HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
10.10.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
275/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 924/2012
of 4 October 2012
amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
— Articles 6.10 and 9.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping
Agreement with respect to Article 9(5) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
2009 on protection against dumped imports from
Union,
countries not members of the European Commu
nity ( 4 ) (‘the basic Regulation’) as applied in the inves
tigation on the imports of certain iron or steel
fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 of
China (‘the fasteners investigation’),
23 July 2001 on the measures that may be taken by the
Community following a report adopted by the WTO Dispute
Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy
— Articles 6.4, 6.2 and 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping
matters ( 1 ) (‘the WTO enabling Regulation’), in particular
Agreement with respect to certain aspects of the
Article 1 thereof,
dumping determination in the fasteners investigation,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
— Article 4.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement
Commission after consultation of the Advisory Committee,
with respect to the definition of the Union industry
in the fasteners investigation,
Whereas:
— Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping
Agreement with respect to the consideration of the
A. MEASURES IN FORCE
volume of dumped imports in the fasteners investi
gation,
(1) The
Council
by
Regulation
(EC)
No
91/2009
( 2 ) imposed
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron
or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of
— Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the WTO Anti-Dumping
China (‘the definitive Regulation’).
Agreement with respect to the causation analysis in
the fasteners investigation, and
B. REPORTS ADOPTED BY THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
— Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping
BODY OF THE WTO
Agreement with respect to the treatment of
(2) On
28
July
2011,
the
Dispute
Settlement
Body
(‘DSB’)
of
confidential information in the fasteners investigation.
the World Trade Organization (‘WTO’) adopted the
Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report as
modified by the Appellate Body Report in the dispute
C. PROCEDURE
‘European Communities — Definitive Anti-Dumping
Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from
(3) On
6
March
2012,
pursuant
to
the
WTO
enabling
Regu
China’ (
lation, a review was initiated by the publication of a

3 ) (‘Reports’). In these Reports, it was found,
inter alia, that the EU acted inconsistently with:
Notice ( 5 ) in the Official Journal of the European Union
(‘the Notice of Initiation’). The European Commission
informed parties to the investigation which led to Regu
( 1 ) OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p. 10.
lation (EC) No 91/2009 (‘the original investigation’) of
( 2 ) OJ L 29, 31.1.2009, p. 1.
( 3 ) WTO, Report of the Appellate Body, AB-2011-2, WT/DS397/AB/R,
15 July 2011. WTO, Report of the Panel, WT/DS397/R, 3 December
( 4 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
2010.
( 5 ) OJ C 66, 6.3.2012, p. 29.

