Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2012-09-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping measure, iron, metal product, steel

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 13.9.2012  
COM(2012) 507 final 

2012/0241 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's 
Republic of China 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL  

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  implementation  of  a  report  adopted  by  the  WTO 
Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters (‘the 
WTO enabling Regulation’). On 28 July 2011, the Dispute Settlement Body of the 
WTO  ('DSB')  adopted  the  Appellate  Body  Report  and  the  Panel  Report  as 
modified  by  the  Appellate  Body  Report  on  the  case  ‘European  Communities  — 
Definitive  Anti-Dumping  Measures  on  Certain  Iron  or  Steel  Fasteners  from 
China' DS 397 (‘Reports’).  

The Reports relate to Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  iron  or  steel  fasteners 
originating in the People's Republic of China that followed from the application of 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22 December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as 
last  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 2117/2005  of  21  December  2005 
('the basic Regulation')  

General context 

This proposal is made pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 on the 
measures that may be taken by the European Union following reports adopted by 
the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 
matters. 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  91/2009  of  26  January  2009  imposing  a  definitive 
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the 
People's Republic of China. 

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  implementation  have  already  had  the 
possibility to defend their interests during disclosure, in line with the provisions of 
the basic Regulation. 

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

Impact assessment 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This proposal is the result of the implementation of a report adopted by the WTO 
Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters (‘the 
WTO enabling Regulation’). 

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

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

The  Council  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  91/2009  of  26  January  2009  imposed  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  iron  or  steel  fasteners 
originating in the People's Republic of China.  

Following  a  report  adopted  by  the  WTO  Dispute  Settlement  Body  the  definitive 
findings  of  the  original  investigation  have  been  reassessed  based  on  information 
collected  in  the  original  investigation  and  information  collected  after  the 
publication  of  the  Notice  of  initiation.  The  aspects  of  the  definitive  Regulation 
found  to  be  inconsistent  by  the  DSB  Reports  have  been  corrected  and  the 
proposed actions will put in conformity the Council Regulation No 91/2009 with 
the DSB recommendations and rulings. 

It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009. 

Legal basis 

Article 233 of the Treaty establishing the European Community 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 of 23 July 2001 on the measures that may 
be  taken  by  the  Community  following  a  report  adopted  by  the  WTO  Dispute 
Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters. 

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 aforementioned basic Regulation and leaves 
no scope for national decision.  

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

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s). 

The basic Regulation does not provide for alternative options. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implications for the Union budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
2012/0241 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners 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  1515/2001  of  23  July  2001  on  the  measures 
that  may  be  taken  by  the  Community  following  a  report  adopted  by  the  WTO  Dispute 
Settlement  Body  concerning  anti-dumping  and  anti-subsidy  matters1  (‘the  WTO  enabling 
Regulation’), in particular Article 1 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. MEASURES IN FORCE 

(1) 

The Council by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposed a definitive 
anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  iron  or  steel  fasteners  originating  in  the 
People's Republic of China2 ('the definitive Regulation'). 

B. REPORTS ADOPTED BY THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY OF THE WTO 

(2) 

On  28  July  2011,  the  Dispute  Settlement  Body  ('DSB')  of  the  World  Trade 
Organization  ('WTO')  adopted  the  Appellate  Body  Report  and  the  Panel  Report  as 
modified  by  the  Appellate  Body  Report  in  the  dispute  ‘European  Communities  — 
Definitive  Anti-Dumping  Measures  on  Certain  Iron  or  Steel  Fasteners  from  China'3 
(‘Reports’). In these Reports, it was found, inter alia, that the EU acted inconsistently 
with:  

– 

Articles  6.10  and  9.2  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping  Agreement  with  respect  to 
Article  9(5)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1225/2009  on  protection  against  dumped 
imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community  (the  EU 
basic AD Regulation) as applied in the investigation on the imports of certain 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p. 10. 
OJ L 29, 31.1.2009, p. 1. 
WTO, Report of the Appellate Body, AB-2011-2, WT/DS397/AB/R, 15 July 2011. WTO, Report of the 
Panel, WT/DS397/R, 3 December 2010.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
iron  or  steel  fasteners  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  (the 
fasteners investigation);  

Articles 6.4, 6.2 and 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to 
certain aspects of the dumping determination in the fasteners investigation;  

Article  4.1  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping  Agreement  with  respect  to  the 
definition of the Union industry in the fasteners investigation;  

Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the 
consideration of the volume of dumped imports in the fasteners investigation;  

Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect 
to the causation analysis in the fasteners investigation; and  

Articles  6.5  and  6.5.1  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping  Agreement  with  respect  to 
the treatment of confidential information in the fasteners investigation.  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

C. PROCEDURE 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

On 6 March 2012, pursuant to the WTO enabling Regulation, a review was initiated 
by  the  publication  of  a  Notice4  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  ('the 
Notice of Initiation'). The European Commission informed parties to the investigation 
which led to Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 ("the original investigation") of the review 
and  of  the  manner  in  which  the  findings  of  the  Reports  in  regard  to  the  definitive 
Regulation was intended to be taken into account.  

D. PRODUCT CONCERNED 

The  product  concerned  is  certain  iron  or  steel  fasteners,  other  than  of  stainless  steel, 
i.e. wood screws (excluding coach screws), self-tapping screws, other screws and bolts 
with  heads  (whether  or  not  with  their  nuts  or  washers,  but  excluding  screws  turned 
from bars, rods, profiles or wire, of solid section, of a shank thickness not exceeding 6 
mm  and  excluding  screws  and  bolts  for  fixing  railway  track  construction  material), 
and washers, originating in the People's Republic of China (referred to as 'fasteners' or 
'product concerned'). 

The product concerned is currently falling within CN codes 7318 12 90, 7318 14 91, 
7318 14 99, 7318 15 59, 7318 15 69, 7318 15 81, 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 
21 00 and ex 7318 22 00. 

The Reports do not affect the findings set out in Recitals (40) to (57) of the definitive 
Regulation concerning the product concerned and the like product. 

E. REVISED FINDINGS BASED ON THE REPORTS 

As  indicated  in  the  Notice  of  Initiation,  the  Commission  reassessed  the  definitive 
findings  of  the  original  investigation  by  taking  account  of  the  recommendations  and 
rulings  of  the  DSB.  This  reassessment  was  based  on  information  collected  in  the 
original investigation and information collected after the publication of the Notice. 

4 

OJ C 66, 6.3.2012, p. 29 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
(8) 

(9) 

The  original investigation of dumping  and injury  covered the period from  1 October 
2006  to  30  September  2007  ('investigation  period'  or  'IP').  With  respect  to  the 
parameters  relevant in  the context of the injury assessment,  data covering  the period 
from  1  January  2003  to  the  end  of  the  investigation  period  were  analysed  ('period 
considered'). 

This Regulation seeks to  correct  the aspects of  the definitive Regulation found  to be 
inconsistent  by  the  DSB  in  the  Reports  it  adopted  and  bring  into  conformity  the 
definitive Regulation with the DSB recommendations and rulings.  

1. 

Individual Treatment: application of Article 9(5) in the definitive Regulation 

(10)  This section sets out the reassessed findings of the original investigation regarding the 
following  recommendations  and  rulings  of 
the  EU  acted 
inconsistently with Articles 6.10 and 9.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with 
respect  to  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  as  applied  in  the  fasteners  original 
investigation. 

the  Reports 

that 

(11)  As  mentioned  in  recitals  (81)  and  (84)  of  the  definitive  Regulation,  all  of  the  five 
sampled  exporting  producers  as  well  as  three  individually  examined  exporting 
producers  which  claimed  individual  treatment  ("IT")  were  found  to  meet  all  the 
requirements to be granted IT in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. 
As  stated  in  recitals  (62)  and  (78)  of  the  definitive  Regulation,  four  exporting 
producers  originally  part  of  the  sample,  as  well  as  one  company  granted  individual 
examination  were  considered  as  non-cooperating  companies,  since  they  submitted 
information not consistent with the evidence in the course of the investigation. 

(12) 

In  the  light  of  the  recommendations  regarding  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
contained in the Reports, the Commission invited exporting producers in the People's 
Republic of China to come forward and provide the necessary information to review 
their  current  situation  if  their  exports  to  the  European  Union  are  currently  subject  to 
the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  on  imports  of  certain  iron  or  steel  fasteners 
originating in the People's Republic of China; and they considered themselves to have 
been  discouraged  from  cooperating  and  requesting  IT  in  the  original  investigation 
because of the administrative burden entailed by, or because they considered that they 
did not meet all the criteria in, Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.  

(13)  The  Commission  invited  those  producers  to  declare  whether  they  considered 
themselves  to  have  been  discouraged  from  cooperating  and  requesting  IT  in  the 
original  investigation  because  of  the  administrative  burden  entailed  by,  or  because 
they  considered  that  they  did  not  meet  all  the  criteria  in  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  Those  interested  parties  were  invited  to  come  forward  within  30  days 
following the publication of the Notice of Initiation and to provide the following two 
elements of information: 

– 

– 

they  considered 

to  have  been  discouraged  from 
whether 
cooperating  and  requesting  IT  at  the  time  of  the  initiation  of  the  initial 
investigation; and 

themselves 

provide  information  on  export  quantities  to  the  European  Union  and  export 
prices covering the IP used in the original investigation 

EN 

7 

   EN 

(14)  Some exporting producers in the PRC expressed concerns regarding the implementing 
procedure of the DSB Reports laid down in the Notice of Initiation. They underlined 
in particular that they considered the deadlines published to be too short. They claimed 
that an undue administrative burden had been placed on exporting producers, having a 
dissuasive effect and preventing them from receiving individual treatment. 

(15)  The  concern  expressed  by  those  exporting  producers  was  considered  to  be  not 
founded.  The  Commission  considered  this  deadline  appropriate  in  view  of  the 
administrative burden and the small amount of  information  requested.  The  Notice  of 
Initiation  explained  that  a  review  of  the  current  situation  of  an  exporting  producer 
would  be  considered  once  an  application  was  received  including  the  following 
information: 

– 

– 

a  simple  statement  that  the  exporting  producer  considers  to  have  been 
discouraged and therefore had not cooperated and requested IT; and  

very  basic  figures  showing  that  it  exported  the  product  concerned  to  the  EU 
during the original investigation period. 

(16)  The  sole  purpose  of  requesting  this  information  was  to  allow  the  Commission  to 
identify those exporting producers that would have been in a position to cooperate and 
request  IT  during  the  original  investigation  but  considered  themselves  to  have  been 
discouraged from doing so. A deadline of 30 days was considered to be appropriate to 
reply to a request for a simple statement and very basic figures and cannot be regarded 
as  imposing  a  disproportionate  administrative  burden.  The  Chinese  Chamber  of 
Commerce  and  a  Chinese  exporting  producer  argued  that  by  requesting  the 
information  mentioned  in recital  (15) above, the Commission imposed conditions on 
Chinese  exporting  producers,  although  IT  should  be  granted  as  rule  pursuant  to 
Articles  6.10  and  9.3  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping  Agreement.  This  approach  was 
contrary  to  the  recommendations  of  the  DSB  reports  and  these  parties  invited  the 
Commission to contact Chinese exporting producers ex officio and indicate they will 
be granted IT. In this respect, the Commission considers that, by publishing the Notice 
of Initiation which was sent to all known Chinese exporting producers and their trade 
association  and  national  authorities,  the  Commission  has  contacted  all  Chinese 
exporting producers inviting them to come forward within 30 days, should they have 
exported  during  the  original  investigation  period  and  not  made  themselves  known 
during  the  original  investigation.  This  latter  question  should  not  be  considered  as  a 
"condition"  in  the  sense  of  a  "test"  as  presented  by  the  said  parties,  but  rather  as  a 
statement  of  fact  showing  that  they  were  actually  concerned  by  the  original 
investigation. Finally, it should be noted that questions related to exported products are 
requested for the purpose of verifying whether the sample originally chose needed to 
be amended and are not related to the issue of IT. This claim was therefore rejected. 

