CELEX: 51998PC0343
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-29
Title: Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                                  Brussels, 29.05.1998
                                                  COM(1998) 343 final
                                  Proposal for a
                         COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)
   imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of syntheticfibreropes
   originating in India and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
                         (presented by the Commission)
H»
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                         EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1. On 8 January 1998, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties of
   53.0% and 82.0% on imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India.
2. The Commission subsequently continued to seek all the information it deemed
   necessary for its definitive findings. The main conclusions are stated below.
3. Modifications of the dumping margins were made, where necessary, in respect of
   additional information supplied by the co-operating exporter concerned.
4. As regards injury and causation, the main conclusions were that, between 1993
   and the period from 1 July 1996 to 31 May 1997, the Community industry
   suffered a significant downwards pressure on sales prices and an important
   reduction in profits, in addition to a loss in market share. This situation coincided
   with a significant increase in the volume and market share of synthetic fibre ropes
   originating in India, at prices which were found to be the lowest on the market and
   which undercut the prices of the Community industry.
5. The estimation of the total volume of the dumped imports into the Community
   was slightly revised further to information submitted by the co-operating exporter.
   However, this revision did not modify the conclusions of the Commission as
   regards injury and causation.
6. As regards Community interest, it was concluded that there were no compelling
   reasons not to impose definitive measures.
7. Given that the injury elimination levels determined are lower than the dumping
   margins found, the definitive duties should be based on these lower levels, in
   accordance with Article 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96. On this
   basis, it is proposed to impose definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of
   synthetic fibre ropes originating in India at the following levels :
       - Garware Wall ropes Ltd:       53.0%
       - Other manufacturers:          82.0%
8. A majority of Member States in the Anti-dumping Advisory Committee were in
   favour of the imposition of definitive measures.
                                            A
 ---pagebreak---                             COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No
                                                of
   imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibre ropes
   originating in India and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European
Community 1, and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the
Advisory Committee,
Whereas:                                                     s
l
  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/96 (OJ L 317,
6.12.1996, p. 1)
                                             A^
 ---pagebreak---                             A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES
(1) By Commission Regulation (EC) No 18/98^, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
     provisional duty Regulation'), provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed
     on imports of synthetic fibre ropes falling within CN codes 5607 49 11, 5607
     49 19, 5607 50 11 and 5607 50 19 originating in India.
                           B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
(2) Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures, a number
     of interested parties submitted comments in writing.
(3) The only co-operating Indian exporter, Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd, requested
     and was granted a hearing.
(4) The Commission continued to seek and verify all information deemed
     necessary for the definitive findings.
(5) Parties 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 and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of provisional
     duty. They were also granted a period within which to make representations
     subsequent to this disclosure.
(6) The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were
     considered and, where deemed appropriate, taken into account in the definitive
     findings.
2
  O J L4, 08.01.1998, p. 28.
 ---pagebreak---        C. GROUNDS FOR THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDING
(7) The co-operating Indian exporter reiterated his objections to the opening of the
    proceeding.
     However, this issue was already covered in recital 1 of the provisional duty
     Regulation. In this respect, it should be noted that the submission made by the
     Indian exporter concerned did not contain any evidence or argument which
     would invalidate the conclusions stated in recital I of the provisional duty
     Regulation.
              D. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(8) In the absence of any new information, the provisional findings, as stated in
    recitals 7 to 9 of the provisional duty Regulation, are hereby confirmed.
                                     E. DUMPING
                                    1. Normal value
(9)   The co-operating exporting producer claimed and demonstrated that the cost
      of production used in order to examine whether or not domestic sales were
      made in the ordinary course of trade contained trade discounts accounted for
      as selling expenses, while the domestic sales prices used for this purpose
       were net of these discounts. The Commission accepted this claim and,
      accordingly, amended both the constructed normal value and that based on
      domestic prices.
(10) The other findings made in recitals 10 to 12 of the provisional duty
      Regulation concerning the determination of normal value are hereby
      confirmed.
