Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), metal product, originating product

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 7.7.2011 
COM(2011) 412 final 

2011/0181 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres 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  anti-dumping 
proceeding  concerning  imports  of  certain  Open  Mesh  Fabrics  of  glass  fibres 
originating in the People's Republic of China ('PRC'). 

•  General context 

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

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  138/2011  imposing  a  provisional  anti-dumping 
duty  on  imports  of  certain  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres  originating  in  the 
People's Republic of China (OJ L 43, 17.2.2011, p. 9). 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

CONSULTATION  OF 
ASSESSMENT 

INTERESTED 

PARTIES  AND 

IMPACT 

•  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. 

EN 

1 

   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  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres  originating  in  the  PRC.  The  proceeding  was 
initiated following a complaint by four Union producers ('the complainants') which represent 
more then 25% of the total Union production of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres. 

By Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties 
on imports from the PRC.  

The  attached  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  is  based  on  the  definitive  findings  on 
dumping,  injury,  causation  and  Union  interest  which  confirmed  the  provisional  findings 
regarding  imports  from  the  PRC.  In  addition,  one  additional  group  of  related  exporting 
producers  in  the  PRC  who  had  requested  individual  examination  were  investigated  and 
received  an  individual  margin  of  dumping.  Based  on  comments  of  interested  parties  to  the 
disclosure  of  the  provisional  findings,  some  revisions  were  also  made  to  the  dumping  and 
injury margins. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation in order 
to impose definitive measures on imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in 
the PRC.  

•  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: 

EN 

2 

   EN 

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 

2011/0181 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres 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(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) 

A. PROCEDURE 

Provisional measures 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  138/20112  ('the  provisional  Regulation') 
imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of 
glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC).  

The  proceeding  was  initiated  following  a  complaint  lodged  on  6  April  2010  by  St-
Gobain  Vertex  s.r.o.,  Tolnatex  Fonalfeldolgozo  es  Muszakiszovetgyarto,  Valmieras 
“Stikla  Skiedra”  AS  and  Vitrulan  Technical  Textiles  GmbH  ('the  complainants'), 
representing  a  major  proportion,  in  this  case  more  than  25%,  of  the  total  Union 
production of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres.  

As set out in recital (13) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping 
and  injury  covered  the  period  from  1  April  2009  to  31  March  2010  ('investigation 
period'  or  'IP').  The  examination  of  the  trends  relevant  for  the  assessment  of  injury 
covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investigation period ('period 
considered').  

1 
2 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 43, 17.2.2011, p. 9. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
2. 

(4) 

(5) 

Subsequent procedure 

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  were  granted  an 
opportunity to be heard.  

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
its definitive findings. In addition to the verifications mentioned in recital (11) of the 
provisional  Regulation,  further  verification  visits  were  carried  out  at  the  premises  of 
the following companies: 

Exporting producer which had requested individual examination:  

– 

Yuyao Feitian Fiberglass Co. Ltd 

and its related trader:  

– 

Yuyao Winter International Trade Co. Ltd 

Unrelated importer in the Union: 

– 

 Vimaplas Tecnicos Lda., Portugal  

(6) 

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 open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC and the 
definitive  collection  of  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  duty  ('final 
disclosure'). All parties were granted a period of time within which they could make 
representations subsequent to this final disclosure.  

(7) 

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

1. 

(8) 

(9) 

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

Product concerned 

The product concerned is, as set out in recital (14) of the provisional Regulation, open 
mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in 
width  and  weighing  more  than  35  g/m2  originating  in  the  PRC  (“the  product 
concerned”) and currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 40 00, ex 7019 51 00, ex 
7019 59 00, ex 7019 90 91 and 7019 90 99.  

After  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  a  further  analysis  showed  that  the 
product concerned cannot be classified under three of the five CN codes referred to in 
recital  (8).  Therefore  CN  codes  ex  7019  90  91,  ex  7019  90  99  and  ex  7019  40  00 
should be removed from the description of the product concerned.  

