Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross- sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 97 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross- sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China
Date: 2013-08-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), molybdenum, originating product, wire













EUR-Lex - 52013PC0564 - EN











|



52013PC0564

Proposal for a COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross- sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 97 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross- sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China /* COM/2013/0564 final - 2013/0272 (NLE) */









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 Regulation (EC) No 511/2010 on imports of
molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95% of molybdenum, of which
the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0
mm (‘the product concerned’) originating from the People’s Republic of China by
imports of certain slightly modified molybdenum wires, containing by weight 97%
or more but less than 99,95% of molybdenum, originating in the People’s
Republic of China. 
 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 were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 511/2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95% of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm (‘the product concerned’) originating from the People’s Republic of China. 
 Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union Not applicable. 
2.           RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS
WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
 Consultation of interested parties 
 Interested parties concerned by the proceeding have had the possibility to defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation. 
 Collection and use of expertise 
 There was no need for external expertise. 
 Impact assessment This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. The basic Regulation does not provide for a general impact assessment but contains an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 
3.           LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE
PROPOSAL
 Summary of the proposed action The attached proposal for a Council Implementing Regulation is based on the findings of the investigation, which has confirmed that circumvention of the measures is taking place 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 that the Council adopt the attached proposal to extend the anti-dumping measures on molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 99,95% of molybdenum originating from the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain slightly modified molybdenum wires, containing by weight 97% or more but less than 99,95% of molybdenum, originating in the People’s Republic of China. The relevant Council Regulation should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union no later than 19 September 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: 
 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.
2013/0272 (NLE)
Proposal for a
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION
extending the definitive anti-dumping duty
imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of molybdenum
wire, containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum
cross- sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm,
originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of molybdenum wire,
containing by weight at least 97 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-
sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in
the People’s Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No
1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community[1]
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission after having consulted Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
1.           Procedure 
1.1.        Existing measures 
(1)       In December 2009, the
European Commission (‘the Commission’) by Regulation (EU) No1247/2009[2] (‘the provisional anti-dumping
regulation’), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of molybdenum
wire, containing by weight at least 99,95% of molybdenum, of which the maximum
cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm
originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’). 
(2)       In June 2010, the Council,
by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010[3],
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 64,3% on the same imports. These
measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the measures in force’ and the
investigation that led to the measures in force will be hereinafter referred to
as ‘the original investigation’.
(3)       In January 2012, following
an anti-circumvention investigation pursuant to Article 13 of the basic
Regulation, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 14/2012[4] the Council extended the measures
in force to imports of the product concerned consigned from Malaysia, whether
declared as originating in Malaysia or not. 
1.2.        Request
(4)       In
November 2012, the Commission received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and
14(5) of the basic Regulation to investigate the possible circumvention of the
anti-dumping measures imposed on certain molybdenum wires originating in the PRC
by imports of certain slightly modified molybdenum wires, containing by weight
97% or more but less than 99,95% of molybdenum, originating in the PRC, and to
make such imports subject to registration.
(5)       The request was lodged by
Plansee SE (‘Plansee’), a Union producer of certain molybdenum wires that
participated in the original investigation.
(6)       The request contained
sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures on
imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the PRC are being
circumvented by means of imports of a certain slightly modified molybdenum
wires, containing by weight 97% or more but less than 99,95% of molybdenum,
originating in the PRC. 
1.3.        Initiation
(7)       Having
determined, after the consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient prima
facie evidence existed for the initiation of an investigation pursuant to
Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated an
investigation by Regulation (EU) No 1236/2012[5] (‘the
initiating Regulation’) of the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures
imposed on imports of certain molybdenum wires originating in the PRC and also
directed the customs authorities to register imports into the Union of
molybdenum wire, containing by weight 97 % or more but less than 99,95 % of
molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but
does not exceed 4,0 mm and currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00
(TARIC code 8102 96 00 30), originating in the People’s Republic of China, as
from 21 December 2012.
1.4.        Product concerned and
product under investigation
(8)       The product concerned is
the same as defined in the original investigation, namely molybdenum wire,
containing by weight at least 99,95% of molybdenum, of which the maximum
cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm (‘pure
molybdenum’) originating in the PRC currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96
00. 
(9)       The
product under investigation, namely the product allegedly circumventing, is the
same as that defined in recital (7) containing by weight 97% or more but less
than 99,95% of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension
exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm originating in the PRC. 
