Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not
Date: 2012-06-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Malaysia, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping measure, glass fibre, import (EU), metal product, originating product

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 20.6.2012  
COM(2012) 331 final 

2012/0160 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION  

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres 
originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of 
glass fibres consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not

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 investigation of possible circumvention 
of  the  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  by  Council  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's 
Republic of China ('the PRC') by imports consigned from Malaysia. 

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 and in particular Article 13 thereof. 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

The measures currently in force were imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 
791/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of open mesh fabrics of glass 
fibres originating in the People's Republic of China. 

Consistency with the 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 

There was no need for external expertise. 

Impact assessment 

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

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

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

On  10  November  2011  the  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  1135/2011,  initiated  an 
investigation  concerning  the  possible  circumvention  of  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  by 
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics 
of glass fibres originating in the PRC by imports consigned from Malaysia, whether declared 
as originating in Malaysia or not.  

The  Commission  has  received  a  request  pursuant  to  Articles  13(3)  and  14(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation which contained sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures 
on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres were being circumvented by means of 
transhipment via Malaysia. 

The request was lodged on 27 September 2011 by Saint Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o., Tolnatext 
Fonalfeldolgozo  es  Muszakiszovet-gyarto  Bt.,  Valmieras  "Stikla  Skiedra"  AS  and  Vitrulan 
Technical Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres. 

The attached proposal for a Council Implementing Regulation is based on the findings of the 
investigation,  which  has  confirmed  that  transhipment  of  certain  Chinese-origin  open  mesh 
fabrics  of  glass  fibres  was  taking  place  via  Malaysia  and  that  all  other  criteria  for  the 
establishment of circumvention as set out in Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation are met.  

It is therefore proposed to extend the anti-dumping measures in force on certain open mesh 
fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC to imports of the same product consigned from 
Malaysia.  The  duty  corresponds  to  the  country-wide  duty  on  imports  of  certain  open  mesh 
fabrics  of  glass  fibres  from  the  PRC  (62,9%).  The  duty  shall  be  levied  from  the  date  of 
initiation of the investigation. 

Three  cooperating  producers  in  Malaysia  requested  exemption  from  the  possible  extended 
measures. For these three companies which did not fully cooperate and who were found to be 
engaged in circumvention practises, it is proposed to deny exemptions.  

The relevant Council Regulation should be published in the Official Journal of the European 
Union no later than 9 August 2012. 

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 and in particular Article 13 
thereof.  

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:  

EN 

3 

   EN 

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

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

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Regulation. 

Other  means  would  not  be  adequate  for  the  following  reason:  The  above-mentioned  basic 
Regulation does not provide for alternative options. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION  

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
2012/0160 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION  

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres 
originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of 
glass fibres consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not 

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 13 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

Whereas: 

1. 

PROCEDURE 

1.1. 

Existing measures 

(1) 

By Regulation (EU) No 791/20112, (‘the original Regulation’), the Council imposed a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  of  62,9%  on  imports  of  certain  open  mesh  fabrics  of 
glass  fibres  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  (‘the  PRC’)  for  all  other 
companies  than  the  ones  mentioned  in  Article  1(2)  and  Annex  1  of  that  Regulation. 
These  measures  will  hereinafter  be  referred  to  as  'the  measures  in  force'  and  the 
investigation  that  led  to  the  measures  imposed  by  the  original  Regulation  will  be 
hereinafter referred to as 'the original investigation'. 

1.2. 

Request 

(2) 

On  27  September  2011,  the  European  Commission  (‘the  Commission’)  received  a 
request pursuant to Article 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the 
possible  circumvention  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  on  imports  of  certain 
open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres  originating  in  the  PRC  and  to  make  imports  of 
certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia, whether declared 
as originating in Malaysia or not, subject to registration. 

1 
2 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 204, 9.8.2011, p. 1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

The request was lodged by Saint-Gobain Adfors CZ s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozo 
es  Muszakiszovet-gyarto  Bt.,  Valmieras  "Stikla  Skiedra"  AS  and  Vitrulan  Technical 
Textiles GmbH, four Union producers of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres. 

