Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China, manufactured by Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd
Date: 2012-09-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, household article, import (EU), originating product

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 26.9.2012  
COM(2012) 555 final 

2012/0263 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION  

re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in 
the People's Republic of China, manufactured by Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware 
Products Co. Ltd  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  1225/2009  of  30 
November  2009  on  protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the 
European  Community,  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  partial  reopening  of  the  anti-dumping 
proceeding  concerning  imports  of  ironing  boards  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of 
China (‘China’). 

• 

General context 

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

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

• 
Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 20071. 

• 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND 
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

• 

Consultation of interested parties 

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

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

• 

Impact assessment 

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

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

3. 

• 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

On  2  March  2012,  the  Commission  announced  by  a  notice  (‘notice  of  partial  reopening’), 
published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union2,  the  partial  reopening  of  the  anti-
dumping investigation concerning imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in China. 

This  reopening  was  triggered  by  the  annulment  by  the  General  Court  of  the  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2007  in  so  far  as  it  concerns  one  Chinese  exporting  producer 
('Harmonic'). In line with Article 266 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the 

1 
2 

OJ L 109, 26.4.2007, p. 12. 
OJ C 63, 2.3.2012, p. 10. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
institutions  of  the  European  Union  are  obliged to  comply  with  the  judgment  of  the  General 
Court.  Consequently,  the  European  Commission  initiated  the  partial  reopening  of  the  anti-
dumping investigation in so far it concerns Harmonic.  

The  enclosed  Commission  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  re-imposing  the  anti-dumping 
duty  on  Harmonic  is  made  upon  the  interested  parties  having  been  given  sufficient  time  to 
provide  comments  to  the  revised  final  disclosure  document  of  23  March  2007.  In  addition, 
Harmonic was given sufficient time to offer undertakings, but it did not submit any. 

It is proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation which should be 
published in the Official Journal of the European Union as soon as possible. 

• 

Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  1225/2009  of  30  November  2009  on  protection  against  dumped 
imports from countries not members of the European Community. 

• 

Subsidiarity principle 

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

• 

Proportionality principle 

The  proposal  complies  with  the  proportionality  principle  because  the  form  of  action  is 
described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no scope for national decision. 

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

• 

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Council Regulation. 

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

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
2012/0263 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION  

re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in 
the People's Republic of China, manufactured by Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware 
Products Co. Ltd  

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

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

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  1225/2009  of  30  November  2009  on  protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community3 ('the basic 
Regulation'), and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  from  the  European  Commission  ('the  Commission')  after 
consulting the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

A. PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/20074  ('the  contested  Regulation'),  the  Council  imposed 
definitive  anti-dumping  duties  ranging  from  9,9  %  to  38,1  %  on  imports  of  ironing 
boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating 
top  and/or  blowing  top,  including  sleeve  boards,  and  essential  parts  thereof,  i.e.  the 
legs, the top and the iron rest originating in the People's Republic of China ('China') 
and Ukraine. 

On  19  July  2007,  one  co-operating  Chinese  exporting  producer,  namely  Zhejiang 
Harmonic  Hardware  Products  Co.  Ltd  ('Harmonic'),  lodged  an  application  at  the 
General  Court  ('the  Court  of  First  Instance'  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Lisbon Treaty)  seeking  the  annulment  of  the  contested  Regulation  in  so  far  as  it 
applies to the applicant5.  

On  8  November  2011,  the  General  Court  in  its  judgment  in  case  T-274/07  ('the 
General Court judgment') found that the failure to comply with the period prescribed 
by  Article  20(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  was  such  as  in  fact  to  affect  the  rights  of 
defence  of  Harmonic,  and  that  the  Commission  also  infringed  Article  8  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  which  conferred  on  Harmonic  the  right  to  offer  undertakings  up  to  the 
expiry  of  that  period.  Therefore,  the  General  Court  annulled  Articles  1  and  2  of  the 
contested  Regulation  in  so  far  as  they  impose  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  and 
collect definitively the provisional duty on ironing boards manufactured by Harmonic. 

