Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Thailand, anti-dumping legislation, import (EU), office supplies, originating product

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 7.7.2011 
COM(2011) 419 final 

2011/0182 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand 

 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This proposal concerns the application of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 
of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of 
the  European  Community,  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December 
1995  on  protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European 
Community  (‘the  basic  Regulation’)  and  in  particular  Article  9  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1225/2009. 

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  were  imposed  by  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  118/2011  of  10 
February 2011 (OJ L 37, 11.2.2011, p. 2). 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND 
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

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 

A contracted external expert was involved for the evaluation of the production process. 

Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. 

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

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

On 20 May 2010, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of 
certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand. 

The investigation found dumping of the product concerned, which caused injury to the Union 
industry. The investigation also found that it was not against the Union interest to impose anti-
dumping measures. On this basis, provisional measures were imposed.  

The continuation of the investigation has confirmed the essential provisional findings. 

Therefore,  it  is  proposed  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation  in 
order to impose definitive measures on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating 
in Thailand. 

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,  repealing  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from 
countries not members of the European Community (‘the basic Regulation’).  

Subsidiarity principle 

The  proposal  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  Union.  The  subsidiarity  principle 
therefore does not apply. 

Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons: 

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no scope 
for national decision. 

Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Union,  national 
governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is minimized and 
proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable. 

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument: Regulation. 

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

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION  

The proposal has no implication for the EU budget.

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
2011/0182 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand 

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 Community repealing 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  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  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  European  Commission  ("the  Commission") 
after having consulted the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

1. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  118/2011  of  10  February  20112  ("the 
provisional  Regulation")  imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of 
certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand. 

The  proceeding  was  initiated  as  a  result  of  a  complaint  lodged  on  6  April  2010  by 
Ring  Alliance  Ringbuchtechnik  GmbH  ('the  complainant')  on  behalf  of  producers 
representing  a  major  proportion,  in  this  case  more  than  50%  of  the  total  Union 
production of certain ring binder mechanisms ('RBM'). The complaint contained prima 
facie  evidence  of  dumping  of  the  said  product  and  of  material  injury  resulting  there 
from, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.  

It  is  recalled  that,  as  set  out  in  recital  (7)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the 
investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 
2010  ("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 
investigation period ("injury investigation period"). 

2. 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

1 
2 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 37, 11.2.2011, p. 2. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

3. 

(8) 

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of 
which  it  was  decided  to  impose  provisional  anti-dumping  measures  ("provisional 
disclosure"), several interested parties made written submissions making known their 
views  on  the  provisional  findings.  The  parties  who  so  requested,  in  particular  two 
importers and the Thai producer, were granted the opportunity to be heard.  

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its definitive findings with respect to dumping, injury, causality and Union interest. In 
addition  to  the  verifications  mentioned  in  recital  (6)  of  the  provisional Regulation, a 
further verification was carried out at the premises of Rima Benelux Holding BV, the 
only user that had cooperated in the investigation by replying to a user's 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  ring  binder  mechanisms  originating  in  Thailand  and  the 
definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were 
also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent 
to this disclosure. 

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

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  product  concerned  and  the  like 
product, recitals (8) to (11) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. 

DUMPING 

4.1. 

Normal Value 

(9) 

It is recalled that, as explained in recital (14) of the provisional Regulation, only one 
Thai  exporting  producer  cooperated  in  the  investigation  and  that  its'  exports  to  the 
Union  during  the  IP  accounted  for  all  Thai  exports  to  the  Union.  The  exporting 
producer and one cooperating unrelated importer claimed that the independent external 
expert who assisted the Commission during the on-spot visit to the exporting producer 
made  some  calculation  errors  in  his  report.  One  of  the  tasks  of  the  expert  was  to 
examine the nickel coating process and the amount of raw materials consumed by the 
exporting producer in the different production phases. As mentioned in recital (15) of 
the  provisional  Regulation,  the  investigation  revealed  that  the  exporting  producer 
provided incomplete and incorrect information with regard to significant elements of 
its cost of production and other raw materials. The allegations made by the exporting 
producer  and  an  importer  regarding  calculation  errors  in  the  expert's  report  were 
examined  by  the  Commission  and  it  was  concluded  that  they  were  not  founded. 
Therefore,  the  findings  as  set  out  in  recital  (15)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
confirmed.  