The request contained sufficient prima facie evidence that following the imposition of 
the  measures  in  force,  a  significant  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  involving  exports 
from  the  PRC  and  Malaysia  to  the  Union  occurred,  for  which  there  was  insufficient 
due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the measures in force. 
This change in the pattern of trade stemmed allegedly from the transhipment of certain 
open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC via Malaysia. 

Furthermore, the evidence pointed to the fact that the remedial effects of the measures 
in  force  were  being  undermined  both  in  terms  of  quantity  and  price.  The  evidence 
showed  that  these  increased  imports  from  Malaysia  were  made  at  prices  below  the 
non-injurious price established in the original investigation. 

Finally,  there  was  evidence  that  prices  of  certain  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres 
consigned from Malaysia were dumped in relation to the normal value established for 
the like product during the original investigation. 

1.3. 

Initiation 

(7) 

Having  determined,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  that  sufficient  prima 
facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 13(3) 
and  14(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission,  initiated  an  investigation  by 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1135/20113 (‘the initiating Regulation’). Pursuant to 
Articles  13(3)  and  14(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission,  by  the  initiating 
Regulation,  also  directed  the  customs  authorities  to  register  imports  of  certain  open 
mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Malaysia. 

1.4. 

Investigation 

(8) 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  authorities  of  the  PRC  and  Malaysia,  the 
exporting  producers  in  those  countries,  the  importers  in  the  Union  known  to  be 
concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation. Questionnaires 
were  sent  to  the  producers/exporters  in  the  PRC  and  Malaysia  known  to  the 
Commission  or  which  made  themselves  known  within  the  deadlines  specified  in 
recital 14 of the initiating Regulation. Questionnaires were also sent to importers in the 
Union.  Interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in 
writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the initiating Regulation. 

(9) 

Three  exporting  producers  in  Malaysia,  and  three  unrelated  importers  in  the  Union 
made themselves known and submitted replies to the questionnaires. 

(10)  The  following  exporting  producers  submitted  replies  to  the  questionnaires  and 

verification visits were subsequently carried out at their premises. 

3 

OJ L 292, 10.11.2011, p. 4. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Exporting producers in Malaysia: 

– 

– 

– 

GFTex Fiberglass Manufacturer Sdn Bhd, Selangor, 

Gold Fiberglass Sdn. Bhd, Selangor, and 

GRI Fiberglass Industries, Selangor. 

1.5. 

Investigation Period 

(11)  The  investigation  period  covered  the  period  from  1  January  2008  to  30  September 
2011  (‘the  IP’).  Data  were  collected  for  the  IP  to  investigate,  inter  alia,  the  alleged 
change  in  the  pattern  of  trade.  More  detailed  data  were  collected  for  the  reporting 
period  1  October  2010  to  30  September  2011  (‘the  RP’)  in  order  to  examine  the 
possible undermining of the remedial effect of the measures in force and existence of 
dumping. 

2. 

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

2.1. 

General considerations 

(12) 

In  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  assessment  of  the 
existence of circumvention was made by analysing successively whether there was a 
change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  between  the  PRC,  Malaysia  and  the  Union;  if  this 
change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due 
cause  or  economic  justification  other  than  the  imposition  of  the  duty;  if  there  was 
evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in 
terms  of  the  prices  and/or  quantities  of  the  like  product;  and  whether  there  was 
evidence  of  dumping  in  relation  to  the  normal  values  previously  established  for  the 
like product, if necessary  in  accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic 
Regulation. 

2.2. 

Product concerned and the product under investigation 

(13)  The product concerned is as defined in the original investigation: 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,  originating  in  the  People's 
Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 51 00, and ex 7019 59 
00. 

(14)  The product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but 
consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not. 

(15)  The  investigation  showed  that  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres,  as  defined  above, 
exported from the PRC to the Union and those consigned from Malaysia to the Union 
have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and have the same uses, and 
are therefore to be considered as like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of 
the basic Regulation 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
2.3. 

Degree of cooperation and determination of the trade volumes  

Malaysia 

(16)  As  stated  in  recital  (10),  three  exporting  producers  in  Malaysia  submitted 

questionnaire replies.  

(17)  On the spot verification visits were subsequently carried out to these three exporting 

producers.  

