Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China, manufactured by Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd., Foshan
Date: 2010-08-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, dumping, household article, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION  

Brussels, 13.8.2010 
COM(2010) 435 final 

2010/0234 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in 
the People's Republic of China, manufactured by Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares 
and Hardware Co. Ltd., Foshan

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)  1225/2009  of  30 
November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of 
the European Community, ('the basic Regulation') in the partial reopening of the anti-
dumping proceeding concerning  imports  of ironing boards originating in the People's 
Republic of China (‘PRC’). 

•  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 452/2007 of 23 April 20071. 

•  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 provide for 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 

1 

OJ L 109, 26.4.2007, p. 12. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
On  18  December  2009,  the  Commission  announced  by  a  notice  (‘notice  of  partial 
reopening’),  published  in  the  Official  Journal  Of  the  European  Union2,  the  partial 
reopening  of  the  anti-dumping  investigation  concerning  imports  of  ironing  boards 
originating, inter alia, in the PRC. 

This  reopening  was  triggered  by  the  annulment  from  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the 
Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in so far as it concerns one Chinese exporting 
producer  ('Foshan  Shunde').  In  line  with  Article  266  of  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of 
the European Union, the institutions of the European Union are obliged to comply with 
the judgment of the Court of Justice. Consequently, the European Commission initiated 
the  partial  reopening  of  the  anti-dumping  investigation  in  so  far  it  concerns  Foshan 
Shunde.  

The  enclosed  Commission  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  re-imposing  the  anti-
dumping duty on Foshan Shunde is based on the analysis of comments received, upon 
the  interested  parties  being  given  sufficient  time  to  provide  comments  to  the  revised 
final disclosure document of 23 March 2007.  

It  is  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation  which 
should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by xx XXXX 2010 
at the latest. 

•  Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  1225/2009  of  30  November  2009  on  protection  against 
dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. 

•  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 because 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 instruments: Council Regulation. 

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

2 

OJ C 308, 18.12.2009, p. 44. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
alternative options. 

4) BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
2010/0234 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

re-imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  ironing  boards  originatingin 
the People's Republic of China, manufactured by Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares 
and Hardware Co. Ltd., Foshan  

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

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

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  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 9 thereof,  

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  European  Commission  ('Commission')  after 
having consulted the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/20074,  the  Council  imposed  definitive  anti-dumping 
duties ranging from 9,9 % to 38,1 % on imports of 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  ('PRC')  and  Ukraine  ('contested 
Regulation').  

On  12  June  2007,  one  co-operating  Chinese  exporting  producer,  namely  Foshan 
Shunde  Yongjian  Housewares  and  Hardware  Co.  Ltd.  ('Foshan  Shunde'),  lodged  an 
application  at  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  the  European  Communities  (now  the 
General  Court  ('GC'))  seeking  the  annulment  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007  in  so 
far as it applies to the appellant (case T-206/07 Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares 
and Hardware v Council).  

On 29 January 2008, the GC rejected the application of Foshan Shunde. 

On  3  April  2008,  Foshan  Shunde  lodged  an  appeal  at  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the 
European  Union  ('CoJ')  asking  the  Court  to  set  aside  the  judgement  of  the  GC  and 
seeking  the  annulment  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007  as  far  as  it  concerns  the 
appellant.  

3 
4 

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

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

On 1 October 2009, the CoJ in its judgment in case C-141/08 P ('the CoJ judgment') 
set  aside  the  previous  judgment  of  the  GC  of  29  January  2008.  By  its  judgment  the 
CoJ  found  that  Foshan  Shunde's  rights  of  defence  were  adversely  affected  by  the 
infringement of Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, the CoJ annulled the 
contested  Regulation  in  so  far  as  it  imposes  an  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of 
ironing boards manufactured by Foshan Shunde. 