(4) 

According  to  Article  266  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union 
('TFEU'),  the  Union  institutions  are  obliged  to  comply  with  the  General  Court 

3 

4 
5 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51, as last amended by Regulation (EU) No. 765/2012 of 13 June 2012, OJ L 
237, 3.9.2012, p. 1. 
OJ L 109, 26.4.2007, p. 12. 
Case T-274/07 Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
judgment of 8 November 2011. It is established case law (case T-2/956, the 'IPS case') 
that,  in  cases  where  a  proceeding  consists  of  several  administrative  steps,  the 
annulment  of  one  of  those  steps  does  not  annul  the  complete  proceeding.  The  anti-
dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the 
annulment  of  the  contested  Regulation  in  relation  to  one  party  does  not  imply  the 
annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation. Moreover, 
according  to  the  Court's  case  law,  in  order  to  comply  with  a  judgment  annulling  a 
measure and to implement it fully, the institution who took the measure should resume 
the  procedure  at  the  very  point  at  which  the  illegality  occurred  and  replace  that 
measure7. Finally, the implementation of a court ruling also implies the possibility to 
remedy  the  aspects  of  the  contested  Regulation  which  led  to  its  annulment,  while 
leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the General Court 
judgment – as was held in case C-458/98 P8 ('the IPS appeal case'). It should be noted 
that apart from the finding of an infringement of Article 20(5) and of Article 8 of the 
basic  Regulation,  all  other  findings  made  in  the  contested  Regulation  remain 
automatically valid to the extent that the General Court rejected all claims made in this 
respect.  
Following the General Court judgment of 8 November 2011, a notice9 was published 
concerning the partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports 
of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in China. The reopening was limited in scope 
to  the  implementation  of  the  General  Court  judgment  in  so  far  as  Harmonic 
is concerned.  

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  exporting  producers,  importers  and  users 
known  to  be  concerned,  the  representatives  of  the  exporting  country  and  the  Union 
industry of the partial reopening of the investigation. Interested parties were given the 
opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the 
time-limit set out in the notice. 

All  parties  who  so  requested  within  the  above  time-limit  and  who  demonstrated  that 
there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted the opportunity 
to be heard. 

Representations  were  received  from  one  exporting  producer  in  China  (the  party 
directly concerned, i.e. Harmonic) and one unrelated importer. 

All  parties  concerned  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis  of  which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-
dumping  duties  on  Harmonic.  They  were  granted  a  period  within  which  to  make 
representations subsequent to disclosure, but none reacted at that stage.  

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL COURT JUDGMENT 

Preliminary remark 

It is recalled that the reason for the annulment of the contested Regulation was that the 
Commission sent its proposal to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty to the Council 
before  the  end  of  the  10-day  mandatory  deadline  as  set  out  by  Article  20(5)  of  the 
basic Regulation for receiving comments following the sending to interested parties of 
a definitive disclosure document and that the Commission also infringed Article 8 of 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

B. 

1. 

(10) 

6 
7 
8 
9 

Case T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [1998] ECR II-3939. 
Case C-415/96 Spain v Commission [1998] ECR I-6993, paragraph 31. 
Case C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [2000] ECR I-08147. 
OJ C 63, 2.3.2012, p. 10. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the basic Regulation, which conferred on Harmonic the right to offer undertakings up 
to the expiry of that period. 

2. 

Comments of interested parties 

(11)  Harmonic  stated  that  a  breach  of  the  rights  of  defence  of  the  type  identified  by  the 
General  Court  cannot  be  cured  by  the  re-opening  of  the  investigation.  The  General 
Court judgment would require no implementing measures. 

(12)  For  Harmonic,  the  only  way  for  the  Commission  to  comply  with  the  judgment  of 
General Court  as  required by Article 266  TFEU would be to  withdraw the  measures 
permanently as far as Harmonic was concerned. The violation of Article 8 fo the basic 
Regulation would require the EU institutions to restore Harmonic's right to offer price 
undertakings back in 2007. 