(17)  Of  the  15  companies  that  came  forward  following  the  publication  of  the  Notice  of 

Initiation and made enquiries within the deadline: 

– 

Ten  companies  were  exporting  producers  that  had  already  come  forward  and 
cooperated with the original investigation. This showed that they had not been 
discouraged  from  cooperating  and  requesting  IT  in  the  original  investigation 
and  their  situation  could  therefore  not  be  re-examined  in  the  context  of  the 
current  review;  One  of  these  ten  companies  which  requested  a  review  of  its 

EN 

8 

   EN 

current  duties  was  invited  to  submit  a  review  request  to  the  Commission 
pursuant to Article 11.3 of the basic regulation; 

One company was a new exporting producer (i.e. it had not exported to the EU 
during the original investigation). This company was therefore not in a position 
to cooperate and request IT in the original investigation for that reason. It was 
informed  of  the  procedures  for  claiming  New  Exporting  Producer  Treatment 
pursuant to Article 2 of the definitive Regulation; 

Two were considered not to be exporting producers but trading companies so 
they were informed that they were not concerned by this review; 

Two  exporting  producers  stated  that  they  complied  with  the  criteria  and 
requested  that  their  situation  be  examined.  However,  one  of  these  companies 
subsequently withdrew its application. 

– 

– 

– 

(18)  The companies having made enquiries were given the opportunity to comment on the 

information provided to them. 

(19)  The exporting producer stating that it complied with the criteria and requesting that its 
situation be examined was found to fall within the criteria laid down in point 1 of the 
Notice  of  Initiation.  This  exporting  producer  also  requested  individual  examination 
under  Article  17(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  claiming  that  if  it  would  not  have  been 
discouraged  from  cooperating  during  the  original  investigation  it  would  have 
requested such treatment. Taking into account that during the original investigation, all 
of the exporting producers who had made such a request were individually examined, 
for reasons of equal treatment, its request was accepted.  

(20)  A  Notice  was  published  on  6  June  20125  announcing  the  review  of  the  current 
situation  for  this  exporting  producer,  Bulten  Fasteners  (China)  Co.,  Ltd  ('BFC').  The 
exported  quantities  of  this  exporting  producer  during  the  IP  amounted  to  less  than 
0.4% of the total exports from the PRC during the IP. In view of this, the Commission 
considered  that  there  was  no  need  to  modify  the  original  sample  of  exporting 
producers.  A  questionnaire  was  sent  to  the  exporting  producer  in  the  PRC  and  its 
related companies in the EU involved in the resale of the product concerned during the 
original IP. 

(21)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  the  information  deemed  necessary  for  a 
determination  of  dumping  and  carried  out  verifications  at  the  premises  of  the 
following related companies: 

– 

– 

Bulten Sweden AB, Göteborg, Sweden 

Bulten GMBH, Bergkamen, Germany 

(22)  The  Commission  concluded  that  BFC  should  be  granted  IT  in  accordance  with  the 

recommendations concerning Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation in the DSB reports. 

2. 

Certain aspect of the dumping determination in the fasteners investigations 

5 

OJ C 160, 6.6.2012, p. 19 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
(23)  This section sets out the reassessed findings of the original investigation regarding the 
the  EU  acted 
following  recommendations  and  rulings  of 
inconsistently  with  Articles  6.4,  6.2  and  2.4  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping  Agreement 
with respect to certain aspects of the dumping determination in the fasteners original 
investigation. 

the  Reports 

that 

(24) 

In the context of the open dialogue held with some Chinese exporting producers and 
the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  more  detailed  information  regarding  the  product 
characteristics of the products sold by the Indian cooperating producer was provided to 
the  parties  in  order  to  address  the  recommendations  of  the  WTO  DSB  regarding 
Articles  6.4,  6.2  and  2.4  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping  Agreement,  as  mentioned  from 
recitals  (28)  until  (53)  above.  This  information  covered  in  particular  the  product 
characteristics  which  were  found  to  be  pertinent  in  the  determination  of  the  normal 
value  and  that  were  used  in  the  comparison with  the  product  concerned,  i.e.  the  fact 
that the Indian domestic sales have been divided into 'standard' sales and 'special' sales 
and the strength class of each transaction has been identified. A normal value per kg 
was then calculated for each strength class as identified in the PCN table.  

(25)  The  Commission  concentrated  on  two  crucial  elements  of  comparison,  namely 
strength class and standard versus special fasteners, as indicated in recitals (48) to (50) 
of the definitive Regulation. The distinction between special vs. standard was added as 
a new element of comparison during the investigation and the strength class was used 
as the other main comparison criterion as submitted by most of the Chinese exporting 
producers themselves during the original investigation. 

(26)  As mentioned in recital (56) of the definitive Regulation, standard fasteners produced 
in the analogue country could be compared with the fasteners exported to the EU by 
the sampled PRC producers as they were found to have the same basic physical and 
technical characteristics as products exported from the PRC. 

(27)  The normal value was expressed ex-works, adjusted to take account of the price effect 
of the quality control step performed by the Indian producer which was not performed 
in China. The result was therefore two lists of normal values in Chinese Yuan (CNY) 
per kg by strength class, one for standard fasteners and one for special fasteners. 

2.1. 

Information disclosure note of 30 May 2012 

(28)  On  30  May  2012  additional  information  was  disclosed  to  all  interested  parties 
regarding  the  product  types  used  for  the  purposes  of  comparing  normal  value  and 
export price. As stated in the Notice of Initiation, more precise information regarding 
the product characteristics which were found to be pertinent in the determination of the 
normal value was provided to all interested parties. 

(29)  The content of the information disclosure note related to the normal value which was 
determined based on the prices of the product concerned sold on the domestic market 
by  the  Indian  cooperating  producer.  According  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  normal  value  for  the  exporting  producers  not  granted  MET  had  to  be 
established on the basis of the prices or constructed value in an analogue country. Two 
Indian  producers  agreed  to  cooperate  by  replying  to  a  questionnaire.  The  data 
submitted  in  their  questionnaire  replies  were  verified  at  the  premises  of  these  two 

EN 

10 

   EN 

companies. However, only one of the companies provided sufficiently detailed data to 
be used as a basis for establishing normal value. 

(30)  As mentioned in recital (90) of the definitive Regulation, "a number of importers and 
exporters  questioned  the  appropriateness  of  using  the  data  from  the  latter  Indian 
producer on the grounds that i) the quantity produced and sold in the Indian domestic 
market by this producer would allegedly not be representative of the quantity exported 
from the PRC to the Community and ii) this Indian producer has alleged commercial 
links with one of the Community producers supporting the complaint. In this respect, 
it  should  be  noted  that  i)  the  sales  volume  of  the  Indian  producer  were  considered 
sufficiently representative to allow for the establishment of reliable normal ,values and 
ii)  the  fact  that  the  analogue  country  producer  has  links  to  a  Community  producer 
supporting  the  complaint  does  not  make  the  choice  of  that  analogue  country 
unreasonable. It was also noted that these links were established after the IP. Given the 
above and the absence of cooperation from other third country producers, the choice of 
India as analogue country was considered reasonable".  

(31)  Given the conditions of competition and openness of the Indian market, and the fact 
that the cooperating Indian producer sold product types comparable to those exported 
by  the  PRC  exporting  producers,  it  was  concluded  that  India  was  a  suitable  market 
economy third country within the meaning of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation. 

(32)  The information disclosure note stated that the data regarding domestic sales covered 
the investigation period but without the Product Control Number ('PCN'). The Indian 
producer, however, was able to identify the strength class of the fastener sold, and also 
whether that fastener was 'standard' or 'special' as defined in the definitive Regulation. 
The need to distinguish between standard and special fasteners had not been identified 
at the start of the investigation when the PCN had been created.  

(33)  However, the Commission noted that this distinction affected price comparability and 
therefore this data was requested from the Indian producer and was provided. Indian 
domestic sales were therefore divided into 'standard' sales and 'special' sales and then 
the  strength  class  of  each  transaction  was  identified.  A  normal  value  per  kg  was 
calculated for each strength class as originally identified in the PCN table. 

(34)  The remaining characteristics of the original PCN were not used, not only because the 
Indian producer was not able to provide the data at this level of detail, but also for the 
following reasons: 

– 

– 

– 

Diameter  and  length  were  not  considered  relevant  because  the  analysis  was 
performed  on  the  basis  of  weight,  thus  automatically  taking  into  account  any 
differences resulting from different diameter or length of the fastener.  

There was no indication that there were any differences in terms of chrome on 
coating  or  coating  in  general  -  in  essence  an  indicator  of  galvanisation  - 
between the Indian producer’s products and Chinese fasteners. 

In  respect  of  the  only  other  remaining  PCN  element,  the  CN  code,  it  was 
considered that it would not be a reliable indicator since the Chinese or Indian 
authorities  do  not  distinguish  between  the  10  CN  codes  used  to  define  the 
product concerned as do the EU authorities.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

(35)  The Commission therefore concentrated on two crucial differences between products: 
strength class, on the one hand; and standard v. special fasteners, which is an indicator 
of customer differences and quality differences, on the other hand. 

(36)  The normal value was expressed ex-works, minus an adjustment to remove the price 
effect  of  the  quality  control  performed  by  the  Indian  producer  which  was  not 
performed  in  China.  The  result  was  therefore  two  lists  of  normal  values  in  Chinese 
Yuan (CNY) per kg by strength class, one for standard fasteners and one for special 
fasteners. 

(37)  The  Commission  informed  all  interested  parties  that  the  normal  value  could  not  be 
disclosed  as  it  concerns  the  confidential  price  of  a  single  Indian  producer  on  the 
domestic market. However, interested parties were informed that the 'standard' normal 
value for a 8.8 strength class fastener ('G' in the PCN table), which is a standard type 
commonly exported by Chinese producers, was calculated in the range of 9 to 12 CNY 
per kg ex-works. 

2.2. 

Comments received to the information disclosure note of 30 May 2012 

(38)  One  importer  and  four  exporting  producers  alleged  that  the  time  given  to  parties  to 
comment  on  the  additional  information  (10  days)  was  too  short.  However,  the 
Commission considers that the above mentioned time limit was appropriate, given that 
the  information  provided  was  only  a  supplement  to  that  already  disclosed  in  the 
definitive  Regulation,  at  the  end  of  the  original  investigation.  The  time  granted  to 
examine  and  comment  on  this  additional  information  was  therefore  considered 
reasonable. 

(39)  Some  parties  alleged  that  the  Commission  had  stated  that  it  did  not  have  any  new 
information  regarding  the  physical  characteristics  other  than  strength  class  of  the 
products used for the determination of the normal value. That claim should be rejected. 
At  that  stage  of  the  review,  the  Commission  was  merely  providing  additional 
clarification about how normal value had been established in the original investigation. 
It is important to emphasise that "strength" had been identified as one of the relevant 
characteristics  by  the  Chinese  exporting  producers.  However,  this  did  not  imply  that 
the Commission did not have any information regarding other physical characteristics.  