 ---pagebreak---                                    2. Export price
(11) In the absence of any new information, the findings set out in recital 13 of
     the provisional duty Regulation are hereby confirmed.
                                   3. Comparison
(12) The co-operating exporting producer claimed that the method used by the
     Commission to grant adjustments for duty drawback did not reflect the
     amount of import duties paid for the product concerned sold on the domestic
     market. It argued that the Commission should not have allocated the duty
     drawback adjustment on the basis of domestic turnover of the product
     concerned but on the basis of the quantity sold domestically. After further
     examination, this claim was accepted and the calculations were modified
     accordingly.
(13) The co-operating company reiterated its claim for adjustments for the
     domestic market infrastructure and for differences in physical characteristics
     of the exported and the domestically sold ^products.         However, as the
     company did not supply any new supporting evidence, the positions set out
     in recital 15 of the provisional duty Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(14) As far as credit costs are concerned, the co-operating company, which had
     already been granted adjustments for credit costs directly linked to the
     domestic sales at the provisional stage, claimed that the Commission should
     have granted an additional adjustment taking into account the difference in
     interest rates for financing domestic and export working capital. This claim
     had to be rejected since the company was not in a position to quantify
     correctly these differences nor to show how they could have affected price
     comparability. In this context, it should be noted that a difference in costs
     incurred for export sales and domestic sales does not in itself justify an
 ---pagebreak---      adjustment under Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96,
     (hereinafter referred to as the 'Basic Regulation').
                                4. Dumping margin
(15) In the absence of any new arguments concerning the methodology used for
     the calculation of the dumping margin, the methodology described in recitals
      16 and 17 of the provisional duty Regulation is hereby confirmed. On this
     basis, the dumping margins are as follows:
     - In view of the changes in the calculations mentioned above, the definitive
       dumping margin calculated for the co-operating exporting producer,
       expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at Community frontier, is 87.5
       %.
     - The definitive dumping margin established for Indian exporting producers
       other than those co-operating in this investigation, expressed as a
       percentage of the CIF price at Community frontier, is 243.0 %.
                          F. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
(16) In the absence of any new information, the provisional findings, as stated in
     recital 18 of the provisional duty Regulation, are hereby confirmed.
 ---pagebreak---                                      G. INJURY
                                     1. Sampling
 (17) The co-operating Indian exporter contested the selection of Community
        producers made by the Commission for the purposes of the investigation of
        injury on the grounds that it was different from the sample used in the
        previous proceeding concerning imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating
        in India, which was terminated without the adoption of measures. This
        exporter claimed that failure to use the same sample of Community
        producers would result in a biased analysis, since the Commission would not
        be able to assess the degree of any injury suffered by the Community
        industry in the present proceeding, as compared with that in the previous
        case.
 (18) Furthermore, the Indian exporter argued that four of the companies in the
       sample had been inadequately selected for the examination of injury and that,
       if those companies were consequently excluded, the remaining Community
       producers in the sample would not be representative of the Community
       industry any longer. The Indian exporter alleged that the activities of one
       company had been severely disrupted by a fire which had destroyed its
      production facilities and that any injury suffered by this company would be
      due to this event. It was further claimed that a second company had not
      provided complete information on sales transactions. Finally, the Indian
      exporter claimed that two of the companies in the sample mainly
      manufactured high performance leisure ropes, which could not be considered
      to compete with the products sold by the Indian exporters in the Community,
      i.e. simple, commodity type ropes, at the lower end of the market.
(19) The selection of the sample of Community producers in the present
      investigation was based on levels of production and sales and geographical
      location, i.e. the same methodology as in the previous proceeding, which has
     not been disputed. It should be noted, in this context, that some of the
      companies selected in the previous proceeding no longer produced the
 ---pagebreak---      product concerned at the time of the initiation of the present proceeding. The
     companies in the sample accounted for 47% of production and 44% of sales
     on the Community market of the product concerned by the Community
     industry during the investigation period. Moreover, the sample included
     large as well as small companies and producers from several Member States.
     These companies are therefore representative of the Community industry, in
     the meaning of Article 17 of the Basic Regulation.
