Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION amending Council 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 and imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.
Date: 2010-11-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, household article, import, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 29.11.2010 
COM(2010) 697 final 

2010/0339 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Council 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 and imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards 
originating in the People's Republic of China produced by Since Hardware 
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.  

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 Community (‘the basic Regulation’), in the anti-dumping proceeding 
concerning  imports  of  ironing  boards  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China 
produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. 

•  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 

Definitive anti-dumping duties were imposed on imports of ironing boards originating 
in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  and  Ukraine  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
452/2007 (OJ L 109, 26.4.2007, p. 12). 

•  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 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 

On 2 October 2009, the Commission initiated upon a substantiated complaint of three 
Union  producers  an  anti-dumping  proceeding  in  respect  of  imports  of  ironing  boards 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
originating  in  People's  Republic  of  China  produced  by  Since  Hardware  (Guangzhou) 
Co., Ltd. 

The investigation found dumping of the product concerned, which resulted in injury to 
the Union industry. It was further established that the imposition of the measure would 
not be against the interest of the Union.  

Therefore,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation in order to impose an anti-dumping measure, which should be published in 
the Official Journal of the European Union by 31 December 2010 at the latest.  

•  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. 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

The  proposal  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  European  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 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: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: 

The basic Regulation does not provide for alternative options. 

4) 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2010/0339 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Council 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 and imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards 
originating in the People's Republic of China produced by Since Hardware 
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.  

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 Community1 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof, 

Having  regard  to  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 matters2, and in particular Article 
2(1) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. 

PROCEDURE 

1.  Measures in force 

(1) 

(2) 

Following  an  anti-dumping  investigation  concerning  imports  of  ironing  boards 
originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  ('PRC')  and  Ukraine  ('the  first 
investigation'), anti-dumping measures were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 
452/20073. The Regulation entered into force on 27 April 2007. 

It  is  recalled  that  the  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  on  ironing 
boards produced by the Chinese exporting producer Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., 
Ltd. ('Since Hardware') was 0 % while it ranged between 18,1 % and 38,1 % for other 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p. 10. 
OJ L109, 26.4.2007, p. 12. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Chinese exporting producers. Following a subsequent interim review these duty rates 
were increased to up to 42,3 %4.  

2. 

Initiation of the current proceeding  

On 2 October 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official 
Journal  of  the  European  Union5  (‘Notice  of  initiation’),  the  initiation  of  an  anti-
dumping  investigation  pursuant  to  Article  5  of  the  basic  Regulation  concerning 
imports  into  the  Union  of  ironing  boards  originating  in  the  PRC  ('the  country 
concerned'),  limited  to  Since  Hardware.  In  the  Notice  of  initiation,  the  Commission 
also announced the initiation of a review pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1515/2001 ('review pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001') in order to allow 
any  amendment  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007  necessary  in  the  light  of  the 
Appellate Body report Mexico-Beef and Rice (AB-2005-6)6. 

The  anti-dumping  investigation  was  initiated  following  a  complaint  lodged  on  20 
August 2009 by three Union producers, Colombo New Scal S.p.A., Pirola S.p.A. and 
Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd. (‘the complainants’), representing a major proportion of the 
total Union production of ironing boards.  

It  is  recalled  that  a  new  anti-dumping  investigation  based  on  Article  5  of  the  basic 
Regulation  was  initiated  against  Since  Hardware  rather  than  an  interim  review 
pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, in the light of the WTO Appellate 
Body  report  Mexico-Beef  and  Rice  (AB-2005-6).  This  report  stipulates  that  an 
exporting  producer  not  found  to  be  dumping  in  an  original  investigation  has  to  be 
excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  definitive  measure  imposed  as  a  result  of  such 
investigation and cannot be made subject to administrative and changed circumstances 
reviews7. 

Since Hardware submitted that the Commission could not initiate a new anti-dumping 
investigation  based  on  Article  5  of  the  basic  Regulation  against  one  company  as  it 
thereby violated the general principle enshrined in GATT Article VI and WTO Anti-
dumping  Agreement  (ADA)  as  well  as  in  the  basic  Regulation  that  anti-dumping 
proceedings are directed against imports of countries and not of individual companies. 
In particular, Since Hardware claimed that the Commission had breached Articles 9(3) 
and 11(6) of the basic Regulation by initiating an anti-dumping investigation based on 
Article 5 instead of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. Since Hardware also argued 
that  in  the  absence  of  a  direct  effect  of  WTO  rules  in  the  EU  legal  order,  the 
Commission could not decide to ignore the above provisions of the basic Regulation in 
order  to  implement  a  WTO  ruling  automatically,  without  prior  modification  by  the 
Council of the basic Regulation. 

(7) 

In  this  respect,  it  is  acknowledged  that  anti-dumping  proceedings  are  normally 
initiated against imports from a country and not from individual companies. However, 

4 

5 
6 

7 

Implementing  Regulation  of  the  Council  (EU)  No 270/2010  of  29 March  2010  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, OJ L 84, 31.3.2010, p. 13. 
OJ C 237, 2.10.2009, p. 5. 
Mexico  —  Definitive  Anti-dumping  Measures  on  Beef  and  Rice,  Report  of  the  Appellate  Body, 
WT/DS295/AB/R, 29 November 2005. 
Para 305-306. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
the  present  case  is  an  exception  to  the  above  rule  in  view  of  the  following  special 
circumstances. The WTO Appellate Body clarified in its report cited above that Article 
5.8 of the WTO ADA requires an investigative authority to terminate the investigation 
in respect of an exporter found not to have a margin above de minimis in an original 
investigation and that the exporter consequently must be excluded from definitive anti-
dumping  measures8  and  such  exporters  cannot  be  subject  to  administrative  and 
changed circumstances reviews9. It is true that the lack of direct effect of WTO rules 
means  that  the  legality  of  measures  adopted  by  the  Union  Institutions  (hereinafter 
referred  to  as  'Institutions')  can  normally  not  be  reviewed  in  the  light  of  the  WTO 
agreements. However, this does not mean, in this particular case, that the Institutions 
must ignore WTO rules, and in particular the aforementioned Appellate Body report. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1515/2001  was  adopted  specifically  to  allow  the 
Institutions to bring a measure taken under the basic Regulation into conformity with 
the rulings contained in a report adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body10 without a 
prior  amendment  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Regulation  (EC)  No  1515/2001  thus,  in 
particular,  allows  the  Institutions  to  formally  exclude  exporters,  which  have  been 
found, during an earlier original investigation, not be dumping, from the scope of the 
Council Regulation which was adopted at the end of that investigation. In order to do 
so,  the  review  mentioned  in  the  2nd  sentence  of  recital  (3)  of  this  Regulation  was 
opened.  

