir, Ukraine  

and its related company Eurogold Service Zumbühl & Co., Zug in Switzerland 
('EGS').  

1.6. 

Investigation period 

(9) 

The investigation covered the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008 ('the 
investigation period' or 'IP'). 

5 

OJ C 85, 9.4.2009, p. 28. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
2. 

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

2.1. 

Normal value  

(10)  For  the  determination  of  normal  value,  it  was  first  established  whether  EGI's  total 
volume  of  domestic  sales  of  the  like  product  to  independent  customers  was 
representative  in  comparison  with  its  total  volume  of  export  sales  to  the  Union.  In 
accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation domestic sales are considered to 
be  representative  when  the  total  domestic  sales  volume  is  at  least  5  %  of  the  total 
volume of sales of the product concerned to the Union. It was found that the overall 
sales by EGI of the like product on the domestic market were representative. 

(11)  For  each  product  type  sold  by  EGI  on  its  domestic  market  and  found  to  be  directly 
comparable  with  the  product  type  sold  for  export  to  the  Union,  it  was  established 
whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) 
of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered 
sufficiently  representative  when  the  total  volume  of  that  product  type  sold  on  the 
domestic  market  to  independent  customers  during  the  IP  represented  at  least  5  %  of 
the total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union. 

(12) 

It  was  also  examined  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  each  product  type  could  be 
regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the 
basic  Regulation.  This  was  done  by  establishing  the  proportion  of  domestic  sales  to 
independent  customers  on  the  domestic  market  which  were  profitable  for  each 
exported type of the product concerned during the IP. 

(13)  For  those  product  types  where  more  than  80  %  by  volume  of  sales  on  the  domestic 
market  of  the  product  type  were  above  cost  and  the  weighted  average  sales  price  of 
that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product 
type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales 
of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not. 

(14)  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  unit  cost  of  production,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic 
price,  which  was  calculated  as  a  weighted  average  price  of  only  the  profitable 
domestic sales of that type made during the IP. 

(15)  Wherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by EGI could not be used 
in  order  to  establish  normal  value,  the  normal  value  was  constructed  in  accordance 
with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. 

(16)  When constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the 
amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, 
pursuant to Article 2(6) chapeau of the basic Regulation, on the actual data pertaining 
to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by EGI.  

(17)  Following disclosure of the findings, EGI claimed that the percentage rate for selling, 
general and administrative costs, which was used when constructing normal value, did 
not correspond to that in respect of domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade 

EN 

7 

   EN 

and  that,  consequently,  certain  constructed  normal  values  were  overstated  in  this 
respect. 

(18)  The claim was examined, but it was found to have no basis since the percentage rate 
for  selling,  general  and  administrative  costs  used  is  that  reported  for  domestic  sales 
and is the same irrespective of whether or not sales are made in the ordinary course of 
trade, since it is expressed as a percentage on turnover. The claim is therefore rejected. 

2.2. 

Export price  

(19)  EGI  made  export  sales  to  the  Union  either  directly  to  independent  customers  or 

through its related company EGS, located in Switzerland.  

(20)  Where export sales to the Union were made directly to independent customers in the 
Union,  export  prices  were  established  on  the  basis  of  the  prices  actually  paid  or 
payable  for  the  product  concerned  in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(21)  Where export sales to the Union were made through the related company, EGS, which 
performed all import functions in relation to the goods entering into free circulation in 
the  Union,  i.e.  that  of  a  related  importer,  the  export  price  was  established  in 
accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of prices at which 
the  imported  products  were  first  resold  to  an  independent  buyer.  For  this  purpose, 
adjustments were made to take account of all costs, incurred between importation and 
resale, and for profits accruing, so that a reliable export price could be established. For 
this  purpose,  in  the  absence  of  new  information  from  independent  importers 
concerning profits accruing, use was made of the same percentage profit as that used 
in the original investigation.  

(22)  EGI claimed, under Article 11(10) of the basic Regulation, that, if the export price is 
established in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping 
duty paid should not be deducted as a cost, since, they argued, it is duly reflected in 
resale prices. 

(23) 

In  this  regard,  the  evidence  in  support  of  the  claim,  which  consisted  of  a  number  of 
selling  price  calculations,  was  examined.  However, the  calculations  provided  only 
concerned some of the models sold during the IP and showed that the selling price did 
not  fully  reflect  the  anti-dumping  duty  in  all  cases.  Consequently,  the  evidence 
provided  was  not  found  to  be  conclusive  on  whether  the  anti-dumping  duty  was 
reflected in the resale prices. The claim was therefore rejected and, when establishing 
the export price for sales to the Union made through EGS in accordance with Article 
2(9) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duty was deducted as a cost.  

