HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
17.12.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
338/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1342/2013
of 12 December 2013
repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating
in the Russian Federation following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 1225/2009
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
the original measures for the Russian Federation in
accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.
Those measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
measures in force’ and the expiry review investigation
Union,
will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the last investigation’.
Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 also terminated the
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
measures concerning imports of steel ropes and cables
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
originating in Turkey and Thailand.
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
(the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Articles 9(2) and 11(2)
thereof,
(4) Currently
( 5 ), there are also measures in force against
SWR from Ukraine and the People’s Republic of China,
which were extended to imports of SWR consigned from
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
Morocco, Moldova and the Republic of Korea.
Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
2. Request for a review
(5) On
27
October
2012,
the
Commission
announced
by
a
A. PROCEDURE
notice published in the Official Journal of the European
Union the initiation of an expiry review (‘notice of initi
1. Measures in force
ation’) ( 6 ) of the anti-dumping measures applicable to
imports of SWR originating in the Russian Federation
(1) By
Regulation
(EC)
No
1601/2001
( 2 ) the Council
pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
certain iron or steel ropes and cables (SWR) originating
in the Russian Federation, Turkey, Thailand, and the
(6) The
review
was
initiated
following
a
substantiated
request
Czech Republic. Those measures will hereinafter be
lodged by the Liaison Committee of European Union
referred to as ‘the original measures’ and the investigation
Wire Rope Industries (hereafter referred to as ‘EWRIS’
that led to those measures will hereinafter be referred to
or ‘the applicant’) on behalf of Union producers repre
as ‘the original investigation’.
senting more than 50 % of the total Union production of
certain iron or steel ropes and cables. The request was
(2) The
Commission
had
accepted
in
August
2001
a
price
based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures
undertaking offer by a Russian producer (JSC Severstal-
would be likely to result in continuation of dumping and
Metiz). That undertaking agreement was repealed in
recurrence of injury to the Union Industry (‘UI’).
October 2007 ( 3 ) because it was considered unworkable
due to difficulties in the proper classification of the large
number of product types exported by the company.
3. Investigation
3.1. Review investigation period and period considered
(3) By
Regulation
(EC)
No
1279/2007
( 4 ) the Council,
following partial interim and expiry reviews, maintained
(7) The
investigation
of
continuation
or
recurrence
of
dumping and injury covered the period from
1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 (the ‘RIP’). The
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 211, 4.8.2001, p. 1.
( 3 ) OJ L 285, 31.10.2007, p. 52.
( 5 ) OJ L 36, 9.2.2012, p. 1.
( 4 ) OJ L 285, 31.10.2007, p. 1.
( 6 ) OJ C 330, 27.10.2012, p. 5.