(8)  Moreover,  none  of  the  provisions  of  the  basic  Regulation  exclude  the  opening  of  a 
new anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation against one 
company. Also, EU legislation must, so far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that 
is  consistent  with  international  law,  in  particular  where  the  provisions  at  issue  are 
intended to give effect to an international agreement concluded by the EU. Since the 
WTO  ADA  on  the  one  hand  allows  WTO  members  to  impose  duties  to  counteract 
harmful dumping, but on the other hand has been interpreted by the Appellate Body in 
the  aforementioned  report  as  not  allowing  reviews  of  companies  found  not  to  be 
dumping  during  an  original  investigation,  the  basic  Regulation  must  therefore 
interpreted to allow the EU to open an Article 5 investigation in a case like the present 
one.  

(9) 

Therefore,  in  view  of  the  special  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  initiation  of  an  anti-
dumping  investigation  based  on  Article  5  of  the  basic  Regulation  against  Since 
Hardware is lawful. 

3. 

Parties concerned 

(10)  The  Commission  officially  advised  Since  Hardware,  the  importers  and  Union 
producers  known  to  be  concerned,  the  representatives  of  the  country  concerned,  and 
producers  in  potential  analogue  countries  of  the  initiation  of  the  proceeding.  The 
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 of initiation. 

(11) 

In  order  to  allow  Since  Hardware  to  submit  a  claim  for  market  economy  treatment 
(‘MET’) or individual treatment (‘IT’), if it so wished, the Commission sent a claim 

8 
9 
10 

Para 216-218. 
Para 305. 
Recital (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
form  to  the  exporting  producer.  The  Commission  also  sent  a  questionnaire  to  Since 
Hardware. The exporting producer submitted a filled-in MET/IT claim and replied to 
the questionnaire. 

(12) 

In view of the high number of Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice 
of initiation for the determination of contribution to injury, in accordance with Article 
17  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Five  Union  producers  came  forward  and  provided  the 
requested  information  for  sampling  within  the  deadlines  set  out  in  the  Notice  of 
initiation. 

(13)  From the above five Union producers, only the three complainants formed part of the 
Union industry in  the  first  investigation. Given the specificities of  this  case11,  it was 
decided to send questionnaires only to these three Union producers while the other two 
Union  producers  were  requested  to  submit  any  additional  comments  which  might 
assist the Commission  in  ascertaining  whether imports of the products manufactured 
by  Since  Hardware  have  caused  injury  to  the  Union  industry.  All  three  complainant 
Union producers submitted questionnaire replies. The other two Union producers did 
not submit further comments on the proceeding. 

(14)  The Commission also sent questionnaires to all known producers in potential analogue 
countries  and  to  all  importers  known  to  be  concerned  and  not  related  to  Since 
Hardware.  As  concerns  unrelated  importers  in  the  Union,  there  were  initially  two 
companies  cooperating  in  the  investigation.  However,  one  of  them  was  not  in  the 
position to continue cooperation. The other importer was the same company as one of 
the  non-complainant  Union  producers.  It  submitted  a  reply  to  the  importers' 
questionnaire.  In  addition,  one  trade  association  also  cooperated  in  the  investigation 
and submitted comments. 

(15)  The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the 
purpose  of  assessing  MET  and  for  the  determination  of  dumping,  contribution  to 
injury and Union interest. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of Since 
Hardware in Guangzhou in the PRC and of Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd. in the UK. 

(16)  The Commission informed interested parties that given the complex legal background 
linked to the present investigation (see recital (3) et seq. above), it considered it more 
appropriate  not  to  impose  provisional  measures  in  this  case  but  to  continue  the 
investigation. No objection was raised by any party. 

(17) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of  which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  a  definitive  anti-dumping 
duty  and  were  given  an  opportunity  to  comment.  The  comments  submitted  by  the 
parties  were  considered  and,  when  appropriate,  the  findings  have  been  modified 
accordingly.  

4. 

Investigation period 

(18)  The  investigation of dumping and price undercutting covered the period from 1 July 
2008 to 30 June 2009 (the ‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of import 
volumes of Since Hardware products relevant for the assessment of (contribution to) 

11 

See recitals (57) to (60) below. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
injury  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2006  to  the  end  of  the  IP  (the  'period 
considered'). However, because of the specificities of this case – namely that another 
original investigation concerning the same product and third country took place only 
some  years  ago,  and  because  the  duties  resulting  from  that  investigation  are  still  in 
place - in the injury analysis also reference to the investigation period of that earlier 
investigation will be made ('IP of the first investigation').  

B. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(19)  The product concerned is 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  and  produced  by  Since  Hardware  (Guangzhou)  Co.,  Ltd.  (‘the 
product concerned’), 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.  

(20)  The  investigation  showed  that  there  are  different  types  of  ironing  boards  and  their 
essential  parts  depend  mainly  on  their  construction  and  size,  their  construction 
material  and  accessories.  However,  all  different  types  have  the  same  basic  physical 
characteristics and uses. 

(21)  The exporting producer claimed that the essential parts of ironing boards should not be 
covered by the investigation because ironing boards and their essential parts (i.e. legs, 
tops and iron rests) do not constitute a single product and therefore could not be part of 
the same product concerned in one investigation. This argument was not confirmed by 
the  investigation.  It  was  found  in  the  present  investigation  that  essential  parts  of 
ironing  boards  should  be  covered  since  legs,  tops  and  iron  rests  determine  the 
characteristics  of  the  finished  product  and  cannot  have  another  end-use  than  being 
incorporated into the final product (i.e. the ironing board) and, as such, they are not a 
distinct product. This is in line with a number of other investigations in which finished 
products  and  key  components  thereof  were  considered  as  one  single  product. 
Consequently, similarly to the first investigation, all existing  types of ironing  boards 
and their essential parts thereof are considered as one product for the purposes of this 
investigation. 

2. 

Like product 

(22)  No differences were found between the product concerned and the ironing boards and 
the essential parts thereof produced by the complainants and other co-operating Union 
producers  and  sold  on  the  Union  market  which  finally  also  served  as  an  analogue 
country.  They  both  share  the  same  physical  characteristics  and  uses  and  they  are 
interchangeable one with the other. 

(23)  Consequently, ironing boards and the essential parts thereof produced and sold in the 
Union are considered as alike to the product concerned within the meaning of Article 
1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

C. 

DUMPING 

1.  Market Economy Treatment (MET) 

(24)  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  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.  Briefly,  and  for  ease  of 
reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form below:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

business  decisions  are  made  in  response  to  market  signals,  and  without 
significant State interference; costs of major inputs substantially reflect market 
values; 

firms  have  one  clear  set of basic accounting records which are independently 
audited in line with International Accounting Standards (‘IAS’) and are 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.  

(25)  Since  Hardware  requested  MET  pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation 

and was invited to complete a MET claim form.  

(26)  The  investigation  established  that  Since  Hardware  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.  Moreover,  the  investigation  established  that  Since 
Hardware did not meet the MET criterion referred to in the second indent of Article 
2(7)(c)  (criterion  2)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  major  MET  findings  are  set  out 
below. 

