Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of certain stainless steel fasteners consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by that regulation by imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and Thailand or not
Date: 2013-02-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, steel

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 13.2.2013  
COM(2013) 72 final 

2013/0046 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION  

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts 
thereof originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of certain stainless steel 
fasteners consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the 
Philippines or not and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention 
of anti-dumping measures imposed by that regulation by imports of certain stainless 
steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia and Thailand, whether 
declared as originating in Malaysia and Thailand or not 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1225/2009  of 
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the 
European Community ('the basic Regulation') in the investigation of possible circumvention 
of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 
on  imports  of  certain  stainless  steel  fastners  and  parts  thereof  originating  in  the  People's 
Republic  of  China  ('the  PRC')  by  imports  consigned  from  Malaysia,  Thailand  and  the 
Philippines. 

General context 

This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and is the 
result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and procedural 
requirements laid out in the basic Regulation and in particular Article 13 thereof. 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

The measures currently in force were imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 
2/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners 
and  parts  thereof  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  and  Taiwan  following  an 
expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. 

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

RESULTS  OF  CONSULTATIONS  WITH  THE  INTERESTED  PARTIES  AND 
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

Consultation of interested parties 

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

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

Impact assessment 

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

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

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

EN 

2 

   EN 

Summary of the proposed action 

On 15 June 2012 the Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 502/2012, initiated ex officio an 
investigation  concerning  the  possible  circumvention  of  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  by 
Council  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  2/2012  on  imports  of  certain  stainless  steel 
fasteners  and  parts  thereof  originating  in  the  PRC  by  imports  consigned  from  Malaysia, 
Thailand and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Malaysia, Thailand and the 
Philippines or not.  

The  Commission  had  in  its  disposal  sufficient  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  anti-dumping 
measures  on  imports  of  certain  stainless  steel  fasteners  and  the  parts  thereof  were  being 
circumvented by means of transhipment via Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. 

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

It  is  therefore  proposed  to  extend  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  on  certain  stainless 
steel  fasteners  and  parts  thereof  originating  in  the  PRC  to  imports  of  the  same  product 
consigned from the Philippines. The duty corresponds to the country-wide duty on imports of 
certain  stainless  steel  fasternes  and  part  thereof  from  the  PRC  (27,4%).  The  duty  shall  be 
levied from the date of initiation of the investigation. 

Three Filipian companies came forward following the initiation, with a request for exemption 
from  the  possible  extension  of  the  measures  as  genuine  producers  in  the  Philippines.  It  is 
proposed to grant the exemption to two of them. The exemption request of the third company 
was rejected as during the investigation it was found that it was not a producer or exporter of 
the product concerned.  

At the same time findings of the investigation has not confirmed that transhipment of certain 
Chinese-origin  stainless  steel  fasteners  was  taking  place  via  Malaysia  and  Thailand.  It  is 
therefore proposed to terminate the investigation with regard to these two countries.  

The relevant Council Regulation should be published in the Official Journal of the European 
Union no later than 13 March 2013. 

Legal basis 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped 
imports from countries not members of the European Community and in particular Article 13 
thereof.  

Subsidiarity principle 

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

Proportionality principle 

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

EN 

3 

   EN 

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

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

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Regulation. 

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

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION  

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

2013/0046 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION  

extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts 
thereof originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of certain stainless steel 
fasteners consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the 
Philippines or not and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention 
of anti-dumping measures imposed by that regulation by imports of certain stainless 
steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia and Thailand, whether 
declared as originating in Malaysia and Thailand or not 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

Whereas: 

1. 

PROCEDURE 

1.1. 

Existing measures 

(1) 

By Regulation (EU) No 2/20122 the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty 
of 24,7% on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in 
the  People’s  Republic  of  China  (‘the  PRC’)  for  all  other  companies  than  the  ones 
mentioned  in  Article  1(2)  of  that  Regulation,  following  the  expiry  review  of  the 
measures  imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1890/20053  ('the  original 
Regulation'). These measures will hereinafter be referred to as 'the measures in force' 
or  'original  measures'  and  the  investigation  that  led  to  the  measures  imposed  by  the 
original Regulation will be hereinafter referred to as 'the original investigation'. 

1.2. 