(10) 

It is also recalled that, as explained in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation, one 
Chinese  exporting  producer  requested  clarification  whether  fibreglass  discs  are 

EN 

5 

   EN 

included  in  the  product  definition.  The  Union  industry  was  of  the  opinion  that 
fibreglass discs are a downstream product with different characteristics than those of 
the  product  concerned.  However,  it  was  decided  to  collect  further  information  from 
interested parties before making a definitive conclusion on this issue.  

(11)  Further  to  the  provisional  disclosure,  evidence  was  submitted  by  the  Union  industry 
and  the  Federation  of  European  Producers  of  Abrasives  ('FEPA')  representing  the 
users of the fibreglass discs showing that there are a number of steps in the production 
process  that  have  to  be  undertaken  to  convert  glass  fibre  open  mesh  fabric  into 
fibreglass  discs.  The  physical  shape  of  the  disc  is  also  different  from  the  product 
concerned which is normally supplied in rolls (narrow or wide) and it is also normally 
intended for a different end use (reinforcement of grinding wheels). These arguments 
were shared by the Chinese exporting producer.  

(12) 

It is additionally noted that fibreglass discs  were  not produced or sold by any of the 
sampled exporting producers in the PRC or Union producers.  

(13)  One  Union  producer  of  fibreglass  discs  which  came  forward  after  the  imposition  of 
provisional  measures  argued  that  fibreglass  discs  should  not  be  excluded  from  the 
product scope. It claimed that fibreglass discs are not a downstream product but that a 
clear line between the product concerned and a downstream product should be drawn 
at the stage when open mesh rolls are coated. According to the company, the coating 
of open mesh rolls used in the construction sector is different from that of open mesh 
rolls  that  are  later  used  for  making  fibreglass  discs.  In  the  latter  case  the  rolls  are 
coated  with  phenol  resin.  In  other  words,  the  chemical  characteristics  of  open  mesh 
rolls  intended  for  making  fibreglass  discs  are  allegedly  identical  to  those  of  the 
fibreglass discs. According to the company these types of open mesh rolls cannot be 
used  in  construction  reinforcement,  which  is  the  main  application  of  the  product 
concerned. Therefore the company argued that if fibreglass discs were to be excluded 
from  the  product  scope,  open  mesh  rolls  coated  with  phenol  resin  should  also  be 
excluded.  

(14)  As explained above in recital (13) the company came forward only after the imposition 
of  provisional  measures  and  thus  did  not  provide  verifiable  data  in  support  of  its 
claims.  As  no  data  was  available  from  the  investigation  with  regard  to  the  different 
types  of  coating  used,  the  company's  claim  could  not  be  assessed  in  light  of  data 
obtained  from  the  investigation.  Moreover,  regardless  the  coating,  different  types  of 
open mesh rolls share the same basic physical characteristics and therefore open mesh 
rolls  coated  with  phenol  resin  should  not  be  excluded.  This  claim  was  therefore 
rejected. 

(15)  Based on the data gathered during the investigation and the evidence submitted by the 
exporting  producer  mentioned  in  recital  (10),  the  Union  industry  and  FEPA  in  their 
comments to the provisional disclosure, the claim to exclude fibreglass discs from the 
product  scope  is  hereby  accepted.  It  is  thus  concluded  that  fibreglass  discs  as  a 
downstream product do not share the same physical characteristics and have different 
uses  as  compared  to  open  mesh  fabrics  and  therefore  should  be  excluded  from  the 
definition  of  the  product  concerned  as  defined  in  the  provisional  Regulation. 
Fibreglass discs are therefore definitively excluded from the proceeding.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

2. 

Like product 

(16) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  regarding  the  like  product,  recital  17  of  the 
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

1. 

Market Economy Treatment (MET)  

C. DUMPING 

(17)  As  set  out  in  recitals  (18)  to  (32)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  it  was  initially 
proposed to grant MET to two companies but at a later stage of the proceeding it was 
decided to reverse this proposal after investigating allegations received concerning the 
MET status of the companies concerned which were found to be correct. 

(18)  One  exporting  producer,  to  which  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation  was  applied, 
reiterated  the  arguments  already  brought  forward  when  it  was  informed  that  the 
Commission intended to refuse MET. It argued again that the Articles of Association 
and the Joint Venture Contract received by the Commission were an old version which 
never entered into force and had therefore no impact on the findings of the company's 
MET assessment.  

