Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2011-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, glass fibre, import, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.2.2011 
COM(2011) 65 final 

2011/0034 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the 
People's Republic of China 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This proposal concerns the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 
30  November  2009  on  protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not 
members  of  the  European  Community  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  proceeding 
concerning imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in 
the People's Republic of China. 

•  General context 

This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation 
and is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive 
and procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Provisional  measures  are  in  force  and  were  imposed  by  Commission  Regulation 
(EU) No 812/2010 of 15 September 2010 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty 
on  imports  of  certain  continuous  filament  glass  fibre  products  originating  in  the 
People's Republic of China. 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT 
ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  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 contain provisions 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 

EN 

2 

   EN 

On  17  December  2009  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  proceeding 
concerning imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in 
the People's Republic of China. 

The  Commission  imposed  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  on  these  imports  by 
Regulation (EU) No 812/2010 of 15 September 2010. 

The  attached  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  is  based  on  the  definitive  findings 
which have confirmed the existence of dumping causing injury, and the fact that the 
imposition  of  measures  is  not  against  the  overall  Union  interest.  The  provisional 
findings  were  in  general  confirmed,  but  the  product  scope  has  been  narrowed  and 
changes to the calculation of dumping and injury have resulted in a reduction of the 
duty levels. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which should be published no later than 16 March 2011. 

•  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: 

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

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

2011/0034 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed 
on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People's 
Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against 
dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 ('the basic Regulation') and 
in particular Article 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. 

PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  812/20102  ('the  provisional  Regulation')  imposed  a 
provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  continuous  filament  glass  fibre  products 
originating in the People's Republic of China ('PRC'). 

The  proceeding  was  initiated  as  a  result  of  a  complaint  lodged  on  3  November  2009  ('the 
complaint')  by  the  European  Glass  Fiber  Producers  Association  (APFE,  now  renamed 
'GlassFibreEurope') ('the complainant') on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, 
in this case more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain continuous filament glass 
fibre products. 

It  is  recalled  that,  as  set  out  in  recital  (14)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  investigation  of 
dumping  and  injury  covered  the  period  from  1  October  2008  to  30  September  2009  ('the 
investigation  period'  or  'IP').  The  examination  of  trends  relevant  for  the  assessment  of  injury 
covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP ('the period considered').  

B. 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

1 
2 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 243, 16.9.2010, p. 40. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and  considerations  on the basis  of which it 
was decided to impose provisional measures ('provisional disclosure'), several interested parties 
made  written  submissions  making  known  their  views  on  the  provisional  findings.  The  parties 
who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard. 

The Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. 
In addition to the verifications mentioned in recital (11) of the provisional Regulation, a further 
verification was carried out at the premises of Saertex in Saerbeck, Germany, one of the users 
of glass fibres which had cooperated by replying to a users' questionnaire.  

All 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 on imports of certain 
continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of 
the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  duty,  as  revised  in  accordance  with  this 
Regulation ('final disclosure'). They were also granted a period of time within which they could 
make representations subsequent to this disclosure. 

(7) 

The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken 
into account where appropriate. 

1. 

Scope of investigation: imports originating in Malaysia, Taiwan and Turkey 

(8) 

(9) 

One exporting producer claimed that imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products 
originating  in  Malaysia,  Taiwan  and  Turkey  should  have  been  included  in  the  scope  of  the 
present  investigation.  It  argued  that  the  exclusion  of  these  countries  was  discriminatory  as, 
according to the provisional findings, the volume of imports from these three countries would 
not be negligible and there would be prima facie evidence of undercutting.  

In this respect, it should first be noted that at initiation stage, there was no prima facie evidence 
of dumping, injury and causal link, as required pursuant to Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation, 
which  would  justify  the  initiation  of  an  anti-dumping  proceeding  on  imports  from  these 
countries. To the contrary, as concerns import volumes, the complainants submitted information 
that imports and market shares from other countries had decreased since 2004.  

(10)  As concerns Malaysia, Taiwan and Turkey, the analysis at the provisional stage confirmed that 
imports  from  both  Taiwan  and  Turkey  decreased  over  the  period  considered  (from  2,0  %  to 
1,5 % and from 2,9 % to 2,5 % respectively) whereas imports from Malaysia increased slightly, 
from  1,0  %  to  1,7  %.  Although  these  import  levels  are  above  the  de  minimis  import  levels 
required pursuant to Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation, other requirements for including these 
countries in the investigation were not satisfied. In particular, no information has been received 
that would point at dumping from either one of these countries. The claim for the inclusion of 
Malaysia, Taiwan and Turkey is therefore rejected. 

C. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND THE LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(11) 

It is recalled that, as set out in recital (15) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned 
as described in the Notice of initiation is chopped glass fibre strands, of a length of not more 
than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings; slivers and yarns of glass fibre filaments;  and  mats  made  of 

EN 

5 

   EN 

glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool and currently falling within CN codes 7019 
11 00, 7019 12 00, 7019 19 10 and ex 7019 31 00 ('the product concerned'). 

(12) 

In  addition,  as  set  out  in  recital  (19)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  it  was  decided  to 
provisionally treat yarns as forming part of the product concerned although this was subject to 
further investigation and consideration at the definitive stage.  

1.1.  Yarns 

(13)  Following the disclosure of provisional measures, the claim for exclusion of yarns was further 
investigated. In this respect it is recalled that a large number of submissions claiming that yarns 
should  be  excluded  had  been  received  prior  to  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures  (see 
recitals  (18)  and  (19)  of  the  provisional  Regulation).  In  addition,  after  the  imposition  of 
provisional  measures,  a  substantive  amount  of  additional  and  more  detailed  information  was 
received  from  interested  parties.  All  these  comments  were  analysed  in  detail  as  explained 
below. 

(14)  Several interested parties claimed that yarns should be distinguished from the other three basic 
product types mentioned at recital (17) of the provisional Regulation because: (i) yarns would 
have different physical and chemical characteristics, (ii) the production process of yarns and of 
the  other  three  basic  product  types  would  be  different,  and  (iii)  yarns  would  be  used  for 
different purposes. 

(15)  As  concerns  the  arguments  (i)  and  (ii),  evidence  was  submitted  that  pointed  at  distinctive 
features of rovings, chopped strands and mats at the one side, and yarns at the other side. More 
specifically,  the  information  indicated  that  mats  and  chopped  strands  are  typically  made  from 
rovings and not from yarns. After final disclosure, the Union industry contested this separation, 
claiming  that  some  speciality  chopped  strands  would  in  fact  be  made  of  yarns.  However,  the 
existence of some specialty chopped strands made from yarns does not imply that yarns should 
be  considered  as  falling  within  the  definition  of  the  product  concerned  (see  also  recital  (20) 
below).  

(16)  With  regard  to  the  first  claim  concerning  the  differences  in  basic  chemical  and  physical 
characteristics, a study of a leading research institute was submitted by an interested party. This 
study compared, inter alia, the physical and chemical characteristics of rovings and yarns. After 
final  disclosure,  some  reservations  were  made  as  to  the  findings  of  this  comparison  which  in 
turn provoked some important comments from certain users of yarns. From this information it 
can be concluded that an essential chemical component of rovings, mats and chopped strands is 
"silane", a chemical coupling agent facilitating the absorption of resin for matrixes. Yarns are 
usually not made with such chemical agent but rather with a starch oil based chemical substance 
('size') which is added as a lubricant and protective agent in order for the yarn to withstand the 
rigours  of  high-speed  weaving.  In  contrast  to  the  rovings,  where  the  coupling  agent  helps  to 
absorb  resin,  'size'  repels  resin.  As  concerns  the  basic  chemical  characteristics,  it  was  also 
established  that  the  glass  raw  material  for  yarns  has  a  more  stable  composition  and  higher 
uniformity of particle size than the raw material for the other product types.  

(17)  From  the  point  of  view  of  physical  characteristics,  yarns  appear  not  to  share  the  same  basic 
physical  characteristics  as  the  other  product  types.  Firstly,  it  is  generally  acknowledged  that 
yarns are in general a finer material with a much lower fibre diameter and linear density than 

EN 

6 

   EN 

rovings.  Secondly,  yarns  are  the  only  product  type  which  is  twisted  (though  zero  twist  yarns 
also exist). 