(13)  According  to  Harmonic  the  re-opening  would  be  illegal  because  there  is  no  specific 
provision in the basic Regulation allowing for such an approach and because such re-
opening would be in conflict with the 15-month statutory deadline for the completion 
of  an  investigation  as  set  by  Article  6(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  the  18-month 
deadline  as  set  out  by  Article  5.10  of  the  WTO  Agreement  on  Implementation  of 
Article  VI  of  the  GATT  1994  (Anti-dumping  Agreement).  It  alleged  that  the  EU 
institutions  cannnot  purport  to  re-impose  measures  based  on  their  powers  to  adopt 
definitive  measures  (in  particular  Article  9  of  the  basic  Regulation)  and  at  the  same 
time deny that these deadlines in the same provision of the basic Regulation apply. 

(14)  Harmonic  submitted  that  the  IPS  case  could  not  serve  as  a  precedent  because  it  was 
based on Council Regulation (EЕC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against 
dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic 
Community10 ("the old basic Regulation"), under which mandatory deadlines did not 
apply yet.  

(15)  Harmonic also argued that reissuing a revised disclosure and granting a period to reply 
in  line  with  Article  20(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  could  not  correct  the  violation  of 
Harmonic's rights of defence and the unlawful imposition of duties.  

(16)  According to Harmonic, once the Commission's proposal for definitive measures was 
submitted to the Council in 2007, the Commission irremediably lost its ability to make 
a  proposal  to  the  Council  to  impose  duties  against  Harmonic  without  breaching  the 
company's rights of defence. In Harmonic's view, the Commission would no longer be 
in  a  position  to  receive  any  comments  with  the  required  room  for  manoeuvre  and 
consider Harmonic's proposal for an undertaking.  

(17)  Harmonic submits that its right to offer price undertakings within the prescribed period 
cannot be corrected by procedurally re-opening the originial investigation. In addition, 
Harmonic alleges that the recital (68) of the contested Regulation apparently included 
the assessment of a formal price undertaking offered by Harmonic. 

(18)  Furthermore, Harmonic argued that the Commission could not reopen the case because 
it  would  have  lost  its  objectivity  and  impartiality  since  the  contested  Regulation 
proposed by the Commission was partially annulled by the General Court. 

(19) 

It finally pointed out that the Commission could not re-impose anti-dumping measures 
based on information relating to 2005, a period that is more than six years prior to the 

10 

OJ L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
initiation of the partial re-opening of the investigation as this would not be in line with 
Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation.  

(20)  One  unrelated  Union  importer/producer  pointed  out  the repercussions  of  the  General 
Court’s  annulment  and  the  subsequent  partial  reopening  of  the  investigation  on  its 
business. It did not submit any information and data as to the legal merits of the re-
investigation  but  rather  referred  to  the  comments  submitted  in  the  context  of  a 
previous  re-investigation,  that  was  concluded  by  Council  Implementing  Regulation 
(EU) No 805/2010 of 13 September 2010 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on  imports  of  ironing  boards  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China 
manufactutered  by  Foshan  Shunde  Yongjian  Housewares  and  Hardware  Co.  Ltd, 
Foshan11. 

3. 

(21) 

Analysis of comments  

It  is  recalled  that  the  General  Court  has  rejected  all  the  substantive  arguments  of 
Harmonic referring to the merits of the case. Thus, the Union institutions' obligation is 
focused  on  correcting  the  part  of  the  administrative  procedure  where  the  irregularity 
occurred in the initial investigation. 

(22)  The  claim  that  the  introduction  of  a  15-month  deadline  by  Article  6(9)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  to  conclude  anti-dumping  investigations  prevents  the  Commission  from 
following  the  approach  underlying  the  IPS  case  was  found  to  be  unwarranted.  It  is 
considered that this deadline is not relevant for the implementation of a judgment of 
the General Court. Indeed, such deadline only governs the completion of the original 
investigation from the date of initiation to the date of definitive action, and does not 
concern any subsequent action that might have to be taken for instance as a result of 
judicial review. Furthermore, it is noted that any other interpretation would mean that, 
for example, a successful legal action brought by the Union industry would be without 
any practical effect for that party if it is accepted that the expiry of the time-limit to 
conclude  the  original  investigation  would  not  allow  for  the  implementation  of  a 
judgment of the General Court. This would be at odds with the principle that all parties 
should have the right to effective judicial review. 