(10)  The exporting producer and an importer also contested the provisional findings as set 
out  in  recitals  (19)  to  (20)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  In  particular,  they  claimed 
that  the  methodology  used  for  the  provisional  determination  of  the  normal  value  for 
types  other  than  those  for  which  a  specific  normal  value  was  established  was  over-

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
stated,  because  it  had  been  incorrectly  based  on  an  arithmetic  average  of  the  normal 
values. The Commission accepted the claim, adjusted the methodology and revised the 
calculation  of  the  normal  values  for  these  other  types  taking  account  of  the  product 
mix of the Thai producer, which more accurately reflects his situation. 

(11)  The  exporting  producer  further  argued  that  the  rates  used  for  selling,  general  and 
administrative expenses (SGA) and profit margins of respectively 16% and 8% were 
too high. The exporting producer argued that the SGA rate should not exceed 12.59%, 
reflecting its own SGA excluding inland freight costs. 

(12) 

It is recalled that as outlined in recitals (15) to (17) of the provisional Regulation the 
exporting producer did not cooperate with the investigation and consequently did not 
provide  data  about  its  full  SGA  costs.  Under  these  circumstances  and  given  the  fact 
that  no  further  information  was  provided  on  the  company's  full  SGA  costs,  it  was 
decided to continue to rely on the information available in the complaint. Furthermore, 
in the light of the information available and insofar as it could be verified, a SGA rate 
of 16% was considered to be reasonable. Therefore, the claim was rejected.  

(13)  The  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  profit  level  of  8%  used  in  the  provisional 
calculation was too high and instead, a profit level of 5% should have been used. The 
arguments put forward were, firstly, a profit level of 5% has been used for the target 
profit in the injury analysis and, secondly, a profit level of 5% would be in line with 
previous  investigations  on  the  same  product.  On  the  first  argument,  the  Commission 
noted  that  the  determination  of  a  target  profit  for  the  Union  industry  and  the  profit 
level  used  for  the  determination  of  a  normal  value  do  not  follow  the  same  logic  and 
therefore,  do  not  have  to  be  the  same.  On  the  second  argument,  the  Commission 
agreed  that  there  were  some  grounds  for  using  the  same  profit  level  as  in  previous 
investigations on the same product and decided to accept this claim and to change the 
profit level used in the calculation of the normal values accordingly. 

(14)  Further  to  final  disclosure,  the  Union  industry  and  the  exporting  producer  submitted 
some comments. The Union industry disagreed with the correction made regarding the 
profit  margin  arguing  that  a  profit  rate  of  5%  would  not  be  sufficient  to  cover  the 
profitability  requirements  of  the  three  related  companies  involved  in  the  production 
and  sales  of  the  product  concerned,  but  without  providing  any  other  substantial 
arguments. Therefore, the claim was rejected. 

(15)  The exporting producer claimed that the cost for depreciation, building and insurance 
used in the calculation of the normal value of one  type was  not the same  as the  one 
used  for  the  other  types  and  the  same  figure  should  apply  to  all  types.  The 
Commission verified the claim and indeed found an error in the calculation. However, 
contrary  to  the  exporting  producer's  claim  the  error  was  found  to  be  made  in  the 
calculation of the normal value of the other types. A correction to the normal value for 
the other types was made accordingly. 

(16)  The exporting producer also claimed that the normal values for types other than those 
for which a specific normal value was established did not take fully into account the 
actual product mix of the exporting producer. In this respect, the exporting producer 
reiterated his claim that a weighted average of the normal values found should be used 
for the other types, thus reflecting the actual product mix of the exporting producer. As 
mentioned in recital (10) above, the Commission agreed to revise the calculation of the 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
normal values for these other types in order to take into account of the actual product 
mix of the Thai producer and, irrespective of the actual sales volumes for each type, a 
normal  value  for  small,  medium  and  large  RBM  was  calculated.  However,  the 
Commission  rejected  the  argument  that  in  addition  a  weighting  factor  based  on  the 
exporter's  sales  to  the  EU  should  be  taken  into  consideration  in  the  absence  of 
substantiated reasons. 

(17) 

In  addition,  the  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  Commission's  method  of 
calculating NV on the basis of the length of the ring binder mechanisms was imprecise 
and incomplete and proposed a new method for the calculation of the averages which 
would take into account their various lengths more accurately. As explained in recital 
(16)  above  the  Commission  calculated  a  normal  value  for  types  other  than  those  for 
which a specific normal value was established and calculated normal values reflecting 
small, medium and large RBM. The exporter's calculation was found to be flawed and 
result-oriented. Therefore, the claim was rejected.  