(18)  With regard to the second claim concerning the differences in the production process, although 
all  parties  acknowledge  that  the  four  basic  product  types  are manufactured  from  molten  glass 
containing  silica  sand,  soda  ash,  limestone,  kaolin  and  dolomite,  which  is  drawn  through  a 
multi-hole  heat  resistant  platinum-rhodium  trays  ("bushings"),  there  are  certain  important 
differences  in  the  production  process  of  yarns  as  compared  to  the  other  products  under 
investigation.  Firstly,  for  the  production  of  yarns,  higher  precision  and  stable  temperature 
control  as  well  as  energy  input  is  required,  with  more  strict  controlling  parameters  applied 
(bushing  output,  etc).  As  the  holes  in  the  bushings  are  smaller,  the  production  output  is 
substantially lower in comparison to the other products. Therefore, furnaces are usually used for 
producing either yarns or rovings – indeed, for economic reasons glass fibres producers do not 
alternate in the production of these two products on the same furnace. Another difference in the 
production process is that, subsequent to the bushing process, yarns go through the process of 
twisting.  

(19)  With regard to the argument iii) concerning the differences in the applications, it was found that 
the  different  chemical  characteristics  of  yarns  as  compared  to  rovings,  chopped  strands  and 
mats are linked to the different uses of yarns. Although it had provisionally been concluded that 
"almost  all  the  different  types  of  the  product  concerned  (…)  are  basically  used  for  the  same 
purposes",  based  on  the  comments  received  after  provisional  disclosure  this  issue  was  further 
investigated and it was established that, whereas rovings, chopped strands and mats were used 
to reinforce plastics in composites, yarns were primarily used in the production of much lighter 
weight  engineered  materials  for  technical  fabric  applications  such  as  high  performance 
insulation, protection and filtration applications. In some cases, yarns might also be suitable for 
reinforcing  purposes,  but  this  would  be  in  a  very  limited  number  of  instances  only  and  even 
then, in view of the relatively very high cost price of yarns as compared to rovings, very often 
unlikely for economic reasons. 

(20) 

In  view  of  the  above  differences,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  market  also  perceives  yarns 
different  from  the  other  three  products.  Indeed,  a  market  report  published  in  an  independent 
magazine  specialised  in  composite  products  was  submitted  by  both  users  and  the  Union 
industry.  This  report,  which  was  in  no  way  related  to  this  anti-dumping  proceeding,  firstly 
explained that, for reasons of production and uses, a distinction should be made between yarns 
and  rovings.  It  then  analysed  in  detail  the  global  glass  fibre  production  capacity  for  the  two 
groups: (i) rovings, chopped strands and mats altogether; and (ii) yarns.3  

(21)  As concerns the potential substitutability of yarns with the other basic product types, it should 
be noted that, as already stated in recital (19) of the provisional Regulation, this would in theory 
be possible as yarns could be used in a limited number of applications instead of other types. 
However, following further analysis the Commission found that in practice this would not at all 
be  an  economically  viable  option  due  to  the  substantial  cost  difference  in  the  cost  of 
manufacturing  yarns  compared  to  that  of  other  products,  which  can  be  explained  by  the 
differences of the production process mentioned in recital (18) above.  

3 

JEC Composites Magazine, No 58 June-July 2010, p. 14. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
(22) 

In  the  complaint  on  the  basis  of  which  this  investigation  was  initiated,  it  was  explicitly 
mentioned that the product concerned has one unique function and thus purpose or use, namely 
the  reinforcement  of  plastics  in  composites.  However,  the  above  analysis  established  that 
differences in the production process of yarns as compared to rovings (and chopped strands and 
mats) resulted in fundamental different basic physical and chemical characteristics, in view of 
different  applications  of  yarns  including  several  uses  other  than  composite  material.  The 
comments received in this respect after final disclosure were not such as to alter this conclusion. 

(23) 

In the light of above, the claim to exclude yarns on the basis of different physical and chemical 
characteristics and different uses as compared to rovings, chopped strands and mats, is hereby 
accepted. It is thus concluded that yarns should be excluded from the definition of the product 
concerned  as  defined  in  the  provisional  Regulation.  Yarns  are  therefore  definitively  excluded 
from the proceeding. 

(24) 

It should also be noted that a claim on exclusion of thin yarns was submitted by an interested 
party,  but  this  has  no  more  relevance  in  view  of  the  exclusion  of  all  yarns  from  the  product 
scope.  

1.2.  Texturized rovings 

(25)  One interested party claimed the exclusion of texturized rovings. This claim was based on the 
argumentation  that  texturized  rovings  should  be  treated  according  to  the  same  principle  as 
impregnated rovings, because the product is no longer a roving but a more downstream product.  

(26) 

In  this  respect  it  is  important  to  repeat  the  reason  for  excluding  certain  impregnated  rovings. 
Indeed,  certain  rovings  and  yarns  were  excluded  since  these  types  were  specially  treated  by 
coating  and  impregnating  and  they  have  a  loss  of  ignition  of  more  than  3  %,  giving  them 
different physical and chemical characteristics. 

(27)  As  concerns  texturized  rovings,  it  is  understood  that  these  are  rovings  that  are  not  coated  or 
impregnated and which have a loss of ignition value of between 0,3 % and 0,13  %. They are 
therefore  clearly  different  products  as  compared  to  the  impregnated  rovings  which  were 
excluded at the provisional stage. Secondly, it was found that, like the other rovings, chopped 
strands  and  mats,  texturized  rovings  are  primarily  used  for  reinforcing  plastics  in  composites. 
They are therefore clearly covered by the product scope definition, in the complaint as well as 
in the notice initiating this proceeding, and no grounds appear to exist which would justify their 
exclusion.  

(28) 

It is therefore concluded that texturized rovings fall clearly and indisputably within the product 
scope of this proceeding and the claim to exclude them from that scope has no sufficient factual 
basis and has to be rejected. 

1.3.  Conclusion 

(29)  As concerns product scope, no further claims have been submitted.  

(30) 

In  view  of  the  above,  it  was  deemed  appropriate  to  revise  the  product  scope  definition  as 
determined  in  the  provisional  Regulation.  Therefore,  the  product  concerned  is  definitively 
defined as chopped glass fibre strands, of a length of not more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings, 
excluding glass fibre rovings which are impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of 

EN 

8 

   EN 

more  than  3  %  (as  determined  by  the  ISO  Standard  1887);  and  mats  made  of  glass  fibre 
filaments excluding mats of glass wool.  

2. 

Like product 

(31) 

In the absence of any related claim or comment and taking into account the findings set out in 
recitals  (13)  to  (23)  above,  the  conclusions  in  recital  (20)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed.  

1.  Market economy treatment (‘MET’) 

D. 

DUMPING 

(32)  Following the publication of the provisional measures, one exporting producer/group that was 
not granted MET reiterated its disagreement with the rejection of its MET claim. However, the 
exporting producer/group in question merely repeated the claims made earlier in the proceeding 
without  presenting  any  new  arguments.  It  is  recalled  that,  as  explained  in  the  provisional 
Regulation, those arguments were already addressed in detail in individual communication with 
the exporting producer/group in question.  

(33) 

In addition, following final disclosure, the exporting producer/group in question alleged that the 
Commission overlooked new evidence that it had submitted. It is noted in this regard that the 
evidence referred to was only a submission of some documents supporting the argument already 
raised and replied to concerning the composition of the company's board of directors. Thus, no 
new evidence was presented that would put in question the decision to refuse the MET claim of 
the exporting producer/group in question. 

(34)  Consequently,  the  provisional  findings  with  respect  to  the  MET  claim  of  the  exporting 

producer/group in question are definitively confirmed. 

(35) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  the  content  of  recitals  (21)  to  (29)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation concerning MET findings is hereby definitively confirmed. 

2. 

Individual treatment (‘IT’) 

(36)  Further  to  provisional  disclosure  the  same  exporting  producer/group  that  commented  on  the 
decision  regarding  its  MET  disagreed  with  the  rejection  of  its  IT  claim.  It  alleged  that  the 
Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the rejection of its IT claim. 

(37) 

It  is  reiterated  in  this  regard  that  as  stated  in  recital  (26)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  under 
MET  analysis  part,  the  majority  of  the  directors  on  this  company's  Board  of  Directors  were 
appointed  by  a  majority  State  owned  company.  Consequently  significant  State  interference  in 
the decision making process of this exporting producer could not be excluded. 