(18)  The  three  Malaysian  exporting  producers  covered  75%  of  the  total  exports  of  the 
product  under  investigation  from  Malaysia  to  the  Union  in  the  RP  as  reported  in 
COMEXT4.The overall export volumes were based on COMEXT. 

(19)  One  of  the  three  Malaysian  exporting  producers,  following  the  first  day  of  the 
verification visit, ceased cooperation therefore Article 18 of the basic Regulation was 
applied. 

(20)  For the other two companies the application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation 
was also found to be warranted for the reasons explained in recitals (34) and (52) to 
(59) below. 

People's Republic of China 

(21)  There was no cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers. Therefore, findings 
in  respect  of  imports  of  certain  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres  from  PRC  into  the 
Union and exports of the product concerned from the PRC to Malaysia had to be made 
partially on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic 
Regulation.  COMEXT  data  was  used  to  determine  overall  import  volumes  from  the 
PRC  to  the  Union.  Chinese  and  Malaysian  national  statistics  were  used  for  the 
determination of the overall exports from the PRC to Malaysia. Data were also cross-
checked  with  detailed  import  and  export  data  that  were  provided  by  the  customs 
authorities of Malaysia.  

(22)  The  import  volume  recorded  in  Malaysian  and  Chinese  statistics  covered  a  larger 
product  group  than  the  product  concerned  or  the  product  under  investigation. 
However,  in  view  of  COMEXT  data  and  the  data  provided  by  the  three  Malaysian 
exporting  producers,  it  could  be  established  that  a  significant  part  of  this  import 
volume  covered  the  product  concerned.  Accordingly,  these  data  could  be  used  to 
establish a change in the pattern of trade.  

2.4. 

Change in the pattern of trade 

Imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres into the Union 

(23) 

Imports  of  the  product  concerned  from  the  PRC  to  the  Union  dropped  dramatically 
subsequent to the imposition of the provisional measures in February 20115]and of the 
definitive measures in August 2011 (the original Regulation). 

4 
5 

COMEXT is a database on Foreign Trade Statistics managed by EUROSTAT. 
OJ L 43, 17.2.2011, p. 9. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(24)  On the other hand, total exports of the product under investigation from Malaysia to 
the Union increased significantly in 2011. Based on COMEXT, exports from Malaysia 
to the Union increased sharply in the last year whereas they were at insignificant levels 
in  previous  years.  The  trend  is  also  confirmed  by  the  corresponding  Malaysian 
statistics with regard to exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to the Union from 
Malaysia.  

(25)  Table 1 shows import quantities of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the 
PRC and Malaysia into the Union from 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2011. 

Import volumes in  
millions of m2. 

2008 

2009 

2010 

PRC 
Malaysia 

307,82
0,02

294,98 
0,04

383,76
0,02

1/10/2010 – 
30/9/2011 

282,03 
76,10 

Source: COMEXT statistics 

(26)  The  data  above  clearly  show  that  imports  from  Malaysia  into  the  Union  were  at 
negligible levels for the period from 2008 to 2010. However,  in 2011, following  the 
imposition of the measures, the imports surged suddenly and to some extent replaced 
the exports from the PRC on the Union market in terms of volume. Moreover, since 
the imposition of the measures in force, the decrease of the exports from PRC to the 
Union has been significant (26%). 

Exports from the PRC to Malaysia 

(27)  A  dramatic  increase  of  exports  of  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres  can  also  be 
observed  from the  PRC  to  Malaysia within the same period. From a relatively small 
amount in 2008 (4,65 million m2) exports increased to 32,78 million m2 in the RP. The 
trend  is  also  confirmed  by  the  corresponding  Malaysian  statistics  with  regard  to 
imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres in Malaysia from the PRC. 

Table 2: Exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC to Malaysia from 
1 January 2008 to 30 September 2011 

2008 

2009 

2010 

1/10/2010 – 
30/9/2011 

Quantity  

(million m2) 

Yearly change (%) 

Index (2008=100) 

100 

Source: Chinese statistics 

4,65 

5,78 

24% 

124 

5,94 

2,8% 

128 

32,78 

452% 

705 

(28)  To  establish  the  trend  of  the  trade  flow  of  certain  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres 
from PRC to Malaysia , both Malaysian and Chinese statistics were considered. Both 
of  these  data  are  only  available  at  a  higher  product  group  level  than  the  product 
concerned.  However,  in  view  of  COMEXT  data  and  the  data  provided  by  the  three 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
initially cooperating Malaysian exporters, it could be established that a significant part 
covered the product concerned. Therefore, these data could be taken into account. 