(27)  As  regards  the  first  criterion,  i.e.  that  business  decisions  are  made  in  response  to 
market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values, 
it  is  noted  that  Since  Hardware  claimed  to  have  started  to  purchase  its  main  raw 
materials (steel products) on the domestic Chinese market, unlike in the investigation 
period  in  the  first  investigation  when  Since  Hardware  imported  these  raw  materials. 
Therefore, it was examined if the Chinese domestic market for the main raw materials 
could be considered as reflecting market values. 

(28) 

It was established that after the investigation period in the first 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 a 
significant part of the total raw material cost of the product concerned. The imposition 
of  export  taxes  decreased  the  incentive  to  export  and  thereby  increased  the  volumes 
available domestically, leading in turn to lower prices. However, in June 2009 (at the 

EN 

9 

   EN 

end  of  the  IP),  the  Chinese  policy  towards  the  steel  sector  appears  to  have  changed 
again: the export tax has been abolished and a new VAT rebate on steel products has 
been  introduced  which  creates  a  more  favourable  environment  for  exports.  The  new 
policy which no longer discourages exports coincides with the drop in steel prices on 
other  world  markets  and  with  the  alignment  of  Chinese  domestic  prices  with 
international  steel  prices,  i.e.  a  situation  of  no  danger  of  increased  prices  in  the 
domestic  market.  These  repeated  changes  in  the  steel  export  tax/VAT  regime  over 
time  apparently  took  place  in  order  to  regulate  Chinese  domestic  steel  market  and 
prices.  Thus,  the  State  continued  to  exercise  an  important  influence  on  the  domestic 
steel market and, thus, the steel prices in the PRC for these particular raw materials do 
not freely follow world market trends. 

(29) 

Indeed, many studies and reports as well as publicly available accounts of a number of 
steel producers12 confirm that the Chinese State is actively supporting the development 
of the steel sector in the PRC. 

(30)  As a consequence, domestic steel prices in the PRC were, during the first half of the 
investigation  period,  far  below  prices  on  other  sizeable  world  markets,  notably  steel 
prices  in  North  America  and  North  Europe13,  and  these  price  differences  cannot  be 
explained by any competitive advantage in the production of steel. In the second half 
of  the  IP,  world  steel  prices  dropped  significantly  in  Europe  and  in  North  America 
while  Chinese  domestic  prices  dropped  to  a  much  lesser  extent.  Thus  the  price 
difference  between  Chinese  and  international  steel  prices  practically  disappeared  by 
the end of the IP. However, the measures taken by the Chinese government to regulate 
the  Chinese  steel  market  have  essentially  lead  to  a  situation  where  the  raw  material 
prices  continue  to  be  the  result  of  State  intervention  that  has  a  direct  influence  on 
company decisions when acquiring raw materials. 

(31)  Given that Since Hardware purchased its raw materials during this IP on the Chinese 
domestic  market,  it  was  benefiting  from  these artificially low and distorted prices of 
steel during the IP. 

(32) 

It was thus concluded that major inputs of Since Hardware do not substantially reflect 
market  values.  Consequently,  it  was  concluded  that  Since  Hardware  has  not  shown 
that  it  fulfils  criterion  1  set  out  in  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and,  thus, 
could not be granted MET. 

12 

13 

of 

the 

alia 

For  instance  ‘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 dated  25  February  2009; the  study  prepared  by  the  EU 
Chamber  of  Commerce  in  China  with  Roland  Berger  focusing  on  overcapacities  which  are  the  result 
inter 
2009 
(http://www.euccc.com.cn/view/static/?sid=6388);  ‘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.  
Source: Steel Business Briefing. 

intervention 

November 

dated 

state 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
(33)  Moreover,  the  company  could  not  demonstrate  that  it  has  one  clear  set  of  basic 
accounting  records  which  are  independently  audited  in  line  with  International 
Accounting  Standards  (‘IAS’)  and  applied  for  all  purposes,  as  the  accounts,  and  in 
particular  the  capital  verification  report,  were  silent  on  an  important  transaction  that 
happened  during  the  IP.  Moreover,  the  auditors  did  not  comment  on  this  important 
transaction. In addition, a booking of a significant amount has been found which did 
not  respect  the  principle  of  fair  representation  of  accounts  under  IAS  1.  The  auditor 
did not comment on this either. It was thus concluded that the company also failed to 
demonstrate that it fulfils criterion 2 set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.  

(34)  Since Hardware, the authorities of the country concerned and the Union industry were 
given  an  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  above  findings.  Comments  were  received 
from Since Hardware and the Union industry.  

(35)  Since  Hardware  put  forward  three  main  arguments  on  the  MET  finding.  Firstly,  it 
stated  that  the  MET  decision  was  made  after  the  Commission  had  requested  and 
obtained the company's domestic sales and costs which would have been in breach of 
the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Second, although 
Since Hardware did not disagree with the evolution of steel prices as such, it claimed 
that the Chinese raw material prices were still in line with prices in other countries and 
that the price paid by Since Hardware on the Chinese market was above the prices of 
several  steel  markets  in  market-economy  countries  world-wide.  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.  Since  Hardware  stated  that 
prices  of  other  international  markets  such  as  the  Turkish  or  Ukrainian  export  prices 
would  also  be  available,  and  that  these  were  lower  than  the  domestic  prices  in  the 
PRC.  Third,  Since  Hardware  argued  that  MET  could  not  be  denied  to  a  company 
active  in  one  industry  (ironing  boards)  for  factors  relating  exclusively  to  another 
industry  (steel)  and  that  the  Commission  could  not  offset  subsidies  in  the  upstream 
market  through  the  rejection  of  a  MET  claim  in  the  downstream  market.  Moreover, 
Since Hardware claimed that it was an unreasonable burden of proof to require a small 
ironing  boards  company  to  provide  evidence  that  the  Chinese  steel  industry  is  not 
subsidised. 

(36)  Concerning the first argument of Since Hardware, it is noted that pursuant to Article 
2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a  determination  whether  Since  Hardware  meets  the 
five  relevant  criteria  shall  be  made  and  this  determination  shall  remain  in  force 
throughout  the  investigation.  As  the  present  investigation  is  limited  to  one  exporting 
producer, the Commission verified the MET claim and the anti-dumping questionnaire 
reply at the same time, in the framework of the same on-spot investigation. The MET 
claim was investigated on its own merits and irrespective of the effects which it might 
have on the calculation of the dumping margin. In fact, detailed dumping calculations 
for Since Hardware could not be made before the MET determination in the absence 
of data from an appropriate  market  economy  country.  Hence  there  was  no  breach  of 
Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. 