(40)  The  same  parties  claimed  that  the  Commission  stated,  during  hearings,  in  regard  to 
possible adjustments to be made for the purpose of comparison between export prices 
and the normal value that a preference would be given for adjusting on the basis of a 
price  analysis  rather  than  a  cost  analysis.  In  fact  the  Commission  clarified  that 
according to Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation, a comparison should be made with 
due  account  taken  of  differences  which  affect  price  comparability  and  not  to  cost 
differences.  

(41)  Subsequently,  these  parties  repeated  their  claim  that  adjustments  should  be  made  to 
take into account the differences in cost of production such as differences in efficiency 
of consumption of the raw material; differences in wire rod consumption; in electricity 
consumption, in self-generated electricity, in productivity per employee, in reasonable 
profit level and in differences related to tooling. As stated above, Article 2(10) of the 
Basic Regulation is referring to price and not cost. There was no evidence adduced by 
these parties that the alleged differences in cost translated into differences in prices. In 

EN 

12 

   EN 

investigations concerning economies in transition such as China, an analogue country 
is  used  when  warranted  to  prevent  account  being  taken  of  prices  and  costs  in  non-
market economy countries which are not the normal result of market forces. Thus, for 
the  purpose  of  establishing  the  normal  value,  a  surrogate  of  the  costs  and  prices  of 
producers  in  functioning  market  economies  is  used.  Therefore,  these  claims  for 
adjustments taking into account the differences in cost of production are rejected. 

(42)  These parties further argued that the additional information provided on 30 May 2012 
regarding  the  characteristics  of  the  products  sold  by  the  Indian  producer  was 
incomplete  insofar  as  information  regarding  the  following  issues  was  allegedly 
missing: differences related to type of fastener; coating and use of chrome; diameter 
and  length;  traceability;  ISO  9000;  unit  of  defective  rate;  and  other  aspects  of 
hardness,  bending,  strength,  impact  toughness  and  other  friction  coefficients.  They 
sought  clarification  regarding  the  reasons  why  the  remaining  characteristics  of  the 
original  PCN  were  not  deemed  relevant.  These  issues  were  explained  in  two 
information  disclosure  notes  respectively  sent  on  5  July  and  put  in  the  file  for 
inspection by interested parties on 11 July 2012. 

2.3. 

Information disclosure note of 5 July 2012 

(43)  Following the request of additional information made by the parties as mentioned in 
recital  (42)  above,  a  second  information  disclosure  note  was  sent  to  all  interested 
parties on 5 July 2012. In this note, the following additional information was provided:  

– 

– 

– 

A table showing the ranges of the price levels of the normal values calculated 
by strength class for standard fasteners sold on the Indian domestic market, to 
independent  customers,  by  the  sole  Indian  cooperating  producer.  It  was  also 
specified that the vast majority of exports by the Chinese producers fall under 
strength class G; 

An in-depth analysis of the data in India showed that standard fasteners sold on 
the  domestic  market  were  electroplated  corresponding  to  the  PCN  Code  "A". 
Therefore, the Commission proposed to compare the normal value with coating 
type A for exported models.  

Following a manual analysis of the Indian domestic price data, information on 
diameter and length were extracted from the text string of sales coding used by 
the Indian producer. To allow for a comparison with the exports of the Chinese 
companies,  this  data  was  summarised  into  ranges  to  distinguish  between  the 
main product dimensions: 

Indicator 

Diameter 

Length 

Small 

M4 to M10 

0 to 100 mm 

Medium 

M12 to M20 

100 to 200 mm 

Large 

M22 to M30 

200 to 300 mm 

– 

The  Commission  therefore  proposed  to  use  this  data  to  further  refine  the 
normal  value  and  calculate  dumping  margins  on  this  basis.  Where  exported 

EN 

13 

   EN 

fasteners did not fall into these ranges they would not be used in the dumping 
calculation. This affected only a very small amount of exports. 

– 

The Commission provided for reference the proposed revised PCN: 

Indicator 

Description 

PCN 

Standard/Special 

Standard fastener 

Special fastener 

Strength class 

3.6 

4.6 

4.8 

5.6 

5.8 

6.8 

8.8 

9.8 

10.9 

12.9 

Coating 

Diameter 

Length 

Electroplated coating 

M4 to M10 

M12 to M20 

M22 to M30 

0 to 100 mm 

101 to 200 mm 

201 to 300 mm 

S 

P 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

A 

S 

M 

L 

S 

M 

L 

– 

– 

The  Commission  provided  an  overview  of  the  dumping  margins  modified  as 
per  the  proposal  listed  in  the  information  disclosure  note,  noting  that  these 
revised  anti-dumping  margins  would  not  be  automatically  the  anti-dumping 
duties, which would be subject to the lesser duty rule. 

Finally, new Tables 22, 23, 32, 33 and 34 of one EU producer were provided in 
reply  to  the  comments  made  by  some  interested  parties  that  the  additional 
information provided with the information disclosure note of 30 May 2012 was 
incomplete,  insofar  as  some  elements  in  those  Tables  were  missing  or  not 
properly summarised. 

2.4. 

Comments to the information disclosure note of 5 July 2012 

(44)  Some parties requested additional information on the price level of the normal value. 
As mentioned in recital (82) below, the price level could not be disclosed to interested 
parties  as  it  is  confidential  information  concerning  the  prices  of  a  single  analogue 
producer.  However,  a  non-confidential  version  of  the  normal  value  by  strength  class 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for  standard  fasteners  was  disclosed  on  5  July  2012  to  those  Chinese  exporting 
producers who requested such further information and was also placed in the file for 
inspection by interested parties. In this note, the Commission provided a table showing 
the  ranges  of  the  price  levels  of  the  normal  values  calculated  by  strength  class  for 
standard fasteners sold on the Indian domestic market, to independent customers, by 
the sole Indian cooperating producer. 

(45)  Some parties also argued that the Commission informed them during a hearing held on 
26 June 2012 that the Indian domestic sales were of two types of coating "A" and "B" 
according  to  the  PCN  table  used  in  the  original  investigation.  This  allegation  is  not 
founded. The Commission informed the said parties that at that stage of the review it 
was examining the types of coating used by the Indian producer on standard fasteners. 
During a subsequent hearing held on 3 July 2012 and by means of an information note 
placed on 11 July 2012 in the file for inspection by interested parties, all parties were 
informed  that  the  Indian  producer  was  using  coating  "A"  for  the  production  of 
standard fasteners. 

(46)  During  a  hearing  held  on  11  July  2012,  the  same  parties  asked  the  Commission  to 
explain  how  the  split  of  the  normal  value  between  special  and  standard  fasteners  by 
the Indian producer had been carried out. The Commission indicated that it had been 
done  on  the  basis  of  the  names  of  the  customers.  However,  as  evidenced  by  the 
minutes produced by the Hearing Officer for DG Trade, the Commission stated before 
the end of the hearing that it would have to clarify this issue, which it did in a further 
note for information of 13 July 2012 that was sent to the parties which participated in 
the  hearing  and  was  placed  in  the  non  confidential  file  for  consultation  by  all 
interested  parties.  The  statement  made  by  the  said  parties  according  to  which  the 
Commission  stated  that  "the  split  of  the  normal  value  between  special  and  standard 
fasteners  was  carried  out  inter  alia  on  the  basis  of  the  names  of  the  customers"  is 
therefore  incomplete  as  more  information  regarding  this  issue  has  been  provided  as 
mentioned in the recital below. 

(47)  On the difference between standard and special fasteners, the Commission's note of 13 
July 2012 explained that "it cannot be excluded that the automotive industry also uses 
standard fasteners for certain applications". Some parties argued that the Commission 
considered that automotive fasteners could also have been regarded as standard. Such 
allegation  is  unfounded.  As  is  clearly  explained  in  that  note,  the  Commission's 
statement  was  made  in  the  absence  of  a  customer  list  from  the  Indian  producer. 
However,  as  established  in  the  original  investigation  and  further  explained  in  recital 
2.7  below,  for  quality  and  commercial  reasons,  automotive  producers  always  order 
fasteners  which  are  custom  designed  in  order  to  comply  with  that  industry's  ISO 
requirements.  Therefore,  all  fasteners  destined  for  the  automotive  sector  that  are 
considered as "special" products by fasteners producers, including in India, according 
to  information  found  on  the  websites  of  Indian  automotive  manufacturers.  Since  the 
Indian  producer  clearly  defined  as  "special  fasteners"  all  parts  manufactured  to  a 
custom  design,  the  Commission  considers  that  standard  fasteners  destined  to  the 
automotive industry were not included in the list of standard fasteners provided during 
the original investigation. 

(48)  The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and a Chinese exporting producer made similar 
claims  as  above  regarding  the  possible  inclusion  of  fasteners  destined  to  the 
automotive  sector  in  the  normal  value  and,  in  addition,  alleged  that  automotive 

EN 

15 

   EN 

fasteners which are not made according to a specific customer design still have to go 
through a special quality  control or have to  respect  traceability  requirements  making 
them  more  expensive  and  should  normally  be  considered  as  special  fasteners.  They 
claimed that the Commission's findings according to which fasteners used for high-end 
applications but not manufactured according to user's drawings had nevertheless been 
considered  as  special  fasteners  were  baseless,  and  thereby  the  Commission  acted 
inconsistently with Article 2.10 of the basic Regulation by breaching the principle of a 
fair  comparison.  Furthermore,  they  considered  that  the  Commission’s  findings  based 
on  the  split  made  by  the  Indian  producer  had  not  been  subject  to  an  on-spot 
verification visit. In the light of the above, they requested the Commission to review 
the distinction between standard and special fasteners and if not possible, to revert to a 
different normal value data set. 

(49)  The  reasoning  of  the  Commission  regarding  the  distinction  between  standard  and 
special  fasteners  is  already  addressed  in  recital  (47)  above.  With  regard  to  the  claim 
concerning  the  absence  of  verification  of  the  split  made  by  the  Indian  producer,  the 
Commission  verified  the  sales  listing  through  a  number  of  "walk-through"  tests  (i.e. 
in-depth  verification  of  a  sample  of  sales  transactions  included in the sales listing in 
order  to  verify  its  accuracy)  as  per  standard  verification  practices.  In  addition,  the 
subsequent  split  of  that  sales  listing  provided  by  the  Indian  producer  was  checked 
against an average price level of the split as explained in the said note. Therefore, the 
allegation  that  the  Commission  took  at  face  value  the  data  provided  by  the  Indian 
producer is not founded.  

(50) 

In  addition,  the  criteria  used  by  the  Indian  producer  to  define  special  fasteners,  i.e. 
according to customer drawing as mentioned in recital (47) above, provides sufficient 
assurance  of  the  reliability  of  the  data.  In  the  original  investigation  the  Commission 
already  made  an  adjustment  to  the  normal  value  to  take  into  account  quality  control 
steps  applied  by  the  Indian  producer  which  were  not  found  for  Chinese  sampled 
producers. Under these circumstances, the Commission does not consider it necessary 
to  resort  to  another  normal  value  data  set  as  suggested  by  the  parties  concerned. 
Finally, as mentioned in recital (89) of the definitive Regulation despite the efforts of 
the  Commission  no  other  producers  from  any  possible  analogue  country  offered  to 
cooperate in the proceeding. 