(29)  Tables  1  and  2  above  clearly  demonstrate  that  the  sharp  drop  of  Chinese  exports  of 
open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to the Union was followed by a significant increase 
of Chinese exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to Malaysia with a subsequent 
drastic incease of Malaysian exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to the Union 
in  the  IP.  The  investigation  revealed  also  that  additional  quantities  of  open  mesh 
fabrics  of  glass  fibres  from  the  PRC  to  Malaysia  were  misdeclared  at  the  time  of 
importation  to  Malaysia  under  different  codes  than  the  ones  covered  by  the 
investigation. According to the customs import declarations those additional quantities 
were declared under codes 7019 11 000 and 7019 40 000. 

Production volumes in Malaysia 

(30)  The  three  initially  cooperating  companies  were  established  between  November  2010 
and March 2011 and they started production and  exports to  the Union only  after the 
imposition of the provisional measures in February 2011. Prior to February 2011 there 
was no production of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres in Malaysia. 

2.5. 

Conclusion on the change in the pattern of trade 

(31)  The  overall  decrease  of  the  exports  from  the  PRC  to  the  Union  and  the  parallel 
increase  of  exports  from  Malaysia  to  the  Union  and  of  exports  from  the  PRC  to 
Malaysia  after  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures  in  February  2011  and  of 
definitive  measures  in  August  2011  constituted  a  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade 
between the above mentioned countries, on the one hand, and the Union, on the other 
hand. 

2.6. 

Nature of the circumvention practice 

(32)  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  requires  that  the  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade 
stems  from  a  practice,  process  or  work  for  which  there  is  insufficient  due  cause  or 
economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or 
work includes, inter alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures via third 
countries and the assembly of parts by an assembly operation in the Union or a third 
country.  For  this  purpose  the  existence  of  assembly  operations  is  determined  in 
accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. 

Transhipment 

(33)  Declared exports of the initially cooperating Malaysian companies amounted to some 
75%  of  the  total  Malaysian  exports  to  the  Union.  The  remaining  exports  can  be 
attributed to Malaysian producers which have not cooperated with the investigation or 
to transhipment practices. One of the cooperating importers in the Union had sourced 
open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from a Malaysian exporter who had not cooperated 
in this investigation.  

(34)  As  set  out  in  detail  in  recitals  (52)  to  (59)  below,  the  three  initially  cooperating 
companies were informed on the spot that they might be subject to the application of 
Article 18 of the basic Regulation as it was found that they had provided misleading 
information.  In  particular,  evidence  suggested  that  two  of  the  initially  cooperating 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
exporting  producers  did  not  disclose  the  relationship  between  them.  Also,  the 
companies manipulated and altered documents such as bank statements while there are 
doubts as to whether some of their purchase invoices, and bank payment vouchers are 
genuine. Also two of them failed to demonstrate the origin of the raw materials used 
for the production of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres exported to the Union. Finally, 
based  on  information  obtained  by  the  Malaysian  authorities,  goods  could  qualify  for 
the  certificate  of  origin  at  the  time  of  their  export  if  there  is  a  change  in  the  code 
classification between the imported raw materials used in the production process and 
the exported finished goods. Evidence seen during the verification visits suggested that 
some  quantities  of  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres  from  the  PRC  are  misdeclared 
under  codes  not  covered  by  the  investigaton  at  the  time  of  their  importation  to 
Malaysia while at the time of their export to the Union they were classified under the 
two CN codes covered by the investigation. This explains the additional quantities of 
open mesh fabrics of glass fibres exported from Malaysia to the Union as confirmed 
by the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade as described in recital 
(29) above. 

(35)  The  existence  of  transhipment  of  Chinese-origin  products  via  Malaysia  is  therefore 

confirmed. 

Assembly and/or completion operations 

(36)  As  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation  was  applied  to  all  three  initially  cooperating 
companies,  it  could  not  be  established  whether  they  are  involved  in  assembly 
operations.  