(19)  As  set  out  in  recital  (28)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  these  arguments  could  not 
remove  the  doubts  on  the  authenticity  of  the  initial  documents  and  information 
provided by the exporting producer in its MET Claim form submission.  

(20)  With  regard  of  the  argument  that  the  application  of  the  Article  18  (1)  of  the  basic 
Regulation is disproportionate in this case, the Commission applies the provisions of 
this Article on a case by case basis according to the merits of each case. In the present 
proceeding the use of this Article has been considered appropriate as already indicated 
in recitals (26), (27) and (31) of the provisional Regulation, since the provision of the 
falsified documents casts doubts on all documents provided by the company.  

(21)  The  second  exporting  producer  to  which  MET  was  refused  but  IT  granted  instead, 
disputed  the  grounds  on  which  the  Commission  had  reversed  its  decision.  They 
considered  that  there  was  no  new  compelling  evidence  that  would  significantly 
undermine the original findings to justify the repeal of the initial decision for granting 
MET.  They  argued  that  the  inaccuracies  and  incompleteness  found  in  their  financial 
statements and not reported by the auditor had no material impact on the reliability of 
these accounts.  

(22)  As  set  out  in  recital  (30)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  these  arguments  could  not 
remove the doubts as to the accuracy and completeness of the figures presented in the 
financial statements.  

(23)  They also consider that the outcome of the investigation and their individual duty rate 
is unfair and disproportionate since the company has cooperated within the course of 
the  proceeding  and  is  subject  to  the  highest  duty  rate  like  the  non  cooperating 
companies  and  the  company  subject  to  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In  this 
regard it is noted that the company is subject to a duty which is the result of the usual 
methodology applied for companies granted IT.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

(24) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments  concerning  MET,  recitals  (18)  to  (32)  are 
hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Individual Examination (IE) 

(25)  As set out in recital (37) of the provisional Regulation, a non sampled group of related 
companies  requested  individual  examination  in  accordance  with  Article  17(3)  of  the 
basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadline. 

(26)  As mentioned in recital (5) above a verification visit was carried out at the premises of 
the  group  of  related  companies  and  it  was  found  that  the  companies  did  not  meet 
criterion 1, 2 and 3 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.  

(27)  With  regard  to  criterion  one,  the  two  related  companies  failed  to  provide  sufficient 
evidence  concerning  the  shareholders’  contribution  to  the  companies’  capital.  The 
shareholders  took  over  the  companies  initially  established  with  State  funds  without 
paying  any  contribution  themselves.  In  addition,  contrary  to  the  requirements  of  the 
Articles  of  Association,  no  shareholders’  meetings  were  held,  no  minutes  of  these 
meetings were provided raising doubts whether business decisions were taken by the 
shareholders without any State interference. In light of the above, it is considered that 
the  companies  could  not  demonstrate  that  their  business  decisions  are  not  made 
without significant State interference.  

(28)  With regard to criterion two, the investigation showed that the accounting records of 
two related companies were not audited in line with international accounting standards 
since  they  contained  a  number  of  accounting  shortcomings  and  errors  such  as  taxes 
booked/paid;  continuous  errors  in  dividends  payable  account;  missing  depreciation 
were found which were not mentioned in the audit reports. 

(29)  Concerning  criterion  three,  one  related  company  failed  to  provide  their  Land  Use 
Right  Agreement,  no  booking  in  their  accounts  was  found  and  no  proof  of  payment 
was provided. The second company obtained a land use right from its related company 
at no cost which is not booked in its records and thus not depreciated. 

(30) 

In view of the above it was proposed to refuse MET to the group of companies that 
requested individual examination. 

(31)  The Commission officially disclosed the results of the MET findings to the group of 
related  companies  concerned  in  the  PRC  and  to  the  complainants.  They  were  also 
given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing if 
there  were  particular  reasons  to  be  heard.  No  comments  were  received  following 
disclosure of the MET findings.  

3. 

Individual Treatment (IT) 

(32) 

(33) 

It was provisionally established that one of the sampled exporting producer group of 
companies in the PRC to which MET was denied, met all the requirements for IT.  