(51)  Regarding  the  use  of  the  data  of  the  Indian  analogue  country  producer  for  the 
determination of the normal value, the Association of European Distributors (EFDA) 
claimed  that  such  technique  was  not  appropriate  given  that  its  product  range, 
production  volume,  customer  profile,  distribution  method  and  market  position  were 
not  comparable  to  the  situation  of  the  Chinese  exporting  producers.  In  addition,  it 
claimed  that  the  Chinese  prices  were  low  because they reflected the benefits of high 
volume  production  of  standard  products  since  they  are  specialised  and  efficient 
producers.  Moreover,  it  requested  more  detailed  information  regarding  the  Indian 
producer's  prices  and  production  volume  of  standard  fasteners.  Finally,  EFDA 
submitted Eurostat data to support their allegations that a comparison regarding export 
prices from the PRC and India for two specific CN codes would show that the Indian 
exports of these products were less than 4% of the PRC exports and that India was not 
a credible supplier of these products for export markets. 

(52)  As regards the appropriateness of the choice of the Indian analogue country producer, 
reference is made to the last part of recital (49) above. In relation to the general claim 

EN 

16 

   EN 

that  Chinese  export  prices  reflected  the  benefits  of  high  volume  production,  these 
claims were not substantiated or quantified in a meaningful manner that could assist in 
the  analysis  being  carried  out  at  that  stage  of  the  review.  As  regards  the  request  for 
additional  information  regarding  the  Indian  producer's  data,  reference  is  made  to  the 
recital  (82)  regarding  confidentiality.  With  regard  to  the  claim  that  the  exports  from 
India were not comparable to those from the PRC during the IP and after the IP, for 
the  determination  of  the  normal  value,  it  is  the  Indian  domestic  prices  which  are 
considered to be relevant according to the basic Regulation and not the Indian export 
prices. Therefore, these claims from EFDA were unfounded. 

(53)  Regarding  the  issue  of  the  coating  applied  by  the  Indian  producer,  the  Chinese 
Chamber  of  Commerce  and  a  Chinese  exporting  producer  expressed  doubts  and 
requested  the  Commission  to  explain  how  the  confidential  information  offered 
conclusive  proof  that  the  Indian  producer  only  sold  electro-plated  fasteners  on  its 
domestic market. During the verification, the Indian producer provided evidence that 
allowed  the  Commission  to  conclude  that  standard  fasteners  sold  domestically  were 
electroplated,  corresponding  to  the  coating  type  "A"  of  the  original  PCN.  In  these 
circumstances, the Commission considers that the evidence in the file is sufficient to 
conclude  that  standard  fasteners  sold  on  the  domestic  market  were  electroplated.  In 
this respect, an adjustment was made for difference in chrome, as mentioned in recital 
(81) below. 

2.5. 

Further information requested after the information disclosure note of 5 July 2012 

(54)  Some exporting producers requested further clarifications and information in order to 
be  able  to  make  a  possible  request  for  adjustments  to  their  own  dumping  margin  as 
established in the original investigation, based on the following considerations: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

characteristics of the "product types" used (CN codes, strength class, standard 
vs special parts) for the determination of the normal value; 

further information regarding characteristics of the products sold by the Indian 
producer used for the determination of the normal value; 

clarification  regarding  the  reasons  why  the  remaining  characteristics  of  the 
original PCN were not used; and 

(d) 

adjustments to be made for difference in physical characteristics. 

(55)  Regarding point a) above, as mentioned in the information note provided on 30 May 
2012, the strength class of the fasteners sold by the Indian cooperating producer was 
the  indicator  of  strength  contained  in  the  PCN  used  in  the  questionnaire  sent  to  all 
parties.  The  strength  class  was  identified  by  using  the  same  relevant  element  of  the 
PCN  by  the  Indian  producer  on  the  sales  listings  verified  during  the  on-spot 
verification visit. 

(56)  The distinction between special and standard fasteners was explained in recital (54) of 
the  definitive  Regulation.  'Special'  fasteners  are  those  manufactured  to  a  customer 
drawing.  'Standard'  fasteners  are  those  manufactured  for  stock  and  not  to  the 
specifications of a particular customer. The need to differentiate between standard and 
special  fasteners  produced  by  the  Indian  cooperating  producer  had  been  fully 
recognised and as mentioned in recitals (51) and (54) of the definitive Regulation, the 

EN 

17 

   EN 

comparison  between  the  export  price  and  the  normal  value  for  the  sampled  Chinese 
exporting producers was made between fasteners of the "standard" type.  

(57)  With  regard  to  issues  raised  under  point  b),  for  confidentiality  reasons,  it  is  not 
possible  to  disclose  the  exact  types  of  model  of  screws  and  bolts  sold  by  the  Indian 
producer.  However,  as  indicated above, the  comparison  was  made  on  a  weight  basis 
within the same category standard or special and within the same strength class set out 
in the PCN. 

(58)  Again  in  regard  to  issues  raised  under  point  b),  several  interested  parties  requested 
more information on coating. The original investigation data was further analysed and 
this  showed  that  the  product  sold  as  'standard'  on  the  Indian  domestic  market  had  a 
basic coating i.e. electroplating. This information was provided in hearings requested 
by  interested  parties  and  was  redisclosed  to  the  interested  parties  that  had  requested 
this information and was also placed in the file for inspection by interested parties. 

(59)  Two sampled exporting producers requested more information regarding adjustments 
for  the  use  of  chrome  in  coating.  The  sales  data  provided  by  the  Indian  cooperating 
producer  were  further  analysed  which  led  to  an  adjustment  in  the  normal  value  for 
difference  in  chrome  as  explained  in  recital  (81)  below.  The  same  two  exporting 
producers requested more clarification as to how the profitability was determined for 
the  domestic  sales  of  the  Indian  cooperating  producer;  whether  the  production  costs 
had  been  reported  on  a  PCN  basis  or  whether  average  costs  had  been  used;  and 
whether the normal value included sales to any related companies.  

(60)  All relevant information regarding the normal value were mentioned in Recital (94) of 
the  definitive  Regulation.  It  is  also  specified  that  only  domestic  sales  to  unrelated 
companies were used. 

(61)  These two exporting producers later argued that they had serious doubts about whether 
the profitability and the representativity tests were carried out in a correct way. More 
specifically with regard to the representativity test, these exporting producers doubted 
that the quantities of the domestic sales of the Indian producer were above 5% of their 
export sales per the revised product groups. In regard to the representativity test it was 
found  that  in  cases  where  the  5%  test  was  not  met  for  a  particular  product  type, 
domestic sales were nonetheless found to be of sufficient magnitude to provide for a 
proper comparison. With regard to the profitability test, it is confirmed that this was 
carried out on a product type basis. 

(62)  With  regard  to  the  issues  raised  under  point  c)  above  i.e.  why  the  full  PCN  was  not 
used to compare normal value to export price, it became clear during the investigation 
that the full PCN would not be a reliable indicator. Firstly, because neither the Chinese 
nor  the  Indian  authorities  distinguish  between  the  10  CN  codes  used  to  define  the 
product concerned as do the EU authorities. Secondly, as explained in recital (48) of 
the definitive Regulation, a number of parties claimed that fasteners produced by the 
Chinese exporting producers were standard products (mainly ranging between 4.8 and 
8.8  class  of  resistance),  which  had  no  special  characteristics  regarding  raw  material, 
resistance,  coating,  or  certification/safety  related  aspects;  which  were  destined  for 
lower-end  applications  (non  professional  use  and  general  distribution)  as  opposed  to 
high-end applications; and did not meet strict requirements of specific end-users such 
as the automotive, chemical or aerospace industry. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

(63)  With regard to the issues raised under point d) above, elements of "traceability", ISO 
standard  9000,  unit  of  defective  rate  and  other  criteria  such  as  "hardness,  bending, 
strength,  impact  toughness,  friction  coefficient"  which  were  raised  by  two  other 
exporting  producers  could  not  be  accepted,  as  the  companies  concerned  have  not 
shown  how  these  elements  affect  the  price  comparability  between  the  normal  value 
and export price. 

(64) 

In the absence of any specific information with regard to the lack of comparability as 
claimed  in  addition  to  the  recommendations  which  had  been  made  by  the  interested 
parties  in  the  original  investigation,  and  given  the  limited  amount  of  further 
information available regarding other technical characteristics such as coating, it was 
concluded  in  the  original  investigation  that  the  main  factors  and  differences 
highlighted by the interested parties themselves, in particular standard vs special and 
strength class constituted a sufficient basis on which to base the comparison between 
the normal value and export prices. 

2.6. 

Further disclosure of information concerning the normal value on 11 July 2012 

(65)  On 11 July 2012 the Commission further disclosed the reclassification of the normal 
value as described above and its proposed recalculation of the dumping margins on the 
basis explained above and requested comments.  

(66)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (32)  above,  the  Indian  producer  provided  in  its  original 
submission a domestic sales listing ('DMSAL'), without PCNs. The only identifier of 
each  sale  was  an  Item  Code,  which  was  an  internal  code  for  each  product,  and  a 
product description text string, for example: 

M8X1.25X16 FLANGE SCREW

(67)  As explained in recitals (48) to (57) of the definitive Regulation, the Indian company 
provided a split of its domestic sales between standard and special fasteners using the 
distinction  mentioned  in  recital  (77).  As  a  result  the  DMSAL  was  submitted  as  two 
files,  'Standard  DMSAL'  and  'Special  DMSAL'.  Those  sales  that  could  not  be 
identified as either Standard or Special were excluded from further calculation of the 
normal value. 

(68)  During  the  investigation  it  also  became  clear  that  the  strength  class  of  the  fastener 
would  be  needed  to  establish  the  normal  value.  The  Indian  company  identified  the 
strength class per line of the 'Standard DMSAL' and 'Special DMSAL' files and these 
were  submitted  with  a  column  labelled  'Grade'  with  the  strength  class  indicated,  for 
example: 

DESCRIPTION 

GRADE 

M8X1.25X16 FLANGE SCREW 

8.8

(69)  The  original  normal  value  was  calculated  on  this  basis,  using  the  split  into 
standard/special  and  the  strength  class,  as  set  out  in  the  first  disclosure  of  the 
implementation review on 30 May 2012. 

(70)  As mentioned in recital (54), some exporting producers requested further clarifications 
making  reference  to  the  lack  of  comparison  on  the  basis  of  coating,  diameter  and 

EN 

19 

   EN 

length  of  the  fastener  and  argued  that  this  might  have  an  effect  on  the  level  of  the 
normal value originally calculated. 

(71) 

In  the  absence  of  the  PCN,  the  description  text  string  of  each  transaction  (after 
grouping together transactions with the same description text) was analysed to extract 
the  diameter  and  length  of  the  fastener  sold.  Taking  the  example  above,  M8  = 
diameter, and 16 = length. In this case therefore, this describes a screw with a diameter 
of 8mm and a length of 16mm. The 1.25 refers to the thread pitch, which was not used 
to classify the product concerned. 

(72)  The  PCN  used  by  the  Chinese  exporting  producers  reports  this  data  slightly 

differently. The screw above would have reported '080016' for diameter and length. 