(38)  Consequently,  it  was  confirmed  for  this  exporting  producer  that,  given  that  it  failed  to 
demonstrate that it was sufficiently independent from the State, it did not fulfil the criteria of 
Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and that thus its claim for the IT must be rejected.  

(39)  Following final disclosure, the above exporting producer and the other exporting producers not 
granted IT argued that the decision to reject their IT was not in accordance with the WTO Panel 
Report  in  dispute  DS  397  concerning  Definitive  Anti-Dumping  Measures  on  Certain  Iron  or 

EN 

9 

   EN 

Steel Fasteners from the Peoples' Republic of China. In this respect, it should be noted that the 
above-mentioned  Panel  Report  is  not  yet  final  since  it  has  not  been  adopted  by  the  Dispute 
Settlement Body. Moreover, the time period for appeal against that Panel Report has not lapsed. 
This claim was therefore rejected. 

(40)  Consequently and in the absence of any other comments concerning IT, the content of recitals 
(30) to (33)  of  the  provisional  Regulation is hereby definitively confirmed and it is definitely 
concluded  that  IT  should  not  be  granted  to  any  of  the  sampled  exporting  producers/groups, 
which were denied MET. 

3.  Normal value 

3.1.  Determination of the normal value for the exporting producer/group granted MET 

(41)  Following the provisional disclosure, the exporting producer/group granted MET submitted that 
for the product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market 
(or  not  sold  at  all),  the  normal  value  of  the  like  product  should  be  calculated  on  the  basis  of 
constructed normal value and not as the Commission did at the provisional stage – i.e. using for 
normal value representative domestic prices of closely resembling types (duly adjusted).  

(42)  The claim was accepted and consequently the normal value for the non-representative types (i.e. 
those of which domestic sales constituted less than 5 % of export sales to the Union or were not 
sold at all in the domestic market) was calculated on the basis of the cost of manufacturing per 
product type plus an amount for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits. In case 
of existing domestic sales, the profit of all transactions on the domestic market per product type 
for the product types concerned was used (since all domestic sales transactions of these product 
types were found profitable the test of Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation was clearly complied 
with). In case of no domestic sales, an average profit was used. For one product type, for which 
no cost of manufacturing was provided, constructed normal value of a closely resembling type 
was used. 

(43)  For the remaining product types it was subsequently examined whether each type of the product 
concerned  sold  domestically  in  representative  quantities  could  be  considered  as  being  sold  in 
the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation and as described in 
recitals (37) to (40) of the provisional Regulation. 

(44)  The  further  investigation  established  that  the  profitable  sales  of  only  few  comparable  product 
types were more than 80 % of total domestic sales and, thus, all domestic sales could be used in 
calculating the average price for normal value for these product types. For the remaining types 
only the profitable sales were used.  

(45)  Further  to  the  final  disclosure,  the  exporting  producer/group  granted  MET  argued  that  the 
methodology  used  for  constructing  normal  value  of  non-representative  product  types  as 
described  in  recital  (42)  above;  i.e.  using  the  profit  of  profitable  transactions  of  the  product 
types  in  question  would  be  contrary  to  the  letter  of  Article  2(6)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  It 
further  argued  that  it  has  been  a  standard  practice  to  use  an  average  profit  of  all  profitable 
transactions of all product types when constructing normal value for a particular product type 
and that any change to that practice would infringe the principle of legal certainty. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

(46) 

It should be noted that the methodology described in recital (42) is in accordance with Article 
2(6) of the basic Regulation following which the amounts for profits should be based on actual 
data pertaining to sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product by the exporter or 
producer.  The  use  of  the  words  "of  the  like  product"  does  not  exclude  the  division  of  the 
product investigated into product types where appropriate. Moreover, the applicable WTO case 
law4,  provides  that  the  actual  profit  margin  established  for  the  transactions  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  trade  of  the  relevant  product  types  for  which  normal  value  has  to  be  constructed 
cannot be disregarded. It is also noted that the exporting producer/group has not demonstrated 
that the transactions of the product types for which normal value had to be constructed should 
be considered as not being in the ordinary course of trade. Finally, it should be noted that the 
methodology described above is even-handed. Indeed, in cases where the profit margin of the 
sales in the ordinary course of trade of the product type in question is lower than the weighted 
average  profit  of  all  product  types  sales  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  it  is  the  lower  profit 
margin  of  the  product  type  concerned  that  would  be  used  for  the  construction  of  the  normal 
value. The claim is therefore rejected. 

3.2.  Determination of normal value for exporting producers/groups not granted MET 

(a)  Analogue country 

(47)  Following the provisional disclosure, one interested party commented that Turkey should not be 
used as an analogue country and suggested to use Malaysia in this regard. This comment was 
not further substantiated and consequently was not taken into account. 

(48) 

It is noted that following the exclusion of yarns from the product scope of the investigation (see 
above) the fact that yarns are not produced in Turkey does no longer create any obstacle for the 
choice of Turkey as analogue country since there will be no need for construction of a normal 
value of any of the investigated product types (see also recitals (50) and (51) below).  

(49)  Given the above it is definitively concluded that Turkey should be used as analogue country in 

this proceeding. 

(b)  Determination of normal value 

(50)  Following the provisional disclosure one party argued that the normal value of the like product 
in  Turkey  may  not  be  accurate,  as  the  cost  structure  of  the  Turkish  co-operating  company  is 
distorted.  Indeed,  the  investigation  established  that  the  co-operating  company  in  Turkey  had 
significant  financial  costs  that  may  be  distorting  the  calculation  of  the  normal  value,  in 
particular when it is constructed.  

(51)  Consequently,  in  order  to  avoid  any  possible  distortion  in  the  calculation,  it  was  decided  to 
group the product types and to distinguish only the main product characteristics. This grouping 
increased  comparability  in  terms  of  sales  volumes  between  the  product  concerned  and  the 
Turkish  like  product  and  allowed  using  actual  prices  as  opposed  to  constructed  normal  value 
where  selling,  general  and  administrative  costs  (potentially  distorted  by  the  financial  costs) 
would have to be used.  

4. 

Export price and price comparison 

4 

WTO Panel Report in dispute: WT/DS337/R of 16 November 2007 (EU Salmon). 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
(52) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  content  of  recitals  (48)  to  (50)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation concerning the establishing of export price and comparing the export prices with the 
respective normal value is hereby definitively confirmed. 

5.  Dumping margins 

(53) 

(54) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments,  the  content  of  recitals  (51)  to  (54)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation  concerning  the  general  methodology  for  calculating  dumping  margins  is  hereby 
definitively confirmed. 

In the light of the above mentioned changes in the calculation of the normal values, and after 
correction of some calculation errors, the amount of dumping finally determined, expressed as a 
percentage of the CIF net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, is as follows: 

Table 1 

Dumping margins 

Changzhou  New  Changhai  Fiberglass  Co.,  Ltd.  and  Jiangsu  Changhai 
Composite Materials Holding Co., Ltd., Tangqiao, Yaoguan Town, Changzhou 
City, Jiangsu 

Other cooperating companies 

9,6 % 

29,7 % 

E. 

INJURY 

(55) 

It  should  be  noted  that,  following  the  exclusion  of  yarns  from  the  product  scope  (see  recitals 
(13) to (23) above), the injury analysis had to be adapted to the remaining three main product 
types: rovings, chopped strands and mats. This necessitated revisions of some injury indicators, 
the  volume  of  dumped  imports  as  well  as  the  calculation  of  price  undercutting  and  the  injury 
elimination level.  

1.  Union industry 

(56)  With  regard  to  the  definition  of  the  Union  industry  and  the  representativity  of  the  sample  of 
Union producers, no new comments or claims have been received. In view of this, and the fact 
that  the  product  type  excluded  from  the  product  scope  i.e.  yarns  represented  a  limited 
proportion  of  production  and  sales  of  the  Union  producers,  the  conclusions  in  recitals  (56)  to 
(58) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2.  Union consumption 

(57) 

In respect of the Union consumption, it should be noted that, as mentioned in recital (55) above, 
the exclusion of one of the four main product types i.e. yarns from the product scope resulted in 
a revision of the volumes of Union consumption.  

(58) 

In view of the above revision, the total Union consumption has developed as follows during the 
period considered: 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Table 2 

Union consumption 

2006 

2007 

2008 

IP 

Units (tonnes) 

903 351 

944 137 

937 373 

697 128 

Indexed 

100 

105 

104 

77 

(59)  The  above  consumption  trend  is  similar  to  the  trend  observed  for  the  product  under 
investigation as defined in the provisional Regulation, i.e. an increase by ca. 5 % in 2007-2008 
and then a very significant drop, by 23 % in the IP as compared to 2006. 