---

L 338/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
17.12.2013
examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of
(13) Although sampling was envisaged in the notice of
a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury
initiation of unrelated importers, neither any unrelated
covered the period from 1 January 2009 until the end
importer nor any user came forward. Therefore,
of the RIP (period considered).
sampling was not applied to unrelated importers.
(14) Questionnaires
were
sent
to
the
four
sampled
Union
producers, the two exporting producers in the Russian
3.2. Parties concerned by the proceedings
Federation, and the related importer.
(8) The
Commission
officially
advised
the
exporting
producers, Union producers, importers and users
3.3. Questionnaire replies
known to it, as well as the applicant and the authorities
of the exporting country. Interested parties were given
(15) Replies to the questionnaires were received from the four
the opportunity to make their views known in writing
sampled Union producers, from the related importer and
and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in
from one exporting producer from the Russian Feder
the notice of initiation.
ation.
(16) Although
two
exporting
producers
from
the
Russian
Federation had originally come forward, only one of
them provided a reply to the questionnaire and is
(9) In
view
of
the
potentially
large
number
of
exporting
considered to be cooperating in the investigation. The
producers in the Russian Federation involved in the
cooperating exporting producer has a wholly owned
investigation, sampling was initially envisaged in the
subsidiary based in Italy, which also produces SWR and
notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of
imports the product concerned from the Russian Feder
the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission
ation. The other exporting producer provided a
to decide whether sampling would indeed be necessary
submission at the time of the initiation of the investi
and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers from
gation and although it was invited to fill in a question
the Russian Federation were requested to make them
naire, failed to do so. It is therefore considered that the
selves known within 15 days from the initiation of the
second exporting producer did not cooperate in the
proceeding and to provide the Commission with the
investigation.
information requested in the notice of initiation.
3.4. Verification visits
(17) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
information
it
(10) Given
that
only
two
exporting
producers
in
the
Russian
deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the
Federation provided the information requested in the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping
notice of initiation and expressed their willingness to
and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verifi
further cooperate with the Commission, it was decided
cation visits were carried out at the premises of the
not to apply sampling for exporting producers.
following companies:
(a) Union producers:
(11) The
Commission
announced
in
the
notice
of
initiation
that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union
— CASAR Drahtseilwerk Saar GmbH, Germany,
producers and invited interested parties to comment
thereupon within a deadline provided for in the notice
— BRIDON International Ltd, United Kingdom,
of initiation. The provisional sample consisted of five
Union producers that were found to be representative
of the Union industry in terms of volume of production
— TEUFELBERGER Seil GmbH, Austria,
and sales of the like product in the Union.
— Manuel Rodrigues de OLIVEIRA Sá & Filhos, S.A.,
Portugal;
(12) In the absence of any comments, the proposed
companies were selected to be included in the final
(b) exporting producer in the Russian Federation:
sample and interested parties were accordingly
informed. However, one of the finally selected
companies subsequently withdrew from the sample.
— JSC SEVERSTAL-Metiz, Cherepovets;
The Commission therefore decided to reduce the
sample to the four remaining companies, which were
(c) related importer:
still found to be representative of the Union industry
in terms of volume of production (29,3 %) and sales
(20,9 %) of the like product in the Union.
— REDAELLI Tecna SpA, Italy.

---

EN
17.12.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
338/3
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
mentioned in the notice of initiation (paragraph 4.1),
the applicant compared the export prices from the
1. Product concerned
Russian Federation to the Union (at ex-works level)
with the domestic prices in the Russian Federation.
(18) The product concerned is the same as that in the original
investigation and in the last investigation, which led to
the imposition of measures currently in force, i.e. iron
and steel ropes and cables, including locked coil ropes,
excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel, with a
2.1. Normal value
maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm,
(24) In
accordance
with
Article
2(2)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
it
with fittings attached or not (in industry terminology
was first established for the cooperating exporting
often referred to as ‘SWR’), currently falling within CN
producer whether its total domestic sales of the like
codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85,
product to independent customers in the Russian
ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98 (the ‘product
domestic market were representative, i.e. whether the
concerned’).
total volume of such sales was equal to at least 5 % of
the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the
Union. The domestic sales of the like product by the
cooperating exporting producer were found to be
2. Like product
overall representative.
(19) The
current
expiry
review
investigation
confirmed
that
SWR produced in the Russian Federation and exported
to the Union, and SWR produced and sold in the Union
by the Union producers have the same basic physical and
(25) Subsequently,
the
Commission
identified
those
types
of
technical characteristics and end uses and are therefore
the like product sold domestically by the exporting
considered to be like products within the meaning of
producer which were identical or directly comparable
Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
to the types sold for export to the Union.
C. LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR
(26) It
was
further
examined
whether
the
domestic
sales
of
RECURRENCE OF DUMPING
the cooperating exporting producer were representative
for each product type, i.e. whether domestic sales of each
1. Preliminary remarks
product type constituted at least 5 % of the sales volume
of the same product type to the Union. For the product
(20) In
accordance
with
Article
11(2)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
types sold in representative quantities it was then
it was examined whether dumping was currently taking
examined whether such sales were made in the
place and whether the expiry of the existing measures
ordinary course of trade (‘OCOT’), in accordance with
would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of
Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.
dumping.
(21) As
explained
above
in
recital
10,
it
was
not
necessary
to
(27) The
examination
as
to
whether
the
domestic
sales
of
select a sample of exporting producers in the Russian
each product type, sold domestically in representative
Federation. The cooperating exporting producer
quantities, could be regarded as having been made in
accounted for 99 % of the exports of the product
the OCOT was made by establishing the proportion of
concerned from the Russian Federation to the Union
the profitable sales to independent customers of the type
during the RIP. On this basis, it was concluded that
in question. In all cases where the domestic sales of the
cooperation was high.
particular product type were made in sufficient quantities

