(1)

Following an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) and Ukraine (‘the first investigation’), anti-dumping measures were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 (2). That Regulation entered into force on 27 April 2007.

(2)

It is recalled that the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on ironing boards produced by the Chinese exporting producer Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd (‘Since Hardware’) was 0 % while it ranged between 18,1 % and 38,1 % for other Chinese exporting producers. Following a subsequent interim review, these duty rates were increased to up to 42,3 % by Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 270/2010 of 29 March 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 (3).

(3)

On 2 October 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) (‘notice of initiation’), the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (5) (‘the basic Regulation’) concerning imports into the Union of ironing boards originating in the PRC, limited to Since Hardware. In the notice of initiation, the Commission also announced the initiation of a review pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 in order to allow for any necessary amendment of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in the light of the WTO Appellate Body report entitled ‘Mexico — Definitive Anti-dumping Measures on Beef and Rice’ (AB-2005-6) (6). This report stipulates in paragraphs 305 and 306 that an exporting producer not found to be dumping in an original investigation has to be excluded from the scope of the definitive measure imposed as a result of such investigation and cannot be made subject to administrative and changed circumstances reviews.

(4)

Since Hardware should be excluded from the definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in order not to make Since Hardware fall under two anti-dumping proceedings at the same time,

(1)

By Regulation (EC) No 1312/98 of 24 June 1998 (2), the Council, following an anti-dumping investigation (‘the original investigation’) imposed definitive anti-dumping duties (‘the original measures’) on imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India. The duty levels imposed were 53 % for one Indian exporting producer and 82 % for all other imports originating in India (‘the country concerned’).

(2)

Following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (‘the previous expiry review’), the Council maintained these measures by Regulation (EC) No 1736/2004 of 4 October 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India (3).

(3)

A request for an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation was lodged on 4 May 2009 by the Liaison Committee of the EU Twine, Cordage and Netting Industries (Eurocord) (‘the applicant’) on behalf of Union producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the Union production of synthetic fibre ropes.

(4)

The request was based on the grounds that expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.

(5)

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of a review, the Commission announced on 7 October 2009, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) (‘the notice of initiation’), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(6)

The investigation concerning the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period between 1 October 2008 and 30 September 2009 (the ‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period between 1 January 2006 and the end of the RIP (the ‘period considered’).

(7)

The Commission officially advised the known Union producers, the exporters and exporting producers in the country concerned, the representatives of the country concerned, importers as well as an association of users which were known to be concerned, of the initiation of the expiry review.

(8)

Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limits set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.

(9)

In view of the apparent high number of Union producers and exporting producers in India, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.

(10)

A total of five Indian producers, two of which belonging to the same group, came forward and provided the requested information within the given deadline and expressed a wish to be included in the sample. Four of these five companies produced and exported the product concerned to the Union market during the RIP. The fifth company did not export the product concerned to the Union market during the RIP. All five companies were regarded as cooperating companies and were considered for sampling. The level of cooperation from India, i.e. the percentage of exports to the Union by the Indian cooperating companies as compared to all Indian exports to the Union could not be calculated as the total exports to the Union during the RIP reported by the five cooperating companies was significantly higher than the volume registered by Eurostat for all exports from India, for the reasons detailed in recitals 21 to 23.

(11)

The sample was selected in agreement with the Indian authorities and included those four companies which reported export sales to the Union. Two of the four sampled companies were related. It is recalled that in the original investigation only one exporting producer cooperated and it is at present subject to an individual anti-dumping duty. It is also recalled that in the previous expiry review none of the Indian exporting producers cooperated and therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, the findings were based on the facts available.

(12)

Eighteen Union producers (all fifteen complainants and three further producers, altogether representing 78 % of the total Union production) provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. On the basis of the information received from the cooperating Union producers, the Commission selected a sample of five Union producers representing approximately 40 % of the Union industry, as defined in recital 40, and about half of the sales by all cooperating Union producers to unrelated customers in the Union. The sample was selected on the basis of the largest representative sales volume and geographical coverage of producers within the Union that could reasonably be investigated within the time available. One of the five sampled Union producers started operating during the period considered, therefore their data were not used in the analysis of the trends of injury indicators, in order to avoid distortions in those trends. Nonetheless the figures of the other four sampled Union producers used for the analysis of those trends remained representative.

(13)

The Commission sent questionnaires to the five sampled Union producers as well as to the four sampled Indian exporting producers.

(14)

Questionnaire replies were received from all five sampled Union producers. Out of the four sampled Indian exporting producers, one ceased cooperating while the other three (two of which related) replied to the questionnaire within the given deadlines. For this reason, in the end, the sample of Indian exporting producers consisted of those three Indian companies that replied to the questionnaire.

(15)

The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary to determine the continuation or likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

—

Axiom Imex International Ltd., Boisar,

—

Tufropes Private Limited, Silvassa,

—

India Nets, Indore;

—

Cordoaria Oliveira SÁ (Portugal),

—

Eurorope SA (Greece),

—

Lanex A.S. (Czech Republic),

—

Lankhorst Euronete Ropes (Portugal),

—

Teufelberger Ges.m.b.H. (Austria).

(16)

The product concerned is the same as in the original investigation and is defined as follows: twine, cordage, ropes and cables, whether or not plaited or braided and whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed with rubber or plastics, of polyethylene or polypropylene, other than binder and baler twine, measuring more than 50 000 decitex (5 g/m), as well as of other synthetic fibres of nylon or other polyamides or of polyesters, measuring more than 50 000 decitex (5 g/m). It is currently falling within CN codes 5607 49 11 , 5607 49 19 , 5607 50 11 . and 5607 50 19 . The product concerned is used for a wide variety of marine and industrial applications, in particular for shipping (especially for mooring purposes), and the fishing industry.

(17)

One interested party claimed that the mooring ropes referred to above are not falling within the definition of the product concerned as, due to the splices attached to these ropes, such products should be declared as ‘articles of ropes’ which belong to another CN code (see also in recital 23). It should be noted however, that the reference to mooring ropes is made only in the context of applications of different types of the product concerned which are all defined as synthetic fibre ropes as set out in recital 16.

(18)

As shown in the original investigation, and as confirmed in the present investigation, the product concerned and the synthetic fibre ropes produced and sold by the Indian exporting producers on their domestic market, as well as those produced and sold by the Union producers in the Union, are in all respects identical and share the same basic physical and chemical characteristics. Therefore, they are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(19)

One interested party has claimed that the product manufactured by the Union industry is not comparable with the product concerned given that the Union producers had started using a new type of raw material called Dyneema, which is much more expensive than other raw materials as products based on it have much better resistance. Indeed the sampled Indian producers are not using this type of raw material. However, it should firstly be noted that the products in question represent only a small part of the products sold by Union producers. Indeed, albeit it is correct that this type of fibre is increasingly used by some Union producers, Dyneema ropes account for only a minor fraction of Union production. Therefore, while the significant difference in the cost of raw material (potentially around 25-30 times more expensive) can have some impact notably on the injury indicator concerning the average sales price of the Union industry, the impact of Dyneema ropes on the overall assessment remains limited due to the overwhelming quantity of ‘standard’ ropes produced in the Union. Secondly, all calculations of this expiry review were based on the comparison of corresponding product types, which takes account of different raw materials. Therefore the calculations cannot be distorted by a difference in the product mix. In any event, the product which uses the raw materials such as Dyneema, still has the same basic physical and chemical characteristics as the product concerned. The claim was therefore rejected.

(20)

In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was likely to continue or recur upon a possible expiry of the measures in force against India.