Initiation 

(2) 

Having  determined,  after  consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  that  sufficient  prima 
facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 13(3) 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 5, 7.1.2012 p. 1. 
OJ L 302, 19.11.2005, p. 1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) has 
decided,  to  investigate  on  its  own  initiative  the  possible  circumvention  of  the  anti-
dumping  measures  imposed  on  imports  of  certain  stainless  steel  fasteners  and  parts 
thereof originating in the PRC and to make imports of certain stainless steel fasteners 
and  parts  thereof  consigned  from  Malaysia,  Thailand  and  the  Philippines,  whether 
declared  as  originating  in  Malaysia,  Thailand  and  the  Philippines  or  not,  subject  to 
registration. 

The investigation was initiated on 15 June 2012 by Commission Regulation (EU) No 
502/20124 (‘the initiating Regulation’). 

The  prima  facie  evidence  at  the  Commission's  disposal  was  that  following  the 
imposition  of  the  measures  established  in  the  original  investigation  a  significant 
change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the PRC, Malaysia, Thailand and 
the Philippines to the Union occurred, for which there was no sufficient due cause or 
justification  other  than  the  imposition  of  the  measures  established  in  the  original 
investigation.  This  change  stemmed  allegedly  from  the  transhipment  of  certain 
stainless  steel  fasteners  and  parts  thereof  originating  in  the  PRC  via  Malaysia, 
Thailand and the Philippines to the Union. 

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

Finally, there was evidence that the prices of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts 
thereof  consigned  from  Malaysia,  Thailand  and  the  Philippines  were  dumped  in 
relation  to  the  normal  value  previously  established  during  the  original  investigation, 
adjusted for the increase in the costs of the raw material. 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

1.3. 

Investigation 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

The Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC, Malaysia, Thailand and 
the Philippines, the exporting producers in those countries, the importers in the Union 
known to be concerned and the Union industry of the initiation of the investigation. 

Exemption forms were sent to the producers/exporters in Malaysia, Thailand and the 
Philippines  known  to  the  Commission  or  through  the  Missions  of  the  countries 
concerned to the European Union. Questionnaires were sent to the producers/exporters 
in  the  PRC  known  to  the  Commission  or  through  the  Mission  of  the  PRC  to  the 
European Union. Questionnaires were also sent to the known importers in the Union. 

Interested  parties  were  given  the  opportunity  to  make  their  views  known  in  writing 
and  to  request  a  hearing  within  the  time  limit  set  in  the  initiating  Regulation.  All 
parties were informed that non-cooperation might lead to the application of Article 18 
of the basic Regulation and to findings being based on the facts available. 

4 

OJ L 153, 14.6.2012, p.8. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
(10)  Seven  Malaysian,  six  Thai  and  three  Filipino  producers/exporters  and  their  related 
companies  in  the  PRC,  where  applicable,  have  submitted  replies  to  the  exemption 
forms.  Submissions  of  two  Malaysian,  one  Thai  and  one  Filipino  companies  were 
rejected due to formal reasons as the companies in question were either found not to be 
producers  of  the  product  under  investigation  or  they  failed  to  cooperate  after  the 
submission of the exemption form or the exemption form was submitted in a very late 
stage of the investigation. 

(11)  The  questionnaire  replies  were  submitted  by  two  Chinese  exporters  and  four  Union 

importers/groups of importers. 

(12)  The  Commission  carried  out  the  verification  visits  at  the  premises  of  the  following 

companies: 

–  MCP Precision Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) 

– 

– 

Sofasco Industires (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) 

Tigges Fastener Technology Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia)  

and its related trading company Tigges Fastener Trading Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) 

– 

Tong Heer Fasteners Co. Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia) 

–  Well Union Metal Sdn. Bhd. (Malysia)  

and its related companies in Taiwan: Linkwell Industry and Linkfast Industry 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

A.B.P. Stainless Steel Fastener Co., Ltd. (Thailand) 

Dura Fasteners Co., Ltd. (Thailand) 

Taiyo Fasteners Co., Ltd. (Thailand) 

Tong Heer Fasteners Co., Ltd. (Thailand) 

TPC Stainless & Steel Fasteners Co., Ltd. (Thailand)  

and  its  related  companies  TPC  Fasteners  Co.  Ltd,  Thai  Phaisarn  Fastening  Co.  Ltd.  and 
Phaisarn Fastening Ltd. Part. (Thailand) 

–  Multi-Tek Fastenres Inc. (the Philippines) 

and its related company in Taiwan Multi-Tek Fasteners & Parts Manufacturer Inc. 