---

L 275/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
10.10.2012
the review and of the manner in which the findings of
Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to Article 9(5) of
the Reports in regard to the definitive Regulation was
the basic Regulation as applied in the fasteners original
intended to be taken into account.
investigation.
D.
(11) As
mentioned
in
recitals
81
and
84
of
the
definitive
PRODUCT CONCERNED
Regulation, all of the five sampled exporting producers
(4) The
product
concerned
is
certain
iron
or
steel
fasteners,
as well as three individually examined exporting
other than of stainless steel, i.e. wood screws (excluding
producers which claimed individual treatment (‘IT’) were
coach screws), self-tapping screws, other screws and bolts
found to meet all the requirements to be granted IT in
with heads (whether or not with their nuts or washers,
accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. As
but excluding screws turned from bars, rods, profiles or
stated in recitals 62 and 78 of the definitive Regulation,
wire, of solid section, of a shank thickness not exceeding
four exporting producers originally part of the sample, as
6 mm and excluding screws and bolts for fixing railway
well as one company granted individual examination
track construction material), and washers, originating in
were considered as non-cooperating companies, since
the People’s Republic of China (referred to as ‘fasteners’
they submitted information not consistent with the
or ‘product concerned’).
evidence in the course of the investigation.
(12) In the light of the recommendations regarding Article 9(5)
(5) The
product
concerned
is
currently
falling
within
CN
of the basic Regulation contained in the Reports, the
codes
7318 12 90,
7318 14 91,
7318 14 99,
Commission invited exporting producers in the People’s
7318 15 59, 7318 15 69, 7318 15 81, 7318 15 89,
Republic of China to come forward and provide the
ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 21 00 and ex 7318 22 00.
necessary information to review their current situation
if their exports to the European Union are currently
subject to the anti-dumping measures in force on
(6) The
Reports
do
not
affect
the
findings
set
out
in
recitals
imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in
40 to 57 of the definitive Regulation concerning the
the People’s Republic of China; and they considered
product concerned and the like product.
themselves to have been discouraged from cooperating
and requesting IT in the original investigation because of
the administrative burden entailed by, or because they
considered that they did not meet all the criteria in,
E. REVISED FINDINGS BASED ON THE REPORTS
Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
(7)
As indicated in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission
reassessed the definitive findings of the original investi
(13) The Commission invited
those producers to declare
gation by taking account of the recommendations and
whether they considered themselves to have been
rulings of the DSB. This reassessment was based on
discouraged from cooperating and requesting IT in the
information collected in the original investigation and
original investigation because of the administrative
information collected after the publication of the Notice.
burden entailed by, or because they considered that
they did not meet all the criteria in Article 9(5) of the
basic Regulation. Those interested parties were invited to
(8) The
original
investigation
of
dumping
and
injury
covered
come forward within 30 days following the publication
the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007
of the Notice of Initiation and to provide the following
(‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). With respect to the
two elements of information:
parameters relevant in the context of the injury
assessment, data covering the period from 1 January
2003 to the end of the investigation period were
— whether they considered themselves to have been
analysed (‘period considered’).
discouraged from cooperating and requesting IT at
the time of the initiation of the initial investigation,
and
(9) This Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the
definitive Regulation found to be inconsistent by the
— provide information on export quantities to the
DSB in the Reports it adopted and bring into conformity
European Union and export prices covering the IP
the definitive Regulation with the DSB recommendations
used in the original investigation.
and rulings.
(14) Some
exporting
producers
in
the
PRC
expressed
concerns
1. Individual Treatment: application of Article 9(5)
regarding the implementing procedure of the DSB
in the definitive Regulation
Reports laid down in the Notice of Initiation. They
underlined in particular that they considered the
(10) This
section sets out the reassessed findings of the
deadlines published to be too short. They claimed that
original investigation regarding the following recommen
an undue administrative burden had been placed on
dations and rulings of the Reports that the EU acted
exporting producers, having a dissuasive effect and
inconsistently with Articles 6.10 and 9.2 of the WTO
preventing them from receiving individual treatment.

---

EN
10.10.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
275/3
(15) The
concern
expressed
by
those
exporting
producers
was
original investigation. This showed that they had not
considered to be not founded. The Commission
been discouraged from cooperating and requesting IT
considered this deadline appropriate in view of the
in the original investigation and their situation could
administrative burden and the small amount of
therefore not be re-examined in the context of the
information requested. The Notice of Initiation
current review; one of these 10 companies which
explained that a review of the current situation of an
requested a review of its current duties was invited
exporting producer would be considered once an appli
to submit a review request to the Commission
cation was received including the following information:
pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
— a simple statement that the exporting producer
— One company was a new exporting producer (i.e. it
considers to have been discouraged and therefore
had not exported to the EU during the original inves
had not cooperated and requested IT, and
tigation). This company was therefore not in a
position to cooperate and request IT in the original
investigation for that reason. It was informed of the
— very basic figures showing that it exported the
procedures for claiming New Exporting Producer
product concerned to the EU during the original
Treatment pursuant to Article 2 of the definitive
investigation period.
Regulation.
(16) The
sole
purpose
of
requesting
this
information
was
to
allow the Commission to identify those exporting
— Two were considered not to be exporting producers
producers that would have been in a position to
but trading companies so they were informed that
cooperate and request IT during the original investigation
they were not concerned by this review.
but considered themselves to have been discouraged
from doing so. A deadline of 30 days was considered
to be appropriate to reply to a request for a simple
— Two exporting producers stated that they complied
statement and very basic figures and cannot be
with the criteria and requested that their situation be
regarded as imposing a disproportionate administrative
examined. However, one of these companies
burden. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and a
subsequently withdrew its application.
Chinese exporting producer argued that by requesting
the information mentioned in recital 15 above, the
Commission imposed conditions on Chinese exporting
producers, although IT should be granted as rule
(18) The
companies
having
made
enquiries
were
given
the
pursuant to Articles 6.10 and 9.3 of the WTO Anti-
opportunity to comment on the information provided
Dumping Agreement. This approach was contrary to
to them.
the recommendations of the DSB reports and these
parties invited the Commission to contact Chinese
exporting producers ex officio and indicate they will be
granted IT. In this respect, the Commission considers
(19) The exporting producer stating that it complied with the
criteria and requesting that its situation be examined was
that, by publishing the Notice of Initiation which was
found to fall within the criteria laid down in point 1 of
sent to all known Chinese exporting producers and
the Notice of Initiation. This exporting producer also
their trade association and national authorities, the
requested individual examination under Article 17(3) of
Commission has contacted all Chinese exporting
the basic Regulation claiming that if it would not have
producers inviting them to come forward within 30
been discouraged from cooperating during the original
days, should they have exported during the original
investigation it would have requested such treatment.
investigation period and not made themselves known
Taking into account that during the original investi
during the original investigation. This latter question
gation, all of the exporting producers who had made
should not be considered as a ‘condition’ in the sense
such a request were individually examined, for reasons
of a ‘test’ as presented by the said parties, but rather as a
of equal treatment, its request was accepted.
statement of fact showing that they were actually