(37)  Concerning  the  second  claim  of  Since  Hardware,  the  investigation  revealed  that 
although  the  price  difference  diminished  in  the  second  half  of  the  IP  and  was 
practically eliminated at the end of the IP, it is maintained that also this alignment of 
Chinese  prices  to  international  market  prices  was  the  result  of  State  intervention. 
Indeed, in 2009, when prices on international steel markets had plummeted due to the 

EN 

11 

   EN 

financial  and  economic  crises,  the  State  abolished  the  export  taxes  previously 
imposed,  thereby  allowing  for  an  alignment  of  domestic  prices  with  international 
prices  without  the  danger  of  a  significant  price  increase  for  these  important  raw 
materials  on  the  domestic  market.  This  shows  that  the  market  for  the  raw  materials 
necessary  to  produce  the  product  concerned  continued  to  be  the  subject  of  State 
intervention also in the second half of the IP.  

(38) 

It  is  noted  that  the  additional  price  information  submitted  by  Since  Hardware 
supported the finding that the main raw materials for the production of ironing boards 
in  the  first  half  of  the  IP  were  on  average  significantly  cheaper  on  the  Chinese 
domestic  market  than  on  other  sizeable  world  markets.  A  comparison  was  made 
between Chinese domestic steel prices and domestic prices on other markets which are 
comparable to the Chinese market in terms of volume (EU, USA and Canada) as they 
have a high consumption of steel and there are several active producers. Other markets 
suggested  by  Since  Hardware  such  as  Turkey  and  Ukraine  (domestic  and  export 
markets)  have  not  been  found  representative  in  terms  of  size  and/or  number  of 
producers  of  these  particular  raw  materials  and  thus  not  comparable  to  the  Chinese 
domestic market.  

(39) 

It is also recalled that the basic Regulation puts the burden of proof on the company 
that claims MET to demonstrate that it fulfils the relevant criteria. As the Commission 
established  a  number  of  elements  pointing  to  the  cost  of  major  inputs  not  reflecting 
market  values,  it  is  consequently  for  the  company  to  come  up  with  elements  that 
would refute this.  

(40)  Furthermore,  the  basic  Regulation  in  Article  2(7)(c)  provides  explicitly  for  the 
possibility to examine whether decisions of firms regarding, inter alia, inputs are made 
in  response  to  market  signals  reflecting  supply  and  demand  and  without  significant 
State  interference  and  whether  costs  of  major  inputs  substantially  reflect  market 
values. Consequently, if a company does not fulfil these conditions, as outlined above, 
MET  can  be  refused.  It  is  also  noted  that  Since  Hardware  used  to  import  its  raw 
materials during the first investigation but switched to Chinese sourcing due to lower 
prices on the Chinese market. 

(41)  With regard to the identified accounting issues, Since Hardware claimed that they did 
not  relate  to  Since  Hardware's  accounts  and,  in  any  event,  did  not  mean  that  the 
company  did  not  fully  comply  with  international  accounting  standards.  Since 
Hardware also claimed that the accounting mistake identified was immaterial.  

(42)  The fact that the Chinese companies may not be subject under their domestic law to 
comply  with  certain  accounting  standards  has  no  bearing  on  whether  their  accounts 
may  be  assessed  in  the  light  of  those  standards  for  the  purpose  of  a  MET 
determination. The fair presentation of financial statements is a basic IAS and it is up 
to  company  to  show  that  any  infringement  of  those  standards  does  not  constitute  a 
breach of the second criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. This has not 
been  done  either  for  the  transaction  in  question  or  the  wrong  booking.  In  any  event, 
the  latter  cannot  be  considered  as  immaterial  as  represents  a  sizeable  percentage  of 
total exports to the EU in the investigation period. 

(43)  To conclude, none of the arguments raised by Since Hardware were such as to lead to 
a different assessment of the findings. On the basis of the above, the findings and the 

EN 

12 

   EN 

conclusion that MET should not be granted to Since Hardware were confirmed. It is 
thus definitively concluded that MET should not be granted to Since Hardware.  

2. 

Individual treatment (IT) 

(44)  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. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, 
these criteria are set out 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;  State  officials  appearing 
on the board of directors or holding key management positions shall either be 
in  minority  or  it  must  be  demonstrated  that  the  company  is  nonetheless 
sufficiently independent from State interference;  

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

State  interference  is  not  such  as  to  permit  circumvention  of  measures  if 
individual exporters are given different rates of duty.  

(45)  Since  Hardware,  as  well  as  requesting  MET,  also  claimed  IT  in  the  event  of  it  not 

being granted MET.  

(46)  The  investigation  showed  that  Since  Hardware  met  all  the  above  criteria  and  it  is 

concluded that IT should be granted to Since Hardware. 

3.  Normal value 

(47)  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  a  market  economy  third  country 
(analogue country). 

(48) 

In  the  Notice  of  initiation,  the  Commission  indicated  its  intention  to  use  the  United 
States of America as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing 
normal  value  for  the  PRC,  but  no  producer  from  the  USA  co-operated  in  the 
investigation. Subsequently, Turkish and  Ukrainian companies were also  approached 
but there was no co-operation from them either. 

(49)  As  no  third  country  producer  co-operated,  Union  producers  were  approached  on  the 

basis of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation and one of them co-operated.  

(50)  No  comments  on  using  the  information  obtained  from  a  Union  producer  for 
establishment of normal value were received from Since Hardware. Thus, the normal 

EN 

13 

   EN 

value was established pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation on the basis 
of verified information received from the co-operating Union producer.  

(51)  The  domestic  sales  of  the  Union  producer  of  the  like  product  were  found  to  be 
representative in terms of volume when compared to the product concerned exported 
to the Union by Since Hardware.  

(52)  Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for Since Hardware 
was established on the basis of verified information received from the sole cooperating 
Union  producer,  i.e.  on  the  basis  of  prices  paid  or  payable  on  the  Union  market  for 
comparable product types, where these were found to be made in the ordinary course 
of trade, or on constructed values, where no domestic sales in the ordinary course of 
trade  for  comparable  product  types  were  found,  i.e.  on  the  basis  of  the  cost  of 
manufacturing  of  ironing  boards  manufactured  by  the  Union  producer  plus  a 
reasonable  amount  for  selling,  general  and  administrative  (SG&A)  expenses  and  for 
profit. The profit margin used is in line with the one used in the first investigation.  

4. 

Export price 

(53) 

In  all  cases  the  product  concerned  was  directly  sold  for  export  to  independent 
customers in the Union, 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. 

5.  Comparison 

(54)  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  transport  costs,  insurance,  handling  charges,  credit  costs  and  indirect 
taxes were made where applicable and justified. 

6.  Dumping margin  

(55)  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.  

(56)  The  dumping  margin  of  Since  Hardware  as  a  percentage  of  the  net,  free-at-Union-

frontier price was found to be 51,7 %. 

D. 