– 

– 

Phil Shin Works Corporation (the Philippines) 

Rosario Fasteners Corporation (the Philippines)  

and its related company in Taiwan Lu Chu Shin Yee Works Co., Ltd. 

1.4. 

Reporting period and investigation period 

EN 

7 

   EN 

(13)  The  reporting  period  ('RP'),  i.e.  the  period  for  which  value  added  tests  and 
dumping/underselling calculations were done, covered 12 months  from  1  April  2011 
to 31 March 2012. The investigation period ("IP"), i.e. the period for which analysis of 
changes  in  trade  patterns  were  done  and  possible  circumvention  practices  were 
examined,  covered  the  period  from  the  imposition  of  the  original  measures  until  the 
end of the RP. 

2. 

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

2.1. 

General considerations 

(14) 

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

2.2. 

Product concerned and product under investigation 

(15)  The  product  concerned  by  the  possible  circumvention  is  certain  stainless  steel 
fasteners  and  parts  thereof,  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China,  currently 
falling within CN codes 7318 12 10, 7318 14 10, 7318 15 30, 7318 15 51, 7318 15 61 
and 7318 15 70 (‘the product concerned’). 

(16)  The product under investigation is the same as that defined above, but consigned from 
Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Malaysia, 
Thailand and the Philippines or not, currently falling within the same CN codes as the 
product concerned ('the product under investigation’). 

(17)  The  investigation  showed  that  stainless  steel  fasteners  and  parts  thereof,  as  defined 
above,  exported  from  the  PRC  to  the  Union  and  those  consigned  from  Malaysia, 
Thailand and the Philippines to the Union have the same basic physical and technical 
characteristics  and  have  the  same  uses,  and  are  therefore  to  be  considered  as  like 
products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. 

2.3. 

Findings with regard to the Philippines 

2.3.1.  Level of cooperation 

(18)  As stated in recital (10) above, only three Flipino companies (one of them later found 
not  to  be  a  producer  or  exporter  of  the  product  under  investigation)  submitted  an 
exemption form reply. Thus, the cooperating companies were representing 10% of the 
Filipino exports of the product under investigation to the Union in the RP.  

(19)  A  questionnarie  reply  was  also  submitted  by  two  Chinese  producers/exporters 

however, none of them was involved in export to the Philippines in the IP.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

(20)  Taking into account the relatively low level of cooperation of the Filipino and Chinese 
companies  the  findings  in  respect  of  imports  of  certain  stainless  steel  fasterens  and 
parts thereof from the Philippines into the Union and exports of the product concerned 
from  the  PRC  to  the  Philippines  had  to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  facts  available  in 
accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation. In this case Eurostat data was 
used  to  determine  overall  import  volumes  from  the  Philippines  to  the  Union  and 
Chinese export statistics were used for the determination of  the  overall exports from 
the PRC to the Phillipines. 

(21)  With regard  to  the  Chinese export statistics it  should be noted that statistics of trade 
flows  between  the  PRC  and  the  Philippines  cover  whole  HS  codes  that  is  a  larger 
product  group  then  the  product  concerned  and  the  product  under  investigation. 
However, taking into account the very clear trend that existed, these data can be used 
to establish a change in pattern of trade. 

(22)  Finally,  as  an  additional  source  of  information  the  data  provided  by  the  Filipino 
authorities were used. Although these data were not complete and detailed enough to 
be a sole basis for the analysys they were suitable to cross-check findings with regard 
to the pattern of trade. 

2.3.2.  Change in the pattern of trade 

(23)  After  the  imposition  of  the  original  measures  on  the  imports  from  the  PRC,  imports 
into  the  Union  of  the  product  under  investigation  from  the  Philippines  increased 
suddenly  and  markedly.  From  the  minimal  level  of  below  100  MT  yearly  in  2004-
2005 it raised to more than 12 thousand MT in the RP. 

2004 

2005 

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010 

2011 

RP 

69 

23 

1 369

6 048

7 046

5 406 15 580  14 528

12 075

Volume 
(MT) 

Source: Eurostat 

(24)  At the same time exports from China to the Philippines were increasing sharply in the 

years 2004-RP from 1.1 thousand MT to more than 15 thousand MT.  