1.5.        Investigation and parties
concerned by the investigation
(10)     The
Commission officially advised the authorities of the PRC of the initiation of
the investigation and sent questionnaires to the exporting producers in the PRC
and importers in the Union known
to be concerned. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make
themselves and 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 facts available.
(11)     Two
exporting producers submitted a questionnaire reply to the Commission. One of
these companies, who also cooperated during the original investigation, is a
genuine exporting producer of the product under investigation. As regards the
second one, this company did not report any sales of the product under
investigation. Therefore, its submission was disregarded. 
(12)     Four importers submitted a
questionnaire reply to the Commission. One of them did not report any imports
of the product under investigation and turned out to be a user of molybdenum
wire.
(13)     The Commission carried out on-spot
investigations at the two premises of the cooperating Chinese exporting
producer:
---        Jinduicheng Molybdenum Co.,
Ltd., No88, Jinye 1st Road, Hi-Tech Industry Developing Zone, Xi’an,
Shaanxi Province, P.R. China (‘JDC’);
---        Jinduicheng GuangMing Co., Ltd.,
No104 Mihe Road, Zhoucun District, Zibo City, P.R. China.
and at the premises of the following Union
importer:
---        GTV Verschleißschutz GmbH, Vor der
Neuwiese 7, D-57629 Luckenbach, Germany (‘GTV‘). 
(14)     The three other importers
were not visited, but their submissions were duly examined in the course of the
investigation.
1.6.        Investigation and reporting
periods
(15)     The investigation period
was set from 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2012 (‘IP’) in order to investigate
the alleged change in the pattern of trade. The reporting period (‘RP’) covered
the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 in order to investigate if
the imports are made at prices below the
non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing
measures and the existence of dumping. 
2.           Results of the
investigation
2.1.        General considerations
(16)     In accordance with Article
13(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of the existence of possible
circumvention practices was made by analysing successively: (1) whether there
was a change in pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union; (2) if this
change stemmed from a practise, process or work for which there was
insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of
the duty; (3) if there was evidence of injury or that remedial effects of the
duty were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the
product under investigation; and (4) whether there was evidence of dumping in
relation to the normal values previously established for the like product, if
necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the basic Regulation.
2.2.        Slight modification and
essential characteristics 
(17)     The
investigation has shown that the product under investigation is a wire made of
molybdenum (between 99,6% and 99,7%) and usually lanthanum (‘La’) (between
0,25% and 0,35%). This alloy contains also other chemicals elements and is
known as a ‘doped molybdenum’ or ‘MoLa’ or ‘ML’. The product concerned and the
product under investigation both currently fall under CN code 8102 96 00. As
explained below, the investigation did not find any difference in the
production process of the product under investigation and the product
concerned, other than the addition of a low percentage of lanthanum to pure
molybdenum at the blending step. In addition, the cooperating exporting
producer confirmed that the cost of production of the product under
investigation is similar to the cost of the product concerned. This implies
that there is no economic benefit for the exporting producer to produce the
product under investigation other than avoidance of the measures in force.
Furthermore, it was found that the users of the product concerned switched to
the product under investigation after the imposition of the provisional
measures, which implies that there is not
difference between the product concerned and the product under consideration
for the users.
(18)     As
mentioned in recital (15) of the provisional anti-dumping regulation, the
product concerned is mainly used as coating in the manufacturing of automotive
parts (i.e. gear boxes), aircraft parts or as electrical contacts. The most
traded diameters of the product concerned are 2,31 mm and 3,17 mm, used for
flame or arc spraying.
(19)     Three
parties argued that the product under investigation and the product concerned
have different essential characteristics. At the request of two of them, a
confrontational hearing with GTV, JDC and Plansee, chaired by the Hearing
Officer took place in April 2013. As explained in detail below, during the
hearing the main focus was on the alleged technical differences between the product
concerned and the product under investigation, and the economic justification
for importation of the latter into the Union market.
(20)     GTV
and JDC argued during the hearing and in writing that the product under
investigation has different essential physical characteristics which differ
significantly from the product concerned. More specifically, they claimed that
the ductility, namely the ability of the material to be drawn out
longitudinally to a reduced section without fracture under the action of a
tensile force, the elongation parameters and the coating properties of the
product under investigation are especially improved compared to the product
concerned.