INJURY 

1.  General 

1.1.  Specificities of this investigation  

(57)  The examination of material injury suffered by the Union industry is normally based 
on all dumped imports originating in one or more exporting countries, in accordance 
with Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

(58)  However,  in  this  case,  a  full  analysis  of  injury  in  respect  of  all  imports  of  ironing 
boards originating, inter alia, in the PRC was already carried out in the framework of 
the  first  investigation.  Indeed,  in  that  investigation  the  Commission  established  that 
dumped  imports  of  ironing  boards  originating,  inter  alia,  in  the  PRC  had  caused 
material  injury  to  the  Union  industry.  These  findings,  made  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  Article  3  of  the  basic  Regulation,  were  based  on  an  assessment  of  the 
effects of all imports originating in the PRC and Ukraine, with the sole exclusion of 
imports  of  ironing  boards  produced  by  Since  Hardware  which  had  been  found  to  be 
sold at non-dumped prices. 

(59)  As  a  result,  during  the  IP,  anti-dumping  duties  were  applicable  to  all  imports  from 
those  countries  (only  Since  Hardware  was  subject  to  a  zero  duty).  As  the  Union 
industry was already protected against the harmful effects of these imports during the 
IP,  it  was  impossible  to  perform  a  normal  full  injury  analysis.  Therefore,  a  specific 
approach was developed, adapted to the specificities of this investigation, in which the 
Institutions focused on particular injury indicators. The information requested from the 
Union industry focused on whether Since Hardware had been undercutting  its prices 
and on what was the profitability of those prices. Also, the Union industry was invited 
to  provide  any  other  information  that,  in  its  view,  indicated  that  Since  Hardware's 
exports to the EU had caused it injury.  

(60) 

In  this  context,  the  Commission  examined  i)  the  development  of  dumped  imports  of 
ironing boards produced by Since Hardware; ii) whether those imports had been made 
at  prices  undercutting  the  sales  prices  of  the  Union  industry  and  what  was  the 
profitability  of  the  Union  industry  prices;  and  iii)  any  information  provided  by  the 
Union  industry  indicating  that  Since  Hardware's  exports  to  the  EU  had  caused  it 
injury,  e.g.  concerning  the  Union  industry's  losses  of  customers  and  orders  to  Since 
Hardware and the profitability of their EU sales during the IP. 

1.2.  Definition of the Union industry 

(61)  The complaint was lodged by three Union producers representing a major proportion 
of the total known Union production of ironing boards, i.e. in this case ca. 40 % of the 
estimated Union production. None of the other Union producers opposed the initiation 
of the present proceeding. 

(62)  As stated in recital (13) above, from the five producers which replied to the sampling 
questions  only  the  three  complainants  formed  part  of  the  Union  industry  in  the  first 
investigation. As stated above, in light of the specificities of this case, questionnaires 
were  sent  only  to  the  three  selected  Union  producers  that  also  formed  part  of  the 
Union industry in the first investigation.  

1.3.  Union consumption 

(63)  Based on information provided by the Union industry, it appears that the consumption 
of ironing boards in the EU has remained substantially stable since the publication of 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007,  having  only  slightly  increased  in  proportion 
with the population increase of the EU due to the latest EU enlargement (the accession 
of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007). The estimated Union consumption thus amounted 
to about 8,5 to 9 million units during the period considered.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

1.4.  Union production 

(64) 

Ironing  board  producers  can  be  found  in  several  Member  States  including  Belgium, 
Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain and 
the United Kingdom. The total volume of annual Union production of ironing boards 
can be estimated at above 5 million units. 

2. 

Imports from Since Hardware 

2.1.  Status of imports 

(65)  As described in recitals (24) to (56) above, this investigation has shown that imports 

from Since Hardware have been dumped on the Union market. 

2.2.  Volume of dumped imports 

(66)  Over the period considered, Since Hardware's exports to the EU increased strongly, by 
64 % by the IP of this investigation14. On the other hand, the imports of other Chinese 
and  Ukrainian  producers  have  constantly  decreased  following  the  imposition  of 
provisional  duties  in  2006  (confidential  data  based  on  Member  States'  reports  in 
accordance with Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation):  

Volume of imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware 
Indices for 
confidentiality reasons 

2006 
100 
100 

2007 
119 
94 

2008 
176 
87 

IP 
164 
83 

Since Hardware 
PRC  (excluding  Since 
Hardware) and Ukraine 

2.3.  Market share of dumped imports 

(67)  Given  that  EU  consumption  has  remained  substantially  stable  over  the  period 
considered  except  for  the  slight  increase  between  2006  and  2007  as  mentioned  in 
recital (63) above, the market share of Since Hardware has developed in line with its 
import volumes shown above. It should be noted that in 2006, the EU market share of 
Since  Hardware  represented  about  one  fifth  of  the  total  market  share  of  the  other 
Chinese and Ukrainian producers, whereas by the IP, Since Hardware's market share 
amounted to almost half of the total market share of the other Chinese and Ukrainian 
producers.  Both  the  substantial  increase  of  Since  Hardware's  import  volume  and  its 
market share can be explained by the fact that it has been the only Chinese producer 
that  has  had  a  zero  anti-dumping  duty  and  therefore  its  market  opportunities  have 
actually improved since the imposition of provisional duties in 2006. This can also be 
confirmed by the pronounced opposite, positive development of their import volumes 
as compared to the deteriorating trend of the import volumes of the other Chinese and 

14 

Although  this  finding  is  already  sufficient  –  together  with  the  other  findings  relating  to  the  period 
considered – to find injury, it is noted that it is confirmed by the fact that when compared to the IP of 
the  first  investigation,  the  volume  of  imports  of  ironing  boards  produced  by  Since  Hardware  -  which 
was already significant during the aforementioned IP - has approximately doubled by the current IP. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Ukrainian  producers.  Indeed  when  looking  at  the  period  considered,  the  following 
converse evolution of market shares has been found:  

Market share of imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware 

Indices for 
confidentiality reasons 

Since Hardware 
PRC  (excluding  Since 
Hardware) and Ukraine 

2006 
100 

100 

2007 
113 

89 

2008 
166 

82 

IP 
155 

79 

(68) 

(69) 

It  is  clear  from  the  above  tables  that  Since  Hardware  has  managed  to  significantly 
increase its import volumes and market share15.  

In  addition,  the  Union  industry  has  claimed  to  have  lost  numerous  client  orders  to 
Since Hardware in the past years. Indeed clear indications have been found that certain 
important  customers  of  the  Union  industry  have  changed  suppliers,  sourcing  more 
products from Since Hardware and fewer from the Union industry than before.  

(70)  For instance, the data gathered by the Commission in the first investigation show that 
an EU producer sold a significant number of pieces to an EU customer in the IP of the 
first investigation (2005), whereas in the current investigation it has stated that it sold 
considerably less (between 10 % and 30 % of that quantity) to the same customer in 
the current IP. By contrast, Since Hardware sold a small number of pieces to this EU 
customer in the IP of the first investigation, but sold much more (between 300 % and 
500 % of that quantity) to that customer during the IP of the current investigation. 