and in the OCOT, normal value was based on the actual
domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of all the
domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.
(22) Since two other known producers in the Russian
Federation did not cooperate in the investigation, the
findings on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence
of dumping set out below had to be based on the best
(28) For
the
remaining
product
types
where
domestic
sales
available facts including Eurostat data, the Russian official
were not representative or not sold in the OCOT,
statistics and limited data obtained from a second
normal value was constructed in accordance with
producer.
Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. Normal value was
constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs of the
exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable
percentage for selling, general and administrative
2. Dumping of imports during the RIP
expenses and a reasonable margin for profit, on the
basis of actual data pertaining to the production and
(23) According to the request for review, the exports from the
sales of the like product in the OCOT, in accordance
Russian Federation into the Union were allegedly
with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regu
dumped at an average margin of 130,8
%. As
lation.

---

L 338/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
17.12.2013
2.2. Export price
production capacity and excess capacity for exports in
the Russian Federation.
(29) For export sales to the Union market of the cooperating
Russian exporting producer made directly to the inde
pendent customers, the export price was established on
the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the
product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the
3.2. Volume and prices of dumped imports from the
basic Regulation.
Russian Federation
(35) According
to
Eurostat,
during
the
period
considered,
the
imports from the Russian Federation increased from
(30) For the export transaction where the export to the Union
2 005 tonnes in 2009 to 2 343 tonnes in the RIP repre
was made through a related trading company, the export
senting around 1 % of the Union consumption in the RIP
price was established on the basis of the first resale price
and in the period considered. As mentioned above in
of the related trader to independent customers in the
recital 33, the imports from the cooperating exporting
Union, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
producer were made at dumped prices (4,7 %) despite the
Adjustments were made to take account of all the costs
anti-dumping duty in force.
incurred between the importation and resale, and for
profit, to establish a reliable export price. In the
absence of information from independent importers
concerning the level of profits accrued during the RIP,
3.3. Attractiveness of the Union market and other
an average profit margin of 5 % was used.
third country markets
(36) The exports to the Union constituted 3 % of the total
sales of the cooperating producer, while the majority of
2.3. Comparison
the sales (85 %) were made on the Russian domestic
market. The domestic market grew by 38 % in the
(31) The
comparison
between
the
weighted
average
normal
period considered (
value and the weighted average export price was made

1 ) and may further grow should the
GDP of the Russian Federation continue to grow, as
on an ex-works basis and at the same level of trade.
forecasted by publically available sources specialising on
economic analysis. Moreover, the information gathered
during the investigation revealed that the cooperating
producer does not produce all types of the product
(32) In
order
to
ensure
a
fair
comparison
between
normal
value and the export price, account was taken, in
concerned and therefore its competitive pressure on the
accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation,
Union producers is limited. This is likely to be the case
of differences in factors which were demonstrated to
also for the two other producers in view of no available
affect prices and price comparability. For this purpose,
information on the investments in new machinery, which
due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for
could for instance allow the production of the product
differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and
concerned of a bigger diameter. Furthermore, the limited
ancillary costs, financial costs, packing costs,
competitive pressure of the exporting producers from the
commissions and rebates where applicable and justified.
Russian Federation seems also to be confirmed by the
presence of the Union producers on the Russian market.
According to the official Russian customs statistics the
Union producers’ exports of the like product to the
2.4. Dumping margin
Russian Federation represented 30 % of all imports of
the like product to the Russian market in RIP, making
(33) As
provided
for
under
Article
2(11)
of
the
basic
Regu
of the Union producers the largest exporter on the
lation, the weighted average normal value by type was
Russian market.
compared with the weighted average export price of the
corresponding type of the product concerned. This
comparison showed the existence of dumping which
amounted to 4,7 % for the exporting producer.
(37) In
reply
to
the
final
disclosure
the
applicant
argued
that
the projected GDP growth of Russia (in the range of 3 %)
is rather moderate and will not allow for further devel
3. Developments of imports should measures be
opment of the Russian SWR market. Consequently, the
repealed
Russian market might not be able to absorb additional
volumes of the like product. In this respect it is noted
3.1. Preliminary remarks
that the Russian GDP growth during the period
considered, i.e. from 2009 to the end of the IP, was
(34) Further to the analysis of the existence of dumping
lower than the forecasted growth for the year 2014
during the RIP, the likelihood of the continuation of
and nevertheless allowed for the growth of the SWR
dumping should measures be repealed was also investi
market in Russia by 38 %. Therefore the argument has
gated. In this respect the following elements were
been rejected.
analysed: the volume and prices of dumped imports
from the Russian Federation, the attractiveness of the
( 1 ) According to the data obtained from Prommetiz — Russian
Union market and other third country markets,
association of hardware producers.