concerned by the original investigation. Finally, it
should be noted that questions related to exported
products are requested for the purpose of verifying
(20) A
Notice
was
published
on
6
June
2012
( 1 ) announcing
whether the sample originally chosen needed to be
the review of the current situation for this exporting
amended and are not related to the issue of IT. This
producer, Bulten Fasteners (China) Co., Ltd (‘BFC’). The
claim was therefore rejected.
exported quantities of this exporting producer during the
IP amounted to less than 0,4 % of the total exports from
the PRC during the IP. In view of this, the Commission
(17) Of
the
15
companies
that
came
forward
following
the
considered that there was no need to modify the original
publication of the Notice of Initiation and made enquiries
sample of exporting producers. A questionnaire was sent
within the deadline:
to the exporting producer in the PRC and its related
companies in the EU involved in the resale of the
product concerned during the original IP.
— Ten companies were exporting producers that had
already come forward and cooperated with the
( 1 ) OJ C 160, 6.6.2012, p. 19.

---

L 275/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
10.10.2012
(21) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
the
information
to have the same basic physical and technical character
deemed necessary for a determination of dumping and
istics as products exported from the PRC.
carried out verifications at the premises of the following
related companies:
(27) The
normal
value
was
expressed
ex-works,
adjusted
to
take account of the price effect of the quality control
— Bulten Sweden AB, Gteborg, Sweden,
step performed by the Indian producer which was not
performed in China. The result was therefore two lists of
normal values in Chinese Yuan (CNY) per kg by strength
— Bulten GmbH, Bergkamen, Germany.
class, one for standard fasteners and one for special
fasteners.
(22) The
Commission
concluded
that
BFC
should
be
granted
IT in accordance with the recommendations concerning
2.1. Information disclosure note of 30 May 2012
Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation in the DSB reports.
(28) On
30
May
2012
additional
information
was
disclosed
to all interested parties regarding the product types used
for the purposes of comparing normal value and export
2. Certain aspect of the dumping determination in
price. As stated in the Notice of Initiation, more precise
the fasteners investigations
information regarding the product characteristics which
were found to be pertinent in the determination of the
(23) This
section sets out the reassessed findings of the
original investigation regarding the following recommen
normal value was provided to all interested parties.
dations and rulings of the Reports that the EU acted
inconsistently with Articles 6.4, 6.2 and 2.4 of the
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to certain
(29) The
content
of
the
information
disclosure
note
related
to
aspects of the dumping determination in the fasteners
the normal value which was determined based on the
original investigation.
prices of the product concerned sold on the domestic
market by the Indian cooperating producer. According
to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value
(24) In the context of the open dialogue held with some
for the exporting producers not granted MET had to be
Chinese exporting producers and the Chamber of
established on the basis of the prices or constructed value
Commerce, more detailed information regarding the
in an analogue country. Two Indian producers agreed to
product characteristics of the products sold by the
cooperate by replying to a questionnaire. The data
Indian cooperating producer was provided to the
submitted in their questionnaire replies were verified at
parties in order to address the recommendations of the
the premises of these two companies. However, only one
WTO DSB regarding Articles 6.4, 6.2 and 2.4 of the
of the companies provided sufficiently detailed data to be
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, as mentioned in
used as a basis for establishing normal value.
recitals 28 to 53 above. This information covered in
particular the product characteristics which were found
to be pertinent in the determination of the normal value
(30) As
mentioned
in
recital
90
of
the
definitive
Regulation,
‘a
and that were used in the comparison with the product
number of importers and exporters questioned the
concerned, i.e. the fact that the Indian domestic sales
appropriateness of using the data from the latter Indian
have been divided into ‘standard’ sales and ‘special’
producer on the grounds that: (i) the quantity produced
sales and the strength class of each transaction has
and sold in the Indian domestic market by this producer
been identified. A normal value per kg was then
would allegedly not be representative of the quantity
calculated for each strength class as identified in the
exported from the PRC to the Community; and (ii) this
PCN table.
Indian producer has alleged commercial links with one of
the Community producers supporting the complaint. In
this respect, it should be noted that: (i) the sales volume
(25) The
Commission
concentrated
on
two
crucial
elements
of the Indian producer were considered sufficiently repre
of comparison, namely strength class and standard versus
sentative to allow for the establishment of reliable
special fasteners, as indicated in recitals 48 to 50 of the
normal, values; and (ii) the fact that the analogue
definitive Regulation. The distinction between special vs
country producer has links to a Community producer
standard was added as a new element of comparison
supporting the complaint does not make the choice of
during the investigation and the strength class was used
that analogue country unreasonable. It was also noted
as the other main comparison criterion as submitted by
that these links were established after the IP. Given the
most of the Chinese exporting producers themselves
above and the absence of cooperation from other third
during the original investigation.
country producers, the choice of India as analogue
country was considered reasonable’.
(26) As
mentioned
in
recital
56
of
the
definitive
Regulation,
standard fasteners produced in the analogue country
(31) Given the conditions of competition and openness of the
could be compared with the fasteners exported to the
Indian market, and the fact that the cooperating Indian
EU by the sampled PRC producers as they were found
producer sold product types comparable to those