The  GC  in  case  T-2/95  Industrie  des  poudres  sphériques  (IPS)  v  Council5  (the  'IPS 
case')  has  recognized  that,  in  cases  where  a  proceeding  consists  of  several 
administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete 
proceeding.  The  anti-dumping  proceeding  is  an  example  of  such  a  multi-step 
proceeding.  Consequently,  the  annulment  of  the  contested  Regulation  in  relation  to 
one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of 
the  Regulation  in  question.  Moreover,  according  to  Article  266  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union, the institutions of the European Union are obliged 
to comply with the CoJ judgment of 1 October 2009. This also implies the possibility 
to  remedy  the  aspects  of  the  contested  Regulation  which  led  to  its  annulment,  while 
leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the CoJ judgment – 
as was held in case C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council 6 ('the 
IPS appeal case'). It must be noted that  apart from the finding of an  infringement of 
Article  20(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  all  other  findings  made  in  the  contested 
Regulation  remain  automatically  valid  to  the  extent  that  the  CoJ  rejected  all  claims 
made in this respect. 

Following  the  CoJ  judgment  of  1  October  2009,  a  notice7  was  published  concerning 
the partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ironing 
boards originating, inter alia, in the PRC. The reopening was limited in scope to the 
implementation of the CoJ judgment as far as Foshan Shunde is concerned. 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  exporting  producers,  importers  and  users 
known  to  be  concerned,  the  representatives  of  the  exporting  country  and  the  Union 
industry of the partial reopening of the investigation. Interested parties were given the 
opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the 
time limit set out in the notice. 

All parties who so requested within the above time limit and  who demonstrated  that 
there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted the opportunity 
to be heard. 

(10)  Representations  were  received  from  two  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC  (one  being 
the  party  directly  concerned,  i.e.  Foshan  Shunde),  the  Union  Industry  and  two 
unrelated importers.  

(11)  All  parties  concerned  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis  of  which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-
dumping duties on Foshan Shunde. They were granted a period within which to make 

5 
6 
7 

Case T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [1998] ECR II-3939. 
Case C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [2000] ECR I-08147. 
OJ C 308, 18.12.2009, p. 44. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
representations subsequent to disclosure. The comments of the parties were considered 
and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.  

B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT RULING 

1. 

Preliminary remark 

(12) 

It is recalled that the reason for the annulment of the contested Regulation was that the 
Commission sent its proposal to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty to the Council 
of the European Union before the end of the mandatory deadline as set out by Article 
20(5) of the basic Regulation, i.e. before the end of the 10-day mandatory deadline for 
receiving  comments  following  the  sending  to  interested  parties  of  a  definitive 
disclosure document.  

2. 

Comments of interested parties 

(13)  Foshan  Shunde  argued  that  the  CoJ  judgment  requires  no  implementing  measures. 
According  to  the  company  the  re-opening  is  illegal  because  there  is  no  specific 
provision in the basic Regulation allowing for such an approach and because such re-
opening  would  be  in  conflict  with  the  statutory  deadline  for  the  completion  of  an 
investigation  as  set  by  Article  6(9)  of  basic  Regulation  (i.e.  15  months)  and  Article 
5.10 of the WTO anti-dumping agreement (i.e. 18 months). Foshan Shunde submitted 
that the IPS case could not serve as a precedent because it was based on an old basic 
Regulation8, under which mandatory deadlines did not apply yet. Foshan Shunde also 
argued that if the Commission decided to proceed with the implementation of the CoJ 
judgment, this should be done on the basis of the Commission's definitive disclosure 
document  dated  20  February  2007  (where  the  party  was  attributed  Market  Economy 
Treatment ('MET') and no dumping was found for this company) and not on the basis 
of  the  revised  definitive  disclosure  document  of  23  March  2007  (where  the 
Commission confirmed its provisional findings for Foshan Shunde of no MET and a 
18,1% dumping margin).  