(21)     In support of this claim, the
two parties submitted a number of articles and studies which aimed to show that
alloying molybdenum and lanthanum leads to a product with better resistance to
brittle failure and better elongation than the product concerned. These parties
also claimed that information published on the Plansee’s web site provides
evidence that the product under investigation has improved properties compared
to the product concerned.
(22)     Regarding the product’s
characteristics, in order to evaluate whether the product under investigation
and the product concerned have different essential characteristics, Plansee
proposed to mandate an independent institute to compare the product concerned
and the product under investigation. 
(23)     After
the hearing, the above request was assessed on the basis of the evidence
collected during the investigation, in particular the purchase orders sent by
importers to the exporting producer, the explanations provided by the exporting
producer about its production process, the chemical content and elongation and
tensility characteristics mentioned on certificates of qualities, the commercial
invoices issued by the exporting producer and the absence of any commercial
information related to the improved characteristic of the product under
investigation compared to the product concerned sent to any customer. All the
information confirmed that better properties were not requested by the
customers nor provided by the producer of the product under investigation. Therefore,
it was concluded that an expert’s opinion is not necessary. In consequence,
this request was rejected.
(24)     In this aspect, the investigation has confirmed that the
improved qualities mentioned above in recital (20) depend on the content of
lanthanum and on whether an optimized production processes is being used.
However, the cooperating exporting producer did not demonstrate that it put in
place the optimized production processes for the product under investigation
exported to the EU during the IP. The claim was therefore rejected as
unfounded.
(25)     One party claimed that the
product under investigation has improved coating properties. However, the party
did not submit sufficient evidence to support this statement. The claim was
therefore rejected as unfounded. 
(26)     Two parties claimed that
fracture toughness is improved for the product under investigation. This means
that the wire never breaks when unrolled inside a spraying machine. However,
these parties were asked to provide supporting documentation but failed in
doing this. In the absence of any supporting evidence, this claim was disregarded.

(27)     In the light of the above,
it has been concluded that the product under investigation has no different
properties compared to the product concerned.
(28)     Furthermore,
the evidence collected during the verification visits shows that users/importers
did not specifically request the product with the claimed better physical
characteristics as described above in recital (20) when placing their orders.
None of them requested a specific content of lanthanum but did request at least
99% of pure molybdenum. Only one customer requested specific physical
characteristics for the parameters of elongation and tensility. In this case,
the exporting producer tested these parameters and provided this customer with
certificates of quality. As these certificates were also delivered for the
product concerned, it was possible to compare the two products for these
parameters. The comparison showed that the requirements for elongation and
tensility were identical for both products. 
(29)     In
addition, the investigation showed that the exporting producer did not inform
the market or their customers on the alleged advantages of the product under
investigation over the product concerned and did not market the slightly
modified MoLa wires as a new or different product.
(30)     Based on a patent
registered by Plansee in January 1996, one party claimed that the product
concerned and the product under investigation are different products. Analysis
of this claim showed that the patent does not concern the product under
investigation but the use of a molybdenum alloy as a lead-in conductor for
lamps, electron tubes and similar components. Furthermore, the diameters of
this product type are lower than the diameters defined for the product under
investigation. In addition, as mentioned above in recital (24), the alleged improved
qualities of MoLa over the product concerned depend on the use of an optimized
production process. The claim is therefore rejected. 
(31)     Therefore, it has to be
concluded that from a customer’s point of view, the product concerned and the
product under investigation are very similar.
(32)     One
party claimed that the commercial offers published on Plansee’s web site show
that they offered the product under investigation not only in the field of
thermal spraying but also in various other domains (i.e. lamp components, wire
cutting industries). However, Plansee’s commented that the commercial
information published on its web site indicates the diameters for which they
are able to supply. In addition, the investigation showed that Plansee’s sales
for other domains are very limited (i.e. less than 2% in quantity compared with
the sales of the product concerned) and that an optimized production processes was
used. Therefore, this claim was rejected.
(33)     One party claimed that
Plansee was already producing the product under investigation when it lodged the
complaint which led to the initiation of the original investigation and since
Plansee considers that the product under investigation and the product
concerned share the same essential characteristics, they should have included
it in the scope of the original investigation. However, as explained above
recital (32), the investigation confirmed that this particular MoLa wire is
different from the product under investigation. The product diameters are
generally below 1mm and it is mainly used in the lighting industry. Moreover, as
mentioned below in Table 1, the imports of the product under investigation
started only after provisional measures were imposed on the product concerned. Therefore,
in the absence of any imports of the product under investigation during the IP
of the original investigation, there were no reasons to include this product in
the product scope. The claim is therefore rejected as unfounded. 