Volume 
(MT) 

2004 

2005 

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010 

2011 

RP 

1104 

2022 

2107 

3727 

3856 

7513 

11262 

15553  15632 

Source: Chinese export statistics (Global Trade Atlas Database) 

(25)  The data clearly show that imports from the Philippines into the Union were negligible 
in 2004 and 2005. However, in 2006, following the imposition of the measures on the 
PRC, the imports surged suddenly and partly replaced the exports from the PRC on the 
Union market in terms of volume. Moreover, since the imposition of the measures in 
force,  the  decrease  of  the  exports  from  the  PRC  to  the  Union  has  been  significant 
(70%).  Furthermore,  it  is  noted  that  the  data  received  from  the  Filipino  authorities 
confirm that only small percentage of imports from the PRC was released for trade in 
the Filipino custom territory. Most of the import was directed to the special economic 
zones.  

2.3.3.  Nature of the circumvention practice 

EN 

9 

   EN 

  
  
 
 
(26)  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  requires  that  the  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade 
stems  from  a  practice,  process  or  work  for  which  there  is  insufficient  due  cause  or 
economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The practice, process or 
work includes, inter alia, the consignment of the product subject to measures via third 
countries. 

(27) 

It is noted that Filipino exports of the cooperating companies amounted to some 10% 
of  the  total  Filipino  exports  to  the  Union  in  the  RP.  The  remaining  exports  can  be 
attributed to the producers that have not cooperated with the investigation or by pure 
transhipment practises. The latter conclusion is supported by the information and data 
provided by the Filipino authorities, in particular the facts that i) most of the imports 
from  the  PRC  of  the  product  concerned  was  directed  to  special  economic  zones  and 
did not enter the Filipino custom territories, ii) the number of genuine producers of the 
product under investigation in the Philippines is very limited. 

(28)  The  existence  of  transhipment  of  Chinese-origin  products  via  the  Philippines  was 

therefore confirmed. 

2.3.4. 

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

(29)  The investigation did not bring to light any other due cause or economic justification 
for  the  transhipment  than  the  avoidance  of  the  measures  in  force  on  the  product 
concerned. No elements were found, other than the duty, which could be considered as 
a  compensation  for  the  costs  of  transhipment,  in  particular  regarding  transport  and 
reloading, of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the PRC 
via the Philippines. 

2.3.5.  Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty  

(30)  To assess whether the imported product under investigation had, in terms of quantities 
and prices, undermined the remedial effects of the measures in force on imports of the 
product  concerned,  Eurostat  data  was  used  as  the  best  data  available  concerning 
quantities and prices of exports by the non-cooperating companies in the Philippines. 
The prices so determined were compared to the injury elimination level established for 
Union  producers  in  the  original  investigation.  Given  the  substantial  time  difference 
between  the  original  IP  and  the  RP  in  the  present  investigation,  the  significant 
developments  in  the  basic  elements  of  costs  of  production  had  to  be  taken  into 
account. This was reflected in the adjustement of the non-injurious price on the basis 
of the increase in the price of the basic raw-materials and, for the remaining elements 
of costs of manufacturing and sales, on the basis of the variation in the consumer price 
index in the Union.  

(31)  The increase of imports from the Philippines to the Union from below 100 MT in 2004 
to  over  12  thousand  MT  in  the  RP  was  considered  to  be  significant  in  terms  of 
quantities. 

(32)  The  comparison  of  the  adjusted  injury  elimination  level  and  the  weighted  average 

export price showed underselling.  

(33) 

It was therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are being 
undermined in terms of both quantities and prices. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

2.3.6.  Evidence of dumping 

(34)  Finally,  in  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation  it  was  examined 
whether there was evidence of dumping in relation to the normal value established in 
the original investigation.  

(35) 

In the original Regulation the normal value was established on the basis of prices in 
Taiwan, which in that investigation was found to be an appropriate market economy 
analogue country for the PRC. However, given the substantial time difference between 
the original IP and the RP in the present investigation, the siginificant developments in 
the  basic  elements  of  costs  of  production  had  to  be  taken  into  account.  This  was 
relflected  in  the  adjustement  of  the  normal  value  on  the  basis  of  the  increase  in  the 
price  of  the  basic  raw-materials  and,  for  the  remaining  elements  of  costs  of 
manufacturing and sales, on the basis of the variation in the consumer price index in 
Taiwan.  