(21)

On the basis of Eurostat data, the volume of imports of the product concerned from India was insignificant throughout the period considered. During the RIP, the volume of imports from India was 31 tonnes i.e. less than 0,1 % of Union consumption during the RIP:

(22)

However, according to verified data, the three companies included in the sample shipped significantly higher volumes of the product concerned to the Union during the RIP than the volumes reported in Eurostat. In this respect it is recalled that in the original investigation, importers provided information showing that some quantities of the product concerned purchased from India had not been released into free circulation on the Union market but were put into bonded warehouses and sold to ocean-going ships or offshore platforms. One complaining producer reiterated this argument in the present investigation. Due to lack of cooperation of port traders in the investigation, this claim could not be verified. However, on the basis of the customer list submitted by the sampled exporting producers, it was apparent that most of the customers were indeed shipping, maritime and offshore suppliers in the Union ports. On the basis of the above, it appears that the difference between the statistical data and the reported figures is due to such sales.

(23)

It should also be mentioned that the request for expiry review contained allegations of circumvention practices. In this respect, the applicant claimed that certain volumes of synthetic fibre ropes from India entered into the Union under CN heading 5609 (Articles of […] twine, cordage, ropes or cables) which is not subject to measures. However, no information was found in the present investigation to support this view.

(24)

On the basis of the above, it is considered that 31 tonnes of the product concerned were actually imported from India into the customs territory of the Union in the RIP. As concerns the verified export sales to the Union ports, which had not been released into free circulation on the Union market by the three sampled Indian producers, these sales are considered as part of Indian exports to other third countries.

(25)

Given the absence of significant import volumes from India into the Union, these did not form a basis for a representative analysis for the likelihood of a continuation of dumping or injury. Indeed in view of such limited actual import volumes it cannot be concluded that injurious dumping from India existed during the RIP. Therefore, the analysis focused on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury should the measures be allowed to expire.

(26)

It has been examined whether there is unused production capacity in the country concerned which would create a potential for the resumption of dumped exports in case the measures were repealed.

(27)

It has been found that the production capacity of the three sampled exporting producers sharply increased between 2007 and the RIP while capacity utilisation decreased at the same time. The spare capacities of the three companies were around 75 % of Union consumption in the RIP. This points to a likely increase in export volumes to the Union should the measures be allowed to expire.

(28)

Concerning the other producers of synthetic fibre ropes in India, it is known that Garware, the company which stopped cooperation after the sampling phase, is an important producer and, according to its official website, it has a significant production capacity. In addition, the request for expiry review lists four other large Indian producers. There are also several medium and small sized Indian producers which had mainly domestic sales. In the absence of cooperation from these Indian producers, their production capacity is not known, but it can be assumed that the trend of the cooperating companies is comparable and thus these producers have further spare capacity.

(29)

Following the disclosure of the findings, all sampled Indian producers challenged the data relating to their aggregate spare capacity. However, all those data were actually reported by the companies themselves and were verified by way of on-spot investigations at each of them. Therefore these claims were rejected.

(30)

The volume of export sales of the three sampled exporting producers to other third countries, including Union port sales which do not enter the customs territory of the Union, are significant and increased by around 80 % during the period considered, representing almost half of the total sales of the exporting producers during the RIP.

(31)

Actual imports to the Union have practically stopped after the imposition of the original measures. However, it must be noted that the sampled producers’ volume of export sales to Union ports considerably increased in the period considered, from 61 to 785 tonnes. Given that actual import sales to the Union are made in part via the same sales channels as the products sold at Union ports, this increasing presence at the doorstep of the Union market may indicate that, in the absence of measures, the sampled Indian producers – and maybe others as well – could start selling substantial quantities of the product concerned on the Union market within a short period of time.

(32)

In view of the above-mentioned export orientation of the Indian producers as well as their growing presence in Union ports, it can be concluded that it is highly probable that if the measures were allowed to expire, then Indian export quantities to the Union would significantly increase.

(33)

Following the disclosure of the findings of the review, an Indian producer pointed out that Indian exports are well diversified around the world, among markets with growth potential, thus exports to the Union would not resume in substantial quantities in the absence of measures. It is acknowledged that some Indian producers may have diversified export sales to different markets; however, this cannot be considered as sufficient to alter the conclusions drawn on the basis of the above mentioned findings.

(34)

An indicative dumping calculation was made on the basis of the verified sales to Union ports of the three sampled exporting producers, which, though considered as part of export sales to other third countries, provide a good indication for potential prices of Indian synthetic fibre ropes in the absence of duties. The normal values were based on the domestic prices on the Indian market. Based on these figures, dumping was established for two of the three sampled Indian producers. The dumping margins were found to be on average 10 % which can be considered as significant even though much lower than those established in the original investigation.

(35)

A comparison of prices achieved by the three sampled exporting producers on other third country markets (excluding Union port sales) with their domestic prices showed a similar result although the dumping margins established on this basis were lower.

(36)

Following the disclosure of the findings of this investigation, one Indian producer claimed that no dumping was found in respect of Indian imports to the Union. However, there were almost no actual imports either. In addition, dumping was established for both sales to Union ports and sales to other third countries. Therefore this claim was dismissed.

(37)

Another interested party claimed that the dumping margins established by this review cannot be considered significant when compared to the existing duty levels, given the significant difference in labour costs between the Union and Asia. It should be noted however, that labour costs in the Union are irrelevant for the calculation of the dumping margin.

(38)

On the basis of the above analysis, it is concluded that the exporting producers have vast production potential to restart exporting to the Union if the measures were allowed to expire. Concerning prices, two sampled producers were found to be selling at dumped prices to other third countries. In addition, also considering Garware which stopped cooperating, there are five other large exporting producers listed in the complaint which, on the basis of the information available, can be assumed to follow the trend of the companies found selling at dumped prices to other third countries.

(39)

The indication that Indian exporting producers keep a strategic interest in the Union market, demonstrated by their increasing volumes of export sales to Union ports, together with a huge spare capacity available, make it likely that they would resume exports to the Union in significant quantities should the measures lapse. Taking into account the pricing behaviour of the Indian exporters on third-country markets, it is highly probable that a resumption of exports would take place at dumped prices. It is therefore concluded that the expiry of measures is likely to lead to a recurrence of dumping.

(40)

The Union producers accounting for the total Union production constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation. The number of Union producers can be estimated at around forty.

(41)

The fifteen Union producers on whose behalf the request for the expiry review was lodged by the complainant association, and three other Union producers submitted information for the selection of the sample requested in the notice of initiation. As mentioned in recital 12, a sample of five producers, representing approximately 40 % of the Union industry, was investigated in detail. The sample consisted of the following companies:

(42)

As already stated in recital 12, the eighteen cooperating Union producers represented 78 % of total Union production during the RIP.

(43)

Union consumption of synthetic fibre ropes was established on the basis of sales volumes of the Union industry on the Union market (including the sales of non-cooperating Union producers as estimated by the complainant association) plus all imports into the Union, as based on Eurostat.

(44)

On the above basis it can be established that during the period considered, the Union consumption has decreased by 7 %. In particular, after having increased by 16 % between 2006 and 2007, the consumption dropped by 20 % between 2007 and the RIP.

(45)

As mentioned in recital 21, actual Indian imports to the Union were negligible throughout the period considered due to the effective anti-dumping measures in force.

(46)

However, as explained in recital 22, there is an increasing presence of Indian producers at the doorstep of the Union market, by way of export sales to the Union ports not being subject to customs clearance and thus free of the said anti-dumping duties.

(47)

Since actual Indian imports to the Union were negligible, a price comparison was made between prices of Indian exports to other third countries (including the exports sold to Union ports not subject to the anti-dumping duties) and prices of Union sales made by the sampled Union industry producers.