2.7. 

Insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-
dumping duty 

(37)  The investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification 
for the transhipmentthan the avoidance of the measures in force on certain open mesh 
fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC. No elements were found, other than the 
duty,  which could be  considered as a compensation for the costs of transhipment, in 
particular  regarding  transport  and  reloading,  of  the  product  concerned  from  the  PRC 
via Malaysia.  

2.8. 

Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty 

(38)  To  assess  whether  the  imported  products  had,  in  terms  of  quantities  and  prices, 
undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force on imports of certain open 
mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres  originating  in  the  PRC,  COMEXT  data  was  used  as  the 
best  data  available  concerning  quantities  and  prices  of  exports  by  the  three  initially 
cooperating  exporting  producers,  where  Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation  was 
applied,  and  by  the  non-cooperating  companies.  The  prices  so  determined  were 
compared to the injury elimination level established for Union producers in recital (74) 
of the original Regulation. 

(39)  The  increase  of  imports  from  Malaysia  to  the  Union  from  20  000  m2  in  2010  to  76 
million m2 in the period April to September 2011 was considered to be significant in 
terms of quantities. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(40)  The  comparison  of  the  injury  elimination  level  as  established  in  the  original 
Regulation and the weighted average export price (adjusted for post importation costs 
and  quality  adjustments  established  in  the  original  investigation)  showed  significant 
underselling.  It  was  therefore  concluded  that  the  remedial  effects  of  the  measures  in 
force are being undermined in terms of both quantities and prices. 

2.9. 

Evidence of dumping  

(41)  Finally,  in  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  and  (2)  of  the  basic  Regulation  it  was 
examined  whether  there  was  evidence  of  dumping  in  relation  to  the  normal  value 
previously established for the like products. 

(42) 

In the original Regulation the normal value was established on the basis of prices in 
Canada, which in that investigation was found to be an appropriate market economy 
analogue country for the PRC. In line with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation it was 
considered appropriate to use the normal value as previously established in the original 
investigation.  

(43)  The  export  prices  from  Malaysia  was  based  on  facts  available,  i.e.  on  the  average 
export price of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres during the RP as reported in 
COMEXT. This was due to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation to all 
three initially cooperating exporters, thus their data could not be used to establish the 
export prices.  

(44)  For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due  allowance,  in  the  form  of  adjustments,  was  made  for  differences  which  affect 
prices  and  price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  Accordingly,  adjustments  were  made  for  differences  in  transport, 
insurance, ancillary expenses, packing costs and bank charges. Taken that Article 18 
of  the  basic  Regulation  was  applied  to  all  three  initially  cooperating  producers,  the 
adjustments had to be established on the best facts available. Thus, the adjustment for 
these allowances was based on a percentage calculated as the difference between the 
total  CIF  value  over  the  total  ex-works  value  of  all  the  transactions  provided  by  the 
three Malaysian producers in the RP.  

(45) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  2(11)  and  2(12)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  dumping  was 
calculated  by  comparing  the  weighted  average  normal  value  as  established  in  the 
original Regulation and the weighted average export prices during this investigation’s 
RP, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid. 

(46)  The  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  normal  value  and  the  weighted  average 

export price as established showed dumping. 

3. 

MEASURES 

(47)  Given the above,  it  was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping  duty imposed  on 
imports  of  certain  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres  originating  in  the  PRC  was 
circumvented  by  transhipment  from  Malaysia  pursuant  to  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

(48) 

In  accordance  with  the  first  sentence  of  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
measures in force on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC, should 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(49) 

(50) 

be  extended  to  imports  of  the  same  product  consigned  from  Malaysia,  whether 
declared as originating in Malaysia or not. 

In  light  of  the  non  cooperation  in  this  investigation,  the  measures  to  be  extended 
should  be  the  measures  established  in  Article  1(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  791/2011 
for "all other companies", which is a definitive anti-dumping duty of 62,9% applicable 
to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty. 

In accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides 
that  any  extended  measure  should  apply  to  imports  which  entered  the  Union  under 
registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those 
registered  imports  of  certain  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres  consigned  from 
Malaysia. 

4. 

REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION 

(51)  The  three  companies  in  Malaysia  that  submited  questionnaire  replies  requested  an 
exemption  from  the  possible  extended  measures  in  accordance  with  Article  13(4)  of 
the basic Regulation. 

(52)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (19)  one  of  the  companies  ceased  cooperation  following  the 
first day of the verification visit. Even during the one day verification the cooperation 
was  insufficient.  In  particular,  the  company  failed  to  provide  most  of  the  requested 
supporting documents like its production sheets, stocks and energy bills. On the other 
hand,  the  raw  materials  kept  in  the  company's  plant  were  at  very  low  levels  not 
justifying  the  declared  production  levels  while  there  were  not  any  finished  goods 
stored  in  the  warehouse.  In  addition,  the  purchase  invoices  presented  had  the  same 
format  as  a  block  of  invoices  with  pre-printed  numbers  found  at  the  company's 
premises. This  resemblance  suggested that the company's purchase invoices may not 
be  genuine.  Moreover,  evidence  suggested  that  the  company  did  not  disclose  its 
relationship  with  another  Malaysian  exporter  that  was  also  cooperating  in  the 
investigation.  More  specifically,  documents  related  to  the  other  Malaysian  initially 
cooperating  producer  were  found  at  the  first  company's  premises  while  that 
relationship was not revealed by those companies.  

(53) 

In accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, the company was informed 
on the intention to disregard the information submitted by it and was granted a time-
limit  to  provide  its  comments.  The  company  did  not  provide  any  comments,  thus  in 
accordance  with  Article  18(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  findings  with  regard  to  this 
company were based on facts available.  

(54)  The cooperation of the second company during the verification visit was insufficient. 
The company denied on several occasions access to crucial data such as the production 
and stock record reports. The raw materials kept in the company's plant were at very 
low levels compared to the declared production levels and the stock of finished goods 
stored in the warehouse. The company also failed to provide evidence with regard to 
the origin of the raw materials used for the production of open mesh fabrics of glass 
fibres exported to the Union. 

(55) 

In accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation, the company was informed 
on the intention to disregard the information submitted by it and was granted a time-
limit to provide its comments. In its comments the company claimed that the planned 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
three  days  for  the  verification  visit  were  a  short  time  frame  and  insufficient  for  the 
company  to  provide  all  the  data  and  documents  requested  by  the  investigation  team. 
The  company  also  admitted  that  several  times  it  denied  access  to  data  to  the 
investigation  team  while  it  confirmed  that  the  persons  representing  the  company 
during  the  verification  visit,  most  of  the  time,  had  to  obtain  permission  from  their 
directors  to  grant  access  to  data  to  the  investigation  team.  In  addition,  the  company 
admitted  that  the  company's  representatives  had  no  involvement  with  the  accounts 
department while it confirmed that its directors did not participate as they claimed to 
be occupied. 

(56)  The  company's  explanations  confirm  the  conclusion  that  the  company  seriously 
impeded the investigation. The company was informed on the dates of the verification 
visit  well  in  advance  and  agreed  with  them. Despite  that  exports  to  the  Union  is  the 
company's main business, its directors, were not present. During the verification visit 
there  were  deliberate  and  unjustified  delays  in  providing  the  requested  data  and 
documents while the denial of access to data created further delays and impediments in 
the completion of the verification within the set time frame. Therefore, in accordance 
with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, findings with regard to this company were 
based on facts available. 

(57)  The third company's cooperation during the verification visit was insufficient while it 
provided  misleading  information.  It  was  found  that  the  company  had  manipulated 
bank statements while it failed to prove that its bank payment vouchers were genuine 
documents.  Its  accounting  records  were  considered  unreliable  as  they  presented 
numerous  serious  discrepancies  with  regard  to  their  opening  and  closing  balances 
carried forward. The raw materials stocks were at low levels compared to the declared 
production  levels  and  the  stock  of  finished  goods  stored  in  the  warehouse.  The 
company also failed to provide evidence with regard to the origin of the raw materials 
used  for  the  production  of  open  mesh  fabrics  of  glass  fibres  exported  to  the  Union. 
Also evidence suggested that the company had not disclosed its relationship with the 
first Malaysian exporter as certain documents which belong to the third company were 
found in the premises of the first company. 