(14)  The  other  Chinese  exporting  producer,  i.e.  Zheijiang  Harmonic  Hardware  Products 
Co. Ltd. ('Zheijiang Harmonic') submitted a number of arguments that were essentially 
identical with those made by Foshan Shunde, i.e. that there is no legal basis for the re-
opening  of  the  proceeding,  that  no  re-imposition  of  anti-dumping  duties  is  by  law 
possible  beyond  the  time  limits  set  by  the  basic  Regulation  and  WTO  anti-dumping 
agreement. It also argued that reissuing a revised disclosure and granting a period to 
reply in line with Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation cannot correct the violation of 
Zheijiang Harmonic's rights of defence and the unlawful imposition of duties. It finally 
pointed out that the Commission could not re-impose anti-dumping measures based on 
information  relating  to  2005  i.e.  a  period  that  is  more  than  four  years  prior  to  the 
initiation of the partial re-opening of the investigation as this would not be in line with 
Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, Zheijang Harmonic argued that the 
Commission  could  not  reopen  the  case  because  it  has  lost  its  objectivity  and 
impartiality since the Regulation proposed by the Commission was partially annulled 
by the CoJ.  

8 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2423/88  of  11  July  1988  on  protection  against  dumped  or  subsidized 
imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community, OJ L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
(15)  The two EU unrelated importers/producers did not submit any information and data as 
to the legal merits of the re-investigation but rather emphasized their role as players in 
the EU’s ironing boards market. One of them also pointed out the repercussions of the 
Court’s  annulment  and  the  subsequent  partial  reopening  of  the  investigation  on  their 
business.  

(16)  The  Union  Industry  argued  that  EU  producers  pay  the  price  for  the  irregularity 
identified  by  the  Court  as  they  are  left  without  protection  against  imports  that  were 
found  to  be  dumped  and  causing  injury.  The  Union  Industry  proposed  that  the 
procedure be resumed at the stage where the Commission's irregularity occurred i.e. at 
the time when the Chinese company had to submit its comments on the Commission's 
revised  definitive  disclosure  document  of  23  March  2007,  the  party's  comments  be 
decided upon and new proposal limited to the situation of Foshan Shunde be sent to 
the Council, with the aim of reinstating the anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing 
boards produced by Foshan Shunde. The Union Industry also submitted that a similar 
approach was followed in the past (i.e. in the judgments in the IPS case, the IPS appeal 
case,  and  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  235/20049  adopted  following  the  judgment  of  the 
Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-76/00 P Petrotub and Republica v. 
Council).  Moreover,  according  to  this  party  the  15-month  time  limit  of  the  basic 
Regulation does not apply to the amendment of a Regulation imposing anti-dumping 
duties in order to implement a judgement of an EU Court.  

3. 

Analysis of comments 

(17) 

It is recalled that the CoJ has rejected all the substantive arguments of Foshan Shunde 
referring to the merits of the case. Thus, the Union institutions' obligation is focused 
on correcting the part of the administrative procedure where the irregularity occurred 
in the initial investigation.  

(18)  The  claim  that  the  introduction  of  deadlines  (i.e.  15  months  and  18  months 
respectively) to conclude anti-dumping investigations prevents the Commission from 
following  the  approach  underlying  the  IPS  case  was  found  unwarranted.  It  is 
considered  that  this  deadline  is  not  relevant  for  the  implementation  of  a  Court 
judgment.  Indeed,  such  deadline  only  governs  the  completion  of  the  original 
investigation from the date of initiation to the date of definitive action, and does not 
concern any subsequent action that might have to be taken for instance as a result of 
judicial review. Furthermore, it is noted that any other interpretation would mean that 
a successful legal action brought by the Union industry would be without any practical 
effect for that party if it is accepted that the expiry of the time limit to conclude the 
original investigation would not allow the implementation of a Court judgement. This 
would  be  at  odds  with  the  principle  that  all  parties  should  have  the  possibility  of 
effective judicial review.  

(19) 

It is also recalled that the GC in its judgment in the joint cases T-163/94 and T165/9410 
has  held  that  even  the  soft  deadline  applicable  under  the  old  basic  Regulation  could 
not  be  stretched  beyond  reasonable  limits  and  found  that  an  investigation  lasting  for 
more  than  3  years  was  too  long.  This  contrasts  with  the  IPS  case  where  the 

9 
10 

OJ L 40, 12.2.2004, p. 11. 
Joined cases T-163/94 and 165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co.. Ltd v Council [1995] ECR 
II-01381. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
implementation  of  the  Court  ruling  occurred  seven  years  after  the  initiation  of  the 
original investigation and the Court’s ruling contains no indication that deadlines were 
an issue.  