(20) With regard to the allegations made in relation to certain companies included
     in the sample, it was found that one company had indeed suffered a fire.
     However, the production facilities of this company had not been damaged
     and any effects from the fire on the financial performance of the company
     could be identified in its accounts and were duly excluded for the purposes
     of the injury findings. Concerning the second company referred to by the
     exporter and the allegation that it had provided insufficient information, il
     should be noted that this company provided all information requested during
     the investigation. Finally, as to the allegation concerning the two companies
     producing high performance leisure ropes, it is noted that these ropes fall
     within the definition of the product concerned by this proceeding. Moreover,
     it was found that these two companies had significant production of standard
     ropes directly comparable to those sold by the Indian exporter.
     Therefore, it is considered that the inclusion of the above-mentioned
     Community producers in the sample is fully justified.
                           2. Community consumption
(21) In determining total apparent consumption on the Community market, the
     total sales of the Community producers were added to the imports into the
     Community.
(22) As explained in more detail in recital 23, the volume of imports was, for the
     purposes of the definitive findings, determined on the basis of Eurostat
 ---pagebreak---        figures. This resulted in a change in consumption figures for the period
       considered (i.e. the period between 1993 and 31 May 1997). On this basis,
       Community consumption increased from 21.820 tons in 1993 to 26.325 tons
       in 1995 and remained relatively stable thereafter, reaching 26.773 tons in the
       investigation period, which represents an overall increase of 23% over the
       period considered.
               3. Volume and market share of the dumped imports
 (23) The volume of the imports originating in India was determined, at the
       provisional stage, on the basis of information on export sales to the
       Community supplied by the co-operating Indian exporter as verified by the
       Commission.
       Subsequent to the imposition of provisional measures, the co-operating
      Indian exporter contested this determination. It was claimed that part of the
      sales for export to the Community were not released for free circulation in
      the Community, but were put in bonded warehouses on the Community
      territory partly for subsequent export sales to seagoing ships, without
      clearing customs. Consequently, it was requested that Eurostat statistics,
      rather than the sales volume reported by this company to the Commission, be
      used to determine the volume and market shares of the Indian imports.
(24) The Commission examined this issue. It should be noted that the quantities
      reported by the co-operating Indian exporter concerned as being sold in the
      Community, exceeded the import quantities reported by Eurostat, in
      particular in 1996 and during the investigation period. While at the
      provisional stage no importer co-operated in the investigation and the
      Commission based its conclusions on the information submitted by the
      Indian exporter, following the imposition of provisional measures a number
      of importers made information available to the Commission which showed
 ---pagebreak---       that, during the investigation period some quantities purchased from the co-
      operating Indian exporter had, indeed, not been released into free circulation
      on the Community market.
      In these circumstances, Eurostat appears to be a more reliable source of
      information for determining the volume of the Indian imports for the period
      examined than the export quantities reported by the co-operating Indian
      exporter. However, it was also found that, in the investigation period, part of
      the volumes stored in bonded warehouses on the-Community territory had
     not yet been resold and that these volumes could potentially be released for
      free circulation in the Community at very low prices.
     In any event, it should be noted that both Eurostat figures and the sales
     volume reported by the co-operating Indian exporter indicate the same
     increasing trend in volume and market share for the Indian imports over the
     period considered. Overall, the revised volume of dumped imports increased
     by 107% between 1993 and the investigation period (from 440 tons in 1993
     to 1089 tons in 1995 and then a decrease to 911 tons in the investigation
     period). The market share of these imports rose from 2% in 1993 to 4.1% in
     1995, then decreased to 3.4% in the investigation period. It should be noted
     that this relative decrease after 1995 coincided with the previous anti-
     dumping proceeding concerning this product.
                          4. Prices of the dumped imports
(25) The following comments were submitted with regard to the determination of
     price undercutting.
(26) The co-operating Indian exporter claimed that the determination of price
     undercutting should not have been made on the basis of the detailed export
     sales listing provided by this exporter to the Commission since a significant
     part of these export sales had not been released for free circulation in the
     Community. The exporter claimed that the average Eurostat prices should
 ---pagebreak---   have been used instead. This claim also applied to the determination of the
   injury margin, which was based on the same export prices as those used for
  the undercutting assessment.