3. 

Imports from the country concerned 

(60) 

In view of the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the import data had to be revised. 

(61)  One interested party argued that the imports from the PRC coming from producers related to the 

Union industry should have been excluded from the imports concerned.  

(62) 

In  this  regard  it  is  first  recalled  that,  as  already  mentioned  in  recital  (58)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, during the IP the volume of imports from the PRC of the sampled producers only 
represented  less  than  4  %  of  total  Chinese  imports.  This  remains  unchanged  following  the 
exclusion of yarns from the product scope.  

(63)  Given  that  only  two  Union  producers  have  imported  the  product  concerned  from  the  PRC 
during  the  IP,  the  exact  volume  of  these  imports  cannot  be  disclosed  for  reasons  of 
confidentiality. In any event, even if the amount of these imports were deducted for each year of 
the  period  considered,  the  trend  of  import  volumes  and  market  shares  would  remain 
substantially unchanged. The market share of dumped imports would be lower, though only by 
less than one percentage point in each year of the period considered, thereby not affecting the 
overall trend during the period considered.  

(64)  Following the exclusion of yarns, the revised import data are as follows: 

(a)  Volumes  

Table 3 

Imports from the PRC (volumes) 

2006 

2007 

2008 

Units (tonnes) 

71 061 

110 641 

132 023 

Indexed 

100 

156 

186 

IP 

98 723 

139 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
(b)  Market share 

Table 4 

Imports from the PRC (market share) 

2006 

Market share (%) 

7,9 % 

Indexed 

100 

2007 

11,7 % 

149 

2008 

14,1 % 

179 

IP 

14,2 % 

180 

(65)  After these changes, the trends observed at the provisional stage concerning import volumes of 
the  product  concerned  have  changed  to  a  limited  extent.  However,  the  increase  in  volume  of 
imports  both  in  absolute  and  relative  terms  remains  substantial.  Such  imports  increased  very 
rapidly  during  the  period  considered,  notably  between  2006  and  2008  (by  86  %),  after  which 
there was a drop in Chinese imports due to the overall decline in demand. However, the market 
share of these imports continued to increase between 2008 and the IP and it increased over the 
whole period by 6,3 percentage points.  

(c)  Price evolution 

(66)  After exclusion of yarns, the average cif import price of the product concerned has decreased 

significantly (by ca. 3 %): 

Table 5 

Imports from the PRC (prices) 

2006 

Average price/tonne (€) 

901 

Indexed 

100 

2007 

907 

101 

2008 

945 

105 

IP 

909 

101 

(67)  However, the above table shows that the trend of substantially stable prices during the period 
considered  has  not  altered,  and  therefore,  the  conclusion  regarding  the  price  trend  of  these 
imports, as established in the provisional Regulation, can be confirmed. 

(d)  Price undercutting 

(68)  As regards the calculation of price undercutting, the provisional margins had to be revised since 
the exclusion of yarns from the product scope necessitated the elimination of the corresponding 
sales from the injury calculations.  

(69)  Moreover,  as  was  done  on  the  dumping  side  of  the  investigation  (see  recitals  (50)  and  (51) 
above)  it  was  decided  to  group  the  product  types  and  to  only  distinguish  the  main  product 
characteristics.  This  resulted  in  an  increase  of  the  volume  of  Chinese  imports  included  in  the 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
comparison with the sales of the like product produced by the Union industry, thereby ensuring 
a better representativeness of the undercutting calculations.  

(70)  Finally,  an  adjustment  for  post-importation  costs  was  applied,  given  that  these  costs  are 

indispensable for the selling of the product concerned. 

(71)  Following the changes in the calculation of price undercutting due to (i) the exclusion of yarns 
and (ii) the grouping of product types and (iii) adjustment for post-importation costs, the revised 
undercutting margins amount to up to 18,2 %, while the average price undercutting is 10,9 %. 
The above changes  have  been  applied also to the calculation  of the  injury elimination level – 
see recital (134) of this Regulation. 

(72)  Apart from the changes mentioned above and in the absence of any other claim or comments, 
the conclusions in recitals (61) to (65) in the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Economic situation of the Union industry 

4.1.  Revision of injury indicators due to the exclusion of yarns 

(73)  The exclusion of yarns from the product scope necessitated the adjustment of certain tables in 
Section  D.4  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  In  addition, a minor correction to the sales data of 
one of the sampled producers had to be made. It should be noted that there was only a relatively 
limited presence of yarns in the production and sales of the sampled producers. Therefore, most 
affected  by  these  adjustments  were  the  indicators  on  the  basis  of  all  Union  producers  (sales 
volumes  and  market  share).  To  a  more  limited  extent,  average  sales  prices  of  the  sampled 
producers  were  also  affected.  However,  the  trends  observed,  also  for  these  indicators,  remain 
substantially unchanged as compared to the findings in the provisional Regulation, as the below 
tables demonstrate. In view of the limited presence of yarns within the producers' sample, the 
financial  indicators  (profitability,  return  on  investment,  cash  flow  and  investments)  have  not 
been affected by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope. For the sake of transparency, all 
tables  concerning  the  injury  indicators  listed  in  Section  D.4  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
shown below, including those unchanged.  

(74)  As  the  development  in  production  volumes  of  the  sampled  producers,  as  compared  to  the 
figures provided in the provisional Regulation, was only affected to a very limited extent (a 1 % 
increase for 2008 and the IP) by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the conclusion 
in recital (67) of the provisional Regulation is herewith confirmed. 

Table 6 

Union industry - production 

sampled producers 

2006 

2007 

2008 

IP 

Units (tonnes) 

488 335 

503 711 

498 739 

310 257 

Indexed 

100 

103 

102 

64 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(75)  The Union industry production capacity figures have overall been decreased by the exclusion of 
yarns,  but  that  has  had  no  effect  on  the  trend  and  the  capacity  utilisation.  Therefore,  the 
conclusion in recital (69) of the provisional Regulation is herewith confirmed. 

Table 7 

Union industry - production capacity 

sampled producers 

2006 

2007 

2008 

IP 

Capacity (tonnes) 

567 067 

567 822 

580 705 

506 509 

Indexed 

100 

Capacity utilisation (%) 

86 % 

Indexed 

100 

100 

89 % 

103 

102 

86 % 

100 

89 

61 % 

71 

(76)  As the development of stocks of the sampled producers, as compared to the figures provided in 
the provisional Regulation, was only affected to a very limited extent (a 1 % increase for 2007, 
2008 and the IP) by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the conclusion in recital (70) 
of the provisional Regulation is herewith confirmed. 

Table 8 

Union industry - stocks 

sampled producers 

2006 

Units (tonnes) 

Indexed 

87 603 

100 

2007 

72 282 

83 

2008 

IP 

122 926 

81 485 

140 

93 

(77)  Although, as compared to the sales volumes reported in the provisional Regulation, the decrease 
since 2006 in sales volumes is 1 % stronger in 2007 and 2008 and 3 % less pronounced in the 
IP,  sales  volumes  declined  still  by  27  %  during  the  period  considered  and  the  conclusions  in 
recitals (71)-(72) are, therefore, herewith confirmed.  

Table 9 

Union industry - EU sales (volumes) 

all EU producers 

2006 

2007 

2008 

IP 

Units (tonnes) 

689 541 

683 861 

654 956 

501 519 

Indexed 

100 

99 

95 

73 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
(78)  After the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, EU market share of the Union industry has 
decreased from 76,3 % to 71,9 % (as opposed to from 75,1 % to 69,5 %). The conclusions in 
recital (73) of the provisional Regulation regarding the market share of the Union industry are 
therefore confirmed. 

Table 10 

Union industry - EU market share 

all EU producers 

2006 

EU market share (%) 

76,3 % 

Indexed 

100 

2007 

72,4 % 

95 

2008 

69,9 % 

92 

IP 

71,9 % 

94 

(79)  As  concerns  average  sales  prices,  the  exclusion  of  yarns  from  the  product  scope  resulted  in 
overall  slightly  lower  average  sales  prices.  The  trend  is  however  identical  to  the  sales  price 
trend reported in the provisional Regulation (only 1 % higher figures for 2008 and the IP) and 
the conclusions in recital (74) of that Regulation are, therefore, herewith confirmed. 