In  addition,  as  set  out  in  recital  (35)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  exporting 
producer to which MET was reversed, met the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic 
Regulation to be granted IT instead. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

(34)  The Union industry questioned the decision to grant IT to the company for which the 
decision  to  grant  MET  was  reversed,  claiming  that  the  incomplete  accounts  and  the 
discrepancies discredit the entire dataset of the company. However, it was found that 
the irregularities found in the accounts had no impact on the reliability of the export 
prices of the company. The claim of the Union industry was therefore rejected. 

(35) 

(36) 

In  view  of  the  above,  the  initial  conclusion  that  two  of  the  three  sampled  exporting 
producers met all requirements for IT is therefore confirmed. Recitals (33) to (36) of 
the provisional Regulation with regard to individual treatment are hereby confirmed.  

In  addition,  the  group  of  the  two  related  companies  that  requested  individual 
examination,  also  requested  IT,  should  the  investigation  establish  that  they  did  not 
meet the conditions for MET. It was found that they fulfilled the conditions of Article 
9(5) of the basic Regulation to be granted IT.  

(37)  The Union industry questioned also the decision to grant IT to the group of two related 
companies  claiming  that  as  the  companies'  data  was  proven  to  be  unreliable  for  the 
assessment of MET then this data could not be considered sufficient for granting IT. 
The  claim  of  the  Union  industry  was  rejected  as  it  was  found  that  the  irregularities 
identified  in  regard  to  the  MET  assessment  had  no  impact  on  the  eligibility  for  an 
individual duty rate and therefore IT could be granted.  

4. 

Normal value 

(a) Choice of the analogue country 

(38)  No  comments  were  received  on  the  choice  of  the  analogue  country.  Therefore,  it  is 
confirmed  that  Canada  was  an  appropriate  and  reasonable  analogue  country  in 
accordance  with  Article  2(7)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Recitals  (39)  to  (45)  of  the 
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

(b) Determination of normal value 

(39) 

It is recalled that it was considered more appropriate to construct normal value in order 
to take into account differences in quality between the like product produced and sold 
in  Canada  and  the  product  concerned  from  the  PRC.  Normal  value  was  therefore 
constructed  using  the  cost  of  manufacturing  of  the  Canadian  producer  plus  a 
reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative expenses ("SG&A") and for 
profit on the domestic market.  

(40)  The companies that were granted IT disputed the calculation of the constructed normal 
value (“NV”), and one of them particularlyquestioned whether it was constructed per 
product  type.  It  was  confirmed  that  the  NV  was  constructed  per  product  type  on  the 
basis of data obtained from the sole producer of the product concerned in the analogue 
country.  Given  the  need  for  confidentiality,  NV  was  disclosed  in  the  form  of  price 
ranges.  

(41)  Three  parties  claimed  that  the  disclosed  NV  did  not  provide  a  reasonable 
understanding  of  the  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of  which  the  dumping 
margin was determined. All companies requested more details on the construction of 
the NV including the amount of the various adjustments made to the NV in order to 
take into account the quality differences. However, having regard to the obligation to 

EN 

9 

   EN 

respect confidentiality of the data, it was considered that the companies were provided 
with all the information that could be disclosed.  

(42)  Therefore this claim was rejected. Recitals (46) to (49) of the provisional Regulation 

with regard to the determination of the normal value are hereby confirmed.  

(c) Export prices for the exporting producers granted IT 

(43)  One of the companies granted IT at the provisional stage, requested explanation of the 
calculation  of  the  packaging  costs  as  they  considered  that  the  disclosed  data  on 
packaging  did  not  show  a  consistent  correlation  to  either  the  volume  or  the  value  of 
transactions. Since this company had not claimed any packaging costs in its reply to 
the anti-dumping questionnaire, packaging cost was therefore calculated on the basis 
of information obtained from the other two sampled exporting producers.  

(44) 

In the absence of any other comments with regard to the determination of the export 
price, recital 50 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

(45)  Following disclosure of the definitive findings, the group of related companies that is 
to  be  granted  IT  claimed  that  commission  costs  should  not  have  been  taken  into 
account while calculating the various allowances deducted from the export price. The 
claim  was  accepted  and  export  price  was  adjusted  accordingly  while  the  group's 
dumping margin was revised as a result.  