---

EN
10.10.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
275/5
exported by the PRC exporting producers, it was
not performed in China. The result was therefore two
concluded that India was a suitable market economy
lists of normal values in Chinese Yuan (CNY) per kg
third country within the meaning of Article 2(7) of the
by strength class, one for standard fasteners and one
basic Regulation.
for special fasteners.
(32) The
information
disclosure
note
stated
that
the
data
(37) The
Commission
informed
all
interested
parties
that
the
regarding domestic sales covered the investigation
normal value could not be disclosed as it concerns the
period but without the Product Control Number
confidential price of a single Indian producer on the
(‘PCN’). The Indian producer, however, was able to
domestic market. However, interested parties were
identify the strength class of the fastener sold, and also
informed that the ‘standard’ normal value for an 8.8
whether that fastener was ‘standard’ or ‘special’ as defined
strength class fastener (‘G’ in the PCN table), which is a
in the definitive Regulation. The need to distinguish
standard type commonly exported by Chinese producers,
between standard and special fasteners had not been
was calculated in the range of 9 to 12 CNY per kg ex-
identified at the start of the investigation when the
works.
PCN had been created.
2.2. Comments received to the information disclosure note of
(33) However,
the
Commission
noted
that
this
distinction
affected price comparability and therefore this data was
30 May 2012
requested from the Indian producer and was provided.
(38) One
importer
and
four
exporting
producers
alleged
that
Indian domestic sales were therefore divided into
the time given to parties to comment on the additional
‘standard’ sales and ‘special’ sales and then the strength
information (10 days) was too short. However, the
class of each transaction was identified. A normal value
Commission considers that the abovementioned time
per kg was calculated for each strength class as originally
limit was appropriate, given that the information
identified in the PCN table.
provided was only a supplement to that already
disclosed in the definitive Regulation, at the end of the
original investigation. The time granted to examine and
(34) The
remaining
characteristics
of
the
original
PCN
were
comment on this additional information was therefore
not used, not only because the Indian producer was not
considered reasonable.
able to provide the data at this level of detail, but also for
the following reasons:
(39) Some
parties
alleged
that
the
Commission
had
stated
that
— diameter and length were not considered relevant
it did not have any new information regarding the
because the analysis was performed on the basis of
physical characteristics other than strength class of the
weight, thus automatically taking into account any
products used for the determination of the normal value.
differences resulting from different diameter or
That claim should be rejected. At that stage of the review,
length of the fastener,
the Commission was merely providing additional clarifi
cation about how normal value had been established in
the original investigation. It is important to emphasise
— there was no indication that there were any
that ‘strength’ had been identified as one of the
differences in terms of chrome on coating or
relevant characteristics by the Chinese exporting
coating in general — in essence an indicator of
producers. However, this did not imply that the
galvanisation — between the Indian producer’s
Commission did not have any information regarding
products and Chinese fasteners,
other physical characteristics.
— in respect of the only other remaining PCN element,
(40) The
same
parties
claimed
that
the
Commission
stated,
the CN code, it was considered that it would not be a
during hearings, in regard to possible adjustments to be
reliable indicator since the Chinese or Indian auth
made for the purpose of comparison between export
orities do not distinguish between the 10 CN codes
prices and the normal value that a preference would be
used to define the product concerned as do the EU
given for adjusting on the basis of a price analysis rather
authorities.
than a cost analysis. In fact the Commission clarified that
according to Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, a
comparison should be made with due account taken of
(35) The
Commission
therefore
concentrated
on
two
crucial
differences which affect price comparability and not to
differences between products: strength class, on the one
cost differences.
hand; and standard vs special fasteners, which is an
indicator of customer differences and quality differences,
on the other hand.
(41) Subsequently,
these parties repeated their claim that
adjustments should be made to take into account the
differences in cost of production such as differences in
(36) The
normal
value
was
expressed
ex-works,
minus
an
efficiency of consumption of the raw material; differences
adjustment to remove the price effect of the quality
in wire rod consumption; in electricity consumption, in
control performed by the Indian producer which was
self-generated electricity, in productivity per employee, in