---

EN
17.12.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
338/5
(38) The
same party also pointed to the new types of
(42) The
same
party
argued
that
the
level
of
export
volume
of
products that the cooperating exporting producer has
the Union industry to the Russian Federation is irrelevant
recently developed (in cooperation with its subsidiary
in this case and rather pointed to the increased imports
based in the Union) and claimed that this confirms the
from the People’s Republic of China to the Russian
investments made by this producer in the period
Federation and the need to take them into consideration
considered. This fact however does not contradict the
in the analysis as they constitute a competitive threat to
finding on the cooperating producer’s inability to
the presence of the Russian producers on the Russian
produce all type of ropes (especially SWR in the high
and CIS markets. In this regard the fact that the Union
end of the market). Therefore the argument has been
producers remain the export leaders on the Russian
rejected.
market is relevant as it confirms, inter alia, the fact
that the Russian producers are unable to produce all
types of SWR for which demand exists on the Russian
market. As regards the Chinese exports to the Russian
Federation, it is noted that they grew in parallel to the
rapid growth of the demand of the Russian market. No
(39) The
attractiveness
of
the
Union
market
should
also
be
information was provided, e.g. regarding Chinese export
seen in the context of some acquisitions of Union
price levels to the Russian Federation or CIS countries or
producers by the Russians exporting producers. Indeed,
the characteristics of the imported product under inves
two Russian producers currently own subsidiaries based
tigation to allow for a further analysis. Finally, it is noted
in the Union. The verification visit to the EU based
that according to the Russian customs statistics the
subsidiary of the cooperating exporter revealed that its
Russian producers of the product concerned remained
sales were concluded mainly on the European market
the leader on their SWR domestic market in the RIP
and that the related sales between the cooperating
and the total imports to this market accounted for
producer and this subsidiary remained limited in RIP.
only about 15
% of the Russian SWR market.
Therefore the argument has been rejected.
(40) On the basis of the data of the cooperating exporter, it
has to be noted that the Russian export volume of the
product concerned to third countries exceeded four times
3.4. Production capacity and excess capacity available
the export volume to the Union in RIP. The export prices
for exports in the Russian Federation
of the cooperating exporting producer to third countries
(43) According to the request for review, the production
were found to be on average lower than its domestic
capacity of all Russian exporting producers was
sales price in the Russian Federation, but on average at
115 000 tonnes. During the investigation the applicant
higher levels than the export prices to the Union market.
reassessed the Russian production capacity to be in a
This allows a conclusion that the export sales to third
range between 220 000 and 250 000 tonnes, which
countries’ markets are more attractive than the sales to
was however not supported by any evidence. On the
the Union market. In this context, the existence of long
basis of the verified data of the cooperating exporter,
established sales channels with the Commonwealth of
the data submitted by a second known producer and
Independent States’ (CIS) markets is also noted.
the data contained in the request on the third
producer, the production capacity of all Russian
producers of the product concerned was established at
the level of around 158 000 tonnes. In this context, it is
noted that the production capacity of the cooperating
exporting producer underwent structural adjustments in
(41) In
reply
to
the
final
disclosure
the
applicant
argued
that
the period considered, as a result of which one
the export prices of the Russian producers to the third
production workshop was closed.
markets are in fact lower than the export prices to the
Union. A comparison between average export prices to
Ukraine and some European countries based allegedly on
the Russian customs statistics was evoked. No original
data underlying the comparison was submitted. In this
respect it is noted that the comparison of the price
difference between Russian export prices to the Union
(44) In
reply
to
the
final
disclosure
one
party
argued
that
and to third markets carried out in the investigation was
some machinery from the closed production workshop
based on the verified questionnaire data of the
was transferred to another production site of the
cooperating exporting producer. Such price comparison
cooperating producer. However, no evidence was
was made at ex-works level taking into account the
provided to support this claim. In this respect it is
differences between the product types and the level of
confirmed that the evidence gathered during the investi
trade. The average prices submitted by the applicant do
gation confirms that the cooperating producer underwent
not reflect the complexity of the price components and
structural adjustments in the period considered, which
ranges existing in the SWR market and resulting from a
included scrapping of some machinery in all three
significant number of different products and different
production sites and closure of one production
level of trade. Therefore the argument has been rejected.
workshop. At the same time it cannot be excluded that