(36)  The export price from the Philippines was based on facts available, i.e. on the average 
export  price  of  certain  stainless  steel  fasteners  and  parts  thereof  during  the  RP  as 
reported  in  Eurostat.  The  use  of  facts  available  was  due  to  the  minimal  level  of 
cooperation  by  producers  of  the  product  under  investigation  in  the  Philippines.  The 
average  export  price  used  for  the  calculation  was  cross-checked  with  the  level  of 
export  prices  of  the  two  cooperating  Filipino  exporters  and  it  appeared  to  be 
compatible with them.  

(37)  For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, 
due  allowance,  in  the  form  of  adjustments,  was  made  for  differences  which  affect 
prices  and  price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  Accordingly,  adjustments  were  made  for  differences  in  transport, 
insurance  and  for  non-refundable  VAT  on  export  sales  in  the  PRC.  Given  that  there 
was  limited  cooperation  from  the  producers  in  the  Philippines  and  the  PRC,  the 
adjustments  had  to  be  established  on  the  basis  of  the  best  facts  available.  Thus,  the 
adjustments  for  transport  and  insurance  were  based  on  per  tonne  transport  and 
insurance cost established in the original investigation. 

(38) 

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

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

export price as established showed dumping. 

2.4. 

Findings with regard to Malaysia 

2.4.1.  Level of cooperation 

(40)  As stated in recital (10) above, seven Malaysian companies submitted exemption form 
replies. One of these companies appeared not to be the producer of the product under 
investigation,  while  the  other  submitted  its  incomplete  reply  in  the  late  stage  of  the 
investigation  which  made  it  impossible  to  supplement  deficiences  and  verify  the 
submitted information and data. Therefore, these two exemption form replies had to be 

EN 

11 

   EN 

disregarded.  Nevertheless,  the  remaining  five  cooperating  Malaysian  companies 
represented  93%  of  the  Malaysian  exports  of  the  product  under  investigation  to  the 
Union in the RP. 

2.4.2.  Change in pattern of trade 

(41)  After  the  imposition  of  the  original  measures  on  the  imports  from  the  PRC,  imports 
into  the  Union  of  the  product  under  investigation  from  Malaysia  was  increasing 
steadily. From the level of below 2 thousand MT yearly in 2004-2005 it raised to more 
than 13 thousand MT in the RP. 

2004 

2005 

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010 

2011 

RP 

1 701 

1 849 

7 930

13 548

13 712

9 809

9 615 

13 498

13 363

Volume 
(MT) 

Source: Eurostat 

(42)  However, it should be stressed that following the verification visits it was confirmed 
that this increase in Malaysian exports to the Union can be explained by the increase 
of  genuine  production  in  Malaysia  over  the  same  period.  Cooperating  companies, 
which  were  found  to  be  Malaysian  producers  not  involved  in  the  circumvention 
practices,  represent  93%  of  the  export  to  the  Union.  The  investigation  revealed  that 
only one of these companies was transhipping the product concerned but this practice 
concerned  small  part  of  its  sales  and  ended  in  2009.  None  of  the  cooperating 
companies  was  also  found  to  be  involved  in  the  assembling  operations  where  the 
Chinese-origin parts or semi-products would be used. 

(43)  Taking into account the above it is concluded that increased imports from Malaysia are 
justified by increase in the domestic production. Therefore, the change in the pattern of 
trade between Malaysia and the Union does not result from circumvention practices. 

2.5. 

Findings with regard to Thailand 

2.5.1.  Level of cooperation 

(44)  As stated in recital (10) above, six Thai companies submitted exemption form replies. 
One  of  these  companies  failed  to  cooperate  in  the  further  procedure  which  made  it 
impossible  to  supplement  deficiences  and  held  on  spot  verification  of  the  submitted 
information  and  data.  Therefore,  this  exemption  form  reply  was  disregarded. 
Nevertheless, the remaining five cooperating Thai companies represented 67% of the 
Thai exports of the product under investigation to the Union in the RP. 