(73)  To ensure matching between the normal value and the export price, the Commission 
ranged  the  diameter  and  length  into  three  equal  bands,  as  set  out  in  the  second 
disclosure letter of 5 July 2012:  

Indicator 

Diameter 

Length 

Small 

M4 to M10 

0 to 100 mm 

Medium 

M12 to M20 

100 to 200 mm 

Large 

M22 to M30 

200 to 300 mm 

(74)  A small number of sales of the Indian producer fell outside these ranges and were not 
used  to  calculate  the  normal  value.  The  screw  described  above  would  therefore  be 
reported with the revised PCN 'GSS' = strength class 8.8; small diameter; small length. 

(75) 

It was clear from the example above that the product description text string does not 
include  any  information  on  the  coating  used  by  the  Indian  domestic  producer.  The 
investigation file was therefore checked for any evidence of the type of coating, if any, 
used  by  the  Indian  producer  for  their  sales  of  standard  fasteners  on  their  domestic 
market.  Confidential  evidence  in  the  file,  verified  at  the  premises  of  the  Indian 
producer, showed the use of electroplating (PCN type A) on standard fasteners on the 
domestic market and this was disclosed to all parties on 5 July 2012. 

2.7. 

Comments to the information disclosure note of 11 July 2012 

(76)  Several exporting producers responded to the above disclosure. As requested by those 
exporting producers, a hearing, chaired by the Hearing Officer for DG Trade, was held 
to continue the dialogue with the Commission and discuss the points raised by them. 
In particular the exporting producers raised the following issues: 

(a)  The methodology by which the Indian producer had split its domestic sales into 

standard and special; 

(b) 

In  the  event  that  some  fasteners  sold  to  the  automotive  industry  were 
considered  as  standard  fasteners,  an  "important  adjustment"  would  be 
warranted; 

EN 

20 

   EN 

(77) 

(78) 

(c)  Adjustments  to  the  normal  value  under  Article  2(10)(b)  for  the  indirect  taxes 

incurred on the import of wire rod into India; 

(d)  The presence of Chrome VI in the coating of the standard fasteners; 

(e)  The  methodology  followed  by  the  Commission  where  there  was  no  matching 

domestic sale for a particular export transaction; and 

(f)  Disclosure of the product codes of the Indian producer’s domestic sales 

In regard to point (a) above, the Indian producer split its domestic sales into standard 
and  special  by  considering  that  fasteners  manufactured  to  a  customer  drawing  were 
special fasteners, whilst other sales are standard fasteners, i.e. not made to any specific 
or customer drawing. 

In regard to point (b) above and as mentioned in a note for the file dated 13 July 2012 
sent  to  the  said  interested  parties  following  the  hearing  held  on  11  July,  the 
Commission confirmed that in the absence of the customer names as mentioned above, 
the Commission refers  to  recital (47)  above. In addition, the Commission notes that, 
according  to  the  European  association  of  fastener  producers,  "in  Europe,  when  a 
Customer  -  particularly  in  the  Automotive  Sector  -  does  order  a  fastener  product 
manufactured in accordance with a drawing, but which is as well fully in accordance 
with international standards (ISO, EN, DIN, AFNOR, UNI), this product is in any case 
considered  by  the  Fasteners  Producer  as  "special"  product  and  consequently 
identified - within the internal classification of the Company - as "special ... this is the 
"modus  operandi"  of  all  of  Fasteners  Producers  worldwide  and  also  in  India".  The 
Commission  is  thus  confident  that  standard  fasteners  destined  to  the  automotive 
industry were not included in the list of standard fasteners provided during the original 
investigation findings. Therefore, this claim was rejected. 

(79) 

In regard to point (c) above, in a hearing, exporting producers raised the issue  of an 
adjustment under Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation, to take account of the duties 
on importation of wire rod into India which are included in the normal value, but not 
on  the  export  price  from  China.  Chinese  sampled  companies  during  the  original 
investigation purchased wire rod manufactured in China. 

(80)  The  raw  material  imported  by  the  Indian  producer  was  subject  to  the  basic  customs 
duty  (5%  of  assessable  value)  and  the  Customs  Education  Cess  (3%  of  the  basic 
customs duty value plus the CVD amount). However, according to Article 2(10)(b) of 
the basic Regulation, such an adjustment for indirect taxes is claimable if the import 
charges  borne  by  the  like  product  and  by  material  physically  incorporated  therein, 
when  intended  for  consumption  on  the  domestic  market  would  not  be  collected  or 
would  be  refunded  when  the  like  product  is  exported  to  the  European  Union.  In  the 
absence  of  a  claim  and  evidence  that  exports  from  the  above-mentioned  exporting 
producers to the EU would benefit from a non-collection or refund of import charges 
on imports of raw materials (wire rod), the claim must be rejected. Furthermore, such 
an adjustment is not normally available when the exporting producer concerned, as is 
the case in this review, sources all its raw materials from domestic suppliers incurring 
therefore no import charge. 

(81) 

In regard to point (d) above, evidence on the original investigation file showed that the 
standard  coating  on  the  standard  fasteners  sold  on  the  Indian  domestic  market 

EN 

21 

   EN 

contained  Chrome  Cr3,  and  therefore  this  matched  to  the  PCN  definition  of  no 
Chrome VI added to the coating. Dumping margins were therefore recalculated taking 
the  most  expensive  chrome  coating  type  on  the  export  side,  without  an  export  price 
adjustment.  Two  exporting  producers  argued  that  the  information  on  coating 
concerned  the  present  situation  rather  than  the  situation  in  the  IP.  This  is  incorrect. 
Verified  evidence  was  obtained  during  the  verification  in  the  course  of  the  original 
investigation  showing  that  all  standard  fasteners  sold  domestically  in  India  were 
electroplated during the original IP.  

In regard to point (e) above, it is confirmed that dumping margins were calculated on 
the basis that where there was no matching domestic sale, the export transaction would 
be  excluded  from  the  dumping  calculation.  Some  parties  argued  that  there  was  no 
basis  to  exclude  certain  export  transactions  in  calculating  the  dumping  margin. 
However,  for  all  the  sampled  Chinese  exporting  producer  significant  matching 
between  the  domestic  sales  and  exports  sales  was  found  so  as  to  arrive  at  a  fair 
representation of the sales made by the different parties.  

In  regard  to  point  (f)  above,  the  Chinese  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  a  Chinese 
exporter claimed that the Indian producer did not give good cause for not allowing the 
Commission  to  disclose  specific  information  regarding  the  product  codes  of  its 
domestic  sales.  The  Commission  provided  as  much  information  as  possible,  while 
respecting the confidentiality rules, through a number of notes for the file, information 
note  made  available  to  all  interested  parties  and  hearings  granted  to  the  Chinese 
Chamber of Commerce and to all Chinese exporters who requested them. In regard to 
the request for disclosure of the Indian producer's product codes, the disclosure of this 
information  will  allow  the  other  parties  to  calculate  with  a  reasonable  accuracy  the 
domestic  prices  of  the  Indian  producer,  which  should  be  avoided  on  the  ground  of 
protection  of  business  confidential  information.  Failure  to  protect  confidential 
information  could  leave  the  Commission  to  possible  claims  for  damages  and 
discourage  companies  in  analogue  countries  whose  cooperation  is  voluntary  from 
cooperating in investigations. This request was therefore rejected. 

Adjustments  made  to  the  methodology  used  in  the  definitive  Regulation  in  the 
calculation of normal value 

In view of the representations made by Chinese exporting producers in this review as 
to  the  definition  of  product  types  in  the  calculation  of  the  normal  value  from  India 
arguing  that  in  addition  to  the  distinction  between  standard  vs  special  and  strength 
class, the elements of diameter, length and the coating were important and the hearings 
and  dialogue  which  ensued  in  the  presence  of  the  Hearing  Officer,  the  data  of  the 
Indian producer was re-examined.  

(82) 

(83) 

2.8. 

(84) 

(85)  Following this re-examination, the Commission was able to identify the diameter and 
the  length  of  the  fasteners  sold  on  the  Indian  domestic  market.  To  allow  a  fair 
comparison  between  these  fasteners  and  those  exported  from  the  PRC,  both  the 
diameter and length were ranged and a normal  value calculated  for each range. This 
was explained in detail in two information notes dated 5 and 11 July 2012 which were 
made  available  to  all  interested  parties.  By  summarising  into  ranges  to  distinguish 
between the main product dimensions sold by the Indian producer, this methodology 
allowed for a fair comparison with the exports of the Chinese companies as requested 
by interested parties. Subsequently, two exporting producers argued that they did not 

EN 

22 

   EN 

have  complete  information,  claiming  that  the  classification  was  obscure  and 
inappropriate  and,  therefore,  did  not  have  sufficient  information  to  claim  an 
adjustment for physical differences. However, beyond  these  general  statements  these 
two  exporting  producers  did  not  provide  any  valid  alternative  suggestion  nor 
substantive evidence. The claim was therefore dismissed.  

(86)  EFDA claimed that using diameter and length did not reflect reality and suggested an 
alternative  which  related  the  two  criteria  in  order  in  their  view  to  avoid  leaving  out 
some  products,  without  however  substantiating  this  alternative  approach.  The 
classification  proposed  by  the  Commission  did  not  exclude  any  product  types  (all 
diameter and length possible combinations were covered) and thus this claim could not 
be further examined. 

(87)  All  of  the  standard  fasteners  sold  were  found  to  be  electroplated  and  so  the  normal 
value was calculated on a coating basis corresponding to the PCN code 'A'. Where a 
sampled Chinese exporting producer did not export fasteners with coating type A, the 
nearest coating type was used without any export price adjustment. 

(88)  The  strength  class  data,  and  the  split  between  standard  and  special,  remained 

unchanged. 

(89)  Two  exporting  producers  requested  the  intervention  of  the  Hearing  Officer  for  DG 
Trade  to  examine  the  confidential  data  of  the  Indian  analogue  producer  and  provide 
assurances  regarding  the  confidential  nature  of  its  domestic  sales,  as  well  as  on  the 
question of coating of standard fasteners, the presence of chrome on coating and on the 
extraction  of  information  regarding  length  and  diameter  for  standard  fasteners.  The 
Hearing Officer, after examining the confidential data of the Indian analogue producer 
clarified  the  questions  posed  by  the  two  exporting  producers.  The  report  of  the 
Hearing Officer was placed in the file for inspection by interested parties. 

(90)  Despite  the  above-mentioned  additional  information,  clarifications,  hearings  and 
dialogue held, some parties continued to claim that they lacked information to allow 
them to make requests for adjustments to ensure a fair comparison. The Commission 
provided  extensive  information  to  the  parties  on  the  product  groups  used  in 
establishing  normal  value,  as  required  by  the  Appellate  Body.6  In  addition,  over  an 
extended  period  of  time  running  from  30  May  2012  until  19  July  2012,  the 
Commission  provided  information  and  replied  to  all  questions  raised  by  all  parties. 
Furthermore, an additional period of 20 days was granted to all parties to comment on 
the final disclosure. 