---

L 275/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
10.10.2012
reasonable profit level and in differences related to
Indicator Diameter Length
tooling. As stated above, Article 2(10) of the basic Regu
lation is referring to price and not cost. There was no
Small M4
to
M10 0
to
100
mm
evidence adduced by these parties that the alleged
differences in cost translated into differences in prices.
Medium M12
to
M20 100
to
200
mm
In investigations concerning economies in transition
such as China, an analogue country is used when
warranted to prevent account being taken of prices and
Large M22
to
M30 200
to
300
mm
costs in non-market economy countries which are not
the normal result of market forces. Thus, for the purpose
of establishing the normal value, a surrogate of the costs
— The Commission therefore proposed to use this data
and prices of producers in functioning market economies
to further refine the normal value and calculate
is used. Therefore, these claims for adjustments taking
dumping margins on this basis. Where exported
into account the differences in cost of production are
fasteners did not fall into these ranges they would
rejected.
not be used in the dumping calculation. This
affected only a very small amount of exports.
(42) These parties further argued that the additional
information provided on 30 May 2012 regarding the
— The Commission provided for reference the proposed
characteristics of the products sold by the Indian
revised PCN:
producer was incomplete in so far as information
regarding the following issues was allegedly missing:
differences related to type of fastener; coating and use
Indicator Description PCN
of chrome; diameter and length; traceability; ISO 9000;
unit of defective rate; and other aspects of hardness,
Standard/Special Standard
fastener
S
bending, strength, impact toughness and other friction
coefficients. They sought clarification regarding the
reasons why the remaining characteristics of the
Special fastener
P
original PCN were not deemed relevant. These issues
were explained in two information disclosure notes
Strength class 3.6
A
respectively sent on 5 July 2012 and put in the file for
inspection by interested parties on 11 July 2012.
4.6
B
4.8
C
2.3. Information disclosure note of 5 July 2012
(43) Following
the
request
of
additional
information
made
by
5.6
D
the parties as mentioned in recital 42 above, a second
information disclosure note was sent to all interested
5.8
E
parties on 5 July 2012. In this note, the following
additional information was provided:
6.8
F
— A table showing the ranges of the price levels of the
8.8
G
normal values calculated by strength class for
standard fasteners sold on the Indian domestic
9.8
H
market, to independent customers, by the sole
Indian cooperating producer. It was also specified
10.9
I
that the vast majority of exports by the Chinese
producers fall under strength class G.
12.9
J
— An in-depth analysis of the data in India showed that
Coating Electroplated
coating
A
standard fasteners sold on the domestic market were
electroplated corresponding to the PCN Code ‘A’.
Diameter M4
to
M10
S
Therefore, the Commission proposed to compare
the normal value with coating type A for exported
M12 to M20
M
models.
M22 to M30
L
— Following a manual analysis of the Indian domestic
price data, information on diameter and length were
Length 0
to
100
mm
S
extracted from the text string of sales coding used by
the Indian producer. To allow for a comparison with
101 to 200 mm
M
the exports of the Chinese companies, this data was
summarised into ranges to distinguish between the
201 to 300 mm
L
main product dimensions:

---

EN
10.10.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
275/7
— The Commission provided an overview of the
evidenced by the minutes produced by the Hearing
dumping margins modified as per the proposal
Officer for Trade DG, the Commission stated before
listed in the information disclosure note, noting
the end of the hearing that it would have to clarify
that these revised anti-dumping margins would not
this issue, which it did in a further note for information
be automatically the anti-dumping duties, which
of 13 July 2012 that was sent to the parties which
would be subject to the lesser duty rule.
participated in the hearing and was placed in the non-
confidential file for consultation by all interested parties.
The statement made by the said parties according to
which the Commission stated that ‘the split of the
normal value between special and standard fasteners
— Finally, new Tables 22, 23, 32, 33 and 34 of one EU
was carried out, inter alia, on the basis of the names
producer were provided in reply to the comments
of the customers’, is therefore incomplete as more
made by some interested parties that the additional
information regarding this issue has been provided as
information provided with the information disclosure
mentioned in the recital below.
note of 30 May 2012 was incomplete, in so far as
some elements in those Tables were missing or not
properly summarised.
(47) On
the
difference
between
standard
and
special
fasteners,
the Commission’s note of 13 July 2012 explained that ‘it
2.4. Comments to the information disclosure note of 5 July
cannot be excluded that the automotive industry also
2012
uses standard fasteners for certain applications’. Some
parties argued that the Commission considered that auto
(44) Some
parties
requested
additional
information
on
the
motive fasteners could also have been regarded as
price level of the normal value. As mentioned in recital
standard. Such allegation is unfounded. As is clearly
82 below, the price level could not be disclosed to
explained in that note, the Commission’s statement was
interested parties as it is confidential information
made in the absence of a customer list from the Indian
concerning the prices of a single analogue producer.
producer. However, as established in the original investi
However, a non-confidential version of the normal
gation and further explained in Section 2.7 below, for
value by strength class for standard fasteners was
quality and commercial reasons, automotive producers
disclosed on 5 July 2012 to those Chinese exporting
always order fasteners which are custom designed in
producers who requested such further information and
order to comply with that industry’s ISO requirements.
was also placed in the file for inspection by interested
Therefore, all fasteners destined for the automotive sector
parties. In this note, the Commission provided a table
that are considered as ‘special’ products by fasteners
showing the ranges of the price levels of the normal
producers, including in India, according to information
values calculated by strength class for standard fasteners
found on the websites of Indian automotive manufac
sold on the Indian domestic market, to independent
turers. Since the Indian producer clearly defined as
customers, by the sole Indian cooperating producer.
‘special fasteners’ all parts manufactured to a custom
design, the Commission considers that standard
fasteners destined to the automotive industry were not
included in the list of standard fasteners provided during
the original investigation.
(45) Some
parties
also
argued
that
the
Commission
informed
them during a hearing held on 26 June 2012 that the
Indian domestic sales were of two types of coating ‘A’
and ‘B’ according to the PCN table used in the original
investigation. This allegation is not founded. The
Commission informed the said parties that at that stage
(48) The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and a Chinese
of the review it was examining the types of coating used
exporting producer made similar claims as above
by the Indian producer on standard fasteners. During a
regarding the possible inclusion of fasteners destined to
subsequent hearing held on 3 July 2012 and by means of
the automotive sector in the normal value and, in
an information note placed on 11 July 2012 in the file
addition, alleged that automotive fasteners which are
for inspection by interested parties, all parties were
not made according to a specific customer design still
informed that the Indian producer was using coating
have to go through a special quality control or have to
‘A’ for the production of standard fasteners.
respect traceability requirements making them more
expensive and should normally be considered as special
fasteners. They claimed that the Commission’s findings
according to which fasteners used for high-end appli
cations but not manufactured according to user’s
(46) During
a
hearing
held
on
11
July
2012,
the
same
parties
drawings had nevertheless been considered as special
asked the Commission to explain how the split of the
fasteners were baseless, and thereby the Commission
normal value between special and standard fasteners by
acted inconsistently with Article 2(10) of the basic Regu
the Indian producer had been carried out. The
lation by breaching the principle of a fair comparison.
Commission indicated that it had been done on the
Furthermore, they considered that the Commission’s
basis of the names of the customers. However, as
findings based on the split made by the Indian