(d) Comparison 

(46) 

In the absence of any comments with regard to the comparison of the normal value and 
the  export  prices  on  an  ex-works  basis,  recitals  (51)  and  (52)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

5. 

Dumping margins 

(a) For the cooperating exporting producers granted IT 

(47)  One importer of the product concerned in the Union welcomed the imposition of the 
provisional  measures  as  they  would  restore  the  import  price  to  non-injurious  levels. 
Nevertheless,  he  considered  that a  difference  of  more  than  10%  between  the  various 
duties  imposed  could  distort  the  market.  Hence,  he  requested  that  the  measures  be 
revised so that the company granted IT subject to the lower individual duty rate should 
not  benefit  from  it.  The  importer  claimed  that  the  risk  of  circumvention  from  the 
exporting  producer  with  the  lower  individual  duty  rate  was  increased.  However,  no 
additional  information  or  proof  was  provided  to  substantiate  this  claim,  it  was 
therefore disregarded.  

(48)  On  this  basis  the  definitive  dumping  margins  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF 

Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:  

Company 

Definitive  dumping 
margin 

Yuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd 

62,9% 

EN 

10 

   EN 

Grand  Composite  Co.,  Ltd  and  its  related  company 
Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co., Ltd 

Yuyao Feitian Fiberglass Co., Ltd 

(b) For all other exporting producers 

48,4% 

60,7% 

(49) 

In the absence of any comments with regard to the dumping margins recitals (53) to 
(57) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

(50)  On this basis the country-wide level of dumping is definitely established at 62,9% of 
the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid and recital (58) of the provisional Regulation 
is hereby confirmed. 

1. 

Union production  

D. INJURY 

(51) 

It  is  made  clear  that  in  recital  (59)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  the  term  'Union 
industry' refers to all Union producers. In the absence of any comments concerning the 
Union production, recital (60) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

2. 

Union consumption 

(52)  As explained in recital (9), CN codes ex 7019 90 91, ex 7019 90 99 and ex 7019 40 00 
should  be  removed  from  the  description  of  the  product  concerned.  The  exclusion  of 
these  codes  did  not  alter  the  findings  as  regards  Union  consumption,  including 
imports,  which  were  based  on  figures  contained  in  the  complaint,  supplemented  by 
verified figures obtained from cooperating companies and Eurostat figures.  

(53) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  the  Union  consumption,  recitals  (61)  to 
(63) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Imports from the country concerned  

(54) 

(55) 

In the absence of any comments concerning the volume, price and market share of the 
dumped  imports  from  the  country  concerned,  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals  (64)  to 
(66) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  concerning  price  undercutting,  the  methodology 
described  in  recitals  (67)  and  (68)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  to  establish  price 
undercutting,  including  the  quality  adjustment  is  confirmed.  However,  following  the 
individual  examination  granted  after  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures  to  one 
group  of  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC,  the  price  comparison  of  similar  product 
types was reassessed. This reassessment confirmed that the dumped imports from the 
PRC were undercutting the Union industry’s prices by 30-35% during the IP. 

4. 

Situation of the Union industry 

(56) 

In the absence of any comments regarding the situation of the Union industry, recitals 
(69) to (84) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
5. 

Conclusion on injury 

(57) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  regarding  the  conclusion  on  injury,  recitals  (85)  to 
(87) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

1. 

Effects of the dumped imports  

E. CAUSATION 

(58) 

In the absence of any comments regarding effects of the dumped imports, recitals (89) 
to (91) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

2. 

Effects of other factors 

(59) 

In the absence of any comments regarding effects of other factors, recitals (92) to (96) 
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

3. 

Conclusion on causation  

(60) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  regarding  conclusion  on  causation,  recitals  (97)  to 
(99) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

1. 

Interest of the Union industry 

F. UNION INTEREST 

(61) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comments  with  regard  to  the  interest  of  the  Union  industry, 
recitals (101) to (103) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Interest of importers 

(62) 

In  the  absence  of  comments  on  the  interest  of  importers,  it  was  concluded  that  the 
imposition of definitive measures on imports of the product concerned would not be 
against the interests of importers. 