  However, according to the information available (Eurostat), around 70% of
  the total volume of sales made by the Indian exporter to the Community
  during the investigation period were released for free circulation in the
  Community. The prices of these export sales, which were verified by the
  Commission, were therefore, considered to be representative of the actual
  prices of the imports concerned in the Community. Furthermore, no
  differences in export prices between individual transactions, whether or not
  destined for free circulation, could be determined.
  In addition, given the existence of various types of ropes falling within the
 definition of the product concerned, average Eurostat prices would not have
 permitted a proper comparison of prices as they would have consisted of
 average values for greatly varying types of ropes.
 Therefore, the claim was not considered to be justified.
 It was further argued that, in any event, the export sales transactions
concerning large polypropylene mooring ropes, should be excluded from the
undercutting and injury elimination level assessments, as these types of ropes
were only sold to seagoing ships and therefore were never released for free
circulation in the Community.
However, it was found that, in the investigation period, a significant volume
of these types of ropes exported from India to the Community had
subsequently been released for free circulation in the Community. Moreover,
no sufficient information was submitted to the Commission to identify,
among the total export transactions concerning these types of ropes, those
which resulted in ropes being subsequently released in the Community. This
argument could therefore not be taken into account.
                                      10
 ---pagebreak--- (27) The co-operating Indian exporter also claimed that the method used by ihe
     Commission to differentiate between the various types of synthetic fibre
     ropes sold on the Community market, for the purposes of determining
     undercutting and the injury margin, did not take full account of the
     differences between high value and lower value commodity products.
     In this respect, it is noted that the method used enabled a distinction to be
     made between the ropes on the basis of the type of raw material used, the
     number of strands, the diameter of the rope and the construction (braided or
     twisted). These were found to be the main identifiable and objective criteria
     on the basis of which the prices of the product concerned were determined,
     both by the sampled Community producers and by the Indian exporter
     concerned.
     Therefore, the approach used at the provisional stage in order to determine
     price undercutting was also used for definitive findings.
(28) On this basis, as already indicated in recital 24 of the provisional duty
     Regulation, it was found that, during the investigation period, price
     undercutting margins, expressed as a percentage of the Community
     industry's average selling prices of comparable product types, ranged from
     0% to 38%, with an overall weighted average of 16%.
                    5. Situation of the Community industry
(29) The co-operating Indian exporter submitted that the decline in employment
     observed during the period considered could not be an indicator of injury
     because it was compensated for by an improvement in productivity. It was
     also argued that, according to the Commission's findings in the previous
     proceeding concerning imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India,
     any decrease in employment up to 1995 was due to factors other than the
     dumped Indian imports.
                                          11
 ---pagebreak---       It should be remembered that, in accordance with Article 3(5) of the Basic
      Regulation, no single injury factor can necessarily give decisive guidance on
      the impact of the dumped imports on the situation of the Community
      industry.
      In this respect, it is not contested that in the early nineties the decline in
      employment may have been due to factors other than dumped imports, such
      as the restructuring of the industry. However, it should also be noted that
      after a slight increase in 1996, employment levels were again on the decline
      in the investigation period. Moreover, in spite of the increase in productivity
      over the period considered, the Community industry suffered a significant
      loss in market share at a time when Community consumption had increased
     by 23%. Furthermore, the Community industry showed a significant
     deterioration in its financial results from 1995 onwards, resulting in a
     weighted average loss of-7.1% of net sales in the investigation period, and
     suffered significant price pressure from the Indian imports throughout the
     period considered, with price undercutting of up to 38% during the
     investigation period.
                                 6. Conclusion on injury
(30) In the absence of any other arguments concerning the situation of the
     Community industry and in the light of the above, the conclusion that the
     Community industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of
     Article 3(1) of the Basic Regulation, as stated in recitals 25 to 35 of the
     provisional duty Regulation, is hereby confirmed.