2.5.2.  Change in the pattern of trade 

(45)  After  the  imposition  of  the  original  measures  on  the  imports  from  the  PRC,  imports 
into the Union of the product under investigation from Thailand showed the following 
trend: 

2004 

2005 

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010 

2011 

RP 

5 373 

3 308 

1 290

850

453

128

367 

5 546

6 715

Volume 
(MT) 

Source: Eurostat 

EN 

12 

   EN 

  
  
(46)  Analyses  of  the  exports  from  Thailand  into  the  Union  have  to  be  made  against  the 
background  of  the  fact  that  from  November  2005  on  Thailand,  like  the  PRC,  was 
subject  to  the  Union  anti-dumping  measures5.  These  measures  lapsed  in  November 
2010. Following that, there was a sharp increase in Thai exports to the Union – from 
367 MT in 2010 to more than 5.5 thousand MT in 2011 and more than 6.7 thousand 
MT in the RP. 

(47)  However, it should be noted that the Thai exports of the product under investigation to 
the  Union  in  the  RP  are  in  absolute  terms  not  much  higher  than  in  2004  before  the 
anti-dumping measures were imposed on the PRC and Thailand. In relative terms (as 
share  in  the  total  Union  imports)  imports  from  Thailand  even  dropped  from  almost 
12% to 7%. 

(48)  The investigation did not reveal any transhipping or assembling operations where the 
Chinese-origin parts or semi-products would be used. Taking into account the fact that 
before  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures  the  exports  from  Thailand  were 
definitely of genuine Thai production it is difficult to conclude that the current level of 
export  which  is  similar  in  volume  would  have  different  origin.  It  should  be  also 
stressed that the two biggest Thai producers cooperating in this investigation were also 
present in the original investigation against Thailand.  

(49)  Taking into account the above it is concluded that increased imports from Thailand are 
to a large extent justified by domestic production. Therefore, the change in the pattern 
of trade between Thailand and the Union does not result from circumvention practices. 

3. 

MEASURES 

(50)  Given the above,  it  was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed  on 
imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and the parts thereof originating in the PRC 
was circumvented  by transhipment via the Philippines  within the  meaning  of  Article 
13(1) of the basic Regulation. 

(51) 

(52) 

(53) 

In  accordance  with  the  first  sentence  of  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the 
measures in force on imports of the product concerned, should be extended to imports 
of  the  product  under  investigation,  i.e.  the  same  product  but  consigned  from  the 
Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not. 

In  light  of  the  low  level  of  the  cooperation  in  this  investigation,  the  measures  to  be 
extended  should  be  the  measures  established  in  Article  1(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
2/2012 for "all other  companies"  from the  PRC, which is  presently a definitive  anti-
dumping duty of 27,4% applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty. 

In  accordance  with  Articles  13(3)  and  14(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  which  provide 
that  any  extended  measure  should  apply  to  imports  which  entered  the  Union  under 
registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those 
registered imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from 
the Philippines. 

5 

OJ L 302, 19.11.2005, p. 1. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
4. 

(54) 

TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION IN RESPECT OF IMPORTS FROM 
MALAYSIA AND THAILAND 

In view of the findings regarding Malaysia and Thailand, the investigation concerning 
possible  circumvention  of  anti-dmping  measures  by  imports  of  certain  stainless  steel 
fasteners  and  parts  thereof  consigned  from  Malaysia  and  Thailand  should  be 
terminated and the registration of imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts 
thereof  consigned  from  Malaysia  and  Thailand,  introduced  by  the  initiating 
Regulation, should be discontinued. 

5. 

REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION 

(55)  As explained in the recital (10), 16 companies located in Malaysia, Thailand and the 
Philippines  submitted  exemption  form  responses  requesting  an  exemption  from  the 
possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(56)  The exemption requests of the Malaysian and Thai companies were not assessed as the 

measures are not extended on these two countries. 

(57)  One of the three Filipino companies requesting exemption was found not to produce 
and export the product under investigation during the IP and no conclusions could be 
drawn as to the nature of its operations. Therefore, an exemption to this company can 
not  be  granted  at  this  stage.  However,  should  it  appear,  after  extension  of  the  anti-
dumping measures in force, that the conditions in Article 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic 
Regulation are fulfilled, the company may request a review of its situation. 

(58)  Following  the  verification  visits  it  was  confirmed  that  the  remaining  two  Filipino 
exporting  producers  were  genuine.  It  is  therefore  concluded  that  they  were  not 
engaged in circumvention practices and therefore exemptions to these companies can 
be granted. 