(48)

On this basis it was established that Indian exports to other third countries were made at sales prices significantly lower than those of the Union industry. The price difference thus established reached the level of 46 % and on average amounted to 18 %.

(49)

The value of Indian export sales to other third countries increased by more than 30 % during the period considered. Such sales represented close to half of the total turnover of the sampled Indian exporting producers during the RIP.

(50)

Despite the drop in consumption by 7 % on the Union market, the volume of imports from other third countries increased during the period considered by 18 %. Thereby the market share of these imports increased from 17 % to 22 %.

(51)

It should be noted that imports from the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) increased by 46 % during the period considered, reaching a market share of 8,6 % (up from 5,5 % in 2006). Although a precise comparison cannot be carried out due to the general nature of Eurostat data which are not detailed by product type, it appears that the average price of Chinese imports to the Union is substantially higher than the average price of Indian export sales. In addition, the average price of Chinese imports seems to be in line with the prices of the Union industry.

(52)

Imports from the Republic of Korea (‘Korea’) to the Union had a market share constantly remaining around the level of 3 % during the period considered. Also, the volume of these imports has decreased by 6 % in line with shrinking consumption.

(53)

Imports from any other third country represented less than 2 % of market share on the Union market of synthetic fibre ropes during the RIP.

(54)

All injury indicators listed in Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation have been analysed. As concerns the indicators on the sales volume and the market share of Union producers, these have been analysed on the basis of data collected for all Union producers i.e. the Union industry. As regards all other injury indicators, their examination was based on the information submitted by the sampled Union producers as verified at the premises of each company, as mentioned in recital 15. As already stated in recital 12, one of the Union producers started operating during the period considered, therefore their data were not used in the analysis of the trends of injury indicators, in order to avoid distortions in those trends.

(55)

Sales of the Union industry have decreased substantially by 12 % over the period considered. As already stated in recital 44, Union consumption has decreased by 7 % over the period considered, with a particularly sharp drop starting from the year 2007. It should be highlighted that the sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market has decreased at a faster pace than the fall in consumption:

(56)

The developments outl ined in the preceding recital and the above table have resulted in a loss of market share of the Union industry between 2006 and the RIP. The reduction of the Union industry market share was continuous, with the loss amounting to 4,6 percentage points:

(57)

It should be noted that the above loss of market share of the Union industry was in a large part due to the increased market share of Chinese imports (see recital 50).

(58)

In line with the development of sales volumes, the production volume of the sampled Union producers has fallen at a comparable rate - by 17 % during the period considered. The production capacity increased by 5 % over the same period. This lead to a drop of 20 % in capacity utilisation between 2008 and the RIP:

(59)

Regarding stocks, in general producers of synthetic fibre ropes keep the levels of their stocks at a rather low level as most of the production is made upon demand. It could be observed that during the period considered, average stocks showed a decrease, notably in the RIP, which was largely due to the reductions in the manufacturing of synthetic fibre ropes.

(60)

Average prices of the like product sold in the Union by the sampled Union producers have increased to some extent throughout the period considered, in particular between 2007 and the RIP:

(61)

It should be noted, however, that the above average sales price is calculated on the basis of all product types including synthetic fibre ropes of the highest value, for example synthetic fibre ropes based on the raw material called Dyneema. The price variation among these different product types is indeed huge (see recital 19). In recent years, the Union industry has increased the manufacturing of higher value products. Thus such synthetic fibre ropes represent a growing share within their product mix. Such recent changes in the product mix are one of the reasons for the increase of the average unit sales prices of the Union industry.

(62)

Thanks in part to the effective measures in force and in part to the diversification of its product mix, the sampled Union producers were able to maintain a stable and healthy level of profitability throughout the period considered:

(63)

Investments were at relatively high levels in 2006 and 2007, after which they fell to half of the previous amount. During the RIP, virtually no investments were made.

(64)

In line with the stable profitability trend, the return on investments also increased throughout the period considered.

(65)

The cash flow of the sampled Union producers remained at relatively stable levels during the period considered:

(66)

The employment situation of the sampled Union producers was developing positively between 2006 and 2008. However, from 2008 to the RIP there was a decline in employment due to the decreasing demand on the market. The fall in demand, resulting in reduced production, also lead to a drop in productivity between 2008 and the RIP. As concerns the annual labour costs per employee, this increased until 2008, followed by a slight decrease during the RIP.

(67)

Between 2006 and the RIP, whilst the Union consumption decreased by 7 % (see recital 44), the volume of sales by the Union industry on the Union market decreased by 12 %, and the Union industry’s market share decreased by 6 percentage points (see recitals 55 and 56). On the other hand, while the volume of actual Indian imports remained negligible due to the measures in force, the volume of imports from other countries grew by 18 % (mostly due to imports from the PRC), gaining an additional 5 percentage points of market share (see recital 50). It is thus concluded that the Union industry was more affected by the drop in consumption and thus experienced a more substantial loss in sales volume than other players on the market.

(68)

Due to the fact that imports of the product concerned from India during the RIP were negligible, no dumping margin could be established for actual Indian imports. It should be noted, however, that Indian exports to the Union ports, not subject to customs clearance, have substantially increased and part of these sales were found to be made at dumped prices.

(69)

It was analysed whether the Union industry is still in the process of recovering from the effects of past dumping. It was concluded that the Union industry had already managed to recover to a large extent from such effects given that the effective anti-dumping measures had been in place for a long period of time.

(70)

Thanks to the fact that effective anti-dumping duties have been in place concerning imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India, the Union industry appears to have managed to recover to a large extent from the effects of past injurious dumping.

(71)

Nevertheless it cannot be concluded that the situation of the Union industry is secure. Although certain injury indicators relating to the financial performance of the Union producers – notably profitability, return on investments and cash-flow – appear to show a relatively stable picture, other injury indicators – in particular sales volume and market share, production and capacity utilisation as well as investments – clearly indicate that the Union industry was still in a rather fragile situation at the end of the RIP. Following the disclosure of the findings of this investigation, one Indian producer alleged that the Union industry did not suffer injury during the RIP. In this respect, it should be noted that it has not been stated that the Union industry was suffering material injury during the RIP. Instead, the conclusion drawn on the basis of the findings of the review was that some of the indicators showed a stable picture whilst there were signs of injury in respect of other indicators.

(72)

Some parties claimed that the negative trends of some injury indicators are not caused by Indian imports but are due to the global economic crisis and the increased market share of Chinese imports. In this regard, it should be noted that the negative development of certain indicators was not attributed to the almost non-existent Indian imports. In addition, the increase of Chinese imports was examined and it did not have an impact on the analysis of the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping.

(73)

With regard to the viability of the Union industry in general, it must be noted that the gradual introduction of various high value products on the market – both within the Union and on markets of third countries – appears to put the long-term competitiveness of the Union industry in a positive perspective, given that the number of producers manufacturing such high quality synthetic fibre ropes is at present limited on the global market.

(74)

As mentioned in recital 25, given the negligible volume of imports of the product concerned from India during the RIP, the analysis focused on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury.

(75)

As already detailed in recitals 26 to 28, huge spare capacities are available at the Indian exporting producers. In addition, as explained in recitals 30 to 32, the Indian producers have a strong orientation and an incentive to sell their products in large volumes on export markets. Moreover, as mentioned in recital 31, the Indian producers are strongly and increasingly present at the Union ports. For these reasons, it can be concluded that imports from India to the Union are highly likely to reach significant quantities in a short period of time should measures be allowed to expire.