(91)  The same parties argued that, contrary to the Appellate Body Report, the Commission 
refused  to  disclose  information  on  the  specific  products  of  the  Indian  producer  that 
were used in establishing the normal value without showing good cause. Article 6.5 of 
the  ADA  stipulates  that  information  which  is  confidential  or  is  provided  on  a 
confidential basis shall be treated as such by the investigating authorities. In this case, 
the  Indian  producer  provided  information  on  product  types  sold  on  the  domestic 
market  on  a  confidential  basis  and  the  company  has  renewed  its  request  for 
confidential  treatment  addressed  to  the  Commission,  stating  that  it  continues  to 

6 

Appellate Body Report: Para. 512 which states that "Article 2(4) obliges investigation authorities ... at a 
minimum to inform parties of the product groups used for purposes of the price comparison" 

EN 

23 

   EN 

                                                 
consider  that  information  as  strictly  confidential  as  referred  to  in  recital  (82).  These 
parties  also  claimed  that  the  Commission  failed  to  provide  a  meaningful  non-
confidential summary of the information provided by the Indian producer as required 
by the Reports. However, in the continuing dialogue process and as mentioned in the 
recitals above, the Commission disclosed all relevant information within the limits of 
confidentiality  to  the  interested  parties  relating  to  the  Indian  producer  so  that  they 
could defend their interest. 

2.9. 

Determination  of  normal  value  for  the  exporting  producers  in  the  PRC,  Normal 
value, Export prices, comparison 

(92)  Normal  value  was  calculated  and  compared  to  the  export  price  as  set  out  above. 
Adjustments  to  the  export  price  were  made  to  remove  the  price  difference  where 
Chrome  VI  was  added  to  the  coating  on  the  fasteners  concerned.  A  comparison 
between the two was made on an ex-works basis, as in the original investigation.  

2.10.  Claims for adjustments based on the product characteristics 

(93)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  an  adjustment  under  Article  2(10)(a)  of  the  basic 
regulation for physical differences in the various types (hexagon screws, wood screws, 
bolts, etc.) of the product concerned. Since the exporting producer concerned does not, 
for reasons of confidentiality, have access to the full normal value data, the company 
relied on its own export prices to demonstrate the extent to which prices vary for each 
type of fastener.  

(94) 

In  the  original  investigation  the  comparison  between  normal  value  and  export  price 
was made by distinguishing between standard and special types of fasteners, as stated 
in recital (102) of the definitive Regulation, and also by identifying strength class. The 
full product control numbers (PCNs) were not used in this case given that the producer 
in  the  analogue  country  did  not  provide  information  categorised  on  the  basis  of  the 
PCNs as requested. One of the elements of the original PCN aimed at identifying the 
different types of fastener according to which CN code they fell under. Given that this 
information was not provided by the Indian producer, this element could not be used 
in making the comparison in the original investigation.  

(95)  The  information  provided  by  the  exporting  producer  indicated  that  there  may  be 
grounds  to  adjust  for  differences  in  the  various  types  of  fasteners.  However,  the 
methodology  suggested  was  not  considered  appropriate,  given  that  the  company  did 
not  provide  precise  product  type  information  according  to  CN  code,  as  explained  in 
recital  (34),  as  had  originally  been  requested.  As  an  alternative,  an  examination  was 
made  of  the  differences  in  prices  of  the  Union  industry  on  the  Union  market  to 
determine  whether  price  differences  existed  between  the  different  types  of  fasteners. 
The information provided by the Union industry had been provided in full by PCN as 
originally requested. This examination confirmed that prices on the EU market varied 
depending  on  the  type  of  fastener.  On  this  basis,  it  was  considered  appropriate  to 
adjust  the  normal  values  to  reflect  these  differences.  As  a  basis  for  adjustment,  the 
average price of sales by the Union industry on the Union market was valued as "1" 
with  all  individual  types  being  given  their  own  individual  value  depending  on  their 
price relationship to the average price. These values were then applied to the normal 
value used in the comparison with each type exported by the exporting producer. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

(96)  As these adjustments were made on the basis of the market value of the differences in 
physical  characteristics  on  the  EU  market,  it  was  considered  appropriate  to  make 
similar  adjustments  in  the  calculation  of  the  dumping  margins  of  all  exporting 
producers.  

(97)  Following  the  publication  of  the  General  Disclosure  document  the  CCME  and  a 
Chinese  exporter  argued  that  the  Commission  was  still  violating  of  Articles  2.4,  6.2 
and 6.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by not providing timely information on 
the  basis  of  which  the  export  price  and  normal  value  was  compared  and  invited  the 
Commission to disclose comprehensive information on the normal value product types 
used  in  order  to  meet  its  obligation  to  provide  the  opportunities  to  the  Chinese 
exporting producers to ensure the defence of their interest, present their case on a fully 
informed  basis  and  ensure  a  fair  comparison  between  export  prices  and  the  normal 
value.  The  said  parties  therefore  requested  the  Commission  to  re-examine  the 
following: 

(a)  Full disclosure of the normal value product types; 

(b)  Ensure that standard fasteners produced by the Chinese exporting producers are 
not  compared  to  fasteners  manufactured  by  the  analogue  producer  for  use  in 
high-end applications; 

(c)  Provide evidence on how to substantiate requests for adjustments; 

(d)  Provide information on how certain adjustments were made; and 

(e)  The obligation of the EU not to disregard any export transactions. 

(98)  With  regard  to  point  a),  in  the  light  of  the  information  made  available  through  the 
information  notes  dated  30  May  2012,  11  July  2012,  13  July  2012,  the  General 
Disclosure document sent on 31 July 2012 and in particular recitals (77) until (96) and 
the  hearings  held  in  the  course  of  the  consultation  process,  it  is  considered  that  all 
information which could be disclosed within the limits of the requirements regarding 
confidentiality has been provided to interested parties. 

(99)  With regard to point b) regarding the need to ensure that standard fasteners produced 
by the Chinese exporting producers are not compared to fasteners manufactured by the 
analogue producer for use in high-end applications, this aspect has been addressed in 
recital  (78)  above.  In  the  absence  of  any  new  evidence,  and  faced  with  mere 
allegations by the said parties about the possible presence of fasteners destined to high 
end applications other than the automotive industry, the Commission considers that the 
information  available  in  the  file  is  sufficiently  reliable  to  ensure  that  only  standard 
fasteners were used for the determination of the normal value used for the comparison 
with the export prices of the said Chinese exporter. 

(100)  With regard to point c) and the allegations according to which the Commission failed 
to  provide  information  on  how  Chinese  exporting  producers  could  substantiate 
requests for adjustments regarding elements of "traceability", ISO standard 9000, unit 
of  defective  rate  and  other  criteria  such  as  "hardness,  bending,  strength,  impact 
toughness, friction coefficient" (see recital (63) above) and duties on the importation 
costs (see recitals (79) and (80) above), the Commission notes the following. Firstly, it 
is recalled that these elements have been raised by the parties without providing any 

EN 

25 

   EN 

further  details.  During  a  hearing  held  by  the  Hearing  Officer  on  11  July  2012,  the 
Commission invited the parties to provide additional information regarding the above-
mentioned  issues,  but  no  additional  information  was  provided.  With  regard  to  the 
request  for  adjustments  on  export  prices  to  take  into  account  the  duties  on  the 
importation of wire rod into India and, in general, cheaper access to raw materials for 
Chinese  exporting  producers,  the  Commission  explained  in  detail  in  recital  (80)  the 
reason why this adjustment could not be accepted. Moreover, as set out in recital (63) 
of the original Regulation, the cost of the major raw material – steel wire rod – did not 
substantially reflect market values. It was found that the prices of the steel wire rods 
charged on the domestic market were significantly lower than those charged on other 
markets. Therefore, these distorted prices cannot be used as a basis for adjustment as 
requested  by  the  said  parties.  In  these  circumstances,  the  Commission  fails  to  see 
which additional information, in the view of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and 
the exporting producer, could be provided to further substantiate these two requests for 
adjustments.  

(101)  With  regard  to  point  d)  it  is  recalled  that  information  regarding  the  "normal  value 
types of the EU producers and their price levels, as well as the impact of the resulting 
adjustments on the normal value types of the analogue producer" are confidential and 
cannot be disclosed. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and one Chinese exporting 
producer  requested  further  clarifications  on  how  the  adjustments  for  the  price 
difference  of  coating  has  been  done.  However,  as  indicated  in  recital  (92)  above,  it 
should  be  noted  that  in  the  specific  disclosure  document,  the  Commission  indicated 
which exported product types have been adjusted, thus allowing the parties concerned 
to understand how the adjustment was made. 

(102)  With regard to point e) and the alleged need to take into account all comparable export 
transactions  in  the  dumping  calculation  in  order  to  ensure  a  fair  price  comparison 
pursuant  to  Article  2.4.2  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping  Agreement,  the  Commission 
notes  that  it  is  precisely  following  the  request  and  suggestions  made  by  the  said 
parties,  that  the  normal  value  used  for  the  determination  of  dumping  margins  was 
adjusted. The methodology used was explained in recitals (93) to (96) above and the 
reasons for expressing the amount of dumping found as a percentage of those export 
transactions used in calculating the amount of dumping outlined in recitals (107) and 
(108)  below  are  in  full  compliance  with  Article  2.4.2  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping 
Agreement,  which  refers  to  comparable  export  transactions.  In  this  case,  all 
comparable  transactions  (by  product  types)  have  been  used  for  the  comparison. 
Therefore, it was reasonable to express the amount of dumping found as a percentage 
of those export transactions used in calculating the amount of dumping. 

(103)  Following  the  general  disclosure,  two  Chinese  exporting  producers  reiterated  that 
adjustments  should  be  made  for  alleged  differences  in  efficiency  of  consumption  of 
the  raw  material  and  easier  access  to  raw  material,  more  efficient  electricity 
consumption  and  lower  productivity  per  employee.  It  is  recalled  that  none  of  the 
Chinese exporting producers received MET in the original investigation and their cost 
structure cannot be considered as reflecting market values that can be used as a basis 
for  adjustments  in  particular  with  regard  to  access  to  raw  materials.  In  addition,  it 
should  be  noted  that  the  production  processes  existing  in  the  PRC  were  found  to  be 
comparable to the Indian producer's and the alleged differences were found to be very 
minor. In this case, the Indian producer was found to be competing with many other 
producers  on  the  Indian  domestic  market,  it  is  considered  that  its  prices  were  fully 

EN 

26 

   EN 

reflecting the situation in the domestic market. As mentioned in recital (41) above, a 
surrogate of the costs and prices of producers in functioning market economies had to 
be used for the purpose of establishing the normal value. 

(104)  The same two Chinese exporting producers argued that in summarising the data on diameter 
and length into ranges, the Commission should not refer to ranges but use the actual figures 
for  length  and  diameter  to  carry  out  the  comparison.  Firstly,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (70) 
above,  the  Commission  agreed  following  a  hearing  held  on  26th  June  2012  with  the  same 
parties to range the diameter and length in order to take into account the impact of the physical 
characteristics  on  prices.  The  said  parties  themselves  indicated  some  possible  ranges,  the 
Commission  however,  indicated  during  the  hearing  that  these  proposed  ranges  should  be 
revised in order to ensure the matching of all exported types to closely resembling types of the 
Indian producer. Secondly, the said parties stated in a presentation made during a hearing held 
on July 3, 2012 as an example, that the diameter would have a small impact in terms of unit 
consumption of raw material. Therefore, this claim was rejected. 

2.11.  Dumping margins 

(105)  The  dumping  margins  were  established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  a  weighted 

average normal value with a weighted average export price. 

(106)  The definitive dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at 
the Union border, duty unpaid, for the exporting producer subject to this review is the 
following: 

Bulten Fasteners (China) Co., Ltd 

0.0% 

(107)  The revised definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import 

price at the Union border, duty unpaid, are as follows:  

Exporting producer in the PRC 

Existing dumping margin 

Revised dumping 
margin 

Biao Wu Tensile Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Kunshan Chenghe Standard Components Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co., Ltd. 

Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd. 

Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Changshu 
British Shanghai International Fastener Co., Ltd. 

69.9% 

93.2% 

74.5% 

105.3% 

63.1% 

CELO Suzhou Precision Fasteners Co., Ltd 

0% 

Golden Horse (Dong Guan) Metal Manufactory Co., Ltd 

26.5% 

Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd 

Cooperating exporting producers not selected to form part 
of the sample  

0% 

78.1% 

43.4% 

63.7% 

64.3% 

69.7% 

38.3% 

0% 

22.9% 

0% 

54.1% 

All other companies 

115.4% 

74.1% 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
(108)  One  exporting  producer  argued  that  in  calculating  its  dumping  margin,  the  total 
amount of dumping found should be expressed as a percentage of the total CIF value 
of all export transactions and not as a percentage of those export transactions used in 
calculating the amount of dumping. To do otherwise would, in this company's opinion, 
amount  to  a  presumption  of  dumping  for  those  export  transactions  not  used  in  the 
dumping determination.  

(109)  A  comparison  between  export  price  and  normal  value  was  made  on  a  weighted 
average  basis  only  for  those  types  exported  by  the  Chinese  exporting  producer  for 
which  a  matching  type  was  produced  and  sold  by  the  Indian  producer.  This  was 
considered to be the most reliable basis for establishing the level of dumping, if any, 
of  this  exporting  producer;  to  attempt  to  match  all  other  exported  types  to  closely 
resembling  types  of  the  Indian  producer  would  have  resulted  in  inaccurate  findings. 
On this basis, it is correct to express the amount of dumping found as a percentage of 
those export transactions used in calculating the amount of dumping – this finding is 
considered to be representative for all types exported. The same approach was used in 
calculating the dumping margins of the other exporting producers. 

3. 

Definition of the Union industry 

(110)  As  indicated  in  the  Notice  of  Initiation,  the  Commission  reassessed  the  definition  of 
the  Union  industry,  in  order  to  take  into  account  the  recommendations  of  the  DSB 
Reports, suggesting that the EU had acted inconsistently with Article 4.1 of the WTO 
Anti-Dumping  Agreement  by  excluding  from  the  Union  industry  definition  those 
producers unwilling to be included in the sample and by considering that the threshold 
of  25%  enshrined  in  Article  4.1  of  the  basic  Regulation  automatically  represented  a 
"major  proportion"  of  the  total  Union  production  of  the  product  concerned.  In 
paragraph  430  of  the  report  of  the  Appellate  Body  issued  on  15  July  2011,  it  is 
acknowledged  that  the  "fragmented  nature  of  the  fasteners  industry,  however,  might 
have  permitted  such  a  low  proportion  due  to  the  impacticability  of  obtaining  more 
information, provided that the process with which the Commission defined the industry 
did not give rise to a material risk of distortion. […] by limiting the domestic industry 
definition  to  those  producers  willing  to  be  part  of  the  sample,  the  Commission 
excluded producers that provided relevant information." (emphasis added). It is these 
latter producers which are now being included into the definition of Union industry.  

(111)  In the original investigation it was found that the production of  the Union producers 
that  agreed  to  be  included  in  the  sample  and  fully  cooperated  in  the  original 
investigation  represented  27,0  %  of  the  total  production  of  the  product  concerned  in 
the  Union.  It  was  therefore  considered  that  these  companies  constituted  the  Union 
industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(112)  Following  the  conclusions  of  the  DSB  Reports  and  based  on  all  valid  submissions 
received from all EU producers who had come forward within the deadline laid down 
in  paragraph  6.  (b)  (i)  of  the  Notice  of  Initiation  of  an  anti-dumping  proceeding 
concerning  imports  of  certain  iron  or  steel  fasteners  originating  in  the  People's 
Republic  of  China  (7),  and  regardless  of  whether  they  indicated  that  they  were 
prepared to be part of the sample, the Commission recalculated that the Union industry 

7 

OJ C 267/31, 9.11.2007, p. 31 

EN 

28 

   EN 

                                                 
actually  represented  36,3%  of  the  total  production  of  the  product  concerned  in  the 
Union in 2006. 

(113)  Having  reviewed  the  definition  of  the  Union  industry,  the  Commission  ascertained 
whether  the  percentage  of  production  of  fasteners  of  that  industry  out  of  the  total 
estimated  production  represented  a  major  proportion  in  the  sense  of  Article  4.1  the 
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. 

(114)  As  mentioned  in  recital  (112)  of  the  definitive  Regulation,  the  investigation 
established that the like product is manufactured by a high number of producers in the 
Union,  estimated  at  over  300  mostly  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  ("SMEs") 
but including a few larger companies or groups of companies. At the time of initiation 
of the original investigation, the Commission contacted each of these known producers 
and asked them to participate in the investigation and provide certain information on 
their  operations.  Neither  the  Notice  of  Initiation  published  upon  initiation  of  the 
original investigation nor the cover letter sent on the day of initiation to all known EU 
producers, made reference to the fact that the information submitted by EU producers 
who did not wish to cooperate would be disregarded. 

(115)  As mentioned, most of the EU fasteners producers are small, if not, micro enterprises 
(family  businesses)  that  typically  have  limited  resources  including  financial  and 
personnel  resources,  are  not  members  of  national  or  EU  associations  which  could 
represent  them  during  the  investigation  and,  as  is  often  the  case  for  SMEs,  have  no 
resources to engage specialised trade lawyers and accountants. Small companies also 
have  strong  concerns  with  regard  to  the  protection  of  their  confidential  data  in  the 
course  of  such  investigations,  which  they  consider  as  vital.  Nevertheless,  a  good 
number  of  producers  came  forward  (63  EU  producers  in  total)  and  provided  the 
required information. It should be noted that these producers consisted of both SMEs 
and larger companies which were spread throughout the EU. In light of the foregoing, 
in view of the specific circumstance of this case, these producers, which represented 
36,3% of the total production of the product concerned in the EU, can be considered to 
constitute a major proportion of the total Union industry and consequently within the 
meaning  of  Article  4.1  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping  Agreement.  Furthermore,  as 
mentioned,  since  all  the  largest  known  producers  in  the  EU  came  forward  upon 
initiation,  within  the  deadline  laid  down  in  the  original  Notice  of  Initiation,  the 
selected sample in the original investigation can be considered as representative, even 
after the inclusion of a further 18 EU producers in the definition of the Union industry. 

(116)  The Chinese Chamber of Commerce argued that the Commission could not limit itself 
to use the data received from the EU producers that came forward within the deadline 
mentioned  in  recital  (112)  above  as  certain  EU  producers  may  have  chosen  not  to 
manifest  themselves  since  they  were  not  willing  to  form  part  of  the  sample  and 
therefore knew that their response would be disregarded. The association of Chinese 
exporters  requested  the  Commission  "to  start  the  whole  selection  process  anew  and 
contact  all  EU  producers  without  referring  to  the  fact  that  the  producers  must  be 
willing  to  form  part  of  the  sample"8.  However,  in  the  light  of  the  above,  it  was 
considered, that there was no need to reopen the process of selecting a final sample, as 

8 

"Review  of  the  Anti-Dumping  Measures  in  Force  on  Imports  of  Fasteners  Originating  in  the  PRC 
Hearing",  Hearing  organised  by  the  Hearing  Officer  with  the  Chinese  Fasteners  Industry  Association 
(CCME), 11 July 2012 

EN 

29 

   EN 

                                                 
the  largest  known  EU  producers  came  forward  at  initiation  stage.  Following  the 
disclosure, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce reiterated that it could not be excluded 
that a large number of producers simply did not respond to the sampling questionnaire 
“precisely  because  they  know  that  their  unwillingness  to  form  part  of  the  sample 
would automatically result in their exclusion from the domestic industry”. It should be 
noted that the same arguments has been put forward by Chinese exporting producers 
and European importers during the original investigation who were arguing against the 
existence  of  standing.  As  explained  in  recital  (26)  of  the  definitive  regulation,  the 
Commission contacted a significant number of Union producers after the initiation of 
the  proceeding  and  only  a  few  of  them  replied.  It  should  be  noted  that  no  reference 
was made to their possible inclusion or not in the final sampling. In fact, the possible 
selection  of  Union  producers  in  the  final  sample  was  irrelevant  in  their  decision  to 
come forward during the proceeding, as their decision was motivated by other factors 
as  those  highlighted  in  recital  (115)  above.  Therefore,  the  request  addressed  to  the 
Commission  that  the  Commission  should  conduct  the  injury  assessment  anew  was 
rejected. 

4. 

Situation of the Union industry 

(117)  Following  the  Reports,  the  injury  findings  established  in  the  original  investigation 
were  re-examined  at  the  level  of  the  Union  industry  as  defined  according  to  recital 
(114)  above,  for  trends  concerning  production,  production  capacity,  capacity 
utilisation, sales, unit prices, market share, employment and productivity i.e. from the 
information  collected  with  regard  to  the  6  sampled  producers  and  the  further  57 
producers now forming part of the Union industry. With respect to other injury factors 
found  for  the  sampled  EU  industry,  since  information  regarding  stocks,  profitability, 
cash flow, investments, return on investments, ability to raise capital and wages were 
obtained  from  the  verified  questionnaire  responses  of  the  6  sampled  producers,  the 
findings are therefore confirmed in the review. 

4.1. 

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation  

(118)  The evolution of production, production capacity and capacity utilisation for the Union 
industry based on the whole information available (see recital (112) was the following: 

Total Union Industry 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Production in volume (MT)  489,993  524,571  493,924  519,880  537,877 

Index 

100 

107 

100 

106 

110 

Production Capacity (MT) 

859,766  881,454  902,741  919,485  944,817 

Index 

100 

102 

105 

107 

110 

Capacity utilisation (%) 

57% 

60% 

55% 

57% 

57% 

(119)  Despite the significant increase in demand of 29% between 2004 and the IP, the Union 
industry’s production volume fluctuated throughout the period considered and was 9% 
higher  in  the  IP  compared  to  2003  to  be  compared  with  6%  in  the  original 
investigation i.e. still significantly lower than the increase in demand of 29%. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

(120)  With regard to production capacity and capacity utilisation, the conclusions reached in 
the original investigation, albeit on a different set of data, were confirmed (see recitals 
(130) until (133) of the definitive regulation. 

4.2. 

Sales, market share, growth and average unit prices in the Union 

(121)  The figures below represent the Union industry’s sales to independent customers in the 

Union based (in volume and value) on the whole information available: 

Total Union 
industry 

Sales of the Union 
industry in the 
Union (000 €)  

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

990,540 

1,050,039 

1,102,684 

1,198,794 

1,289,940 

Index 

100 

106 

111 

121 

130 

Sales of the Union 
industry in the 
Union (MT) 

445,769 

494,307 

468,892 

506,752 

507,750 

Index 

100 

111 

105 

114 

114 

Unit selling price 
of the Union 
industry in the 
Union (€/MT) 

Index 

Market share of 
Union Industry in 
(MT) 

2,222 

2,124 

2,351 

2,365 

2,540 

100 

N/A 

96 

28% 

106 

27% 

106 

24% 

114 

22% 

Index 

N/A 

100 

96 

86 

80 

(122)  The  revised  data  reported  in  the  above  table  confirms  the  findings  outlined  in  the 
recital (137) until (140) of the definitive regulation insofar as all the injury trends are 
confirmed.  Union  industry's  sales  volumes  increased  by  14%  during  the  period 
considered,  instead  of  12%  found  in  the  original  investigation  and  by  30%  in  value, 
instead  of  21%.  Trends  are  in  fact  found  to  be  very  similar  as  in  the  original 
investigation.  The  same  drop  in  sales  volumes  between  2004  and  2005  confirms  the 
conclusion  mentioned  in  recital  (139)  of  the  definitive  regulation  that  the  Union 
industry was unable to take advantage of the increase in Union consumption and thus 
the market share of the Union producers declined by 20% in less than three years. 