(59) 

It  is  considered  that  special  measures  are  needed  in  this  case  in  order  to  ensure  the 
proper application of such exemptions. These special measures are the requirement of 
the presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial 
invoice,  which  shall  conform  to  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  Annex  to  this 
Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the 
extended anti-dumping duty.  

(60)  Other Filipino producers which did not come forward in this proceeding and did not 
export the product under investigation during the IP, which intend to lodge a request 
for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 
13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete an exemption form in order 
to enable the Commission to assess such a request. The Commission would normally 
also carry out an on-spot verification visit. Provided that the conditions set in Articles 
11(4)  and  13(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  are  met,  an  exemption  may  be  warranted. 
Where  an  exemption  is  warranted,  the  Commission  may,  after  consultation  of  the 
Advisory Committee, authorise by decision, the exemption of imports from companies 
which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EU) No 
2/2012, from the duty extended by this regulation. 

6. 

DISCLOSURE 

EN 

14 

   EN 

(61)  All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to 
the  above  conclusions  and  were  invited  to  comment.  Following  disclosure,  no 
comments were received. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1.  The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  "all  other  companies"  from  the  PRC 
imposed  by  Article  1(2)  of  Regulation (EU) No  2/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel 
fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People's Republic of China, is hereby extended 
to imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof consigned from the Philippines, 
whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not, currently falling under CN codes ex 
7318 12 10, ex 7318 14 10, ex 7318 15 30, ex 7318 15 51, ex 7318 15 61 and ex 7318 15 70 
(TARIC codes 7318 12 10 11, 7318 12 10 91, 7318 14 10 11, 7318 14 10 91, 7318 15 30 11, 
7318 15 30 61, 7318 15 30 81, 7318 15 51 11, 7318 15 51 61, 7318 15 51 81, 7318 15 61 11, 
7318 15 61 61, 7318 15 61 81, 7318 15 70 11, 7318 15 70 61 and 7318 15 70 81), with the 
exception of those produced by the companies listed below: 

Company 

Additional Taric Code 

Multi-Tek Fasteners Inc, Clark Freeport Zone,  
Pampanga, Philippines 

B355 

Rosario Fasteners Corporation, Cavite Economic Area, Philippines B356 

2.  The  application  of  exemptions  granted  to  the  companies  specifically  mentioned  in 
paragraph 1 of this Article or authorised by the Commission in accordance with Article 3(2) 
shall  be  conditional  upon  presentation  to  the  customs  authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  a 
valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex. If no 
such  invoice  is  presented,  the  anti-dumping  duty  as  imposed  by  paragraph  1  of  this  Article 
shall apply. 

3. The duty extended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned 
from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not, registered in 
accordance  with  Article  2  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  2/2012  and  Articles  13(3)  and  14(5)  of 
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 with the exception of those produced by the companies listed 
in paragraph 1.  

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

Article 2 

The  investigation  concerning  possible  circumvention  of  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  by 
Regulation  (EU)  No  2/2012  on  imports  of  certain  stainless  steel  fasteners  and  parts  thereof 
originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  by  imports  of  certain  stainless  steel  fasteners 
and parts thereof consigned from Malaysia and Thailand, whether declared as originating in 
Malaysia and Thailand or not, is hereby terminated. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

Article 3 

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

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Directorate H 
Office: N-105 08/20 
1049 Brussels 
Belgium 
Fax (32 2) 295 65 05 

2. In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 the Commission, after 
consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  authorise,  by  decision,  the  exemption  of  imports 
from companies which do not circumvent the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation 
(EU) No 2/2012, from the duty extended by Article 1. 

Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established 
in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 2/2012. 

Article 4 

Article 5 

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

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 

A  declaration  signed  by  an  official  of  the  entity  issuing  the  commercial  invoice,  in  the 
following format, must appear on the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(2): 

(1) the name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice; 

(2)  the  following  declaration:  ‘I,  the  undersigned,  certify  that  the  (volume)  of  (product 
concerned) sold for export to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured 
by  (company  name  and  address)  (TARIC  additional  code)  in  (country  concerned).  I  declare 
that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct’; 

(3) date and signature. 

EN 

17 

   EN