(34)     One
party claimed that the expansion of the range from 99,95% down to 97% will
cover all kinds of molybdenum alloys and in consequence, these products would
not be available on the EU market (i.e. for example for the re-drawing market).
Firstly, this party did not present any evidence supporting this statement. Secondly,
the investigation has shown that only one exporting producer was exporting MoLa
to the Union during the IP
and no other alloys which would be covered by the definition of the product
under investigation. Thirdly, the investigation showed that the market in the
EU for redrawing and sales of molybdenum alloys is very limited. Finally, the
extension of the measures will not make it impossible to import the product
under investigation. The claim was therefore rejected. 
(35)     As far as the questions of
whether or not the modification mentioned in recital (19) altered the essential
characteristics of the product concerned, the information provided by the
cooperating parties analysed in recital (24) to recital (32), revealed that the
product under investigation has the same basic physical characteristics and
uses as the product concerned. 
(36)     In consequence, it was
found that there are no relevant physical characteristics differences between
the product under investigation and the product concerned. Therefore, it was
concluded that the product under investigation is considered as a like product
within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
(37)     Therefore,
it has to be concluded that the product under investigation is only slightly
modified compared to the product concerned, imported for no other economic
justification but to circumvent the anti-dumping duties in place. 
2.3.        Change in the pattern of
trade
2.3.1.     Imports of molybdenum wires
into the Union
(38)     Information
about the Union imports could not be directly obtained from Eurostat data, as
the CN code under which the product under investigation is declared includes
also other products than the product under investigation. Therefore, in the
absence of specific import statistics for the product under investigation,
Eurostat data was adjusted in accordance with the method suggested in the request.
Accordingly, the volume of imports of the product under investigation into the Union was established on the basis of an
estimation of the EU consumption of molybdenum wires adjusted by the total EU
production of the product concerned. This method was found to be reliable to
obtain data relating to the product under investigation.
(39)     As
mentioned in recital (11), only one exporting producer in the PRC cooperated
with the investigation. However, on the basis the comparison of the of the
information given by this exporting producer with the adjusted Eurostat data
mentioned in the previous recital, it was established that this company
represented most of the total EU imports of the product under investigation
during the IP and was thus considered to be representative for the total EU
imports of molybdenum wires.
(40)     As shown in the table
below, the imports into the Union of the product concerned stopped entirely after
the imposition of the definitive measures in June 2010 and were immediately
replaced by imports of the product under investigation. 
Table
1: Evolution of the imports of the product concerned and product under
investigation originating the PRC
 Imports to the EU || 2008 || 2009 || 01/01/2010* - 16/06/2010 || 17/06/2010** - 31/12/2010 || 2010 || 2011 || RP*** 
 (1) Total Imports – (tonnes indexed) || 100 || 31 || 10 || 17 || 27 || 128 || 99 
 Total Imports || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% 
 Product Concerned || 100% || 100% || 20% || 0% || 7% || 0% || 0% 
  Product Under Investigation || 0% || 0% || 80% || 100% || 93% || 100% || 100% 
 (1) Indexed on the basis of volume in kg reported by the cooperating exporting producer. (i.e. 2008=100). Refer to recital (37). Imports= Product concerned + Product under investigation * period corresponding to the imposition of the provisional measures ** period corresponding to the imposition of the definitive measures *** RP= reporting period from 1st October 2011 to 30 September 2012 Source: JDC submission 
(41)     The investigation confirmed
that parties which purchased the product under investigation after the
imposition of the provisional duty were purchasing the product concerned before
the imposition of the measures. These parties purchased 99,8% of the total
quantity of the product under investigation during the RP.
(42)     Two interested parties
claimed that as early as in 2007, they started a project to develop the product
under investigation in the PRC and thus the exports of the product under
investigation was not linked to the imposition of the measures on the product
concerned. However, the investigation did not confirm the materiality of such a
project. Altogether, one email, the minutes of one phone conference and the export
of a sample of the product under investigation for further analysis were
provided. Furthermore, this project did not result in any sales of the product
under investigation to the EU before the imposition of the provisional measures
on the product concerned, namely in October 2010. Nevertheless, the fact that a
project was allegedly initiated in 2007 does not change the finding that the
product concerned and the product under investigation are similar. The
conclusion reached in the investigation that there was no economic
justification for the export of the product under investigation than the
imposition of the measures on the product concerned also remain valid.