4.3. 

Employment and productivity  

EN 

31 

   EN 

(123)  The evolution of employment and productivity in the Union industry was as follows: 

Total Union industry 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Number of employees  

7,530  

8,340  

8,559  

8,549  

8,581  

Index 

Productivity 
(MT/employee)  

100 

65  

111 

63  

114 

58  

114 

61  

114 

63  

Index 

100 

97 

89 

93 

96 

4.4. 

Conclusion on injury 

(124)  In the light of the above, the conclusions  mentioned in recitals  (153) to  (161) of the 

definitive regulation were confirmed. 

5. 

Volume of dumped imports 

(125)  As  indicated  in  the  Notice  of  Initiation,  the  Commission  took  into  account  the 
conclusions  of  the  DSB  Reports  suggesting  that  the  EU  acted  inconsistently  with 
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the 
consideration of the volume of dumped imports in the fasteners original investigation.  

(126)  Consequently,  the  Commission  re-examined  its  injury  assessment  in  light  of  the  fact 
that some exporting producers were found not to be dumping in the IP. It is recalled 
that in the original investigation, two Chinese exporting producers were not dumping. 
As mentioned in recital (105) above, one further exporting producer was found not to 
be  dumping  in  this  review.  The  total  import  volume  from  these  three  exporting 
producers  accounted  for  only  between  0.01%  and  0.40%  of  total  imports  of  the 
product concerned from the PRC in the IP. The injury analysis regarding the evolution 
of  imports  from  the  PRC  which  has  been  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  the  volume  of 
dumped imports excluding the non-dumped imports shows insignificant changes in the 
trends described in recital (121) of the definitive regulation. 

Source : Eurostat 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Import volumes from PRC 
(MT) 

216,085 

295,227 

387,783 

485,435 

577,811 

Index  

Market share PRC 

100 

N/A 

137 

179 

225 

267 

17% 

22% 

23% 

25% 

6. 

Causation – export performance of the Union industry 

(127)  As  indicated  in  the  Notice  of  Initiation,  the  Commission  reassessed  its  causation 
analysis in order to take into account the conclusions of the Reports suggesting that the 
EU  acted  inconsistently  with  Articles  3.1  and  3.5  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  by  taking  into  account  the  overall  export  statistical  data  reported  by 
EUROSTAT instead of the EU industry's specific export performance. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

(128)  The  export  performance  of  the  Union  industry  was  analysed  in  recital  (175)  of  the 
definitive  Regulation.  It  was  found  that  exports  to  third  countries  represented  only 
11% of the total Union industry’s production of the like product in 2006. However, as 
pointed out in the DSB Reports, the data used related to exports of all producers in the 
Union was based on Eurostat data and not to exports of the Union industry. Following 
the  DSB  Reports,  the  Commission  reassessed  its  causation  analysis  by  examining 
whether the export performance of the newly defined Union industry could have been 
a factor of the injury suffered. It was found that exports to third countries represented 
only 3,7% of the newly defined Union industry's production of the like product in the 
IP, rather than 11% as mentioned in recital (175) of the definitive Regulation. These 
exports increased by about 4% between 2003 and the IP. Furthermore, these exports 
were consistently made at prices significantly above sales prices on the Union market. 

Total Union industry 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

IP 

Union Exports to the Rest of the 
World for the PC (MT) 

19,599 

23,613 

21,098 

20,967 

20,400 

Index 

100 

120 

108 

107 

104 

Union Exports to the Rest of the 
World for the PC (000 EUR) 

47,261 

55,657 

52,958 

58,831 

55,477 

Index 

100 

118 

112 

124 

117 

Unit Price: (EURO/MT): 

2,411 

2,357 

2,510 

2,806 

2,719 

(129)  It can thus be concluded that the export performance to third countries  of  the  Union 
industry  was  not  a  source  of  material  injury.  Furthermore,  the  final  conclusion  as 
stated in recital (184) of the definitive Regulation that the dumped imports originating 
in the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of 
Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation is confirmed. 

7. 

Treatment of confidential information 

(130)  As  indicated  in  the  Notice  of  Initiation,  the  Commission  undertook  to  reassess  the 
conclusions  based  on  the  rulings  of  the  Reports  suggesting  that  the  EU  acted 
inconsistently with Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with 
respect to the treatment of confidential information. 

(131)  Following  the  Reports,  the  Commission  invited  the  two  relevant  Union  producers  to 
provide  appropriate  statements  of  the  reasons  why  confidential  information  was  not 
susceptible  of  non-confidential  summary.  The  two  producers  provided  additional 
information in a non-confidential manner or, if certain information was not susceptible 
of summary, they stated why that was the case. The information so provided by these 
producers  was  sent  to  all  interested  parties.  One  association  representing  European 
Union importers argued that the information provided by the two Union producers was 
incomprehensible  and  would  not  allow  cross-checking  with  data  publically  available 
on EUROSTAT. In regard to this argument, it is noted that given that the information 
provided  by  these  two  producers  is  company-specific  information,  it  is  unlikely  that 
any public sources exist which would allow for cross-checking.  

EN 

33 

   EN 

(132)  The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and EFDA argued that the additional information 
provided was incomplete insofar as some elements in Tables 22, 23 and 32 to 34 were 
still  missing  and  therefore  not  in  accordance  with  the  way  the  DSB  findings  should 
have been applied. No other comments were received following the disclosure of this 
additional  non-confidential  information.  Since  Tables  32  to  34  contain  details  of  the 
sales and the costs incurred by the company concerned, this information which is by 
nature  confidential  was  summarised  as  to  provide  some  information  regarding  its 
content, without disclosing confidential information. The other information mentioned 
as  missing  in  the  Table  22  (types  of  raw  materials  supplied  and  volumes  of  raw 
material  purchased),  Table  23  (only  indexed  figures  of  pre-tax  profit  margin  are 
provided and no separate figures for sales inside the EU and outside), was resubmitted 
by  the  Union  company  concerned  in  order  to  allow  a  good  undertanding  of  the 
information and the response was added to the file for inspection by interested parties. 
In  conclusion,  it  is  considered  that  that  the  recommendations  of  the  Reports  on  this 
matter were fully complied with.  

(133)  In  addition,  EFDA  claimed  that  Table  24  provided  by  the  Union  producer  did  not 
allow  the  conclusion  that  this  company  had  suffered  significant  injury  as  it  showed 
steady increases in profit, utilisation and output. However, the Commission made once 
again  the  injury  assessment  including  data  for  the  six  sampled  EU  producers  and 
concluded that material injury was suffered as confirmed in recital (124) above. The 
claim is therefore unfounded 

(134)  Finally,  as  mentioned  in  point  6.  of  the  Notice  of  Initiation,  following  the  finding 
regarding Article 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to 
the treatment of confidential information, on 30 May 2012, the Commission disclosed 
the Eurostat data on total EU production of fasteners as originally presented. 

8. 

Other recommendations and rulings 

(135)  As  mentioned  in  the  Notice,  the  Commission  undertook  to  consider  comments  by 
parties in the fasteners investigation who claim to have been adversely affected by the 
disclosure of findings with regard to market economy treatment or with respect to any 
other DSB recommendations or rulings. The Commission granted IT to one company 
in  accordance  with  the  recommendations  concerning  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation in the DSB reports. 

F. DISCLOSURE 

(136)  All parties were informed of the above-mentioned findings. They were also granted a 
period  to  submit  comments  and  claims  subsequent  to  disclosure.  Several  comments 
were received following disclosure.  

(137)  It  follows  from  the  above  that  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of 
certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China imposed by 
Regulation  (EC)  No  91/2009  of  26  January  2009  should  be  maintained  and  that 
imports from Bulten Fasteners China should be made subject to a duty of 0%. 

G. CONCLUSION 

(138)  On  the  basis  of  the  above  reassessment,  it  is  concluded  that  the  injurious  dumping 
determined  in  the  original  investigation  is  confirmed.  However,  one  exporting 

EN 

34 

   EN 

producer was granted IT in accordance with the recommendations concerning Article 
9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  in  the  DSB  reports.  Therefore,  Article  1(2)  of  the 
definitive regulation should be amended accordingly. The same article should also be 
amended to take account of the revised anti-dumping duties calculated for some of the 
companies listed in the table in Article 1(2) of the definitive Regulation as below: 

Exporting producer in the PRC 

Dumping 
margin 

Injury 
margin 

Definitive 
measures 

Biao Wu Tensile Fasteners Co., 
Ltd. 

Kunshan Chenghe Standard 
Components Co., Ltd. 

43.4% 

99.9% 

43.4% 

63.7% 

79.5% 

63.7% 

Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co., Ltd. 

64.3% 

Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., 
Ltd. 

69.7% 

64.4% 

78.3% 

64.3% 

69.7% 

Changshu City Standard Parts 
Factory and Changshu British 
Shanghai International Fastener 
Co., Ltd. 

CELO Suzhou Precision 
Fasteners Co., Ltd 

38.3% 

65.3% 

38.3% 

0.0% 

0.3% 

0.0% 

Golden Horse (Dong Guan) Metal 
Manufactory Co., Ltd 

22.9% 

133.2% 

22.9% 

Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd 

0.0% 

Cooperating exporting producers 
not selected to form part of the 
sample  

54.1% 

0.0% 

77.5% 

0.0% 

54.1% 

All other companies 

74.1% 

85.0% 

74.1% 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The table including the rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-
Union-frontier  price,  before  duty,  of  the  products  manufactured  by  the  companies  listed  in 
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 is replaced by the following table:  

EN 

35 

   EN 

Company 

Duty (%) 

TARIC additional 
code 

Biao  Wu  Tensile  Fasteners  Co.,  Ltd., 
Shanghai 

CELO Suzhou Precision Fasteners Co., Ltd., 
Suzhou 

Changshu  City  Standard  Parts  Factory  and 
Changshu  British  Shanghai  International 
Fastener Co., Ltd., Changshu 

Golden  Horse 
Manufactory Co., Ltd., Dongguan City 

(Dong  Guan)  Metal 

Kunshan  Chenghe  Standard  Components 
Co., Ltd., Kunshan 

Ningbo  Jinding  Fastener  Co.,  Ltd.,  Ningbo 
City 

Ningbo  Yonghong  Fasteners  Co.,  Ltd. 
Jiangshan Town 

Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd., Yantai 

Bulten Fasteners (China) Co., Ltd., Beijing 

Companies listed in Annex I 

All other companies 

43.4% 

0.0% 

38.3% 

22.9% 

63.7% 

64.3% 

69.7% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

54.1% 

74.1% 

A924 

A918 

A919 

A920 

A921 

A922 

A923 

A925 

A997 

A928 

A999 

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

Article 2 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

36 

   EN