(76)

As stated in recitals 34 and 35, in the absence of measures, Indian imports are likely to resume at dumped prices. In addition, as stated in recitals 47 and 48 above, it was also found that the fact that the sales price of Indian producers are on average 18 % lower than those of the Union industry (and such price difference may reach the level of 46 %) appears to indicate that, in the absence of measures, Indian producers are likely to export the product concerned to the Union market at prices considerably lower than those of the Union industry i.e. they are likely to undercut the sales prices of the Union producers.

(77)

In the light of the above, it can be concluded that in the absence of measures, it is highly probable that Indian imports of the product concerned would resume in substantial quantities and at prices considerably undercutting those of the Union industry.

(78)

Given the relatively fragile situation of the Union industry as explained in recitals 71 and 72, a potentially massive recurrence of dumped Indian imports at prices undercutting those in the Union is likely to have an injurious impact on the state of the Union industry. Notably, a sizeable resumption of dumped imports is likely to result in further losses of market share and sales volume of the Union industry, leading to reductions in the manufacturing and a drop in employment. This, along with a substantial price pressure due to imports undercutting the sales prices of the Union producers, would lead to a rapid and serious deterioration of the financial situation of the Union industry.

(79)

On the basis of the above, it is concluded that in case the measures are allowed to expire, there is a likelihood of a recurrence of injury from renewed dumped imports of the product concerned from India.

(80)

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole.

(81)

The determination of Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, i.e. those of the Union industry, importers, traders, wholesalers and industrial users of the product concerned.

(82)

It should be recalled that, in the previous investigations, the imposition of measures was not considered to be against the Union interest. Furthermore, the present investigation is an expiry review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures are in place.

(83)

On this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusion on the likelihood of a recurrence of dumping and the likelihood of recurrence of injury, compelling reasons exist which would lead to the conclusion, in this particular case, that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures.

(84)

As already mentioned in recitals 56 and 73, the Union industry was able to maintain a substantial albeit shrinking market share while diversifying its product mix by introducing more high-end synthetic fibre ropes. Therefore it can be considered that the Union industry has remained structurally viable.

(85)

In view of the conclusions on the situation of the Union industry set out at recitals 70 to 72, and pursuant to the arguments relating to the analysis on the likelihood of recurrence of injury as explained in recitals 74 to 79, it can also be considered that the Union industry would be likely to experience a serious deterioration of its financial situation in case the anti-dumping duties were allowed to expire, and this would lead to the recurrence of material injury.

(86)

Indeed considering the expected volumes and prices of imports of the product concerned from India, the Union industry would be put at serious risk. As explained in recital 78, such imports would lead to a further decline in its market share, sales volume and employment, and would also depress its prices which would eventually result in a deterioration of its profitability, similar to the negative levels found in the original investigation.

(87)

In view of the above, and in the absence of any contrary indications, it is concluded that the maintenance of the existing measures would not be against the interest of the Union industry.

(88)

The Commission sent questionnaires to ten unrelated importers/traders. Only one of these companies replied, expressing its objection to the case. However, as the company is related to an Indian producer of synthetic fibre ropes, it cannot be considered as an unrelated importer. As the company is a related importer, its interest is intrinsically linked to the interest of its related Indian producer.

(89)

In these circumstances, it is concluded that no compelling reasons appear to exist that would indicate that the continuation of measures would negatively affect to a large extent the unrelated importers/traders concerned.

(90)

The Commission sent a letter to one industrial association of users of the product concerned. No user submitted a complete questionnaire reply, and no written submissions were received from the association.

(91)

Given the absence of cooperation by users, and the fact that the impact of anti-dumping measures is likely to be negligible compared to other costs incurred by main users’ industries such as shipbuilding, mechanical engineering and operating offshore platforms, it is concluded that the continuation of measures will not have a substantially negative impact on such users.

(92)

The continuation of measures can be expected to ensure that the Indian dumped imports do not resume on the Union market in substantial quantities over a short period of time. Thereby the Union industry will continue to benefit from the competitive conditions on the Union market and the reduction of the threat of closures and a drop in employment. The beneficial effects are also expected to warrant the conditions for the Union industry to develop innovative products of higher technology for new and specialised applications.

(93)

It should also be noted that, following the consideration of the interest of importers/traders as well as users in the Union, no compelling reasons appear to exist to indicate that the continuation of measures would have a largely negative impact.

(94)

Given the above conclusions on the impact of the continuation of the measures on the different players on the Union market, it is concluded that the continuation of measures is not against the Union interest.

(95)

In view of the above, i.e. inter alia the huge spare capacities of the Indian producers, their strong export orientation and growing presence at the doorstep of the Union market, the prices of their export sales to other third-country markets which were found to be below the normal value and also well below the prices of the Union industry during the RIP, as well as the relatively fragile situation of the Union industry, it is likely that injurious dumping would recur from India should the measures be allowed to lapse.

(96)

All parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend the maintenance of existing measures in their present form. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure, but none made representations which would have justified altering the above findings. The claims relating to the disclosure of findings have been addressed in the respective recitals of this Regulation.

(97)

It follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1736/2004 should be maintained.

(98)

Nevertheless, and without ignoring that the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping has been established, the present proceeding is characterised by particular circumstances, notably the long duration of the measures in force which have already been extended once, and the very limited quantities of actual imports from India as referred to in recitals 21 to 24. These facts should also be adequately reflected in the duration of the further extended anti-dumping measures, which should be three years. Following disclosure, the applicant stated that the measures should be extended for five years and that the reasoning set out above for a shorter extension would not be justified.

(99)

Normally, the extension of measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation applies for a period of five years. The investigation has concluded that the Union industry was still in a fragile situation at the end of the RIP; it has been in financial difficulties for a long period of time as established in the original investigation. Consequently, full recovery from the injurious dumping has not been achieved yet. However, a number of injury indicators showed that the imposition of measures has already allowed for some substantial improvements. From the analysis of this complex situation it is concluded that a full and solid recovery from any past effect of the injurious dumping is likely to take place within a shorter period of time than the normal five years. It was assessed that, considering the overall injury analysis and the likely market developments with the measures in place, a period of three years should be enough to the Union industry to complete its economic and financial recovery. For these reasons it does not appear necessary to maintain the measures for a longer period.

(100)

Therefore, it is considered that an extension of the measures for the full five-year period is not fully supported by the facts established by the investigation, and that the duration of the measures should as a consequence be limited to three years.

(101)

The individual anti-dumping duty rate specified in Article1 was established on the basis of the findings of the original investigation. Therefore, it reflects the situation found during that investigation with respect to the company concerned. This duty rate (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) is thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in India and produced by the company concerned and thus by the specific legal entity mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned inArticle 1, including entities related to the one specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from this rate and shall be subject to the country-wide duty.

(102)

Any claim requesting the application of an individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, this Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duties,

(1)

Following an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’) and Ukraine (‘the first investigation’), anti-dumping measures were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 (2). That Regulation entered into force on 27 April 2007.

(2)

It is recalled that the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on ironing boards produced by the Chinese exporting producer Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (‘Since Hardware’) was 0 % while it ranged between 18,1 % and 38,1 % for other Chinese exporting producers. Following a subsequent interim review. these duty rates were increased to up to 42,3 % pursuant to Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 270/2010 of 29 March 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 (3).

(3)

On 2 October 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) (‘notice of initiation’), the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation concerning imports into the Union of ironing boards originating in the PRC, limited to Since Hardware. In the notice of initiation, the Commission also announced the initiation of a review pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 (‘review pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001’) in order to allow for any necessary amendment of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in the light of the WTO Appellate Body report entitled ‘Mexico — Definitive Anti-dumping Measures on Beef and Rice’ (AB-2005-6) (5) (the ‘WTO Appellate Body report’).