                                          12
 ---pagebreak---                             H. CAUSATION OF INJURY
                           1. Effects of the dumped imports
(31) The co-operating Indian exporter argued that any material injury suffered by
      the Community industry could not be attributable to imports originating in
      India. The following arguments were put forward:
(32) The overall loss of market share suffered by the Community producers was
      not due to the imports originating in India, but resulted from a shift by
      Community producers towards the production of specialised ropes, with a
      higher added value, destined primarily for export markets. It was argued that,
      in this way, these producers created a vacuum in the supply of commodity
      ropes on the Community market which was filled, inter alia, by the Indian
      imports. In addition, it was stated that, in any event, the Community
      producers lacked the necessary production capacity to meet the growing
      demand of the Community market.
      In this respect it should be noted that, although the Community industry was
      found to be developing production of ropes at the upper end of the market in
     terms of added value and specialisation, the bulk of the production of the
     Community industry at the end of the investigation period still consisted of
     commodity type ropes.
     Moreover, the Commission examined the evolution of the exports of the
     sampled Community producers over the period considered. It was found that
     this volume remained stable between 1993 and the investigation period, at
     around 1.900 tons, representing some 15% of the total production of the
     sampled companies.
     As regards the production capacity of the whole Community industry, it
     exceeded total Community consumption throughout the period considered
     (during the investigation period, total consumption was 26.700 tons, while
     total capacity was 36.000 tons).
                                            13
 ---pagebreak---       The Community industry's loss of market share could not, therefore, be
      attributed to an increase in export sales, an insufficient offer of commodity
      type ropes nor to insufficient production capacity.
(33) Concerning the decrease in profitability suffered by the Community industry
      between 1995 and the investigation period, the co-operating Indian exporter
      argued that the decrease in raw material prices between 1995 and the
      investigation period should have resulted in increased profitability for the
      Community producers during this period. They therefore claimed that any
      decline in profitability in this period was due to increased overheads, in
      particular depreciation charges and interest expenses, as a result of the
      important investments made by the Community industry. In any event, it was
      argued that the drop in profitability could not be due to the Indian imports,
      which declined between 1995 and the investigation period.
     It was found that between 1995 and the investigation period, the average
     prices of raw materials declined by approximately 11%. Considering that
     raw materials account for approximately 50% of the total costs of production
     of the product concerned, this decrease in raw material costs enabled the
     Community producers to reduce their costs of production by 5%. However,
     over the same period, the average sales prices of the Community producers,
     under strong downward pressure from the prices of the Indian imports,
     declined by 16%.
     Furthermore, as regards the impact of the investments made by the
     Community industry on profitability, it was found that these had a marginal
     impact on the Community producers' costs of production during the period
     considered, mainly because any costs related with these new investments
     were compensated for by gains in productivity and by an overall reduction in
     other general and administrative expenses.
     Finally, it should be noted that, despite the small decline of the imports
     originating in India between 1995 and the investigation period, these imports
     increased overall by 107% during the period considered. Moreover, it was
                                          14
 ---pagebreak---      found that the prices of these imports undercut the Community producers'
     prices significantly throughout the whole period considered, including the
     period from 1995 onwards, thus exerting downward pressure on the sales
     prices of the Community producers, which declined dramatically, between
      1995 and the investigation period, by 16%.
     The decline in profitability experienced by the Community producers
     between 1995 and the investigation period was therefore clearly linked to a
     major reduction in sales prices over that period, which in turn occurred at a
     time of significant price undercutting by the Indian imports in this
     commodity product market.
(34) The co-operating Indian exporter also argued that the Community producers
     suffered an inherent competitive disadvantage, because they purchased their
     raw materials at significantly higher prices than the Indian exporters.
     However, it should be noted that, if the Indian importers had not sold the
     product concerned at dumped prices, they would not have undercut the prices
     of the Community industry. The argument is therefore not relevant. In any
     event, it was found that the purchase prices of the co-operating Indian
     exporter's raw materials were approximately 14% lower than those of the
     Community industry. Since raw materials account for 50% of the full cost of
     production, this difference could only explain, at best, a difference in sales
     prices of up to 7%, which is largely below the level by which the Indian
     imports undercut the Community producers' prices, i.e. up to 38%, with a
     weighted average undercutting of 16%.