(43)     The investigation also
showed that no sales of the product under investigation
were made to other countries than the EU and that only limited quantities were
sold in the Chinese market during the IP as shown in table 2 below.
Table
2: Product under investigation market
   || 2008 || 2009 || 01/01/2010-16/06/2010 || 17/06/2010-31/12/2010 || 2010 || 2011 || 1/10/2011-30/09/2012 
 (1) Total Turnover (indexed) || 100 || 96 || 863 || 1529 || 2393 || 11168 || 8123 
  Total Turnover || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% 
 Domestic sales (PRC) || 100% || 100% || 5% || 4% || 4% || 0.4% || 2% 
 EU sales ||  0% || 0%  || 95% || 96% || 95% || 99,6% || 98% 
  Other countries sales ||  0% ||  0% ||  0% || 0%  ||  0% ||  0% ||  0% 
 (1) methodology as described for Table 1. Source: JDC submission 
(44)     Based on the above, the
claim is rejected.
2.3.2.     Conclusion on the change of
pattern of trade
(45)     The
overall increase of exports of the product under investigation to the EU from
the PRC after the imposition of the provisional and the definitive measures and
the parallel decrease of the imports of the product concerned constituted a change
of pattern of trade between the PRC and the Union.
2.4.        Nature of the circumvention
practise and insufficient due cause or economic justification
(46)     Article 13(1) of the basic
regulation requires that the change in pattern of trade stems from a practise,
process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic
justification other than the imposition of duty.
(47)     As mentioned in recital (41),
it was concluded that there is a change in pattern of trade.
(48)     As mentioned in recitals (28)
and (29), it was concluded that neither the exporting producer nor the
importers informed the market or their customers on the alleged advantages of
the product under investigation over the product concerned and did not market
the product under investigation as a new or different product.
(49)     Furthermore, both the
product concerned and the product under investigation are mainly used as spray
wires in the automotive industry and that the end-users of the both products
are the same. 
(50)     One
party claimed that the product under investigation provides significant
improvements when used as spray wire. These improvements have an impact on the
productivity of coating gear components, by minimizing production interruption
due to brittle wire failure. However, the investigation has confirmed that this
party did not market the product under investigation nor informed its customers
about the alleged different technical characteristics or about the improvements
brought by the product under investigation. In addition, the customers did not
specifically ask for the improvements. The claim
was therefore rejected as unfounded.
(51)     One
party claimed that one user switched to the product under investigation because
of the technical failures of the product concerned. However, this party was
asked to provide supporting documentation but failed in doing this. In the
absence of any supporting evidence, this claim was disregarded.
(52)     GTV
claimed that MoLa used for spray coating provides better results when
considering the coating micro hardness. This allows avoiding wear by material
transfer from the surface of a component rubbing on a counterpart. This party submitted
test results from an independent laboratory showing that micro hardness can be
improved with the use of MoLa. However, the methodology used by the independent
laboratory did not guarantee the outcome as the test was realized on only one
batch of wire while this party claimed that a further test analysis should cover
a multitude of batches. In addition, the chemical composition of the sample tested
was not analysed which means that there is no guarantee that the batch analysed
was actually the product under investigation. The claim was therefore rejected
as unfounded.
(53)     The investigation did not
bring to light any other due cause or economic justification for the imports of
the product under investigation other than the avoidance of the payment of the
duty in force.
(54)     It is therefore concluded
that, in the absence of any other sufficient due cause or economic
justification within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of the
basic Regulation, the change in the pattern of trade between the PRC and the
Union was due to the imposition of the measures in force.
2.5.        Undermining of the remedial
effects of the duty in terms of the prices and/or the quantities of the like
product
(55)     To assess whether the imports
of the product under investigation, in terms of quantities and prices,
undermined the remedial effects to the measures in force, data provided by one
cooperating exporting producer as described in recital (39) were used.
(56)     The increase in imports of
the product under investigation from the PRC as from the imposition of the
provisional measures was significant in terms of quantities. The level of
imports into the EU from the PRC in the RP corresponds to the level of imports
of the product concerned originating in the PRC to the Union in 2008, before
the imposition of measures.
(57)     The comparison of the
injury elimination level as established in the original Regulation and the
weighted average of exports price showed significant underselling. It was
therefore concluded that the remedial effects of the measures in force are
being undermined both in terms of quantities and prices.
2.6.        Evidence of dumping in
relation to the normal value previously established for the like product
(58)     Export prices of the
product under investigation have been established on the basis of the verified
information provided by the cooperating exporting producer.