3. 

Interest of users and consumers  

(63) 

It is recalled that at the provisional stage of the investigation no cooperation of users 
or consumers' organizations was received. Following the publication of the provisional 
Regulation,  one  users'  association  submitted  comments.  However,  the  comments 
addressed  only  the  potential  negative  impact  of  imposition  of  measures  on  the 
fibreglass discs, should they not be excluded from the product scope. As described in 
recital  (15)  it  is  considered  that  the  fibreglass  discs  should  be  excluded  from  the 
product scope. Therefore the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures will not 
have a negative impact on users of fibreglass discs.  

(64) 

In the absence of any other comments on the interest of users and consumers, it was 
concluded  that  the  imposition  of  definitive  measures  on  imports  of  the  product 
concerned would not be against their interests.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

4. 

Conclusion on Union interest 

(65)  Based on the above it was concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the 
imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of open mesh fabrics of glass 
fibres originating in the PRC.  

G. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

(66)  Further  to  the  provisional  disclosure  one  Chinese  exporting  producer  claimed  that  it 
was  not  provided  with  sufficiently  detailed  data  on  its  injury  margin  calculation  as 
data regarding the volumes, values and prices of the Union industry per product type 
were not disclosed. The company argued that since the sample consisted of four Union 
producers this information could not be considered as confidential. However, it should 
be  noted  that  some  product  types  were  sold  in  the  IP  by  a  very  limited  number  of 
Union producers. It was therefore considered prudent not to disclose prices, volumes 
and  values  of  such  transactions.  Furthermore,  revealing  the  detailed  figures  for  each 
and every product type is not considered necessary in order to provide parties with a 
sufficient  understanding  of  the  calculation  methodology  and  the  result  of  the 
calculation.  

(67)  The  same  Chinese  exporting  producer  questioned  the  target  profit  used  in  the  injury 
margin  calculation,  in  particular  the  fact  that  the  target  profit  was  identical  to  the 
Union  industry's  weighted  average  profit  during  the  IP.  It also  questioned  the  use  of 
the  data  from  the  sampled  Union  producers  when  establishing  the  target  profit  as 
opposed to data referring to the Union industry as a whole. Finally, it questioned the 
level of the target profit used compared to the one used in another recent investigation 
concerning a closely related product sector. 

(68)  As explained in recital (112) of the provisional Regulation the target profit reflects the 
average  profit  achieved  by  the  Union  industry  in  the  years  2006-2007  whereas  the 
weighted average profit in the IP was calculated based on the data of the four sampled 
companies. In addition, as explained in recital (79) of the provisional Regulation this 
profit did not take into account the extraordinary restructuring costs reported by some 
of  the  sampled  producers.  It  is  therefore  a  mere  coincidence  that  these  two  profit 
figures are identical. 

(69)  As regards the question of which data to use for the determination of the target profit, 
it should be noted that when sampling is applied, the profit level is one of the micro 
indicators of the injury analysis. Consequently the figure established for the sample is 
deemed  representative  for  the  Union  industry  as  a  whole.  In  an  investigation  where 
sampling  is  applied,  the  target  profit  used  in  the  injury  margin  calculation  is  always 
based on data collected from the sampled companies.  

(70)  Finally, regarding the reference made to the target profit used in another anti-dumping 
investigation,  it  should  be  underlined  that  the  findings  and  conclusions  of  each 
investigation are based on the data collected from the cooperating companies of each 
investigation,  for  a  specific  product  description  and  period  of  time.  Therefore  it  is 
impossible  to  draw  a  direct  link  between  the  findings  of  these  two  separate 
investigations and two different IP.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

(71)  With  regard  to  the  injury  elimination  level, as  a  result  of  the  correction  of  a  clerical 
error  in  the  calculation  of  the  provisional  injury  margin  concerning  one  exporting 
producer its margin was adjusted upward. This fact however does not affect the level 
of  the  anti-dumping  duty  of  this  company  since  the  duty  is  based  on  the  dumping 
margin.  

(72) 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  as  a  result  of  granting  IT  to  another  group  of  Chinese 
exporting  producers  as  explained  in  recital  (32),  an  individual  injury  margin  was 
calculated for them.  