(71)  Furthermore, the data gathered by the Commission in the first investigation show that 
the sales of an EU producer to another EU customer in the IP of the first investigation 
dropped considerably (between 30 % and 50 %) in the current IP. Again by contrast, 
whereas  Since  Hardware  sold  nothing  to  this  customer  in  the  IP  of  the  first 
investigation, it sold a substantial quantity in the current IP. That quantity is between 
60 % and 80 % of the quantity by which the EU producer's sales to that customer went 
down between the IP of the first investigation and the current IP. 

2.4.  Undercutting 

(72)  For the purpose of analysing price undercutting, the import prices of Since Hardware 
were  compared  to  the  Union  industry's  prices,  on  the  basis  of  weighted  averages  for 
comparable product types during the IP. The Union industry's prices were adjusted to 
an  ex-works  level,  and  compared  to  CIF  Union  frontier  import  prices,  plus  customs 
duties where applicable. This price comparison was made for transactions at the same 
level  of  trade,  duly  adjusted  where  necessary,  and  after  deduction  of  rebates  and 
discounts.  

(73)  The average undercutting margin found for Since Hardware, expressed as a percentage 

of the Union industry’s price, is 16,1 %. 

15 

Although also this finding is already sufficient – together with the other findings relating to the period 
considered – to find injury, it is noted that it is confirmed by the fact that when compared to the IP of 
the first investigation, the market share of Since Hardware grew by 89 % by the current IP.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(74) 

It is noted that the Union industry's prices were found overall loss making in the IP. 

3.  Conclusion on injury 

(75)  The  above-mentioned  facts  show  that  the  Union  industry  suffers  injury  due  to  the 
dumped  quantities  sold  by  Since  Hardware  on  the  Union  market  which  might 
otherwise have been supplied by the Union industry.  

E. 

CAUSATION 

(76)  As  shown  above,  Since  Hardware  offered  its  products,  during  the  IP,  at  heavily 
dumped  prices  which  strongly  undercut  the  Union  industry's  prices.  As  a  result,  it 
succeeded to sell quantities during the IP which were much higher than, for instance, 
in 2005 or 2006. Since Hardware thus caused the injury which was found above.  

(77)  One  importer  stated  that  the  EUR/USD  exchange  rate  was  the  cause  of  the  strong 
presence of Since Hardware ironing boards on the Union market rather than dumping 
practices.  However,  if  this  was  true,  all  imports  invoiced  in  USD  would  have  been 
advantaged  in  their  competition  with  goods  invoiced  in  EUR.  Instead,  as  set  out  in 
recitals (66) and (67) above, imports from other Chinese and Ukrainian producers, also 
selling in USD, have constantly decreased between 2006 and the IP i.e. in the period 
during which the EUR/USD exchange rates have every so often changed, in contrast 
with  the  significant  increase  of  imports  from  Since  Hardware  throughout  the  same 
period. Therefore this claim was rejected. 

(78)  No further comments were received. It is therefore concluded that no factor appears to 
exist  that  could  break  the  causal  link  between  the  dumped  imports  from  Since 
Hardware and their contribution to injury which was found above. 

F. 

UNION INTEREST 

(79)  As  mentioned  at  recital  (14)  above,  one  trade  association  cooperated  in  the 
investigation.  In  addition,  the  cooperating  Union  producers  and  importers  were  also 
asked to comment on whether in their view the imposition of a possible anti-dumping 
duty  on  Since  Hardware  would  change  the  conclusion  regarding  Union  interest 
reached in recitals (51) to (62) of Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.  

(80)  According  to  the  Union  producers,  the  imposition  of  an  anti-dumping  duty  on  Since 
Hardware  would  not  change  the  conclusions  on  Union  interest  as  established  by  the 
above Regulation. 

(81)  The cooperating trade association stated that imposing an anti-dumping duty on Since 
Hardware would normally have a negative impact on the profitability of the importers 
and  retailers  or  distributors  concerned.  However,  according  to  the  trade  association, 
their members – including large retail stores – also confirmed that the product under 
investigation  is  one  upon  which  price  increases  such  as  those  resulting  from  anti-
dumping  measures  can  be  passed  on  without  impacting  substantially  on  consumers' 
perception.  Therefore,  no  concrete  element  was  submitted  which  would  change  the 
conclusions on Union interest as established by the above two Regulations. 

(82) 

In  view  of  the  above  it  is  concluded  that  the  imposition  of  an  anti-dumping  duty  on 
Since  Hardware  would  leave  the  conclusions  regarding  Union  interest  reached  in 

EN 

18 

   EN 

recitals (51) to (62) of Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 substantially unaffected. 
No reasons were put forward why that analysis would not apply, mutatis mutandis, to 
the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware.  

G. 

COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES FOLLOWING DISCLOSURE 

(83)  Written and oral representations were made following final disclosure of the findings 
from  the  Union  industry  and  from  Since  Hardware.  The  Union  industry  agrees  with 
the findings disclosed. Since Hardware's comments were examined, however, none of 
them were such as to alter the above conclusions. The main arguments raised by Since 
Hardware were as follows. 

(84)  Since  Hardware  reiterated  its  earlier  claims  concerning  the  alleged  illegality  of 
initiating an original investigation against one company and concerning the allegedly 
incorrect MET findings. These claims have been described and rebutted in recitals (6) 
to  (9)  and  (35)  to  (43)  above.  Regarding  some  detailed  points  made  by  Since 
Hardware  on  the  first  point  (a  number  of  which  were  made  during  a  hearing)  the 
following can be observed:  

(85) 

(86) 

(87) 

i) Since Hardware argued that the last sentence of Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation 
is  not  a  provision  implementing  any  provision  of  the  WTO  AD  Agreement,  and  as 
such cannot be affected by any findings made by a WTO Panel. However, Article 9(3) 
does  not  oblige  the  Institutions  to  use  a  review  to  investigate  claims  of  dumping 
against  companies  for  whom,  during  an  original  investigation,  de  minimis  or  no 
dumping  was  found.  It  merely  foresees  that  these  "may"  be  investigated  in  any 
subsequent review carried out pursuant to Article 11. It is clear, however, that after the 
adoption  of  that  provision,  the  Appellate  Body,  by  its  Mexico-Beef  and  Rice  ruling, 
has  established  that  doing  so  would  violate  the  WTO-ADA.  Therefore,  it  is  possible 
for  and  incumbent  upon16  the  Institutions  to  use  the  flexibility  that  the  word  "may" 
provides, and to not use a review to investigate such claims. The same conclusion has 
already been drawn in at least one earlier investigation17. 

ii)  Since  Hardware  repeated  that  in  its  view  an  original  investigation  against  one 
company would not be possible under the basic Regulation. On top of what has been 
said  on  this  in  recitals  (7)  and  (8)  above,  the  following  can  be  noted.  It  is  true  that 
many of the provisions it quotes are phrased in a manner which is based on the normal 
situation,  namely  an  original  investigation  against  a  country  as  a  whole.  However, 
Since Hardware has not been able to point to any provision which prohibits an original 
investigation against only one company in the specific circumstances of this case. 

iii) Since Hardware argued that Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 permits the bringing 
into  conformity  with  WTO  dispute  settlement  rulings  of  existing  anti-dumping 
measures, but nothing else. This, firstly, means, that Since Hardware does not object to 
Article 1 of this Regulation, which formally excludes Since Hardware from the scope 
of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in a manner which makes clear that on the basis of 
that  Regulation  no  duty  will  apply  to  its  imports.  Regarding  Since  Hardware's 

16 

17 

In  light  of  the  obligation  to  interpret  EU  law  as  much  as  possible  in  conformity  with  the  EU's 
international obligations.  
Steel  welded  tubes  from  inter  alia  Turkey,  concerning  the  company  Noksel,  OJ  L  343,  19.12.2008, 
recital (143).  