---

L 338/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
17.12.2013
certain machinery from the closed production workshop
(49) As
explained
in
recital
12,
due
to
the
large
number
of
was transferred to the remaining ones. In any event, this
Union producers, a sample was selected. For the purpose
does not change the estimation of the production
of the injury analysis, the injury indicators have been
capacity of this producer and of Russia in total, which
established at the following two levels:
the party did not contest. Therefore the argument has
been rejected.
— the macroeconomic elements (production, capacity,
(45) Regarding
the
question
of
capacity
utilisation
and
excess
sales volume, market share, growth, employment,
capacity, further to the data of two producers, in the
productivity, average unit prices, magnitude of
absence of any precise information on the capacity utili
dumping) were assessed, at the level of the whole
sation of the third producer it was assumed that its
Union production, on the basis of information
capacity utilisation was in the range of the two other
collected from the cooperating producers, from
producers, i.e. 90 % in RIP. Considering the above, it
Eurostat data and, for the other Union producers,
was concluded that the total spare capacity in the
an estimate based on the data from the applicant
Russian Federation is in the range of 17 000 tonnes.
was used,
This corresponded to about 8
% of the Union
consumption in RIP.
3.5. Conclusion
— the analysis of microeconomic elements (i.e. stocks,
wages, profitability, return on investments, cash flow,
(46) In
view
of
the
findings
that
exports
from
the
Russian
ability to raise capital and investments) was carried
Federation are still being dumped during the RIP, there
out for the sampled Union producers on the basis of
is a likelihood of continuation of dumping on the Union
their information which was verified.
market in case the current anti-dumping measures are
removed.
E. SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET
(47) However,
the
following
points
should
be
highlighted.
Firstly, there is a limited spare capacity available in the
1. Union Consumption
Russian Federation, which may be absorbed by the fast
growing demand on the domestic market. Secondly, the
(50) Union
consumption
increased
by
8
%
from
195
426
Russian producers do not possess capacities to deliver all
tonnes to 211 380 tonnes between 2009 and the RIP.
types of ropes and therefore their competitive pressure
on the Union market is limited. Thirdly, two of three
known exporting producers have their fully owned
subsidiaries in the Union producing the like product.
Based on the information received from the subsidiary
of the cooperating exporting producer, it can be seen
2009 2010 2011 RIP
that the like product produced by the subsidiary is sold
primarily on the Union market, while the exporting
Union
195 426 206
940 213
350 211
380
producer produces and sells the like product mostly for
consumption (in
tonnes)
the Russian market. In addition, the Russian exporting
producers have strong commercial links with the third
country markets, in particular the CIS markets, which are
Index 100 106 109 108
more attractive for the Russian exporters because on
average the prices charged in those markets are higher
than prices charged in the Union. On this basis it was
concluded that the imports of the product concerned
2. Current imports from the Russian Federation
from the Russian Federation are unlikely to grow
substantially should the measures be allowed to lapse.
2.1. Volume, market share and prices of imports from
the Russian Federation
(51) According to Eurostat data, the volume of imports of the
D. DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY
product concerned originating in the Russian Federation
increased from 2 005 tonnes to 2 343 tonnes between
(48) During
the
RIP,
SWR
are
manufactured
by
over
30
2009 and the RIP. Despite this increase, these volumes
Union producers. The output of those producers (estab
are lower than the imports from the Russian Federation
lished on the basis of the information collected from the
during the last investigation, where the imports were
cooperating producers and for the other Union producers
2 908 tonnes for 2005 and 3 323 tonnes for the
on the data from the applicant) is therefore deemed to
period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 (last RIP).
constitute the Union production within the meaning of
Moreover, since the end of the RIP, imports from
Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.
Russia show a decreasing trend (down by 20 %).