(4)

The anti-dumping investigation was initiated following a complaint lodged on 20 August 2009 by three Union producers, Colombo New Scal S.p.A., Pirola S.p.A. and Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd. (‘the complainants’), representing a major proportion of the total Union production of ironing boards.

(5)

It is recalled that a new anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation was initiated against Since Hardware rather than an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, in the light of the WTO Appellate Body report. This report stipulates in paragraphs 305 and 306 that an exporting producer not found to be dumping in an original investigation has to be excluded from the scope of the definitive measure imposed as a result of such investigation and cannot be made subject to administrative and changed circumstances reviews.

(6)

Since Hardware submitted that the Commission could not initiate a new anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation against one company as it thereby violated the general principle enshrined in GATT Article VI and the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement (WTO ADA) as well as that in the basic Regulation that anti-dumping proceedings are directed against imports of countries and not of individual companies. In particular, Since Hardware claimed that the Commission had breached Articles 9(3) and 11(6) of the basic Regulation by initiating an anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 instead of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. Since Hardware also argued that in the absence of a direct effect of WTO rules in the Union legal order, the Commission could not decide to ignore the above provisions of the basic Regulation in order to implement a WTO ruling automatically, without prior modification by the Council of the basic Regulation.

(7)

In this respect, it is acknowledged that anti-dumping proceedings are normally initiated against imports from a country and not from individual companies. However, the present case is an exception to the above rule in view of the following special circumstances. The WTO Appellate Body report provides in paragraphs 216 to 218 that Article 5.8 of the WTO ADA requires an investigative authority to terminate the investigation in respect of an exporter found not to have a margin above de minimis in an original investigation and, in paragraph 305, that the exporter consequently must be excluded from definitive anti-dumping measures and cannot be subject to administrative and changed circumstances reviews. It is true that the lack of direct effect of WTO rules means that the legality of measures adopted by the Union Institutions (the ‘Institutions’) cannot normally be reviewed in the light of the WTO agreements. However, this does not mean, in this particular case, that the Institutions must ignore WTO rules, and in particular the WTO Appellate Body report. Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 was adopted specifically to allow the Institutions to bring a measure taken under the basic Regulation into conformity with the rulings contained in a report adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body as mentioned in recital (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 without a prior amendment of the basic Regulation. Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 thus, in particular, allows the Institutions to formally exclude exporters which have been found, during an earlier original investigation, not to be dumping, from the scope of the Regulation which was adopted at the end of that investigation. In order to do so, the review of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001.

(8)

Moreover, none of the provisions of the basic Regulation exclude the opening of a new anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation against one company. Also, Union legislation must, so far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law, in particular where the provisions at issue are intended to give effect to an international agreement concluded by the Union. Since the WTO ADA on the one hand allows WTO members to impose duties to counteract harmful dumping, but on the other hand has been interpreted by the Appellate Body in the WTO Appellate Body report as not allowing reviews of companies found not to be dumping during an original investigation, the basic Regulation must therefore be interpreted to allow the Union to open an investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation in a case like the present one.

(9)

By Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2010 of 20 December 2010 (*1) Since Hardware was excluded from the scope of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.

(10)

Therefore, in view of the special circumstances of the case, the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation against Since Hardware is lawful.

(11)

The Commission officially advised Since Hardware, the importers and Union producers known to be concerned, the representatives of the country concerned, and producers in potential analogue countries of the initiation of the proceeding. The interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.

(12)

In order to allow Since Hardware to submit a claim for market economy treatment (‘MET’) or individual treatment (‘IT’), if it so wished, the Commission sent a claim form to the exporting producer. The Commission also sent a questionnaire to Since Hardware. The exporting producer submitted a filled-in MET/IT claim and replied to the questionnaire.

(13)

In view of the high number of Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of contribution to injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. Five Union producers came forward and provided the requested information for sampling within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation.

(14)

From the above five Union producers, only the three complainants formed part of the Union industry in the first investigation. Given the specificities of this case, as set out in recitals (57) to (60), it was decided to send questionnaires only to these three Union producers while the other two Union producers were requested to submit any additional comments which might assist the Commission in ascertaining whether imports of the products manufactured by Since Hardware have caused injury to the Union industry. All three complainant Union producers submitted questionnaire replies. The other two Union producers did not submit further comments on the proceeding.

(15)

The Commission also sent questionnaires to all known producers in potential analogue countries and to all importers known to be concerned and not related to Since Hardware. As concerns unrelated importers in the Union, there were initially two companies cooperating in the investigation. However, one of them was not in the position to continue cooperation. The other importer was the same company as one of the non-complainant Union producers. It submitted a reply to the importers’ questionnaire. In addition, one trade association also cooperated in the investigation and submitted comments.

(16)

The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of assessing MET and for the determination of dumping, contribution to injury and Union interest. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of Since Hardware in Guangzhou in the PRC and of Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd. in the UK.

(17)

The Commission informed interested parties that given the complex legal background linked to the present investigation (see recital (3) et seq. above), it considered it more appropriate not to impose provisional measures in this case but to continue the investigation. No objection was raised by any party.

(18)

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and were given an opportunity to comment. The comments submitted by the parties were considered and, when appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.

(19)

The investigation of dumping and price undercutting covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (the ‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of import volumes of Since Hardware products relevant for the assessment of the contribution to injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (the ‘period considered’). However, because of the specificities of this case – namely that another original investigation concerning the same product and third country took place only some years ago, and because the duties resulting from that investigation are still in place - in the injury analysis reference to the investigation period of that earlier investigation will also be made (‘IP of the first investigation’).

(20)

The product concerned is ironing boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating top and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest originating in the PRC and produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (‘the product concerned’), currently falling within CN codes ex 3924 90 00 , ex 4421 90 98 , ex 7323 93 90 , ex 7323 99 91 , ex 7323 99 99 , ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00 .

(21)

The investigation showed that there are different types of ironing boards and their essential parts depend mainly on their construction and size, their construction material and accessories. However, all different types have the same basic physical characteristics and uses.

(22)

The exporting producer claimed that the essential parts of ironing boards should not be covered by the investigation because ironing boards and their essential parts (i.e. legs, tops and iron rests) do not constitute a single product and therefore could not be part of the same product concerned in one investigation. This argument was not confirmed by the investigation. It was found in the present investigation that essential parts of ironing boards should be covered since legs, tops and iron rests determine the characteristics of the finished product and cannot have an end-use other than being incorporated into the final product (i.e. the ironing board) and, as such, they are not a distinct product. This is in line with a number of other investigations in which finished products and key components were considered as one single product. Consequently, similarly to the first investigation, all existing types of ironing boards and their essential parts thereof are considered as one product for the purposes of this investigation.

(23)

No differences were found between the product concerned and the ironing boards and the essential parts thereof produced by the complainants and other cooperating Union producers and sold on the Union market which finally also served as an analogue country. They both share the same physical characteristics and uses and are interchangeable one with the other.

(24)

Consequently, ironing boards and the essential parts thereof produced and sold in the Union and the product concerned are considered like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(25)

Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2 of the basic Regulation for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) thereof, i.e. where it is shown that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form below:

(26)

Since Hardware requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and was invited to complete a MET claim form.

(27)

The investigation established that Since Hardware did not meet the MET criterion referred to in the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) (criterion 1) of the basic Regulation as regards costs of major inputs. Moreover, the investigation established that Since Hardware did not meet the MET criterion referred to in the second indent of Article 2(7)(c) (criterion 2) of the basic Regulation. The major MET findings are set out below.