Table 11 

Union industry - EU sales (average prices) 

sampled producers 

2006 

€/tonne 

indexed 

1 163 

100 

2007 

1 154 

99 

2008 

1 181 

102 

IP 

1 147 

99 

(80)  The employment figures of the Union producers have been adjusted to exclude the production 
of  yarns.  The  relatively  small  reduction  in  numbers  has  left  the  trend  unchanged  (only  1  % 
higher figures for 2008 and the IP), therefore, the conclusions in recital (75) of the provisional 
Regulation are herewith confirmed. 

Table 12 

Union industry - employment 

sampled producers 

Number of employees 

indexed 

2006 

4 050 

100 

2007 

3 851 

95 

2008 

3 676 

91 

IP 

3 275 

81 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
(81)  The productivity of the Union industry has not been affected by the exclusion of yarns and the 

conclusions in recital (76) of the provisional Regulation can therefore be confirmed. 

Table 13 

Union industry - productivity 

sampled producers 

2006 

tonnes/employee 

indexed 

121 

100 

2007 

131 

108 

2008 

136 

113 

IP 

95 

79 

(82)  As already mentioned in recital (73) above, in view of the limited presence of yarns within the 
producers sample, the financial indicators listed below have not been affected by the exclusion 
of yarns from the product scope:  

(83)  Labour costs in the sense of yearly average wages are unaffected by the exclusion of yarns from 
the product scope and the conclusions in recital (77) of the provisional Regulation are therefore 
herewith confirmed.  

Table 14 

Union industry - labour costs 

sampled producers 

2006 

yearly wages (€) 

42 649 

indexed 

100 

2007 

43 257 

101 

2008 

43 991 

103 

IP 

41 394 

97 

(84)  Profitability and ROI are unaffected by the exclusion of yarns from the product scope and the 
conclusions in recitals (78)-(81) of the provisional Regulation are therefore herewith confirmed.  

Table 15 

Union industry - profitability & return on investments (ROI) 

sampled producers 

2006 

net profit (as % of turnover) 

0,3 % 

ROI 

2,5 % 

2007 

4,7 % 

6,2 % 

2008 

3,5 % 

3,0 % 

IP 

-15,0 % 

-16,8 % 

(85)  The cash flow situation of the Union industry is unaffected by the exclusion of yarns from the 
product  scope  and  the  conclusion  in  recital  (83)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is  therefore 
herewith confirmed.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 16 

Union industry - cash flow 

sampled producers 

2006 

2007 

2008 

IP 

cash flow (€) 

34 261 986 

17 2 30 139 

7 452 912 

-22 001 723 

indexed 

100 

50 

22 

-64 

(86)  The level of investments of the Union industry is unaffected by the exclusion of yarns from the 
product  scope  and  the  conclusions  in  recital  (85)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  therefore 
herewith confirmed.  

Table 17 

Union industry - investments 

sampled producers 

2006 

2007 

2008 

IP 

net investments (€) 

40 089 991 

20 804 311 

43 613 463 

28 387 044 

indexed 

100 

52 

109 

71 

4.2.  Comments received following disclosure of provisional findings 

(87)  One  interested  party  claimed  that  the  Commission  should  have  analysed  injury  (and  also 
causation) on a segment-specific basis, i.e. for each of the main product types separately. This 
party considered that the main product types were too different from each other to be analysed 
as a whole. 

(88) 

It should first of all be recalled that any conclusions concerning dumping and injury can only be 
drawn  for  the  product  concerned  and  the  like  product  as  a  whole.  If  claims  exist  about  the 
definition  of  the  product  concerned,  these  should  be  analysed  in  that  context  and  should  not 
result  in  separate  injury  analysis  depending  on  the  various  product  types  covered  by  the 
investigation.  As  mentioned  in  recitals  (13)  to  (23)  above,  the  product  scope  of  this 
investigation has been amended at the definitive stage of the investigation by the exclusion of 
yarns. Any conclusion on dumping and injury can only be made on this newly defined product 
concerned and like product as a whole. For these reasons the above claim cannot be accepted.  

(89)  The  same  interested  party  argued  that  the  data  presented  for  the  Union  industry  was  not 
coherent.  In  particular,  it  considered  that  the  Commission  was  wrong  in  sometimes  providing 
data  from  the  entire  Union  industry  whereas  in  other  occasions  use  had  been  made  from  the 
verified data from the sampled producers only. 

(90) 

In respect of this claim it should firstly be noted that sampling is a procedure expressly provided 
for  under  Article  17  of  the  basic  Regulation,  to  deal  with  cases  where  it  is  not  possible  to 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
investigate  certain  groups  of  economic  operators  in  detail.  The  selected  sample  of  Union 
producers  has  been  considered  as  representative  for  the  whole  Union  industry  and  no 
substantiated claims stating the contrary have been submitted by interested  parties. Therefore, 
as  already  mentioned  in  recital  (66)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  all  the  injury  indicators, 
except  those  concerning  sales  volume  and  market  share,  were  established  on  the  basis  of 
information  collected  from  and  verified  at  the  premises  of  the  sampled  Union  producers.  The 
sales volume of the Union industry comprising all Union producers was a prerequisite for the 
calculation  of  Union  consumption,  and  in  turn  both  the  sales  volume  and  the  Union 
consumption were necessary for determining the market share of the Union industry. 

(91)  Another  interested  party  argued  that  the  imports  from  the  PRC  from  producers  related  to  the 
sampled  Union  producers,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (58)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  should 
have been added to the sales of the producers concerned. 

(92)  Given  that  the  products  in  question  are  only  re-sold  by  the  Union  producers  concerned,  the 
addition of these imports to their sales volume would distort the picture hence does not appear 
justified.  In  any  case,  as  already  stated  in  recitals  (62)  and  (63)  above,  the  volume  of  these 
imports  is  limited.  As  mentioned  in  the  same  recitals  above,  also  the  market  shares  would  be 
affected only to a minimal extent without altering the trends of the relating injury indicators. 

(93)  One  interested  party  mentioned  that  the  Commission  had  not  explained  why  the  sales  for 
captive  use  had  been  included  in  the  sales  figures  of  the  Union  industry.  It  claimed  that  the 
Commission should have analysed the captive market independently from the free market.  

(94) 

In this respect it is important to underline that sales for captive use were included in the Union 
industry's sales volumes and market share analysis as it was found that these sales did compete 
with imports. Indeed, the investigation had established that the quantities used for captive use, 
by the companies concerned in the Union, could in principle be substituted by purchased glass 
fibres, e.g. if market circumstances and/or financial considerations would trigger such a change. 
They  have  therefore  been  included  in  the  Union  market  analysis.  In  any  case,  should  captive 
sales be excluded from the analysis, the trends in sales would show no substantive changes. 

(95)  The  Union  industry  questioned  the  average  Union  sales  prices  of  the  Union  industry  as 
summarized  in  table  10  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  It  suspected  a  calculation  error  and 
claimed that in reality, the drop in sales prices over the period considered was more significant 
than  the  reported  2  %.  In  view  of  this  allegation,  the  calculation  of  the  average  Union  sales 
prices  of  the  sampled  Union  producers  was  reviewed.  The  calculation  was  based  on  verified 
sales prices and was found to be accurate. However, in view of the exclusion of yarns from the 
product  scope,  the  average  sales  prices  had  to  be  recalculated  by  excluding  yarns  and  the 
revised average sales prices are reported in table 11 above. 

(96)  Two  of  the  sampled  producers  questioned  some  of  the  adjustments  made  on  their  submitted 
profitability figures. The contested adjustments referred to intra-company transfers, changes in 
accounting  and  certain  extraordinary  elements  which  were  considered  by  the  Commission  to 
unnecessarily  distort  the  resulting  profit  figures.  The  adjustments  were  contested  as  the 
producers  concerned  considered  that  important  costs  were  consequently  not  shown,  although 
they  had  been  incurred  and  in  some  cases  could  even  be  linked  to  the  dumped  imports.  The 
adjustments  which  had  been  made  on  the  profitability  figures  of  the  two  companies  were 
reviewed and they were found again to be justified. This claim, therefore, had to be dismissed. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

(97) 

In the absence of any other claim or comments, and with the modifications indicated in recitals 
(55)  to  (80)  above,  the  conclusions  in  recitals  (66)  to  (86)  in  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

5.  Conclusion on injury 

(98) 

In the absence of any other claim or comments, the conclusions in recitals (87) to (89) in the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

F. 