(18)  Apart from the changes mentioned above and in the absence of any other comments, 
the  content  of  recitals  (15)  to  (20)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  concerning  the 
establishing of the normal value is hereby definitively confirmed. 

4.2. 

Export price and comparison 

(19)  The  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  currency  used  for  the  computation  of 
transport  costs in the dumping  calculation was not  the correct one.  The  Commission 
accepted this claim. 

(20) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  the  content  of  recitals  (21)  to  (24)  of  the 
provisional Regulation concerning the establishing of export prices and comparing the 
export prices with the respective normal value is hereby definitively confirmed. 

4.3. 

Dumping margin 

(21)  The  exporting  producer  claimed  that  the  calculation  of  the  dumping  margin  did  not 
take into account the specific normal value for two types. The claim was accepted and 
corrected accordingly. 

(22) 

In the light of the above mentioned changes in the calculation of the normal value and 
the  comparison,  and  after  correction  of  the  calculation  error  regarding  export  price 
mentioned  above,  the  amount  of  dumping  finally  determined,  expressed  as  a 
percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is as follows: 

Exporting producer 

Thai  Stationery 
Bangkok, Thailand 

Dumping margin 

Industry  Co.  Ltd., 

16,3 % 

(23)  Since the cooperating exporting producer accounted for all Thai exports to the Union 
of the product concerned, it was considered that the residual dumping margin should 
be set at the level of dumping margin found for this cooperating exporting producer, 
i.e. 16,3%. 

5. 

DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(24) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the definition of the Union Industry, the 
findings  set  out  in  recitals  (28)  to  (32)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

6. 

INJURY 

6.1. 

Union consumption and imports from Thailand 

(25)  The Thai producer and several importers questioned the trends in Union consumption 
established  in  the  provisional  Regulation.  In  particular,  they  argued  that  the 
consumption decreased to a higher extent than what was provisionally established (by 
around 30%). They also asked for clarifications concerning the methodology followed 
by  the  Commission  to  establish  consumption,  because  the  RBM  is  included  in  a 
customs tariff heading including other products.  

(26) 

It  should  be  mentioned  that  although  these  interested  parties  contested  the  findings 
related to the consumption, no supporting evidence or figures have been provided to 
substantiate their arguments. They also did not point to any methodological flaw. 

(27)  As to the methodology, it should be recalled that, as mentioned in recital (33) of the 
provisional  Regulation,  the  consumption  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  verified 
sales figures provided in the questionnaire's reply of the co-operating parties (the two 
Union  producers  and  the  Thai  exporter  for  the  periods  2008-IP)  and  on  the  basis  of 
Eurostat  figures  for  the  rest  of  the  imports.  Given  that  RBM  from  other  sources  are 
subject to anti-dumping measures, imports (from all sources) are registered under sub-
headings codes in the customs tariff database (TARIC) which are very largely specific 
to  the  product  under  investigation.  These  sub-headings  were  used  in  order  to  ensure 
that only imports of the product concerned were considered, despite a minor update of 
the product definition in this investigation.  

(28)  Furthermore,  given  that  Eurostat  figures  are  expressed  in  kilograms,  while  the 
consumption has been calculated in pieces, one importer requested clarifications as to 
the methodology used to covert kilograms into pieces. It should thus be clarified that a 
conversion  factor  of  50  gram/piece  has  been  used,  which  is  in  line  with  previous 
investigations  and  was  found  to  be  reasonable,  when  compared  to  the  information 
provided  by  the  Thai  exporting  producer.  It  should  be  also  added  that,  if  the 
Commission  had  used  exactly  the  average  weight  per  piece  resulting  from  the 
information  provided  by  the  Thai  exporting  producer,  the  imports  from  Thailand 
would have shown during the overall injury investigation period a steeper increase in 
terms  of  both  absolute  volume  (by  25%,  as  compared  to  19%  established  in  the 
provisional  Regulation)  and  market  shares  (from  11.8%  to  15.5%,  as  compared  to 
12.0% to 15.0% established in the provisional Regulation). 

(29)  One importer also claimed that the Thai imports actually decreased by 40% during the 
injury  investigation  period,  but  this  was  based  on  the  import  value  –  and  not  on  the 
volume – for the totality of the customs code, thus including products other than those 
under investigation. This claim had to be rejected.  