(28)

As regards criterion 1, i.e. that business decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values, it is noted that Since Hardware claimed to have started to purchase its main raw materials (steel products) on the domestic Chinese market, unlike in the investigation period in the first investigation when Since Hardware imported these raw materials. Therefore, it was examined if the Chinese domestic market for the main raw materials could be considered as reflecting market values.

(29)

It was established that after the investigation period in the first investigation, i.e. after 2005, export restrictions were imposed by the State on several steel products, including the main raw materials for the production of ironing boards, i.e. steel plate, steel pipes and steel wire. It is noted that the cost of these raw materials represent a significant part of the total raw material cost of the product concerned. The imposition of export taxes decreased the incentive to export and thereby increased the volumes available domestically, leading in turn to lower prices. However, in June 2009 (at the end of the IP), the Chinese policy towards the steel sector appears to have changed again: the export tax was abolished and a new VAT rebate on steel products was introduced which creates a more favourable environment for exports. The new policy which no longer discourages exports coincides with the drop in steel prices on other world markets and with the alignment of Chinese domestic prices with international steel prices, i.e. a situation of no danger of increased prices in the domestic market. These repeated changes in the steel export tax/VAT regime over time apparently took place in order to regulate the Chinese domestic steel market and prices. Thus, the State continued to exercise an important influence on the domestic steel market and, thus, the steel prices in the PRC for these particular raw materials do not freely follow world market trends.

(30)

Indeed, many studies and reports as well as publicly available accounts of a number of steel producers (6) confirm that the Chinese State is actively supporting the development of the steel sector in the PRC.

(31)

As a consequence, domestic steel prices in the PRC were, during the first half of the investigation period, far below prices on other sizeable world markets, notably steel prices in North America and North Europe (7), and these price differences cannot be explained by any competitive advantage in the production of steel. In the second half of the IP, world steel prices dropped significantly in Europe and in North America while Chinese domestic prices dropped to a much lesser extent. Thus the price difference between Chinese and international steel prices practically disappeared by the end of the IP. However, the measures taken by the Chinese government to regulate the Chinese steel market have essentially lead to a situation where the raw material prices continue to be the result of State intervention that has a direct influence on company decisions when acquiring raw materials.

(32)

Given that Since Hardware purchased its raw materials during this IP on the Chinese domestic market, it was benefiting from these artificially low and distorted prices of steel during the IP.

(33)

It was thus concluded that major inputs of Since Hardware do not substantially reflect market values. Consequently, it was concluded that Since Hardware has not shown that it fulfils criterion 1 set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and, thus, could not be granted MET.

(34)

Moreover, the company could not demonstrate that it has one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with IAS and applied for all purposes, as the accounts, and in particular the capital verification report, were silent on an important transaction that happened during the IP. Moreover, the auditors did not comment on this important transaction. In addition, a booking of a significant amount has been found which did not respect the principle of fair representation of accounts under IAS. The auditor did not comment on this either. It was thus concluded that the company also failed to demonstrate that it fulfils criterion 2 set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.

(35)

Since Hardware, the authorities of the country concerned and the Union industry were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings. Comments were received from Since Hardware and the Union industry.

(36)

Since Hardware put forward three main arguments on the MET finding. Firstly, it stated that the MET decision was made after the Commission had requested and obtained the company’s domestic sales and costs which would have been in breach of the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. Second, although Since Hardware did not disagree with the evolution of steel prices as such, it claimed that the Chinese raw material prices were still in line with prices in other countries and that the price paid by Since Hardware on the Chinese market was above the prices of several steel markets in market-economy countries world-wide. In this context, the company also questioned the relevance of the North European and North American steel market prices to which a comparison was made. Since Hardware stated that prices of other international markets such as the Turkish or Ukrainian export prices would also be available, and that these were lower than the domestic prices in the PRC. Third, Since Hardware argued that MET could not be denied to a company active in one industry (ironing boards) for factors relating exclusively to another industry (steel) and that the Commission could not offset subsidies in the upstream market through the rejection of a MET claim in the downstream market. Moreover, Since Hardware claimed that it was an unreasonable burden of proof to require a small ironing boards company to provide evidence that the Chinese steel industry is not subsidised.

(37)

Concerning the first argument of Since Hardware, it is noted that pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, a determination whether Since Hardware meets the five relevant criteria shall be made and this determination shall remain in force throughout the investigation. As the present investigation is limited to one exporting producer, the Commission verified the MET claim and the anti-dumping questionnaire reply at the same time, in the framework of the same on-spot investigation. The MET claim was investigated on its own merits and irrespective of the effects which it might have on the calculation of the dumping margin. In fact, detailed dumping calculations for Since Hardware could not be made before the MET determination in the absence of data from an appropriate market economy country. Hence there was no breach of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.

(38)

Concerning the second claim of Since Hardware, the investigation revealed that although the price difference diminished in the second half of the IP and was practically eliminated at the end of the IP, it is maintained that this alignment of Chinese prices to international market prices was also the result of State intervention. Indeed, in 2009, when prices on international steel markets had plummeted due to the financial and economic crises, the State abolished the export taxes previously imposed, thereby allowing for an alignment of domestic prices with international prices without the danger of a significant price increase for these important raw materials on the domestic market. This shows that the market for the raw materials necessary to produce the product concerned continued to be the subject of State intervention also in the second half of the IP.

(39)

It is noted that the additional price information submitted by Since Hardware supported the finding that the main raw materials for the production of ironing boards in the first half of the IP were on average significantly cheaper on the Chinese domestic market than on other sizeable world markets. A comparison was made between Chinese domestic steel prices and domestic prices on other markets which are comparable to the Chinese market in terms of volume (EU, USA and Canada) as they have a high consumption of steel and there are several active producers. Other markets suggested by Since Hardware such as Turkey and Ukraine (domestic and export markets) have not been found to be representative in terms of size and/or number of producers of these particular raw materials and thus not comparable to the Chinese domestic market.

(40)

It is also recalled that the basic Regulation puts the burden of proof on the company that claims MET to demonstrate that it fulfils the relevant criteria. As the Commission established a number of elements pointing to the cost of major inputs not reflecting market values, it is consequently for the company to come up with elements that would refute this.

(41)

Furthermore, the basic Regulation in Article 2(7)(c) provides explicitly for the possibility to examine whether decisions of firms regarding, inter alia, inputs are made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand and without significant State interference and whether costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values. Consequently, if a company does not fulfil these conditions, as outlined above, MET can be refused. It is also noted that Since Hardware used to import its raw materials during the first investigation but switched to Chinese sourcing due to lower prices on the Chinese market.

(42)

With regard to the identified accounting issues, Since Hardware claimed that they did not relate to Since Hardware’s accounts and, in any event, did not mean that the company did not fully comply with international accounting standards. Since Hardware also claimed that the accounting mistake identified was immaterial.

(43)

The fact that the Chinese companies may not be subject under their domestic law to comply with certain accounting standards has no bearing on whether their accounts may be assessed in the light of those standards for the purpose of a MET determination. The fair presentation of financial statements is a basic IAS and it is up to the company to show that any infringement of those standards does not constitute a breach of the second criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. This has not been done either for the transaction in question or the wrong booking. In any event, the latter cannot be considered as immaterial as represents a sizeable percentage of total exports to the Union in the investigation period.

(44)

To conclude, none of the arguments raised by Since Hardware were such as to lead to a different assessment of the findings. On the basis of the above, the findings and the conclusion that MET should not be granted to Since Hardware were confirmed. It is thus definitively concluded that MET should not be granted to Since Hardware.

(45)

Pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria for individual treatment set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out below:

(46)

Since Hardware, as well as requesting MET, also claimed IT in the event of it not being granted MET.