(20)  Therefore,  it  is  concluded  that  Article  6(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation  applies  to  the 
initiation of  proceedings and the conclusion of the investigation initiated pursuant to 
Article  5(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation  only  and  not  to  a  partial  reopening  of  an 
investigation with a view to implementing an EU Court ruling. 

(21)  This  conclusion  is  in  line  with  the  approach  taken  for  the  implementation  of  WTO 
panels and Appellate Body reports rulings where it is accepted that institutions could 
amend  deficiencies  of  a  regulation  imposing  anti-dumping  duties  in  order  to  comply 
with  dispute  settlement  body  reports,  including  in  cases  concerning  the  European 
Union11. In such cases it was felt necessary to adopt special procedures to implement 
WTO panel and Appellate Body reports because of the lack of direct applicability of 
such rulings in the EU legal order, by contrast with the decisions taken by the Court of 
Justice which are directly applicable.  

(22)  With respect to the arguments submitted on the application of Article 6(1) of the basic 
Regulation  it  is  noted  that  no  infringement  of  Article  6(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
could  be  established  since  the  Commission  has  not  opened  a  new  proceeding  but 
reopened the original investigation to implement a Court judgement.  

(23)  With  respect  to  the  argument  that  Foshan  Shunde  should  receive  the  disclosure 
document of 20 February 2007 and not the revised disclosure document of 23 March 
2007 it is noted that in line with the CoJ’s Judgment the Commission should correct 
the  procedural  irregularity.  This  administrative  irregularity  only  happened  when 
Foshan  Shunde  received  less  than  10  days  to  comment  on  the  revised  disclosure 
document. Hence, the validity of the preceding steps of the original investigation were 
not affected by the CoJ judgment and does therefore not require to be reviewed in the 
context of the current partial reopening. 

4. 

Conclusion  

(24)  Account  taken  of  the  comments  made  by  the  parties  and  the  analysis  thereof  it  was 
concluded  that  the  implementation  of  the  CoJ  judgment  should  take  the  form  of  re-
disclosure  to  Foshan  Shunde  and  all  other  interested  parties  of  the  revised  definitive 
disclosure  document  of  23  March  2007  on  the  basis  of  which  it  was  proposed  to 
impose Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007. 

11 

European  Communities-Antidumping  Duties  on  Imports  of  Cotton-Tyle  Bed  Linen  from  India: 
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India WT/DS141/AB/RW (8 April 2003), paras.82-86.; Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 of 23 July 2001 on the measures that may be taken by the Community 
following  a  report  adopted  by  the  WTO  Dispute  Settlement  Body  concerning  anti-dumping  and  anti-
subsidy matters, OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p.10.; Council Regulation (EC) No 436/2004 of 8 March 2004 
amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1784/2000  imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  and  collecting 
definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings 
originating in Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea 
and  Thailand  following  Reports  adopted  by  the  Dispute  Settlement  Body  of  the  WTO,  OJ  L  72, 
11.3.2004, p. 15.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
(25)  On  the  basis  of  the  above  it  was  also  concluded  that  the  Commission  should  give 
Foshan  Shunde  and  all  other  interested  parties  enough  time  to  provide  comments  on 
the revised definitive disclosure document of 23 March 2007 and then evaluate such 
comments  in  order  to  determine  whether  to  make  a  proposal  to  the  Council  to  re-
impose the anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards manufactured by Foshan 
Shunde on the basis of the facts relating to the original investigation period. 

C. DISCLOSURE  

(26) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of which it was intended to implement the CoJ judgment. 

(27)  All  interested  parties  were  given  an  opportunity  to  comment  (applying  the  10  days 
period  prescribed  in  Article  20(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation).  Their  comments  were 
considered and taken into account where appropriate but they were not of a nature as 
to change the above conclusions. 