(24)  Following  disclosure  of  the  findings,  EGI  repeated  their  claim.  However,  no  new 
evidence or arguments in support of that claim were submitted. The claim is therefore 
rejected. 

2.3. 

Comparison  

EN 

8 

   EN 

(25)  The normal value and the export price were compared on an ex-works basis. For the 
purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due 
allowance  in  the  form  of  adjustments  was  made  for  transport  costs,  packing  costs, 
credit  costs,  and  commissions,  where  applicable  and  justified,  in  accordance  with 
Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.  

(26)  Following  disclosure  of  the  findings,  a  calculation  error  involving  the  incorrect 
currency conversion of certain allowances for packing costs was brought to light. This 
was corrected and the dumping margin calculation was revised accordingly. 

(27)  Also, following the disclosure of findings, EGI claimed that when constructing normal 
value,  the  allowances  reported  in  respect  of  domestic  sales  which  are  not  in  the 
ordinary course of trade, should be disregarded and, in the absence of other sales of the 
product  type  in  question,  use  should  be  made  of  the  average  allowances  for  sales  of 
other product types made in the ordinary course of trade, because only the latter would 
reflect  the  costs  which  had  been  included  in  the  selling,  general  and  administrative 
costs used to construct the normal value. 

(28)  This  claim  was  examined,  but  was  not  accepted  since,  as  allowances  are  used  for 
comparison  purposes  only  and  normally  reflect  the  actual  costs  specific  to  each 
transaction, they are an objective element and are therefore independent of whether or 
not sales are finally made in the ordinary course of trade.  

(29)  Moreover, while examining this claim, it was found that incorrect allowances had been 
used  when  constructing  normal  values  in  the  case  of  those  product  types  for  which 
there  were  no  domestic  sales.  This  was  corrected  by  using  the  overall  average 
allowances  of  all  domestic  sales,  and  the  calculation  was  amended  accordingly.  EGI 
claimed  that  allowances  for  credit  costs  should  be  granted  for  these  product  types, 
since credit costs were included in the selling, general and administrative costs used in 
constructing  the  normal  value.  This  claim  was  rejected  because  the  product  types  in 
question were never actually sold on the domestic market and there was therefore no 
evidence that their payment would be deferred. In this respect, it is noted that a credit 
cost allowance is not based on actual payment terms and costs, but on an opportunity 
cost based on the payment terms agreed at the time of sale.  

2.4. 

Dumping margin  

(30)  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. 

(31)  The  dumping  margin  for  EGI,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  net,  free-at-Union-

frontier price, duty unpaid, is 7,0 %.  

(32) 

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

(33)  The  structural  reorganisation  of  the  sales  channels  of  the  applicant  and  its  related 
company  is  now  well  established  for  the  majority  of  its  sales  and  can  be  considered 
long-lasting.  Thus,  the  circumstances  that  led  to  the  initiation  of  this  interim  review 

EN 

9 

   EN 

are  unlikely  to  change  in  the  foreseeable  future  in  a  manner  that  would  affect  the 
findings of the interim review. Furthermore, no element emerged in the course of the 
investigation that would suggest that the new circumstances are not lasting. Therefore, 
it is concluded that the changed circumstances are of a lasting nature. 

3. 

ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES  

(34) 

In  the  original  investigation  EGI  was  found  to  be  the  sole  Ukrainian  exporting 
producer of ironing boards. The methodology used to determine the dumping margin 
for EGI was therefore used to establish the dumping margin for any other Ukrainian 
exporting producers of the product concerned. 

(35)  Consequently  in  the  light  of  the  results  of  the  review  investigation,  it  is  considered 
appropriate  to  amend  the  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  imports  of  the  product 
concerned originating in Ukraine to 7,0 %.  

(36) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of  which  it  would  be  proposed  to  amend  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007 
imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of the product concerned originating, inter 
alia,  in  Ukraine  and  were  given  an  opportunity  to  comment.  Their  comments  have 
been taken into account where appropriate and are duly reflected in this Regulation, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The entry concerning all companies in Ukraine 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 

Ukraine 

All companies 

7,0 

-  

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

Article 2 

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

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

10 

   EN