---

EN
17.12.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
338/7
(52) The
market
share
of
the
Russian
imports
was
1,03
%
in
Countries/Imports
2009 and 1,11 % in the RIP.
in tonnes
2009 2010 2011 RIP
Thailand 3
673 3
815 5
348 3
499
(53) As far as import prices are concerned, they have
increased steadily by 12 % over the period considered.
Other countries 34
938 38
974 39
376 42
444
2009 2010 2011 RIP
Subtotal
76 435 70
782 78
804 84
506
(excluding the
Import (in
2 005 2
197 2
549 2
343
Russian
tonnes)
Federation)
index 100 110 127 117
Russia 2
005 2
197 2
548 2
343
Market share 1,03
% 1,06
% 1,19
% 1,11
%
Total imports
78 440 72
979 81
352 86
849
(including the
Russian
index 100 103 116 108
Federation)
Price of import 1
054 1
084 1
171 1
178
3.2. Price undercutting
index 100 103 111 112
(57) The overall average prices of imports of the like product
from other countries remained stable and unchanged
during the period considered and undercut Union
2.2. Price undercutting
industry prices on average by 57 %.
(54) Price
undercutting
was
established
using
the
export
prices
of the cooperating Russian producer, without anti-
dumping duty, and was found to range from 54,7 % to
4. Situation of the Union Industry
69,0 % depending on the product types with a weighted
average undercutting margin of 63,4 %. However, in view
(58) Pursuant
to
Article
3(5)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
the
of the low import volumes from the Russian Federation
Commission examined all relevant economic factors
and the numerous different types of SWR that exists, the
and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union
price undercutting could only be established on the basis
industry.
of very few identical product types with low volumes
(19,9 tonnes). Therefore, the undercutting margin may
only be considered to be indicative.
4.1. Preliminary remarks
3. Imports from other countries
(59) In
view
of
the
fact
that
sampling
was
used
with
regard
to
the Union industry, the injury was assessed on the basis
3.1. Volume, market share and prices of imports from
of information collected at the level of the entire Union
other countries
industry (‘UI’) (macroeconomic elements as defined in
recital 49) and on the basis of information collected at
(55) Imports
from
countries
other
than
the
Russian
Federation
the level of the sampled Union producers (micro
have increased by 10,6 % over the period considered,
economic elements as defined in recital 49).
which is higher than the increase in consumption on
the Union market (+ 8 %). Despite the gain of Union
market share by countries other than the Russian Feder
ation, the respective market shares can be considered as
(a) P r o d u c t i o n
being stable.
(60) The
UI’s
production
increased
by
6
%
between
2009
and
the RIP, i.e. from 214 475 tonnes to 228 368 tonnes. In
(56) The main exporting countries during the RIP were South
Korea with 16 % market share followed by the PRC
a context of increased consumption (+
8
%), as
(1,78 %), Thailand with about 1,65 % market share, and
mentioned in recital 52, the Union Industry increased
the Russian Federation (see above, 1,11 % market share)
its production volume by 6 %.
while the Union industry market share was close to
60 %.
UI 2009 2010 2011 RIP
Countries/Imports
in tonnes
2009 2010 2011 RIP
Production
214 475 223
385 224
559 228
368
volume (in
South-Korea 32
027 23
926 28
906 34
798
tonnes)
China 5
797 4
067 5
174 3
765
index 100 104 105 106