(47)

The investigation showed that Since Hardware met all the above criteria and it is concluded that IT should be granted to Since Hardware.

(48)

According to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, in case of imports from non-market-economy countries and to the extent that MET could not be granted, for countries specified in Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, normal value has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country (analogue country).

(49)

In the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use the United States of America (‘USA’) as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC, but no producer from the USA cooperated in the investigation. Subsequently, Turkish and Ukrainian companies were also approached but there was no cooperation from them either.

(50)

As no third country producer cooperated, Union producers were approached on the basis of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation and one of them cooperated.

(51)

No comments on using the information obtained from a Union producer for establishment of normal value were received from Since Hardware. Thus, the normal value was established pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation on the basis of verified information received from the cooperating Union producer.

(52)

The domestic sales of the Union producer of the like product were found to be representative in terms of volume when compared to the product concerned exported to the Union by Since Hardware.

(53)

Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for Since Hardware was established on the basis of verified information received from the sole cooperating Union producer, i.e. on the basis of prices paid or payable on the Union market for comparable product types, where these were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade, or on constructed values, where no domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade for comparable product types were found, i.e. on the basis of the cost of manufacturing of ironing boards manufactured by the Union producer plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and for profit. The profit margin used is in line with the one used in the first investigation.

(54)

In all cases the product concerned was directly sold for export to independent customers in the Union, and therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of prices actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export to the Union.

(55)

The normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis. In order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which were claimed and demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability. On this basis, allowances for transport costs, insurance, handling charges, credit costs and indirect taxes were made where applicable and justified.

(56)

As provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the weighted average normal value by type was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. This comparison showed the existence of dumping.

(57)

The dumping margin of Since Hardware as a percentage of the net, free-at-Union-frontier price was found to be 51,7 %.

(58)

The examination of material injury suffered by the Union industry is normally based on all dumped imports originating in one or more exporting countries, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation.

(59)

However, in this case, a full analysis of injury in respect of all imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the PRC was already carried out in the framework of the first investigation. Indeed, in that investigation the Commission established that dumped imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the PRC had caused material injury to the Union industry. These findings, made in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the basic Regulation, were based on an assessment of the effects of all imports originating in the PRC and Ukraine, with the sole exclusion of imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware which had been found to be sold at non-dumped prices.

(60)

As a result, during the IP, anti-dumping duties were applicable to all imports from those countries (only Since Hardware was subject to a zero duty). As the Union industry was already protected against the harmful effects of these imports during the IP, it was impossible to perform a normal full injury analysis. Therefore, a specific approach was developed, adapted to the specificities of this investigation, in which the Institutions focused on particular injury indicators. The information requested from the Union industry focused on whether Since Hardware had been undercutting its prices and on what was the profitability of those prices. Furthermore, the Union industry was invited to provide any other information that, in its view, indicated that Since Hardware’s exports to the Union had caused it injury.

(61)

In this context, the Commission examined i) the development of dumped imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware; ii) whether those imports had been made at prices undercutting the sales prices of the Union industry and what was the profitability of the Union industry prices; and iii) any information provided by the Union industry indicating that Since Hardware’s exports to the Union had caused it injury, e.g. concerning the Union industry’s losses of customers and orders to Since Hardware and the profitability of their Union sales during the IP.

(62)

The complaint was lodged by three Union producers representing a major proportion of the total known Union production of ironing boards, i.e. in this case approximately 40 % of the estimated Union production. None of the other Union producers opposed the initiation of the present proceeding.

(63)

As stated in recital (11), from the five producers which replied to the sampling questions only the three complainants formed part of the Union industry in the first investigation. As stated above, in light of the specificities of this case, questionnaires were sent only to the three selected Union producers that also formed part of the Union industry in the first investigation.

(64)

Based on information provided by the Union industry, it appears that the consumption of ironing boards in the Union has remained substantially stable since the publication of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007, having only slightly increased in proportion with the population increase of the Union due to the latest Union enlargement in 2007. The estimated Union consumption thus amounted to about 8,5 to 9 million units during the period considered.

(65)

Ironing board producers can be found in several Member States including Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. The total volume of annual Union production of ironing boards can be estimated at above 5 million units.

(66)

As described in recitals (22) to (54), this investigation has shown that imports from Since Hardware have been dumped on the Union market.

(67)

Over the period considered, Since Hardware’s exports to the Union increased strongly, by 64 % (8). On the other hand, the imports of other Chinese and Ukrainian producers have constantly decreased following the imposition of provisional duties in 2006 (confidential data based on Member States’ reports in accordance with Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation):

Volume of imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware

(68)

Given that Union consumption has remained substantially stable over the period considered except for the slight increase between 2006 and 2007, as mentioned in recital (61), the market share of Since Hardware has developed in line with its import volumes shown. It should be noted that in 2006, the Union market share of Since Hardware represented about one fifth of the total market share of the other Chinese and Ukrainian producers, whereas by the IP, Since Hardware’s market share amounted to almost half of the total market share of the other Chinese and Ukrainian producers. Both the substantial increase of Since Hardware’s import volume and its market share can be explained by the fact that it has been the only Chinese producer that has had a zero anti-dumping duty and therefore its market opportunities have actually improved since the imposition of provisional duties in 2006. This can also be confirmed by the pronounced opposite, positive development of their import volumes as compared to the deteriorating trend of the import volumes of the other Chinese and Ukrainian producers. Indeed when looking at the period considered, the following converse evolution of market shares has been found:

Market share of imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware

(69)

It is clear from the above tables that Since Hardware has managed to significantly increase its import volumes and market share (9).

(70)

In addition, the Union industry has claimed to have lost numerous client orders to Since Hardware in the past years. Indeed clear indications have been found that certain important customers of the Union industry have changed suppliers, sourcing more products from Since Hardware and fewer from the Union industry than before.

(71)

For instance, the data gathered by the Commission in the first investigation show that a Union producer sold a significant number of pieces to a Union customer in the IP of the first investigation (2005), whereas in the current investigation it has stated that it sold considerably less (between 10 % and 30 % of that quantity) to the same customer in the current IP. By contrast, Since Hardware sold a small number of pieces to this Union customer in the IP of the first investigation, but sold much more (between 300 % and 500 % of that quantity) to that customer during the IP of the current investigation.

(72)

Furthermore, the data gathered by the Commission in the first investigation show that the sales of an Union producer to another Union customer in the IP of the first investigation dropped considerably (between 30 % and 50 %) in the current IP. Again by contrast, whereas Since Hardware sold nothing to this customer in the IP of the first investigation, it sold a substantial quantity in the current IP. That quantity is between 60 % and 80 % of the quantity by which the Union producer’s sales to that customer went down between the IP of the first investigation and the current IP.

(73)

For the purpose of analysing price undercutting, the import prices of Since Hardware were compared to the Union industry’s prices, on the basis of weighted averages for comparable product types during the IP. The Union industry’s prices were adjusted to an ex-works level, and compared to CIF Union frontier import prices, plus customs duties where applicable. This price comparison was made for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts.

(74)

The average undercutting margin found for Since Hardware, expressed as a percentage of the Union industry’s price, is 16,1 %.

(75)

It is noted that the Union industry’s prices were found to be overall loss-making in the IP.

(76)

The above-mentioned facts show that the Union industry suffered injury due to the dumped quantities sold by Since Hardware on the Union market which might otherwise have been supplied by the Union industry.

(77)

As shown above, Since Hardware offered its products, during the IP, at heavily dumped prices which strongly undercut the Union industry’s prices. As a result, it succeeded to sell quantities during the IP which were much higher than, for instance, in 2005 or 2006. Since Hardware thus caused the injury which was found above.