(35) Finally, it was argued that, compared with the negative finding on causation
     made in the previous proceeding concerning imports of synthetic fibre ropes
     originating in India, there were no changed circumstances to explain a
     different finding in the present proceeding on the causal link between
     dumping and injury.
     It should be recalled that, in the previous proceeding, dumping by the Indian
     exporters and injury to the Community industry were established. However,
                                          15
 ---pagebreak---       the information available at the time did not permit the determination of a
      clear causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the
      Community industry.
      In the present case, in accordance with the consistent practice of the
      Community Institutions, the injury examination covered a period of time of
      nearly 5 years, from 1993 to May 1997. It should be noted that this period
      partly coincided with the period examined in the previous proceeding.
      However, compared with the previous proceeding, the present investigation
      has examined the impact of the imports over a longer period of time after the
      Indian imports appeared in significant volume. Indeed, the previous and
      present investigation periods ended respectively in March 1996 and in May
      1997 and the increase in the imports concerned was particularly apparent
      after   1994. Moreover, reliable information on the development of
      profitability of the Community industry for the whole period considered,
      which was lacking in the previous case, was received in the present case.
      Contrary to the previous investigation, it has therefore been possible to
      establish a causal link between the imports concerned and the material injury
      suffered by the Community industry.
                              2. Effects of other factors
(a) Imports from other third countries
(36) The co-operating Indian exporter argued that imports from countries other
      than India were the cause of any material injury suffered by the Community
      industry. It was claimed, in particular, that the prices of imports of synthetic
      fibre ropes originating in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Tunisia
      had undercut the prices of the Community producers throughout the period
      considered. Moreover, the Indian exporter claimed that the prices of these
      imports were lower than the Indian prices for the types which represented the
      majority of the total imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India to
                                           16
 ---pagebreak--- the Community, i.e. polyethylene and polypropylene ropes and that,
therefore, any price pressure suffered by the Community industry was
 largely attributable to these imports and not to the Indian imports.
The Commission analysed the evolution of the imports of polyethylene and
 polypropylene ropes originating in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and
Tunisia, as compared to Indian imports of the same types of ropes. This
analysis showed that the average prices of the imports originating in
 Slovenia and Tunisia were at approximately the same level of the Indian
 export prices throughout the whole period considered. Moreover, it was
 found that the imports originating in Slovenia and Tunisia, although
 increasing in the period considered, accounted for only 0.8% and 1.3%
 respectively of total Community consumption in the investigation period.
 Any impact of these imports should therefore be considered less significant
 as compared to the impact of Indian imports. As regards Poland, the average
 prices of the imports originating in Poland were found, at times, to be
 slightly lower than the Indian import prices. However, the overall market
 share held by these imports decreased from 2.6% in 1993 to 2% in the
 investigation period. As regards the Czech Republic, the market share held
by the imports originating in this country went from 0.8% in 1993 to 2% in
the investigation period. However, it was only in 1993 that the prices of
these imports were found to be significantly lower than the prices of the
imports originating in India. During the investigation period, the imports
originating in the Czech Republic entered the Community market at
approximately the same prices as the Indian imports.
Finally, it should be noted that, the comparison between the prices of the
Indian imports and the prices of imports originating in Poland and the Czech
Republic for all types of synthetic fibre ropes falling within the definition of
the product concerned, i.e. not only polyethylene and polypropylene ropes,
indicated that the Indian import prices were the lowest on the Community
market for the whole period considered, except for 1993. This comparison is
                                     17
 ---pagebreak---      all the more representative, since it concerns the whole product concerned
     definition.
     Therefore, the findings and conclusions on the effect of imports from
     countries other than India on the injurious situation of the Community
     industry, as stated in recital 41 of the provisional duty Regulation, are hereby
     confirmed.