(73)  As a consequence of revisions referred to in recital (71) the weighted average injury 
margin  for  the  cooperating  exporting  producers  not  included  in  the  sample  and  the 
residual injury margin for non cooperating producers were also revised.  

(74)  On this basis, the definitive injury margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union 

frontier price, duty unpaid, are:  

Company 

Definitive 
margin 

injury 

Yuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd 

Grand  Composite  Co.,  Ltd  and  its  related  company 
Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co., Ltd  

Yuayo Feitian Fiberglass Co., Ltd 

Sample  weighted  average 
exporting producers not included in the sample 

for 

the  cooperating 

Residual  margin  for  non  cooperating  exporting 
producers  and  Ningbo  Weishan  Duo  Bao  Building 
Materials Co., Ltd. 

2. 

Definitive measures 

69,1% 

77,4% 

87,6% 

72,1% 

87,6% 

(75) 

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 9(4) of 
the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect 
of imports of the product concerned at the level of the lower of the dumping and the 
injury  margins,  in  accordance  with  the  lesser  duty  rule.  Accordingly,  all  duty  rates 
should be set at the level of the dumping margins found.  

(76)  The proposed anti-dumping duties are the following:  

Company 

Injury 
elimination 
margin 

Dumping 
margin 

Anti-
dumping 
duty rate 

Yuyao Mingda Fiberglass Co., Ltd 

69,1% 

62,9% 

62,9% 

Grand  Composite  Co.,  Ltd  and  its  related 

77,4% 

48,4% 

48,4% 

EN 

14 

   EN 

company Ningbo Grand Fiberglass Co., Ltd 

Yuayo Feitian Fiberglass Co., Ltd 

87,6% 

60,7% 

60,7% 

Sample weighted average for the cooperating 
exporting  producers  not  included  in  the 
sample 

Residual  for  non  cooperating  exporting 
producers  and  Ningbo  Weishan  Duo  Bao 
Building Materials Co., Ltd 

72,1% 

57,7% 

57,7% 

87,6% 

62,9% 

62,9% 

(77)  The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were 
established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  they 
reflect  the  situation  found  during  that  investigation  with  respect  to  these  companies. 
These  duty  rates  (as  opposed  to  the  countrywide  duty  applicable  to  'all  other 
companies')  are  thus  exclusively  applicable  to  imports  of  products  originating  in  the 
People's  Republic  of  China  and  produced  by  the  companies  and  thus  by  the  specific 
legal  entities  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 
these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to 'all other companies'.  

(78)  Any claim requesting the application of an 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 Commission3 forthwith with all 
relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked 
to  production,  domestic  and  export  sales  associated  with,  for  example,  that  name 
change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the 
Regulation  will  then  be  amended  accordingly  by  updating  the  list  of  companies 
benefiting from individual duty rates.  

(79)  All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties. 
They  were  also  granted  a  period  within  which  they  could  make  representations 
subsequent  to  final  disclosure.  The  comments  submitted  by  the  parties  were  duly 
considered, and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly. 

(80)  The  group  of  two  related  companies  that  requested  individual  examination  and  was 
granted IT expressed its intention to offer an undertaking. However, the group did not 
send any offer for undertaking within the deadline set out in Article 8(2) of the basic 
Regulation and thus it could not be taken into consideration.  

(81) 

In  order  to  ensure  equal  treatment  between  any  new  exporters  and  the  cooperating 
companies  not  included  in  the  sample,  mentioned  in  the  Annex  to  this  Regulation, 
provision  should  be  made  for  the  weighted  average  duty  imposed  on  the  latter 
companies to be applied to any new exporters which would otherwise be entitled to a 

3 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Trade,  Directorate  H,  Office  N105  04/090,  1049 
Brussels, Belgium.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation as this article does not apply 
where sampling has been used.  

3. 