(28)  Foshan  Shunde  and  all  other  interested  parties  received  the  revised  definitive 
disclosure document dated 23 March 2007 on the basis of which it was proposed to re-
impose  the  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  ironing  boards  from  Foshan  Shunde  on 
the basis of the facts relating to the original investigation period. 

(29)  Foshan Shunde and all other interested parties were given an opportunity to comment 
on this revised  disclosure  document. The  oral and written  arguments submitted  were 
considered  and,  where  appropriate  were  taken  into  account.  In  the  light  of  the 
comments  made,  the  following  can  be  observed.  The  course  of  action  taken  in  this 
Regulation is based on the fact that in the CoJ judgment, the CoJ emphasised that Art. 
2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation cannot be interpreted in such a manner as to oblige the 
Commission to propose to the Council definitive measures which would perpetuate an 
error of assessment made in the original assessment of the substantive criteria of that 
provision12.  Although  the  CoJ  made  this  comment  in  relation  to  an  error  to  the 
detriment  of  the  applicant  in  that  case,  it  is  clear  that  this  interpretation  must  be 
applied in an even-handed manner, meaning that also an error to the detriment of the 
Union  industry  can  not  be  perpetuated.  As  stated  in  the  revised  final  disclosure 
document  of  23  March  2007  and  in  the  revised  specific  disclosure  document  of  the 
same date, and  in  earlier letters by the Commission to the Applicant on which those 
documents  are  based,  Foshan  Shunde  must  be  refused  Market  Economy  Status 
because  its  accounting  practices  had  various  serious  deficiencies  and  were  therefore 
not in line with International Accounting Standards. This violation of the 2nd criterion 
in  Art.  2(7)  can  not  be  remedied  by  the  statistics  referred  to  in  the  last  sentence  of 
point  12  of  the  CoJ  judgment.  The  approach  which  was  originally  considered  in  the 
final  disclosure  document  of  20  February  2007  should  therefore  be  qualified  as  an 
error, which must be corrected. In the interest of protecting the Union industry against 
dumping,  the  resulting  anti-dumping  duty  on  the  applicant  should  be  re-imposed  as 
soon as possible.  

(30)  Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which 
it was intended to recommend the re-imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures, 
one  Chinese  exporting  producer  proposed  a  price  undertaking  in  accordance  with 

12 

Para. 111 of the CoJ judgment. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. However, this undertaking offer failed to provide 
any remedies with respect to the problems already highlighted in recital 68 of Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007,  notably  the  need  to  establish  meaningful  minimum 
import  prices  for  each  of  the  numerous  product  types  which  could  be  properly 
monitored  by  the  Commission  without  serious  risk  of  circumvention.  Moreover,  the 
price undertaking offer either suggested one average minimum price covering only one 
product  type  exported  to  the  EU,  or  several  minimum  import  prices  based  again  on 
weighted  average  prices  for  combinations  of  some  products.  Furthermore,  all  the 
proposed  combinations  for  minimum  import  price  were  significantly  lower  than  the 
highest established export prices. On the basis of the above, it was concluded that such 
undertaking  was  impractical  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  accepted.  The  party  was 
informed accordingly and given an opportunity to comment. However, its comments 
have not altered the above conclusion. 

D. DURATION OF MEASURES  

(31)  This procedure does not affect the date on which the measures imposed by Regulation 
(EC) No 452/2007 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation,  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby re-imposed on imports of 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 
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 (TARIC codes 3924 90 00 10, 4421 90 98 10, 7323 93 90 10, 7323 99 91 10, 7323 99 
99  10,8516  79  70  10  and  8516  90  00  51)  and  manufactured  by  Foshan  Shunde  Yongjian 
Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd., Foshan (TARIC additional code A785). 
2.  The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-Union-frontier 
price, before duty, shall be 18.1%. 
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply. 

Article 2 

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

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

Done at Brussels, […] 

For the Council 
The President 
[…] 

EN 

11 

   EN