(23) 

It  is  also  recalled  that  the  General  Court  in  its  judgment  in  joined  cases  T-163/94 
and T-165/9412  has  held  that  even  the  soft  deadline  applicable  under  the  old  basic 
Regulation  could  not  be  stretched  beyond  reasonable  limits  and  found  that  an 
investigation  lasting  for  more  than  three  years  was  too  long.  This  contrasts  with  the 
IPS case where the implementation of a previous Court of Justice judgment occurred 
almost  seven  years  after  the  initiation  of  the  original  investigation  and  the  Court  of 
Justice judgment contains no indication that deadlines were an issue.  

(24)  Therefore,  it  is  concluded  that  Article  6(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation  applies  to  the 
initiation of  proceedings and the conclusion of the investigation initiated pursuant to 
Article  5(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation  only  and  not  to  a  partial  reopening  of  an 
investigation with a view to implementing a judgment of the General Court. 

(25)  This  conclusion  is  in  line  with  the  approach  taken  for  the  implementation  of  WTO 
panels and Appellate Body reports where it is accepted that institutions could amend 
deficiencies  of  a  regulation  imposing  anti-dumping  duties  in  order  to  comply  with 

11 
12 

OJ L 242, 15.9.2010, p. 1. 
Joint cases T-163/94 and 165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd v Council [1995] ECR II-
01381. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
dispute  settlement  body  reports,  including  in  cases  concerning  the  Union13.  In  such 
cases it was felt necessary to adopt special procedures to implement WTO panel and 
Appellate Body reports because of the lack of direct applicability of such reports in the 
Union  legal  order,  contrary  to  the  implementation  of  the  judgments  of  the  General 
Court which are directly applicable. 

(26) 

It  is  recalled  that  Article  9  of  the  basic  Regulation  does  not  concern  deadlines  for 
conducting  anti-dumping  investigations.  It  concerns  general  issues  related  to 
terminations without measures and imposition of definitive duties. 

(27)  With respect to the arguments submitted on the application of Article 6(1) of the basic 
Regulation,  it  is  noted  that  no  infringement  of  Article  6(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
could  be  established  since  the  Commission  has  not  opened  a  new  proceeding  but 
reopened the original investigation to implement the General Court judgment. 

(28)  As  regards  Harmonic's  allegation  concerning  the  breach  of  its  right  to  offer  price 
undertakings, it should be noted that Harmonic's argument is twofold: first, Harmonic 
alleges that it is not legally, practically of realistically possible for the Commission to 
retroactively  backdate  a  price  undertaking  for  a  period  of  almost  five  years;  second, 
Harmonic claims that on the one hand, Recital (68) of the contested Regulation would 
include the assessment of a formal price undertaking offered by Harmonic and that, on 
the other hand, the Commission would sustain that any price undertakings that could 
have  been  submitted  by  Harmonic  would  have  been  rejected  anyway,  because  they 
would be impractical to monitor.  

(29)  Regarding  Harmonic's  allegation  on  the  re-opening  of  the  original  investigation  in 
order  to  remedy  the  infringement  of  its  right  to  offer  price  undertakings  within  a 
prescribed  period,  the  re-opening  is  justified  given  that  Harmonic's  right  to  offer 
undertakings was infringed in the context of the original investigation. In any event, in 
the absence of a formal price undertaking offered by Harmonic, the discussion of its 
potential effects is devoid of purpose. 

(30) 

In addition, as to Harmonic's interpretation of recital (68) of the contested Regulation, 
it should be pointed out that that recital simply takes stock of the fact that there were 
discussions about potential price undertakings proposed by some exporting producers 
and of the reasons why the institutions deemed undertakings in general impractical at 
that point in time. Harmonic's claim that the recital apparently includes the assessment 
of a (non-submitted) formal price undertaking offered by Harmonic is thus unfounded.  