(30) 

In view of the above, the findings in recitals (33) to (40) of the provisional Regulation 
concerning the Union consumption (which decreased by more than 15% between 2008 
and the IP) and the imports from Thailand, are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
6.2. 

Economic situation of the Union industry 

(31)  One importer submitted that the injury analysis was biased because the poor financial 
situation of the Union Industry should be seen in conjunction with the situation of one 
of its related companies, which is allegedly making profits in the RBM's business. In 
this respect it is noted that the injury analysis should only focus on the Union Industry' 
sales on the Union market of the product concerned produced in the Union. Since, as 
mentioned  in  recitals  (69)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  related  company  in 
question is not a producer in the Union and is mostly trading products not originating 
in  the  EU,  it  should  not  be  taken  into  consideration  for  the  purpose  of  the  injury 
analysis.  

(32)  Without  prejudice  to  the  above,  it  is  nevertheless  underlined  that  the  importer  has 
provided no information showing that the above-mentioned related company would be 
in  a  good  financial  situation.  To  the  contrary,  the  figures  obtained  during  the 
investigation show that also this company decreased significantly its sales volume of 
RBM during the investigation period. 

(33)  Account  taken  of  the  above  and  in  the  absence  of  other  comments  in  respect  to  the 
injury  analysis,  the  recitals  (41)  to  (57)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed,  and  it  is  concluded  that  the  Union  Industry  has  suffered  material  injury 
within the meaning of Article 3 (5) of the basic Regulation.  

7. 

CAUSATION 

7.1. 

Effects of the dumped imports  

(34)  Even  though  some  interested  parties  contested  the  provisional  findings  regarding  the 
effect of other factors (see below), none of them contested the provisional conclusion 
that dumped imports from Thailand caused injury to the Union Industry. The recitals 
(58) to (64) of the provisional Regulation are thus hereby confirmed. 

7.2. 

Effects of other factors  

(35)  Some  interested  parties  contested  the  provisional  findings  concerning  the  effect  of 
other  factors,  and  submitted  that  alternately  contraction  in  demand,  competition 
between EU producers, imports from India and self-inflicted injury would be the main 
cause of injury. 

(36)  Concerning the contraction in demand, reference is made to recitals (25) to (30) above 
which confirm the trend of the consumption established in the provisional Regulation. 
The allegations that the effects of the contraction in demand have been underestimated 
should therefore be rejected. Nevertheless, it should be recalled that the recital (67) of 
the  provisional  Regulation  concluded  that  the  decrease  in  consumption  indeed  might 
have  contributed  to  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the  Union  industry,  although  this 
effect  was  considerably  reinforced  by  the  effect  caused  by  the  dumped  imports. 
However, the effect of the decrease in consumption was not such as to break the causal 
link between the dumped imports and the injury found.  

(37) 

It was also argued by the Thai exporter that the injury suffered by the Union Industry 
was  also  caused  by  the  competition  between  the  Union  producers.  This  is  mainly 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(38) 

because the loss of the Union industry's market share coincided with the market share 
increase of the other EU producer.  

In this respect, even if the calculations presented by the Thai exporter are not entirely 
correct, it is true that overall the market share of the second  producer  also increased 
during the injury investigation period. It should however be recalled that, as mentioned 
in  the  recital  (30)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  this  producer  is  importing  a 
significant quantity of RBM from Thailand. Interestingly, the year when this producer 
managed  to  increase  its  sales  of  EU  made  products  and  market  shares  it  also 
significantly  increased  its  sales  of  RBM  from  Thailand.  Actually,  it  even  became  a 
significant  importer  of  Thai  RBM,  by  purchasing  a  major  part  of  the  Thai  exports 
during that year. Therefore, even if indeed the second EU producer managed to take 
over some market shares from the EU industry, it is difficult not to conclude that this 
company  managed  to  do  this  because  it  also  benefited  from  the  dumped  imports  of 
RBM from Thailand. It is recalled that this producer was excluded from the definition 
of  the  Union  industry  because  of  his  important  import  activities  as  compared  to  his 
own production. 

(39)  Furthermore, the claim already addressed in recital (69) of the provisional Regulation 
that  Indian  imports  also  caused  injury  to  the  Union  Industry  was  reiterated  by 
interested parties. This was based on the fact that India holds around 50% share of the 
EU  market,  i.e.  three  times  more  than  Thailand,  and  that  the  corresponding  average 
prices decreased by 3% between 2009 and IP, while undercutting EU prices by 24%. It 
was also underlined that a significant portion of the Indian imports was purchased by a 
company related to the Union Industry. 