CAUSATION 

1. 

Effect of the dumped imports 

(99)  Some  parties  reiterated  the  claim  that,  in  view  of  the  volume  and  prices  of  imports  from  the 
PRC,  there  was  no  causal  link  between  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Union  industry  and  the 
imports  concerned.  In  particular,  it  was  claimed  again  that  the  average  import  price  of  these 
imports had remained substantially stable throughout the period considered and that the Union 
industry  had  managed  to  maintain  profitability  at  levels  close  to  the  mentioned  target  profit 
during the years 2007 and 2008 when the most significant increase in Chinese import volumes 
occurred.  

(100)  A  reply  to  these  claims  was  already  contained  in  recitals  (94)  and  (95)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, which are hereby confirmed. Moreover, as already indicated in recital (107) of the 
provisional Regulation, it cannot be concluded that the causal link is broken simply on the basis 
of the development of a limited number of injury indicators looked at for a limited part of the 
period  considered;  on  the  contrary,  the  overall  development  of  all  injury  indicators  over  the 
whole  period  considered  should  be  assessed.  The  provisional  analysis had  already  shown  that 
imports of the product concerned have caused price depression on the Union market throughout 
the period considered and largely undercut the Union industry sales prices in the IP. The Union 
industry has, therefore, not been in a position to reach the necessary levels of profitability, even 
in  periods  of  relatively  strong  demand,  as  in  the  years  2007  and  2008.  The  imports  from  the 
PRC have, in addition, consistently gained market share and mostly in 2007, when the EU glass 
fibres  market  grew  significantly.  This  aggressive  strategy  of  gaining  market  shares  by 
consistently selling at prices undercutting the Union industry prices had not resulted in a serious 
deterioration of the Union industry profitability before the IP only because of the relatively high 
levels of Union consumption which mitigated the effect of the injurious dumping. However, the 
developments  during  the  IP  confirm  that  as  soon  as  the  market  conditions  deteriorated  the 
material injury caused by the dumped imports displayed all its effects. The claims mentioned in 
recital (99) above are therefore dismissed. 

2. 

Effects of other factors 

(101)  In view of the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, the import data had to be revised as 

follows: 

Table 18 

Imports from other countries 

Country 

2006 

2007 

2008 

IP 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
Norway 

Volumes(tonnes) 

34 945 

28 834 

35 396 

24 980 

Market share (%) 

3,9 % 

3,0 % 

3,8 % 

3,6 % 

Av. price/tonne (€) 

1 255 

1 412 

1 359 

1 256 

Turkey 

Volumes(tonnes) 

28 946 

24 928 

20 511 

18 523 

Market share (%) 

3,2 % 

2,6 % 

2,2 % 

2,6 % 

Av. price/tonne (€) 

1 088 

1 151 

1 202 

1 074 

USA 

Volumes(tonnes) 

16 757 

15 821 

12 145 

Market share (%) 

1,8 % 

1,7 % 

1,3 % 

8 726 

1,2 % 

Av. price/tonne (€) 

1 521 

1 421 

2 056 

2 012 

Malaysia 

Volumes(tonnes) 

9 541 

25 569 

35 118 

12 601 

Market share (%) 

1,1 % 

2,7 % 

3,7 % 

1,8 % 

Av. price/tonne (€) 

979 

1 019 

1 021 

1 025 

Taiwan 

Volumes(tonnes) 

9 043 

Market share (%) 

1,0 % 

Av. price/tonne (€) 

928 

9 919 

1,0 % 

925 

India 

Volumes(tonnes) 

4 363 

11 227 

Market share (%) 

0,5 % 

1,2 % 

8 791 

0,9 % 

928 

3 741 

0,4 % 

6 996 

1,0 % 

854 

5 353 

0,8 % 

Av. price/tonne (€) 

1 304 

1 228 

1 292 

1 230 

Rep. of Korea  Volumes(tonnes) 

6 277 

Market share (%) 

0,7 % 

4 845 

0,5 % 

13 918 

1,5 % 

Av. price/tonne (€) 

1 037 

1 109 

886 

Japan 

Volumes(tonnes) 

21 142 

Market share (%) 

2,3% 

9 498 

1,0% 

9 949 

1,1% 

5 112 

0,7 % 

999 

3 710 

0,5% 

Av. price/tonne (€) 

1 125 

1 164 

1 336 

1 580 

Mexico 

Volumes(tonnes) 

1 017 

Market share (%) 

0,1 % 

Av. price/tonne (€) 

364 

2 977 

0,3 % 

729 

1 803 

0,2 % 

1 763 

0,3 % 

977 

1 033 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Canada 

Volumes(tonnes) 

3 930 

Market share (%) 

0,4 % 

3 096 

0,3 % 

2 123 

0,2 % 

2 029 

0,3 % 

Av. price/tonne (€) 

1 047 

1 664 

1 711 

1 919 

Other 
countries 

Volumes(tonnes) 

6 787 

12 923 

Market share (%) 

0,7 % 

1,4 % 

6 899 

0,7 % 

7 092 

1,0 % 

Av. price/tonne (€) 

1 521 

1 402 

1 635 

1 586 

(102)  Apart from the import volumes from the USA and Taiwan, which went down by ca. 35 % (IP) 
as  compared  to  the  volumes  reported  in  table  17  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  imports  from 
other countries appear to be influenced only to a very moderate extent by the exclusion of yarns. 

(103)  Several  interested  parties  reiterated  the  claim  that  the  economic  crisis  rather  than  the  dumped 
imports had caused the injury to the Union industry – or, alternatively, that the economic crisis 
was  the  main  cause  of  injury  while  imports  from  the  PRC  were  at  most  only  a  second, 
additional factor. In this respect it was argued that there was a correlation between consumption 
and profitability and that the profitability only deteriorated when the demand collapsed. At the 
same time, it was argued, there would be no correlation between EU market share, sales prices 
and  profitability  of  the  Union  industry,  on  the  one  hand  and  the  EU  market  share  and  sales 
prices of Chinese imports on the other. It was also claimed that the Commission would not have 
properly  assessed  the  injurious  effects  of  the  downturn  in  EU  consumption  and  consequently 
acted in violation with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation. 

(104)  The  first  part  of  the  above  claim  has  extensively  been  dealt  with  in  recitals  (99)-(102)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation.  Indeed,  the  impact  of  the  economic  crisis  in  the  injury  has  been 
examined and it is recognized in recital (101) of the provisional Regulation that the economic 
downturn and the contraction in demand had a negative effect on the state of the Union industry 
and that, as such, it has contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. However, this 
does not diminish the damaging injurious effect of the low priced and dumped Chinese imports 
on the EU market throughout the period considered. In other words, the economic crisis during 
the IP aggravated the injury to the Union industry but imports from the PRC have by all means 
caused  the  injury  which  is  considered  to  be  material  in  the  sense  of  Article  3(6)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. This claim was therefore rejected.  

3.  Conclusion on causation 

(105)  None  of  the  arguments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  demonstrates  that  the  impact  of 
factors other than dumped imports from the PRC is such as to break the causal link between the 
dumped  imports and the  injury found. In the light of the  foregoing and in  the absence of any 
other  comments  which  had  not  yet  been  addressed,  it  is  concluded  that  the  dumped  imports 
from the PRC caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of 
the basic Regulation.  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
(106)  The conclusions on causation in the provisional Regulation, as summarized in the recitals (117) 

– (119) thereof, are hereby confirmed.  

(107)  In  view  of  parties'  comments  the  Commission  conducted  further  analysis  of  all  arguments 

G. 

UNION INTEREST 

pertaining to the Union interest.  

1. 

Interest of the Union industry 

(108)  The complainants reiterated that the imposition of anti-dumping measures was essential for the 
Union industry to continue to be viable and operate in the future, as the price erosion caused by 
dumped imports from the PRC had severely affected the sales, profitability and ability to invest 
of  the  Union  industry.  In  the  absence  of  any  further  specific  comment  on  this  point,  recitals 
(122) to (126) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Interest of unrelated importers in the Union 

(109)  In the absence of any specific comment on this point, recitals (127) and (128) of the provisional 

Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Interest of the users 

(110)  After the imposition of provisional measures, a number of users and user associations that had 

not come forward at the provisional stage made themselves known and provided comments. 