(58) 

In  accordance  with  Article  18(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  company  was  also 
informed on the intention to disregard the information submitted by it and was granted 
a  time-limit  to  provide  its  comments.  In  its  comments  the  company  claimed  that  it 
does  not have any  experience  with  such kind of verification visits which explains in 
their  view,  the  deficiencies  found.  It  also  claimed  that  it  was  cautious  with  the 
documents requested and provided to the investigation team in particular with the bank 
statements and proof of payments as it was not officially informed by the Malaysian 
authorities  of  the  identity  of  the  investigation  team.  The  company  nevertheless 
admitted  that  its  staff  had  altered  the  content  of  the  bank  statements  but  this  was 
allegedly  done  due  to  the  fact  that  the company  was  highly  concerned  with  possible 
leaks of its documents, sabotage and the confidentiality of its data.  

(59)  The additional explanations provided by the company were not such that would lead to 
change the conclusion that the company had provided misleading information within 
the  course  of  the  investigation.  Thus,  in  accordance  with  Article  18(1)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, findings with regard to this company were based on facts available. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(60) 

In  view  of  the  findings  with  regard  to  the  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  and 
transhipment  practices,  as  set  out  in  recitals  (31)  and  (35)  above  and  taking  into 
account  the  nature  of  the  misleading  information  as  set  out  in  recitals  (52)  to  (59) 
above,  the  exemptions  as  requested  by  these  three  companies  could,  in  accordance 
with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, not be granted. 

(61)  Without  prejudice  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  other  producers  in 
Malaysia  which  did  not  come  forward  in  this  proceeding  and  did  not  export  the 
product  under  investigation  to  the  Union  in  the  RP  and  which  consider  lodging  a 
request  for  an  exemption  from  the  extended  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to  Articles 
11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete a questionnaire in 
order  to  enable  the  Commission  to  determine  whether  an  exemption  may  be 
warranted.  Such  exemption  may  be  granted  after  the  assessment  of  the  market 
situation  of  the  product  concerned,  production  capacity  and  capacity  utilisation, 
procurement and sales and the likelihood of continuation of practices for which there 
is insufficient due cause or economic justification and the evidence of dumping. The 
Commission would normally also carry out an on spot verification visit. The request 
should  be  addressed  to  the  Commission  forthwith,  with  all  relevant  information,  in 
particular  any  modification  in  the  company's  activities  linked  to  the  production  and 
sales. 

(62)  Where  an  exemption  is  warranted,  the  Commission  will,  after  consultation  of  the 
Advisory  Committee,  propose  the  amendment  of  the  extended  measures  in  force 
accordingly.  Subsequently,  any  exemption  granted  will  be  monitored  to  ensure 
compliance with the conditions set therein. 

5. 

DISCLOSURE 

(63)  All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to 
the above conclusions and were invited to comment. The oral and written comments 
submitted by the parties were considered. None of the arguments presented gave rise 
to a modification of the definitive findings. 

(64)  One cooperating importer asked if consideration could be given to applying different 
duty rates on registered imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres by importers who 
cooperated in the proceeding and those who did not. The request was rejected as there 
is no legal basis in the basic Regulation to support such a distinction. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1.  The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  "all  other  companies"  imposed  by  Article 
1(2) of Regulation (EU) No  791/2011 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, originating in the People's Republic of China, is hereby extended 
to  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,  consigned 
from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, currently falling CN codes 
ex 7019 51 00, and ex 7019 59 00. (TARIC codes 7019 51 00 11 and 7019 59 0011). 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
2. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned 
from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, registered in accordance 
with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1135/2011 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation 
(EC) No 1225/2009. 

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

Article 2  

1. Requests for exemption from the duty extended by Article 1 shall be made in writing in one 
of the official languages of the European Union and must be signed by a person authorised to 
represent  the  entity  requesting  the  exemption.  The  request  must  be  sent  to  the  following 
address: 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Directorate H 
Office: N-105 04/92 
1049 Brussels 
Belgium 
Fax (32 2) 295 65 05 

2. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 the Commission, after 
consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  authorise,  by  decision,  the  exemption  of  imports 
from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation 
(EU) No 791/2011, from the duty extended by Article 1. 

Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established 
in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1135/2011. 

Article 3 

Article 4 

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

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

16 

   EN