---

L 338/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
17.12.2013
(b) C a p a c i t y
a n d
c a p a c i t y
u t i l i s a t i o n
is different and shows a negative trend, being a decrease
r a t e s
by 6 % between 2009 and the RIP.
(61) The increase in Union consumption (+
8
%) also
triggered an increase in production by the Union
UI 2009 2010 2011 RIP
Industry by 6 %.
Employment 3
763 3
776 3
688 3
544
UI 2009 2010 2011 RIP
index 100 100 98 94
Capacity 348
852 371
187 366
976 369
134
index 100 106 105 106
(g) M a g n i t u d e o f d u m p i n g m a r g i n
Capacity
61,5 % 60,2
% 61,2
% 61,9
%
utilisation
(66) As concerns the impact on the UI of the magnitude of
the actual margins of dumping found (4,7 %), given the
low overall volume of the imports from the Russian
index 100 98 100 101
Federation and the relatively low dumping margin, this
impact cannot be considered to be significant.
(h) S t o c k s
(c) S a l e s v o l u m e
(67) The level of closing stocks of the UI decreased between
(62) The
sales
by
the
UI
on
the
Union
market
increased
by
2009 and the RIP.
7 % between 2009 and the RIP.
Sampled producers 2009 2010 2011 RIP
UI 2009 2010 2011 RIP
Closing stock (in 11 723 10
240 9
813 10
489
Sales to unrelated 116 902 133
824 131
085 124
524
tonnes)
parties in the
Union (in tonnes)
index 100 87 84 89
index 100 114 112 107
(i)
S
a
l
e
s p
r
i
c
e
s a
n
d f
a
c
t
o
r
s a
f
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
d o m e s t i c p r i c e s
(d) M a r k e t s h a r e
(68) Unit sales prices of the UI increased by 8 % between
(63) The
UI
managed
to
keep
its
market
share
relatively
stable
2009 and the RIP. This price development is linked to
during the period considered, i.e. at 60 % in 2009 and at
the fact that the UI was able to pass on the increase in
59 % during the RIP.
the cost of production (by 8 %) onto users. It is also
linked to the progressive migration of the UI towards
UI 2009 2010 2011 RIP
larger diameter SWR and a higher focus on special
purpose ropes.
Market share 60
% 65
% 61
% 59
%
Sampled producers 2009 2010 2011 RIP
index 100 108 102 98
Average unit
3 625 3
658 3
809 3
911
sales price in the
EU (EUR/tonne)
(e) G r o w t h
Index 100 101 105 108
(64) Between 2009 and the RIP, when the Union
consumption increased by 8 %, the sales volume of the
UI increased as well by 7 %. The market share of the UI
can therefore be considered as being stable, though it
(j) W a g e s
slightly lost market share, whereas the imports from
the Russian Federation did slightly increase.
(69) Between 2009 and the RIP, the average wage per full
time equivalent (FTE) increased by 20 % during the
(f) E m p l o y m e n t
period considered. Following the restructuring of some
sampled companies, the proportion of white collar versus
(65) While
the
sampled
Union
producers
showed
an
increase
blue collar employees increased during the period
of 5 % during the period considered, the estimation by
considered, which is reflected in the increased average
the applicant of the level of employment of the entire UI
salary cost per employee.

---

EN
17.12.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
338/9
Sampled producers 2009 2010 2011 RIP
(n) R e t u r n o n i n v e s t m e n t s
Wages per FTE
42 393 45
174 48
718 51
052
(73) The
return
on
investments
(ROI),
expressed
as
the
total
(EUR)
profit generated by the SWR activity in per cent of the
net book value of assets directly and indirectly related to
index 100 107 115 120
the production of SWR, broadly followed the above
profitability trends over the whole period considered.
Despite the drop, this indicator remains quite high.
(k) P r o d u c t i v i t y
(70) Productivity
of
the
UI’s
workforce,
measured
as
output
Sampled producers 2009 2010 2011 RIP
per FTE employed per year, was volatile over the period
considered as it decreased in 2010 before going up again
ROI 37,7
% 23,4
% 25
% 23
%
in 2011 and in the RIP.
index 100 62 66 61
UI 2009 2010 2011 RIP
(o) C a s h f l o w
Productivity 58 52 53 55
(74) The
cash-flow
situation
remains
overall
very
positive,
index 100 88 90 94
despite some deterioration between 2009 and the RIP:
it follows to a certain extent the profitability trends over
the whole period considered.
(l) I n v e s t m e n t s
a n d
a b i l i t y
t o
r a i s e
Sampled producers 2009 2010 2011 RIP
c a p i t a l
Cash Flow (EUR
57 545 40
640 38
297 43
380
(71) Investments in SWR increased by 271 % over the period
1 000)
considered, were significant and amounted to almost
EUR 16 million during the RIP. The sampled producers
did not face difficulty to raise capital over the period
index 100 71 67 75
considered. Moreover, a large proportion of the
investments could be financed by own generated cash
flows.
(p) R e c o v e r y f r o m t h e e f f e c t s o f p a s t
d u m p i n g
(75) The majority of the indicators show that the UI adapted
Sampled producers 2009 2010 2011 RIP
its production equipment to better face the new
economic environment and be able to seize opportunities
Investments (EUR
5 845 6
025 12
656 15
839
on Union and non-Union markets in segments where
1 000)
high margins can be achieved. The improvement in the
economic and financial situation of the UI, further to the
index 100 103 217 271
imposition of anti-dumping measures in 2001, evidence
that the measures are effective and that the UI has
recovered from the effects of past dumping practices.
(m) P r o f i t a b i l i t y o n t h e U n i o n m a r k e t
4.2. Conclusion
(72) The
sampled
producers
managed
to
achieve
profits
over
(76) During the period considered the UI managed more or
the whole period considered. The profits achieved from
less to maintain its market share, prices increased by 8 %,
2009 to the RIP — despite the drop compared to 2009
stocks remained at a reasonable level while production
— were well above the target profit of 5 % set in the
volume and consumption increased. The UI was
original investigation.
profitable throughout the period considered, although
profits were at a lower level in the RIP than in 2009.
Considering the above, it can be concluded that the UI
did not suffer material injury over the period considered.
Sampled producers 2009 2010 2011 RIP
F. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY
Profitability on
14,8 % 10,1
% 10,6
% 10,6
%
the Union market
(77) It
has
also
been
examined
whether
the
recurrence
of
material injury would be likely if the measures were
index 100 68 72 72
allowed to lapse. It is assessed that this is not likely to
happen for the reasons as explained below.