(40)  No new arguments were however given in this respect and these claims were already 
addressed in the provisional Regulation. Even if the absolute level of Indian imports 
was  indeed  overall  higher  than  that  of  Thailand,  it  was  shown  in  the  provisional 
Regulation  that  these  imports  developed  differently:  while  Thai  imports  increased 
overall  during  the  injury  investigation  period,  both  in  absolute  and  relative  terms, 
Indian imports decreased (by almost 10%) and market shares also slightly diminished. 
In addition, the Indian average price level was also higher than the Thai import price. 
Furthermore, even if a company related to the Union Industry is importing RBM from 
India,  the  investigation  established  that  the  level  of  these  imports  has  significantly 
decreased over the years as mentioned above in recital (32). 

(41)  Finally, several interested parties also claimed that the complainant lost its customers 
because  it  became  active  on  the  downstream  market  via  its  mother  company,  Ring 
International  Holding  (RIH),  and  that  sales  of  RBM  to  related  companies  should  be 
considered  carefully  because  they  would  not  be  made  at  arm's  length.  These  claims 
have however been rejected because they were not substantiated and the investigation 
showed that sales to related companies were negligible as compared to total sales. 

7.3. 

Conclusion on causation 

(42)  Based on the above, the provisional conclusions laid down in recitals (65) to (76) of 
the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby  confirmed.  Even  if  factors  other  than  imports 
also  had  some  impact  on  the  situation  of  the  Union  Industry,  it  is  concluded  that 
dumped  imports  from  Thailand  have  caused  material  injury  to  the  Union  industry, 
within the meaning of Article 3 (6) of the Basic regulation, based on an analysis which 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
has  properly  distinguished  and  separated  the  effects  of  all  known  factors  from  the 
injurious effects of the dumped imports. 

8. 

UNION INTEREST 

(43)  Two  of  the  five  importers  that  cooperated  during  the  investigation  reacted  to  the 
disclosure  of  the  provisional  findings  and  submitted  comments  in  writing.  One  of 
these  importers  requested  to  be  heard  as  well  as  another  importer.  The  Commission 
also decided to carry out a visit at the premises of the sole user that participated to the 
investigation. 

(44)  No  comments  were  made  with  respect  to  the  recitals  (79)  to  (90)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation  concerning  the  description  of  the  market  and  the  section  related  to  the 
interest of the Union Industry. 

8.1. 

Importers and traders 

(45) 

It  is  firstly  recalled  that  in  the  provisional  Regulation  it  was  concluded  that  the 
imposition of measures could only have a significant negative impact on the situation 
of one importer, which also produces RBM in the EU. This importer did not react to 
the imposition of the provisional measures. 

(46)  One  other  importer,  which  also  requested  a  hearing  chaired  by  the  Hearing  Officer, 
mainly questioned the calculation of the dumping margin, the injury analysis and the 
calculation  of  the  EU  consumption.  It  did  however  not  raise  any  new  comment 
regarding the Union interest analysis.  

(47)  A  third  importer,  representing  20%  of  the  overall  Thai  imports,  requested  a  hearing 
during which it was explained that, contrary to the information submitted previously 
during  the  investigation,  it  did  not  cease  all  its  activities  related  to  RBM  –  as 
mentioned in recital (92) of the provisional  Regulation – but  has transferred  them to 
another  office.  During  the  hearing,  this  importer  explained  that  its  RBM-business  is 
only  complementary  to  its  core  one  covering  other  products  and  did  not  exclude 
importing  RBM  from  Thailand  even  if  measures  are  imposed.  However,  because  of 
the overhead costs of its large distribution network, this will depend on the level of the 
anti-dumping  duties  and  on  the  possibility  to  increase  the  price  to  customers. 
Alternatively,  this  importer  would  not  suffer  significant  negative  consequences  from 
stopping the RBM-business given the minor importance of this activity as compared to 
its overall business. 

8.2. 

Users 

(48)  As mentioned in recital (5) above, the questionnaire reply of the only cooperating user 
was  verified  during  the  visit  at  its  premises  after  the  imposition  of  the  provisional 
measures. This user is purchasing from a variety of sources, including the EU, India 
and Thailand. It also used to import from China but changed its source of supply since 
the imposition of anti-dumping duties. 