(111)  Many users reiterated general comments on some of the issues which were already analysed in 
the  provisional  Regulation,  without  providing  new  information  in  this  respect  or  additional 
evidence  substantiating  such  claims.  On  some  other  issues,  however,  new  information  was 
obtained and, subsequently, analysed. 

(112)  Several  interested  parties  argued  that  the  cooperation  obtained  from  the  users  was  not 
representative of the complexity of the sector and that most users were small to medium sized 
companies whose situation and views have been neglected in the Union interest analysis.  

(113)  In this respect it is firstly to be recalled that 13 users submitted a questionnaire reply and several 
other users submitted, in addition, comments. Moreover, several  associations acting on behalf 
of users submitted comments. Many of these interested parties also made their views known in 
a hearing. After adjusting the count in view of the exclusion of yarns from the product scope, 
the  cooperating  users  accounted  for  ca.  24  %  of  the  imports  of  the  product  concerned.  Such 
cooperation is considered representative. 

(114)  Nevertheless,  it  is  acknowledged  that  most  users  that  completed  a  users'  questionnaire  were 
rather  large  companies.  The  Commission  is  in  this  respect  dependant  on  the  cooperation 
eventually  obtained.  It  is  however  considered  that,  through  the  cooperation  obtained  from 
several associations (PlasticsEurope, EuCIA, EuPC, Plastindustrien, BPF), the concerns of the 
small and medium sized companies were indeed voiced and they have been taken into account. 

(115)  A number of users and an association contested the assessment of the Commission concerning 
the number  of people  employed in the glass fibres users industry made in  recital (130) of the 
provisional  Regulation.  In  this  respect  it  should  be  recalled  that  in  recital  (130)  of  the 

EN 

24 

   EN 

provisional Regulation the Commission estimated the total number of people working in all the 
downstream  Union  industry  of  companies  using  glass  fibre  products,  including  the 
manufacturing  of  further  downstream  products,  at  ca.  50 000 to  75 000.  The  above interested 
parties claimed that this number could reach a total of 200.000 to 250.000 people and they were 
requested  to  substantiate  these  estimations.  Although  one  association,  the  European  Boating 
Industry, did provide some back up figures concerning the boatbuilding industry, no conclusive 
evidence was submitted that would link these employment figures with the product concerned 
and the like product.  

(116)  In any event, establishing the interest of glass fibres users on such general data, which comprise 
the  totality  of  people  employed  in  all  downstream  levels  of  the  Union  industry  including 
divisions  of  multinational  companies  having  no relation  whatsoever  with glass fibre products, 
would seriously affect the credibility of the Union interest analysis.  

(117)  It should also be recalled that, as mentioned in recital (130) of the provisional Regulation, the 
Commission  also  estimated  the  number  of  employees  of  glass  fibres  using  divisions  of  those 
companies that used Chinese glass fibres during the IP, at ca. 27 000 persons. This estimate was 
based on detailed data as submitted by the users' in their questionnaire replies specifically on the 
Union  employment  of  those  divisions.  The  estimation  was  made  by  aggregating  these  figures 
and then extrapolating them to all Chinese imports of the product concerned during the IP. The 
extrapolation  was  based  on  the  cooperating  users'  share  in  the  total  Chinese  imports  of  the 
product concerned during the IP.  

(118)  Finally  in  this  respect  it  should  also  be  noted  that,  following  the  exclusion  of  yarns  from  the 
product  scope,  the  above  estimation  had  to  be  revised.  The  revision  resulted  in  an  estimated 
employment of ca. 22 000 persons. 

3.1.  Impact of duty cost on profitability of users 

(119)  Several  users  claimed  that  the  Commission,  in  recitals  (132)  –  (136)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation,  had  underestimated  the  impact  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  the 
profitability  and,  hence,  viability  of  the  European  user  industry.  They  claimed  that  the  actual 
impact was much higher and that the provisional duty level put the existence of many of these 
businesses in the Union in peril.  

(120)  In  this  respect  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  economic  assessment  made  in  the  provisional 
Regulation  was  based  on  the  economic  data  submitted  by  the  users  cooperating  in  the 
investigation. This was in fact the only verifiable information available in this respect. Though 
this assessment was criticised by a large number of users, only one of them submitted additional 
information  that  could  be  used  in  order  to  render  the  analysis  more  precise.  In  any  event,  the 
party in question is a user of yarns, therefore its submission was eventually not considered in 
the cost impact analysis. 

(121)  Additional claims were made alleging that the impact on small and medium-sized users is larger 
than that established. However, little concrete evidence has been provided in this respect in the 
absence  of  full  cooperation  of  such  users.  Indeed,  the  cooperating  users  include  some 
multinational companies on which the effect of duties is likely to be more limited. However, in 
order  to  exclude  this  distorting  impact  in  the  calculation,  at  definitive  stage  the  Commission 
established  the  average  cost  impact  only  for  the  glass  fibre  using  division  of  the  co-operating 
users, instead of the whole companies – see recital (123) below.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

(122)  Following  the  exclusion  of  yarns  from  the  product  scope,  the  assessment  made  at  the 
provisional stage had to be revised by eliminating from the analysis the companies using yarns. 
In addition, the assessment necessitated further modifications  in view of the duty levels to be 
applied (see recital (139) below). 

(123)  In view of the above revisions, the calculated impact of the duty for the user industry will be on 
average  only  around  0,5  and  up  to  2,3  percentage  points  on  the  profit  of  glass  fibre  using 
divisions  of  users.  The  impact  will  thus  be  much  smaller  than  anticipated  at  the  provisional 
stage, if  significant at  all, as  it is  unlikely that a small cost price increase as the one possibly 
caused by the preset duty rates cannot be passed on completely or at least in part.  

(124)  Indeed,  as  concerns  the  ability  to  pass  on  cost  price  increases,  information  has  been  obtained 
from the complainant on the development of the cost price of resins, another key cost for users 
and  sometimes  even  representing  a  majority  part of the  cost price of composite  end products. 
According to this submission, whereas the glass fibres sales price (cost price for users) would 
have  remained  stable  for  very  long,  the  cost  price  of  resins  would  have  doubled  in  the  same 
period. The price increase of resins would again be pronounced since the end of 2009. In spite 
of these very significant price increases, users have continued to buy this key raw material and 
to sell their end-products, remaining competitive. It is therefore likely that they have managed 
to pass on at least a part of the cost price increase to their customers. If such a very significant 
cost price increase can (partly) be passed on to customers, there is no reason why that could not 
be the case with an anti-dumping duty on glass fibres at the level of the injury elimination level. 

(125)  Some  parties  claimed  that  certain  users  including  global  groups  are  and/or  will  be  moving 
production outside the Union which can create job losses at the Union users; besides, there can 
be an impact also on the customers of users, as well as on the plastics manufacturers that also 
supply material to glass fibre users producing composite material. However, this is a potential 
consequence  of  the  imposition  of  duties  on  any  intermediate  product  and  not  just  on  glass 
fibres. Downstream users may  as well  apply  for protection  in  the  framework of  anti-dumping 
proceedings  as  it  has  already  occurred  for  glass  fibre  mesh  fabrics.  In  any  event,  any  such 
effects  as  claimed  would  now  appear  very  limited  due  to  the  duty  levels  to  be  applied  (see 
recital (139) below). 

(126)  In  view  of  the  above,  it  can  be  concluded  that  none  of  the  users  which  cooperated  in  the 
investigation and submitted economic data which could be examined by the Commission would 
risk survival, as a consequence of the cost increase caused by the proposed measures.  

3.2.  Security of supply 

(127)  Several users reiterated the claim that the security of supply on the EU market was in peril and 
that the anti-dumping measures further aggravated this situation. They substantiated their claim 
with some evidence, pointing at an inability of the EU industry to secure supply of glass fibres 
to  the  user  industry  at  the  requested  volumes  and  prices.  In  the  same  vein,  the  Commission's 
mentioning that the idle capacity in the EU was significant enough to replace the imports from 
the PRC was considered simplified and unjustified.  