EN 

19 

   EN 

                                                 
(88) 

(89) 

(90) 

(91) 

allegation that Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 permits nothing else, it should however 
be emphasised that this Regulation is also based on the basic Regulation. In particular, 
it  is  based  on  the  fact,  as  explained  above,  that  nothing  in  that  Regulation  prohibits 
conducting  an  original  investigation  against  only  one  company  in  the  specific 
circumstances of this case. As suggested by Since Hardware, certain language in the 
disclosure which may have been confusing on this point has been removed. 

iv) Since Hardware claimed to be discriminated against, since in its view the findings 
in Mexico-Beef and Rice are equally applicable to companies that received a zero duty 
in a review investigation. The most important point that can be made here is that the 
aforementioned  Appellate  Body ruling simply does not concern  that situation.  Those 
companies are therefore in a different situation. 

v) Since Hardware argued that the Commission was conducting a de facto review of 
its zero duty. This view cannot be accepted. Firstly, contrary to what Since Hardware 
alleges,  the  injury  analysis  conducted  above  is  not  limited  to  confirming  that  during 
the  first  investigation  injury  was  found.  On  the  contrary,  it  focuses  on  the  actual 
detrimental effects of Since Hardware's behaviour after that investigation on the Union 
industry, whilst taking into account that a normal injury analysis is not possible in this 
case. Secondly, the fact that the duty will expire earlier than after the normal five years 
does  not  mean  that  the  investigation  is  a  de  facto  review.  In  quite  a  number  of 
investigations, for various reasons, durations of less than five years have been adopted. 
In  this  case,  the  Institutions  consider  that,  whereas  on  the  one  hand  Since  Hardware 
should  not  derive  any  benefits  from  having  started  dumping  after  the  first 
investigation,  it  should  also  not  suffer  any  unjustified  negative  effects.  For  instance, 
should,  for  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007  no  expiry  review  be  requested,  it 
would appear discriminatory to continue the duty on Since Hardware after the expiry 
of that Regulation.  

vi)  Since  Hardware  argued  that  its  rights  are  infringed  by  the  choice  for  an  original 
investigation, because if it had been investigated by means of a review, Article 11(9) 
of the basic Regulation would apply (obligation, in a review, to use same methodology 
as during the original investigation). However, Since Hardware has not pointed to any 
issue  regarding which the  Institutions would have used  another methodology than in 
the  first  investigation.  Secondly,  even  if  Since  Hardware  could  point  to  any  use  of 
different  methodology,  this  would  be  a  result  of  the  fact  that  Mexico-Beef  and  Rice 
leads to the conclusion that it was incumbent on the Institutions to not investigate the 
claims against Since Hardware by means of a review.  

vii)  Finally,  Since  Hardware  suggested  that  the  Institutions  should  have  investigated 
the claims against it by means of a review, and then, in case a duty were imposed upon 
it and the PRC would successfully challenge this in WTO-dispute settlement, remove 
that  duty  but  only  prospectively.  However,  it  would  clearly  be  inappropriate  to 
knowingly violate WTO rules, whereas, like in this case, a method of investigating the 
case  can  be  found  which  is  in  line  with  the  basic  Regulation,  interpreted  in  light  of 
WTO-rules. Moreover, without prejudice to the validity of such claims, it is clear that 
such  a  course  of  action  could  lead  to  damage  claims  by  the  companies  concerned 
against the Institutions. 

(92)  Regarding  the  MET  findings,  Since  Hardware  argued  that  concerning  the  MET 
findings it had an excessive burden to prove that it complied with the criteria for MET, 

EN 

20 

   EN 

in  particular  as  far  as  State  interference  in  the  prices  of  its  main  raw  materials  were 
concerned. However, MET is an exception to the general rule and any derogation from 
or exception to a general rule must be interpreted strictly. MET can only be granted if 
it  is  shown  that  market  economy  conditions  prevail  for  the  exporting  producer  in 
question. As already mentioned in recital (39) above, the burden of proof lies with the 
exporting producer wishing to avail itself of market economy status. The claim must 
contain  sufficient  evidence.  There  is  no  obligation  for  the  Commission  to  prove  that 
the  exporting  producer  does  not  satisfy  the  MET  criteria.  The  Commission  has  to 
assess whether the evidence supplied by the exporting producer is sufficient to show 
that  the  MET  criteria  are  fulfilled.  As  the  Commission  established  a  number  of 
elements pointing to significant State interference concerning the cost of major inputs, 
it is consequently for the company to demonstrate that this State interference does not 
exist  and/or  that  it  did  not  affect  the  company's  decisions  (first  criterion  of  Article 
2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation). In any event, as set out in recitals (33) and (42) above, 
Since  Hardware  has  also  failed  to  show  that  it  fulfils  the  second  criterion  of  Article 
2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation  concerning  accounting  for  which  it  has  claimed  an 
excessive burden to prove.  

(93)  Further  to  the  above,  Since  Hardware  made  two  new  claims  in  its  comments  on  the 
final disclosure document. First, Since Hardware claimed that the normal value should 
have  been  adjusted  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)(k)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
because  the  raw  materials  (steel  products)  in  the  PRC  are  lower-priced  than  in  the 
analogue  country  market.  This  claim  cannot  be  accepted.  Indeed,  it  is  recalled  that 
Since  Hardware  was  denied  MET.  Consequently,  the  normal  value  is  established  in 
accordance  with  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation  on  the  basis  of  the  price  or 
constructed  value  in  a  market  economy  third  country.  This  necessarily  implies  that 
prices  and  costs  in  the  PRC  are  considered  to  be  unreliable  for  the  establishment  of 
normal  value  and  may  not  be  used  to  determine  or  otherwise  adjust  the  latter.  It  is 
further  noted  that  an  adjustment  under  Article  2(10)(k)  of  the  basic  Regulation  as 
claimed  by  Since  Hardware  cannot  be  made  if  it  is  not  shown  that  customers  would 
consistently  pay  different  prices  for  the  like  product  on  the  domestic  market,  in  this 
case  in  the  analogue  country  market,  because  of  a  difference  in  raw  material  prices. 
Since Hardware has not demonstrated any such price difference.  