(59)     These
export prices were found to be slightly lower compared to the export prices of
the product concerned previously established in the original investigation. Two
interested parties confirmed that there is almost no price difference between
the product concerned and the product under investigation.
(60)     Therefore, in accordance
with article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, it was considered appropriate to
compare the normal value previously established in the original investigation with
the export price of the product under investigation. 
(61)     As
mentioned in recital (24) and (25) of the provisional regulation, the USA was considered to be an appropriate market
economy analogue country. It is recalled that since the analogue country
producer made only marginal sales on the domestic US market, it was found
unreasonable to use US domestic sales data for the purposes of determining or
constructing normal value. Consequently, the normal value for the PRC was
established on the basis of export prices from the USA to other third
countries, including the Union.
(62)     One party claimed that the
normal value established in the original should be adjusted because the price
of molybdenum oxide, which is a decisive factor for the price setting of both the
product concerned and the product under investigation, fell sharply in the
reporting period of this investigation. As mentioned above in recital (61), normal
value in the original investigation was established on the basis of the prices charged
for export by a producer located in the USA and not on the basis of its costs.
Therefore, any adjustment based on costs does not seem to be appropriate in
this case. Because the price of the main raw material decreased significantly
it appears even more clearly that prices elements should be used to establish
the relevant normal value in this case.
(63)     The adjustment to the normal
value was thus established on the basis of the evolution of prices of the
product concerned. Given that the US producer stopped its activity and that no
information was available from the analogue country, the adjustment was
calculated on the basis of the prices reported by Plansee in the original
investigation and during the RP. This led to a downwards adjustment of about
20% to the normal value established in the original investigation. 
(64)     In accordance with Article
2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing
the adjusted weighted average normal value as established in the original investigation
and the weighted average export prices of the product under investigation established
during this investigation’s RP, expressed as a percentage of the net,
free-at-Union- frontier price, before customs duty. 
(65)     The comparison of the adjusted
weighted average normal value and the weighted average export prices showed the
existence of dumping.
3.           REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION
(66)     One exporting producer in
the PRC, requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in
accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation and submitted a
questionnaire reply. 
(67)     The investigation has
however confirmed that this producer circumvented the measures in place. It was
therefore concluded to reject the request.
4.           MEASURES 
(68)     In view of the findings
above, it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on
imports of molybdenum wires originating in the PRC was circumvented by imports
of a certain slightly modified molybdenum wires originating in the PRC.
(69)     In accordance with the
first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the existing
anti-dumping measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the
PRC, should be extended to imports of the product under investigation.
(70)     Pursuant to Articles 13(3)
and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provide that any extended measures
shall be applied against registered imports from the date of registration, the
anti-dumping duty should be collected on all imports of into the Union of
molybdenum wire, containing by weight 97 % or more but less than 99,95 % of
molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but
does not exceed 4,0 mm and currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00
(TARIC code 8102 96 00 30) which entered the Union under registration imposed
by the initiating Regulation.
5.           DISCLOSURE
(71)     All interested parties were
informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above
conclusions and were invited to comment. The oral and written comments
submitted by the parties were considered. None of the arguments presented gave
rise to a modification of the findings. 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2010 on imports of molybdenum wire,
containing by weight at least 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum
cross- sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm,
originating in the People’s Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports
into the Union of molybdenum wire, containing by weight at least 97 % of
molybdenum, of which the maximum cross- sectional dimension exceeds 1,35 mm but
does not exceed 4,0 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China,
currently falling within CN code ex 8102 96 00 (TARIC code 8102 96 00 30).
Article 2
The duty shall be collected on imports
registered in accordance with Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No
1236/2012 and Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of imports
into the Union of molybdenum wire, containing by weight 97 % or more but less
than 99,95 % of molybdenum, of which the maximum cross-sectional dimension
exceeds 1,35 mm but does not exceed 4,0 mm and currently falling within CN code
ex 8102 96 00 (TARIC code 8102 96 00 30), originating in the People’s Republic
of China.
Article 3
Customs authorities are hereby by directed
to discontinue the registration of imports established in accordance with
Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 1236/2012. 
Article 4
This
Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication
in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding
in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
[2]               OJ L 336, 18.12.2009, p. 16.
[3]               OJ L 150, 16.6.2010, p. 17.
[4]               OJ L 8, 12.1.2012, p. 22.
[5]               OJ L 350, 20.12.2012, p.51.