(128)  The  issue  was  further  analysed.  New  information  on  production  volumes,  capacity  utilisation 
and  demand  was  also  obtained  from  the  complainant.  The  information  thus  obtained  and 
analysed  confirmed  that  there  had  indeed  been  a  bottleneck  of  supply  of  certain  products 
manufactured  by  the  Union  industry  in  the  first  half  of  2010,  due  to  the  stock  shortages 

EN 

26 

   EN 

following the recovery of the market after the economic crisis. In the meantime, however, and 
in line with the expectation in this respect mirrored in the provisional Regulation (recitals (145)-
(149)),  the  increase  in  demand  appears  to  have  stabilised  and  evidence  was  provided  that  the 
EU  suppliers  had  significantly  increased  their  immediately  available  production  during  2010. 
Further increases in Union industry production capacity were also announced for the short and 
middle-long term. In addition, proof of a significant increase in production capacity in several 
other producing countries outside the Union was also submitted. 

(129)  The  updated  production  and  production  capacity  data  for  yarns  were  less  reassuring  and  an 
independent market study also pointed at a clearly less favourable supply situation as concerns 
yarns.  However,  as  yarns  were  excluded  from  the  product  scope,  this  issue  is  of  no  further 
relevance. 

(130)  Several users also claimed that some Union producers had increased considerably the prices of 
certain  products  immediately  before  the  publication  of  the  provisional  Regulation  and  had 
started a practice of requesting increase in prices when additional quantities were requested by 
users.  It  was  also  claimed  that  some  Union  producers  were  only  willing  to  subscribe  to  short 
term contracts (less than 1 year) contrary to the previous practice. Some evidence was provided 
of this, which was seen by users as an indication of the fact that the Union industry would not 
be in a position to supply the quantities requested by the market at reasonable prices. 

(131)  In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that,  following  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures, 
some increase in prices in the Union market can be expected. It is therefore not unusual to also 
observe a certain increase in the prices made by Union producers. As concerns the short term 
contracts,  this  is  an  issue  between  buyer  and  seller  which  is  not  necessarily  linked  to  a 
temporary shortage of supply but may be explained by many other factors affecting the market. 
In  any  event,  as  already  mentioned  in  recital  (128)  above,  the  situation  with  regard  to  glass 
fibres supply appears to have normalized in the course of the year 2010. For these reasons, the 
above claims are dismissed.  

4.  Conclusion on Union interest 

(132)  On the basis of the above, the conclusions in recitals (150) – (151) of the provisional Regulation 
are  hereby  confirmed  and  it  is  definitively  concluded  that  on  balance,  no  compelling  reasons 
exist  against  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of  the  product 
concerned originating in the PRC. 

H. 

DEFINITIVE MEASURES 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

(133)  The complainant argued that the 5 % target profit, as established at the provisional stage, was 
excessively low and it reiterated the view that a level between 12 % and 15 % would be more 
justified, in view of the fact that the glass fibres industry is highly capital intensive. It argued 
that such a much higher profitability level would be necessary to generate a healthy return on 
capital  and  allow  for  new  investments.  However,  the  above  claim  was  not  convincingly 
substantiated  and  it  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  5  %  profit  margin  established  at  the 
provisional stage should be maintained. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

(134)  As  regards  the  determination  of  the  injury  elimination  level,  as  already  stated  in  recital  (71) 
above, the changes in methodology that affected the calculation of price undercutting – that is, 
(i) the exclusion of yarns and (ii) the grouping of product types and (iii) the adjustment for post-
importation costs – were also applied in the calculation of the injury elimination level. 

(135)  In  order  to  exclude  yarns  and  to  take  into  account  the  specificities  of  each  product  group 
(rovings,  chopped  strands  and  mats)  in  the  injury  analysis,  the  Commission  made  use  of  the 
detailed  financial  information  submitted  separately  by  product  type  by  the  sampled  Union 
producers.  In  this  respect,  the  separate  financial  data  of  the  main  product  groups  (rovings, 
chopped strands and mats) were used instead of the overall data which have been used in the 
provisional  calculations  and  which  included  yarns  (see  recital  (155)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation). The resulting calculation better reflects the situation on the market and takes into 
account the revised product scope as well as the specificities of the main product types to the 
extent possible. 

(136)  The  above  changes  resulted  in  a  considerable  revision  of  the  provisional  injury  elimination 

levels. 

2.  Definitive measures 

(137)  In  the  light  of  the  foregoing,  it  is  considered  that  in  accordance  with  Article  9  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  on  imports  of  the  product  concerned  should  be 
imposed. 

(138)  As  the  injury  elimination  levels  are  now  lower  than  the  dumping  margins  established,  the 

definitive measures should be based on the injury elimination level. 

(139)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  duty  rate,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  cif  Union  frontier 

price, customs duty unpaid, is as follows: 

Exporting producer 

Proposed anti-dumping duty (%) 

Changzhou New Changhai Fiberglass Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Changhai 
Composite  Materials  Holding  Co.,  Ltd.,  Tangqiao,  Yaoguan  Town, 
Changzhou City, Jiangsu 

All other companies 

7,3 

13,8 

(140)  The individual company anti-dumping duty rate specified in this Regulation was established on 
the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  it  reflects  the  situation  found 
during that investigation with respect to the company concerned. This duty rate (as opposed to 
the  country-wide  duty  applicable  to  ‘all  other  companies’)  is  thus  exclusively  applicable  to 
imports  of  products  originating  in  the  country  concerned  and  produced  by  the  company 
mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the 
operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those 
specifically  mentioned,  cannot  benefit  from  this  rate  and  shall  be  subject  to  the  duty  rate 
applicable to ‘all other companies’.  

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
(141)  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 Commission5 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 accordingly amended by updating 
the reference to the company benefiting from an individual duty rate.  

(142)  In order to ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duty, the country-wide duty level 
should  not  only  apply  to  the  non-cooperating  exporting  producers  but  also  to  those  producers 
which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP. 

3.  Definitive collection of provisional duties 

(143)  In view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found and given the level of the injury caused 
to the Union industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional 
anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the 
extent  of  the  amount  of  the  definitive  duties  imposed.  As  yarns  are  now  excluded  from  the 
product scope (see recitals (13) to (24)), the amounts provisionally secured on imports of yarns 
should  be  released.  As  the  definitive  duty  rates  are  lower  than  the  provisional  duty  rates, 
amounts provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duty should be 
released, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of chopped glass fibre strands, 
of a length of not more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings, excluding glass fibre rovings which 
are impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of more than 3 % (as determined by 
the ISO Standard 1887); and mats made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool 
currently  falling  within  CN  codes  7019  11  00,  ex  7019  12  00  and  ex  7019  31  00  (TARIC 
codes 7019 12 00 21, 7019 12 00 22, 7019 12 00 23, 7019 12 00 24, 7019 12 00 39, 7019 31 
00 29 and 7019 31 00 99) and originating in the People's Republic of China. 

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price 
before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed 
below shall be as follows:  

Company 

Anti-dumping duty (%) 

TARIC additional code 

Changzhou 
Changhai 
New 
Fiberglass  Co.,  Ltd.  and  Jiangsu 
Changhai  Composite  Materials 
Holding  Co.,  Ltd.,  Tangqiao, 
Yaoguan  Town,  Changzhou  City, 

7,3 

A983 

5 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General 
Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË. 

for  Trade,  Directorate  H,  Office  N105  04/092,  1049 

EN 

29 

   EN 

                                                 
Jiangsu 

All other companies 

13,8 

A999 

3. 

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

Article 2 

1. 

2. 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EU)  No  812/2010  on  imports  of  yarns  of  glass  fibre  filaments,  excluding  yarns 
that are impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of more than 3 % (as determined 
by  the  ISO  Standard  1887)  currently  falling  within  CN  code  ex  7019  19  10  (TARIC  codes 
7019 19 10 61, 7019 19 10 62, 7019 19 10 63, 7019 19 10 64, 7019 19 10 65, 7019 19 10 66 
and 7019 19 10 79) and originating in the People's Republic of China, shall be released. 

Amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EU)  No  812/2010  on  imports  of  chopped  glass  fibre  strands,  of  a  length  of  not 
more  than  50  mm;  glass  fibre  rovings,  excluding  glass  fibre  rovings  which  are  impregnated 
and coated and have a loss on ignition of more than 3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard 
1887); and mats made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool currently falling 
within CN codes 7019 11 00, ex 7019 12 00 and ex 7019 31 00 (TARIC codes 7019 12 00 21, 
7019 12 00 22, 7019 12 00 23, 7019 12 00 24, 7019 12 00 39, 7019 31 00 29 and 7019 31 00 
99)  and  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  shall  be  definitively  collected.  The 
amounts secured in excess of the rates of the definitive anti-dumping duties shall be released. 

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

30 

   EN