(31)  Moreover,  it  is  noted  that  the  arguments  put  forward  in  recital  (68)  of  the  contested 
Regulation do not prejudge formal price undertakings offers  that could  be made  at a 
later stage, but set out the reasons why the acceptance of price undertakings is unlikely 
in  this  case,  in  particular  if  the  concerns  about  their  practicability  are  not  properly 
addressed.  As  provided  for  in  Article  8(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  undertakings 
offered need not be accepted if their acceptance is considered impractical.  

13 

European  Communities-Antidumping  Duties  on  Imports  of  Cotton-Tyle  Bed  Linen  from  India: 
Recourse  to  Article  21.5 of  the DSU  by India WT/DS141/AB/RW (8 April  2003), paragraphs 82-86; 
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  (OJ  L  201,  26.7.2001,  p.10);  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  436/2004  of  8 
March  2004  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No 1784/2000  imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  and 
collecting  definitively  the  provisional  duty  imposed  on  imports  of  certain  malleable  cast  iron  tube  or 
pipe  fittings  originating  in  Brazil,  the  Czech  Republic,  Japan,  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  the 
Republic of Korea and Thailand (OJ L 72, 11.3.2004, p. 15) following Reports adopted by the Dispute 
Settlement Body of the WTO.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

Conclusion 

(32)  Account  taken  of  the  comments  made  by  the  parties  and  the  analysis  thereof  it  was 
concluded  that  the  implementation  of  the  General  Court  judgment  should  take  the 
form  of  re-disclosure  to  Harmonic  and  all  other  interested  parties  of  the  revised 
definitive  disclosure  document  of  23  March  2007  on  the  basis  of  which  it  was 
proposed  to  re-impose  an  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  ironing  boards 
manufactured by Harmonic. 

(33)  On  the  basis  of  the  above  it  was  also  concluded  that  the  Commission  should  give 
Harmonic  and  all  other  interested  parties  enough  time  to  provide  comments  on  the 
revised  definitive  disclosure  document  of  23  March  2007  and  then  evaluate  such 
comments  in  order  to  determine  whether  to  make  a  proposal  to  the  Council  to  re-
impose  the  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  ironing  boards  manufactured  by 
Harmonic on the basis of the facts relating to the original investigation period. 

C. 

DISCLOSURE 

(34) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of which it was intended to implement the General Court judgment. 

All  interested  parties  were  given  an  opportunity  to  comment,  applying  the  10-day 
period prescribed in Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation.  

(35)  Harmonic  and  all  other  interested  parties  received  the  revised  definitive  disclosure 
document dated 23 March 2007 on the basis of which it was proposed to re-impose the 
anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  ironing  boards  from  Harmonic  on  the  basis  of  the 
facts relating to the original investigation period. 

Harmonic and all other interested parties were given an opportunity to comment on the 
above-mentioned revised definitive disclosure document dated 23 March 2007. 

(36)  Article 8 of the basic Regulation conferred on Harmonic the right to offer undertakings 
up  to  the  expiry  of  the  10-day  period  prescribed  in  Article  20(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

(37)  Neither Harmonic nor other interested parties submitted any comment or offered any 

undertaking within the established deadline. 

D. 

DURATION OF MEASURES 

(38)  This  procedure  does  not  affect  the  date  on  which  the  measures  imposed  by  the 
contested Regulation will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It is 
noted in this regard that on 25 April 2012 a notice of initiation of an expiry review of 
the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ironing boards originating in the 
People's Republic of China and Ukraine14 was published in the Official Journal of the 
European Union, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

(1) 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  re-imposed  on  imports  of  ironing  boards, 
whether  or  not  free-standing,  with  or  without  a  steam  soaking  and/or  heating  top 
and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, 
the  top  and  the  iron  rest  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China,  currently 

14 

OJ C 120, 25.4.2012, p. 9. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
falling within CN codes ex 3924 90 00, ex 4421 90 98, ex 7323 93 00, ex 7323 99 
00, ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00 (TARIC codes 3924 90 00 10, 4421 90 98 10, 
7323 93 00 10, 7323 99 00 10, 8516 79 70 10 and 8516 90 00 51) and manufactured 
by Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd Guzhou (TARIC additional code 
A786). 

(2) 

(3) 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-Union-
frontier price, before duty, shall be 26,5 %. 

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

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 

10 

   EN