                               3. Conclusion on causation
(37) In the light of the above, although it cannot be excluded that some of the
     imports originating in countries other than India may have had a negative
     impact on the situation of the Community industry, this impact was not such
     as to break the causal link between the injury suffered by the Community
     industry and the dumped imports originating in India. Therefore and in the
     absence of any new information, the conclusion that the imports of synthetic
     fibre ropes originating in India, taken in isolation, have caused material
     injury to the Community industry, as stated in recitals 36 to 43 of the
     provisional duty Regulation, is hereby confirmed.
(38) This conclusion is drawn in particular given the loss in market share of the
     Community industry, combined with a deterioration in profitability, which
     coincided with an increase in the volume and market share of Indian imports,
     at prices which constantly undercut those of the Community industry.
                                           18
 ---pagebreak---                            I. COMMUNITY INTEREST
(39) It was claimed that the conclusion on the Community interest in the
      provisional duty Regulation was not supported by factual evidence. In
      particular, it was argued that the Commission had not sought sufficient
      information on the impact of measures on the users, in order to support its
      conclusions concerning the Community interest.
      It should be noted that the Commission contacted all known associations of
      users, in particular shipping and fishing vessel associations and all known
      distributors of the product concerned in the Community, as well as all known
      significant upstream industries. Only limited and general replies were
      received. Moreover, no additional substantiated comments were submitted
      from the above-mentioned parties after the adoption of provisional measures.
(40) In the absence of any new information, the findings set out in recitals 44 to
      52 of the provisional duty Regulation concerning Community interest, are ^
      hereby confirmed.
                               J. DEFINITIVE DUTY
                              1. Injury elimination level
(41) The co-operating Indian exporter argued that their export prices had to be
     adjusted for the purposes of the injury elimination level assessment, to take
     account of the difference in raw material prices between the Indian and the
     Community producers.
     However, as stated in recital 53 of the provisional duty Regulation, the injury
     elimination level was determined on the basis of the costs of production of
     the Community industry plus a reasonable amount of profit. Any
                                           19
 ---pagebreak---      considerations of differences in costs of production between the Indian and
     Community producers are therefore irrelevant in this respect.
(42) Therefore, the method used by the Commission to establish the injury
     elimination level, as stated in recital 53 of the provisional duty Regulation, is
     hereby confirmed.
     On this basis, the injury margin was found to be 53% of the weighted
     average, net, free-at-Community frontier price, before duty. For companies
     which did not co-operate in the investigation, the injury margin was 82%, as
     stated in recital 55 of the provisional duty Regulation.
     Since the amount of duty adequate to remove the injury sustained by the
     Community industry is lower than the dumping margins found, the anti-
     dumping duty to be imposed should be based on the former, in accordance
     with Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.
                     2. Type of definitive anti-dumping duty
(43) An ad valorem duty appears to be the most appropriate measure given the
     high number of types of ropes involved.
              K. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY
(44) Considering the conclusions on dumping and injury definitively established
     and that the rate of definitive duty is equal to that provisionally determined,
     the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty should be
     definitively collected,
                                           20
 ---pagebreak--- HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
                                     Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of synthetic fibre
ropes falling within CN codes 5607 49 11, 5607 49 19, 5607 50 11 and 5607 50 19
originating in India.
2. The rate of duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community frontier price before
duty shall be as follows:
        Products manufactured by:
        - Garware Wall ropes Ltd:    53.0% (additional Taric code 8755)
        - Other manufacturers:       82.0% (additional Taric code 8900)
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties
shall apply.
                                     Article 2
The amount secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to
Regulation (EC) No 18/98 shall be definitively collected at the duty rate
definitively imposed.
                                        21
 ---pagebreak---                                      Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the
Official Journal of the European Communities
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all
Member States.
Done at Brussels,
                                                              For the Council
                                                              The President
                                         22
 ---pagebreak---                                                                   ISSN 0254-1475
                                                           COM(98) 343 final
                                             DOCUMENTS
EN                                                                02 11 10
                                    Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-351-EN-C
                                                             ISBN 92-78-36817-2
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
L-2985 Luxembourg
                                                J3