(49)  Thai imports represent around 10% of its total purchases of RBM, and the company 
decided not to import Thai products since the imposition of the provisional measures. 
Even if  so far the measures did not seem to have  significantly  affected its economic 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
situation,  this  company  nevertheless  deplored  the  limitation  of  its  sources  of  supply, 
and especially the fact that now it cannot rely always on short-term delivery of RBM. 

(50) 

Interested  parties  reiterated  their  claim,  already  addressed  in  the  provisional 
Regulation, that the imposition of measures would lead to limited sources of supply on 
the EU market. It is thus worth restating that indeed the investigation showed that the 
Union market is characterised by a limited number of players: there is one producer in 
India, one in Thailand, two in the EU and some in China. The purpose of anti-dumping 
measures is to restore fair competition on the EU market and not to prevent imports. 
This may indeed result in a reduction of the level of imports, while measures offset the 
trade  distorting  nature  of  these  imports.  This  is  however,  as  such,  not  a  sufficient 
reason to question the imposition of measures against dumped imports. It could even 
be argued that fair competition should be guaranteed on the EU market to ensure the 
continued existence of all sources of supply in the long term. 

(51) 

It  is  expected  that  with  a  level  of  the  definitive  duty,  which  is  lower  than  the 
provisional one, Thai imports could still enter the EU market, while the investigation 
has shown that there are also other sources of supply, even if in limited number. 

8.3. 

Conclusion on the Union interest 

(52) 

In the light of the above, and in the absence  of  any  other  comments,  recitals  (77)  to 
(110)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby confirmed  and  it  is  concluded  that 
overall, based on the information available concerning the Union Interest, there are no 
compelling  reasons  against  the  imposition  of  definitive  measures  against  imports  of 
RBM originating in Thailand. 

9. 

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

9.1. 

Injury elimination level 

(53) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  as  to  the  injury  elimination  level,  recitals  (111)  to 
(114) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

9.2. 

Definitive measures 

(54)  With  respect  to  the  amount  of  duty  necessary  to  remove  the  effects  of  the  injurious 
dumping, it has been commented that the anti-dumping duty should be reduced to 6%, 
since allegedly Indian imports are not dumped and are 6% higher than Thai imports. In 
this respect, it is noted that the purpose of anti-dumping duties is not to align prices to 
those of other sources but to eliminate the distorting effects of injurious dumping. 

(55) 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  injury,  causation  and 
Union  interest,  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9  (4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the  lowest  of  the 
dumping  and  injury  margins  found,  in  accordance  with  the  lesser  duty  rule.  In  this 
case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the dumping found. This 
was calculated at 16,3% having fallen significantly since the provisional stage. 

(56)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  for  the 

cooperating exporter is 16,3%. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
10. 

DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY 

(57) 

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  duty 
definitively  imposed  by  this  Regulation.  Since  the  definitive  duty  is  lower  than  the 
provisional  duty,  the  amounts  secured  in  excess  of  the  definitive  duty  rate  shall  be 
released,  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on certain ring binder mechanisms, 
currently falling within CN code ex 8305 10 00 (TARIC codes 8305 10 00 11, 8305 10 00 13, 
8305 10 00 19, 8305 10 00 21, 8305 10 00 23, 8305 10 00 29, 8305 10 00 34, 8305 10 00 35 
and 8305 10 00 36) originating in Thailand. For the purpose of this Regulation, ring binder 
mechanisms  shall  consist  of  at  least  two  steel  sheets  or  wires  with  at  least  four  half-rings 
made of steel wire fixed on them and which are kept together by a steel cover. They can be 
opened  either  by  pulling  the  half  rings  or  with  a  small  steel  trigger  mechanism  fixed  to  the 
ring binder mechanism. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-  Union-

2. 
frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 shall be 16.3%. 

Unless  otherwise  specified,  the  provisions  in  force  concerning  customs  duties 

3. 
shall apply. 

Article 2 

Amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EU) 
No 118/2011 on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms, currently falling within CN code 
ex 8305 10 00 (TARIC codes 8305 10 00 11, 8305 10 00 13, 8305 10 00 19, 8305 10 00 21, 
8305 10 00 23, 8305 10 00 29, 8305 10 00 34, 8305 10 00 35 and 8305 10 00 36) originating 
in Thailand shall be definitively collected at the rate of the definitive duty imposed pursuant 
to  Article  1.  The  amounts  secured  in  excess  of  the  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty 
shall be released.  

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

Article 3 

EN 

13 

   EN 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

14 

   EN