---

L 338/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
17.12.2013
(78) As
highlighted
in
recital
54
prices
of
imports
from
the
Federation should be repealed and the present proceeding
Russian Federation were found to undercut EU prices.
terminated in accordance with Articles 9(2) and 11(2) of
However, given the low volumes of matching product
the basic Regulation.
types, the present undercutting margin may only be
considered to be indicative.
(84) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
(79) As explained in recital 51, the volume of imports of the
considerations on the basis of which it is intended to
product concerned originating in the Russian Federation
recommend that the existing measures be terminated
was 2 005 tonnes in 2009 and 2 343 tonnes during the
with regard to imports originating in the Russian Feder
RIP, representing a market share of respectively 1,03 %
ation. They were also granted a period to make repre
and 1,11 %.
sentations subsequent to this disclosure. Comments were
received by one interested party which also requested and
was granted a hearing in the presence of the hearing
(80) As
explained
in
recitals
43
and
45,
the
total
Russian
officer,
capacity is estimated to be about 158 000 tonnes,
whereas during the last investigation this was estimated
to be approximately at the level of the total EU
consumption, namely 220 000 tonnes. Furthermore,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
the spare capacities appear currently to be limited.
(81) During the last investigation, the Russian market was
Article 1
assessed as not able to absorb the level of supply.
The anti-dumping measures concerning imports of steel ropes
Currently, as explained in recital 36, the domestic
and cables including locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and
consumption of SWR in Russia experienced a
cables of stainless steel, with a maximum cross-sectional
considerable growth by 38 % in the period considered.
dimension exceeding 3 mm, with fittings attached or not, orig
In addition, publicly available economic forecasts
inating in the Russian Federation and currently falling within
estimate a strong GDP growth in the Russian Federation
CN codes ex 7312 10 81, ex 7312 10 83, ex 7312 10 85,
in the coming years. The Russian spare capacity, as
ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98, are hereby repealed and
mentioned in recital 45, is therefore likely to be
the proceeding concerning these imports is terminated.
absorbed by the growing Russian market as Russian
prices are around 11 % higher than export prices to
the EU. In addition, Russian export prices to other
markets, notably the CIS countries are on average
Article 2
5,6 % higher than the export prices to the EU. It is
therefore unlikely that substantial quantities of either
The expiry review proceeding of the anti-dumping measures
the spare capacity or their current sales on the more
applicable to imports of steel ropes and cables including
beneficial domestic market and/or in CIS country
locked coil ropes, excluding ropes and cables of stainless steel,
markets will be redirected to the Union market.
with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm,
with fittings attached or not, currently falling within CN
codes
ex 7312 10 81,
ex 7312 10 83,
ex 7312 10 85,
(82) In the light of the above, it is concluded that the repeal
ex 7312 10 89 and ex 7312 10 98 and originating in the
of the measures on imports originating in the Russian
Russian Federation, initiated pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regu
Federation would in all likelihood not result in the
lation (EC) No 1225/2009, is hereby terminated.
recurrence of material injury to the UI as whole.
G. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
Article 3
(83) In the light of the above, the anti-dumping measures
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
applicable to imports of SWR from the Russian
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 December 2013.
For the Council
The President
J. NEVEROVIC

---

Document Outline

• �

---