(78)

One importer stated that the EUR/USD exchange rate was the cause of the strong presence of Since Hardware ironing boards on the Union market rather than dumping practices. However, if this was true, all imports invoiced in USD would have been advantaged in their competition with goods invoiced in euro. Instead, as set out in recitals (64) and (65), imports from other Chinese and Ukrainian producers, also selling in USD, have constantly decreased between 2006 and the IP i.e. in the period during which the EUR/USD exchange rates have every so often changed, in contrast with the significant increase of imports from Since Hardware throughout the same period. Therefore this claim was rejected.

(79)

No further comments were received. It is therefore concluded that no factor appears to exist that could break the causal link between the dumped imports from Since Hardware and their contribution to injury which was found above.

(80)

As mentioned in recital (12), one trade association cooperated in the investigation. In addition, the cooperating Union producers and importers were also asked to comment on whether in their view the imposition of a possible anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would change the conclusion regarding Union interest reached in recitals (51) to (62) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.

(81)

According to the Union producers, the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would not change the conclusions on Union interest as established by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.

(82)

The cooperating trade association stated that imposing an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would normally have a negative impact on the profitability of the importers and retailers or distributors concerned. However, according to the trade association, their members – including large retail stores – also confirmed that the product under investigation is one upon which price increases such as those resulting from anti-dumping measures can be passed on without impacting substantially on consumers’ perception. Therefore, no concrete element was submitted which would change the conclusions on Union interest as established by the above two Regulations.

(83)

In view of the above it is concluded that the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would leave the conclusions regarding Union interest reached in recitals (51) to(62) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 substantially unaffected. No reasons were put forward as to why that analysis would not apply, mutatis mutandis, to the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware.

(84)

Written and oral representations were made following final disclosure of the findings from the Union industry and from Since Hardware. The Union industry agrees with the findings disclosed. Since Hardware’s comments were examined, however, none of them were such as to alter the above conclusions. The main arguments raised by Since Hardware were as follows.

(85)

Since Hardware reiterated its earlier claims concerning the alleged illegality of initiating an original investigation against one company and concerning the allegedly incorrect MET findings. These claims have been described and rebutted in recitals (4) to (10) and (33) to (41). Regarding some detailed points made by Since Hardware on the first point (a number of which were made during a hearing) the following can be observed:

(86)

(87)

(88)

(89)

(90)

(91)

(92)

(93)

Regarding the MET findings, Since Hardware argued that it had an excessive burden to prove that it complied with the criteria for MET, in particular as far as State interference in the prices of its main raw materials were concerned. However, MET is an exception to the general rule and any derogation from, or exception to, a general rule must be interpreted strictly. MET can only be granted if it is shown that market economy conditions prevail for the exporting producer in question. As already mentioned in recital (37), the burden of proof lies with the exporting producer wishing to avail itself of market economy status. The claim must contain sufficient evidence. There is no obligation for the Commission to prove that the exporting producer does not satisfy the MET criteria. The Commission has to assess whether the evidence supplied by the exporting producer is sufficient to show that the MET criteria are fulfilled. As the Commission established a number of elements pointing to significant State interference concerning the cost of major inputs, it is consequently for the company to demonstrate that this State interference does not exist and/or that it did not affect the company’s decisions (criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation). In any event, as set out in recitals (31) and (40), Since Hardware has also failed to show that it fulfils criterion 2 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation concerning accounting for which it has claimed an excessive burden to prove.

(94)

Further to the above, Since Hardware made two new claims in its comments on the final disclosure document. First, Since Hardware claimed that the normal value should have been adjusted in accordance with Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation because the raw materials (steel products) in the PRC are lower-priced than in the analogue country market. This claim cannot be accepted. Indeed, it is recalled that Since Hardware was denied MET. Consequently, the normal value is established in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country. This necessarily implies that prices and costs in the PRC are considered to be unreliable for the establishment of normal value and may not be used to determine or otherwise adjust the latter. It is further noted that an adjustment under Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation as claimed by Since Hardware cannot be made if it is not shown that customers would consistently pay different prices for the like product on the domestic market, in this case in the analogue country market, because of a difference in raw material prices. Since Hardware has not demonstrated any such price difference.

(95)

Second, Since Hardware has claimed that the Commission did not carry out a sufficiently detailed injury analysis in the present investigation. It also claimed that in line with Article 3(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission should have investigated all injury indicators. It should be noted however, that the Commission has found (see in particular part D) that dumped imports from Since Hardware substantially increased over the period considered while their sales prices were found to be largely undercutting those of the Union industry. This finding is based on an objective examination of positive evidence. It thus complies with Article 3 of the basic Regulation.

(96)

It is true that not all of the factors set out in Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation have been examined. However, it should be recalled that in a situation where Since Hardware was not yet found to be dumping, namely during the first investigation, it was already found, by examining those factors, that the dumped imports from the PRC caused injury. Examining those factors once again would have been of no use, since even assuming that all those factors would now have become positive, that would be (at least in part) due to the fact that the Union industry is now protected against all (12) dumped exports from the PRC and Ukraine (except those from Since Hardware). Moreover, no factor has been identified that would break the causal link between the dumped imports from Since Hardware and their negative effects on the Union industry. Finally, not imposing measures against Since Hardware would be discriminatory vis-à-vis the exporting producers subject to the measure imposed following the first original investigation.

(97)

In view of the above conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting contribution to injury, causation and Union interest, definitive measures on imports of the product concerned from the PRC, produced by Since Hardware, should be imposed.

(98)

The level of the definitive anti-dumping measures should be sufficient to eliminate the injury to the Union industry caused by the dumped imports, without exceeding the dumping margins found. As stated in recital (72), the Union industry’s prices were found to be overall loss-making during the IP. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to base the duty merely on the margin of undercutting.

(99)

When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Union industry to cover its costs and obtain a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports. The pre-tax profit margin used for this calculation was 7 % of turnover. As mentioned in recital (63) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007, it was demonstrated in the course of the first investigation that this was the profit level that could reasonably be expected in the absence of injurious dumping. On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the like product of the Union industry. For this purpose, information was collected from the Union industry to calculate the weighted average of their actual profit/loss margin during the current IP. The non-injurious price has been obtained by deducting the thus calculated actual profit/loss margin of the Union industry from their sales prices and adding the above mentioned target profit margin of 7 %.

(100)

The necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price, as established for the undercutting calculation, with the average non-injurious price of products sold by the Union industry on the Union market. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the average import CIF value. An injury elimination level of 35,8 % was thus established, which was below the dumping margin found for Since Hardware.

(101)

In the context of the review pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 and in the light of the WTO Appellate Body report as adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, and in particular paragraphs 305 and 306 thereof, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2010 excluded Since Hardware from the definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.

(102)

A new measure may now be imposed on Since Hardware.

(103)

In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC and produced by Since Hardware at the level eliminating the injury.

(104)

On the basis of the above, the definitive duty rate for these imports is 35,8 %.

(105)

In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, anti-dumping measures normally apply for five years, unless there are specific grounds or circumstances which call for a shorter period. In the current case, it is considered appropriate to limit the duration of the measure so that it lasts until the expiry of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of the product concerned originating, inter alia, in the PRC imposed by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007. This will give the opportunity to consider at the same time any request for expiry review of the measures in force for all imports originating, inter alia, in the PRC. Of course, operators concerned, and in particular Since Hardware and/or the Union industry may, before 27 April 2012, request other reviews, in particular an interim review, of this Regulation provided that all requirements for doing so are complied with.

(106)

Any claim requesting the application of this individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (13) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, this Regulation will then be amended accordingly,