Definitive collection of provisional duties 

(82) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of 
the  injury  caused  to  the  Union  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the  amounts 
secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by  the  provisional 
Regulation, be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties 
imposed. As fibreglass discs are now excluded from the product scope (see recital 14), 
the  amounts  provisionally  secured  on  imports  of  fibreglass  discs  should  be  released. 
Where  the  definitive  duties  are  lower  than  the  provisional  duties,  amounts 
provisionally  secured  in  excess  of  the  definitive  rate  of  anti-dumping  duties  shall  be 
released.  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of open mesh fabrics of 
glass  fibres,  of  a  cell  size  of  more  than  1.8  mm  both  in  length  and  in  width  and 
weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, currently falling within CN 
codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 ( TARIC codes 7019 51 00 10 and 7019 59 
00 10) 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 produced by 
the companies below shall be as follows: 

Company 

Duty (%) 

TARIC 
additional code 

Yuyao  Mingda  Fiberglass  Co., 
Ltd 

Grand  Composite  Co.,  Ltd  and 
its  related  company  Ningbo 
Grand Fiberglass Co., Ltd 

Yuyao  Feitian  Fiberglass  Co., 
Ltd 

Companies listed in Annex I 

All other companies 

62,9

48,4

60,7

57,7

62,9

B006 

B007 

B122 

B008 

B999 

3. 

The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in 
paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the 
Member  States  of  a  valid  commercial  invoice,  which  shall  conform  to  the 

EN 

16 

   EN 

4. 

1. 

2. 

requirements  set  out  in  the  Annex  II.  If  no  such  invoice  is  presented,  the  duty 
applicable to all other companies shall apply. 

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

Article 2 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 on imports of fibreglass discs originating 
in the People's Republic of China shall be released.  

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics 
of  glass  fibres  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  shall  be  definitively 
collected in so far as it concerns products currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 
51 00 and ex 7019 59 00. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates of the 
anti-dumping  duty  shall  be  released,  including  amounts  which  would  have  been 
secured for products currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 40 00, ex 7019 90 91 
and ex 7019 90 99.  

Where  any  new  exporting  producer  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  provides  sufficient 
evidence to the Commission that: 

Article 3 

–  it  did  not  export  to  the  Union  the  product  described  in  Article  1(1)  during  the 

investigation period (1 April 2009 to 30 march 2010), 

–  it  is  not  related  to  any  of  the  exporters  or  producers  in  the  People's  Republic  of 

China which are subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation, 

–  it has actually exported to the Union the product concerned after the investigation 
period  on  which  the  measures  are  based,  or  it  has  entered  into  an  irrevocable 
contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union, 

the  Council,  acting  by  simple  majority  on  a  proposal  submitted  by  the  Commission  after 
consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  amend  Article  1(2)  by  adding  the  new  exporting 
producer  to  the  cooperating  companies  not  included  in  the  sample  and  thus  subject  to  the 
weighted average duty rate of 57,7%. 

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

Article 4 

EN 

17 

   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 

18 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX I 

Chinese cooperating exporting producers, 
not sampled (TARIC additional code B008) 

Jiangxi Dahua Fiberglass Group Co., Ltd 

Lanxi Jialu Fiberglass Net Industry Co., Ltd 

Cixi Oulong Fiberglass Co., Ltd 

Jiangsu Tianyu Fibre Co., Ltd 

Jia Xin Jinwei Fiber Glass Products Co., Ltd 

Jiangsu Jiuding New Material Co., Ltd 

Changshu Jiangnan Glass Fiber Co., Ltd. 

Shandong Shenghao Fiber Glass Co., Ltd 

Yuyao Yuanda Fiberglass Mesh Co., Ltd 

Ningbo Kingsun Imp & Exp Co., Ltd 

Ningbo Integrated Plasticizing Co., Ltd 

Nankang Luobian Glass Fibre Co., Ltd 

Changshu Dongyu Insulated Compound 
Materials Co., Ltd 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
ANNEX II 

A  declaration  signed  by  an  official  of  the  entity  issuing  the  commercial  invoice,  in  the 
following format, must appear on the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3): 

1. The name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice. 

2. The following declaration: 

"I,  the  undersigned,  certify  that  the  (volume)  of  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres  sold  for 
export to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name 
and registered seat) (TARIC additional code) in the People's Republic of China. I declare that 
the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct. 

Date and signature" 

EN 

20 

   EN