(94)  Second,  Since  Hardware  has  claimed  that  the  Commission  did  not  carry  out  a 
sufficiently detailed injury analysis in the present investigation. It also claimed that in 
line  with  Article  3(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission  should  have 
investigated all injury indicators. It should be noted however, that the Commission has 
found  (see  in  particular  part  D  above)  that  dumped  imports  from  Since  Hardware 
substantially increased over the period considered while their sales prices were found 
to  be  largely  undercutting  those  of  the  Union  industry.  This  finding  is  based  on  an 
objective examination of positive evidence. It thus complies with Article 3 of the basic 
Regulation.  

(95) 

It is true that not all of the factors set out in Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation have 
been  examined.  However,  it  should  be  recalled  that  in  a  situation  where  Since 
Hardware  was  not  yet  found  to  be  dumping,  namely  during  the  first  investigation,  it 
was already found, by examining those factors, that the dumped imports from the PRC 
caused injury. Examining those factors once again would have been of no use, since 

EN 

21 

   EN 

even assuming that all those factors would now have become positive, that would be 
(at least in part) due to the fact that the Union industry is now protected against all18 
dumped  exports  from  the  PRC  and  Ukraine  (except  those  from  Since  Hardware). 
Moreover, no factor has been identified that would break the causal link between the 
dumped  imports  from  Since  Hardware  and  their  negative  effects  on  the  Union 
industry.  Finally,  not  imposing  measures  against  Since  Hardware  would  be 
discriminatory  vis-à-vis  the  exporting  producers  subject  to  the  measure  imposed 
following the first original investigation. 

H. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

(96) 

In  view  of  the  above  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  resulting 
contribution to injury, causation and Union interest, definitive measures on imports of 
the  product  concerned  from  the  PRC,  produced  by  Since  Hardware,  should  be 
imposed. 

1. 

Injury elimination level  

(97)  The level of the definitive anti-dumping measures should be sufficient to eliminate the 
injury  to  the  Union  industry  caused  by  the  dumped  imports,  without  exceeding  the 
dumping  margins  found.  As  stated  above  (recital  (74)),  the  Union  industry's  prices 
were  found  to  be  overall  loss-making  during  the  IP.  Therefore,  it  would  not  be 
appropriate to base the duty merely on the margin of undercutting. 

(98)  When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious 
dumping,  it  was  considered  that  any  measures  should  allow  the  Union  industry  to 
cover its costs and obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved under 
normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports. The pre-tax 
profit  margin  used  for  this  calculation  was 7  %  of  turnover.  As  mentioned  in  recital 
(63)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007,  it  was  demonstrated  in  the  course  of 
the first investigation that this was the profit level that could reasonably be expected in 
the absence of injurious dumping. On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated 
for the like product of the Union industry. For this purpose, information was collected 
from  the  Union  industry  to  calculate  the  weighted  average  of  their  actual  profit/loss 
margin during the current IP. The non-injurious price has been obtained by deducting 
the  thus  calculated  actual  profit/loss  margin  of  the  Union  industry  from  their  sales 
prices and adding the above mentioned target profit margin of 7 %. 

(99)  The necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the 
weighted average import price, as established for the undercutting calculation, with the 
average  non-injurious  price  of  products  sold  by  the  Union  industry  on  the  Union 
market.  Any  difference  resulting  from  this  comparison  was  then  expressed  as  a 
percentage of the average import CIF value. An injury elimination level of 35,8 % was 
thus established, which was below the dumping margin found for Since Hardware.  

18 

Admittedly, during a certain period, due to the annulment by the Court of Council Regulation (EC) No 
452/2007 in as far as Foshan Shunde is concerned, de facto a zero duty also applied to that company, 
but this does not make any material difference, in particular because this only arose a number of years 
after the entry into force of the Regulation. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

                                                 
2. 

Exclusion  of  Since  Hardware  from  the  definitive  anti-dumping  measure 
imposed by Council Regulation (EC) 452/2007 

(100)  In the context of the review pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 and in light of 
the Appellate Body report Mexico-Beef and Rice (AB-2005-6) as adopted by the WTO 
Dispute  Settlement  Body,  and  in  particular  paragraphs  305  and  306  thereof,  Since 
Hardware  should  be  excluded  from  the  definitive  anti-dumping  measure  imposed  by 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007.  In  light  of  the  conclusions  of  this 
investigation,  namely  that  an  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  on  Since 
Hardware (see also point 7.3 below), a new measure is also indispensable in order not 
to make Since Hardware fall under two anti-dumping Regulations at the same time.  

(101)  A new measure may then be imposed on Since Hardware.  

3. 

Form and level of measure 

(102)  In  the  light  of  the  foregoing,  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, it is considered that a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on 
imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  the  PRC  and  produced  by  Since 
Hardware at the level eliminating the injury. 

(103)  On the basis of the above, the definitive duty rate for these imports is 35,8 %. 

(104)  In  accordance  with  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  anti-dumping  measures 
normally apply for 5 years, unless there are specific grounds or circumstances which 
call  for  a  shorter  period.  In  the  current  case,  it  is  considered  appropriate  to  limit  the 
duration of the measure so that it lasts until the expiry of the anti-dumping measures 
applicable  to  imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating,  inter  alia,  in  the  PRC 
imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  452/2007.  This  will  give  the  opportunity  to 
consider at the same time any request for expiry review of the measures in force for all 
imports  originating,  inter  alia,  in  the  PRC.  Of  course,  operators  concerned,  and  in 
particular  Since  Hardware  and/or  the  Union  industry,  may,  before  27  April  2012, 
request other reviews, in particular an interim review, of this Regulation, provided that 
all requirements for doing so are complied with. 

(105)  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 Commission19 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, 

19 

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

EN 

23 

   EN 

                                                 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 is hereby amended by deleting the 
entry concerning Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. and by replacing the entry 'All other 
companies'  by  'All  other  companies  (except  Since  Hardware  (Guangzhou)  Co.,  Ltd., 
Guangzhou - TARIC additional code A784)'. 

Article 2  

A definitive  anti-dumping duty is hereby 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 and produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) 
Co., Ltd., 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). 

Article 3 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-Union-
1. 
frontier price, before duty, for products manufactured by the company specified below shall 
be as follows: 

Manufacturer 

Since Hardware (Guangzhou) 
Co., Ltd., Guangzhou 

Duty rate 

35,8 % 

Taric additional code 

A784 

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

2. 
apply. 

Article 4 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  following  its  publication  in  the  Official 
Journal  of  the  European  Union.  Unless  reviewed  under  Article  11  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1225/2009, it shall be in force until 27 April 2012. 

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

Done at Brussels, 

EN 

For the Council 
The President 

24 

   EN