---

L 275/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
10.10.2012
producer had not been subject to an on-spot verification
the PRC exports and that India was not a credible
visit. In the light of the above, they requested the
supplier of these products for export markets.
Commission to review the distinction between standard
and special fasteners and if not possible, to revert to a
different normal value data set.
(52) As
regards
the
appropriateness
of
the
choice
of
the
Indian analogue country producer, reference is made to
the last part of recital 49 above. In relation to the general
claim that Chinese export prices reflected the benefits of
(49) The reasoning of the Commission regarding the
high-volume production, these claims were not
distinction between standard and special fasteners is
substantiated or quantified in a meaningful manner that
already addressed in recital 47 above. With regard to
could assist in the analysis being carried out at that stage
the claim concerning the absence of verification of the
of the review. As regards the request for additional
split made by the Indian producer, the Commission
information regarding the Indian producer’s data,
verified the sales listing through a number of ‘walk-
reference is made to recital 82 regarding confidentiality.
through’ tests (i.e. in-depth verification of a sample of
With regard to the claim that the exports from India
sales transactions included in the sales listing in order
were not comparable to those from the PRC during
to verify its accuracy) as per standard verification prac
the IP and after the IP, for the determination of the
tices. In addition, the subsequent split of that sales listing
normal value, it is the Indian domestic prices which
provided by the Indian producer was checked against an
are considered to be relevant according to the basic
average price level of the split as explained in the said
Regulation and not the Indian export prices. Therefore,
note. Therefore, the allegation that the Commission took
these claims from EFDA were unfounded.
at face value the data provided by the Indian producer is
not founded.
(53) Regarding the issue of the coating applied by the Indian
producer, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and a
Chinese exporting producer expressed doubts and
(50) In addition, the criteria used by the Indian producer to
requested the Commission to explain how the
define special fasteners, i.e. according to customer
confidential information offered is conclusive proof that
drawing as mentioned in recital 47 above, provides
the Indian producer only sold electro-plated fasteners on
sufficient assurance of the reliability of the data. In the
its domestic market. During the verification, the Indian
original investigation the Commission already made an
producer provided evidence that allowed the Commission
adjustment to the normal value to take into account
to conclude that standard fasteners sold domestically
quality control steps applied by the Indian producer
were electroplated, corresponding to the coating type
which were not found for Chinese sampled producers.
‘A’ of the original PCN. In these circumstances, the
Under these circumstances, the Commission does not
Commission considers that the evidence in the file is
consider it necessary to resort to another normal value
sufficient to conclude that standard fasteners sold on
data set as suggested by the parties concerned. Finally, as
the domestic market were electroplated. In this respect,
mentioned in recital 89 of the definitive Regulation
an adjustment was made for difference in chrome, as
despite the efforts of the Commission no other
mentioned in recital 81 below.
producers from any possible analogue country offered
to cooperate in the proceeding.
2.5. Further information requested after the information
disclosure note of 5 July 2012
(51) Regarding the use of the data of the Indian analogue
(54) Some
exporting
producers
requested
further
clarifications
country producer for the determination of the normal
and information in order to be able to make a possible
value, the Association of European Distributors (EFDA)
request for adjustments to their own dumping margin as
claimed that such technique was not appropriate given
established in the original investigation, based on the
that its product range, production volume, customer
following considerations:
profile, distribution method and market position were
not comparable to the situation of the Chinese
exporting producers. In addition, it claimed that the
Chinese prices were low because they reflected the
(a) characteristics of the ‘product types’ used (CN codes,
benefits of high-volume production of standard
strength class, standard vs special parts) for the deter
products since they are specialised and efficient
mination of the normal value;
producers. Moreover, it requested more detailed
information regarding the Indian producer’s prices and
production volume of standard fasteners. Finally, EFDA
submitted Eurostat data to support their allegations that a
comparison regarding export prices from the PRC and
(b) further information regarding characteristics of the
India for two specific CN codes would show that the
products sold by the Indian producer used for the
Indian exports of these products were less than 4 % of
determination of the normal value;

---

EN
10.10.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
275/9
(c) clarification regarding the reasons why the remaining
PCN basis or whether average costs had been used; and
characteristics of the original PCN were not used; and
whether the normal value included sales to any related
companies.
(d) adjustments to be made for difference in physical
characteristics.
(60) All
relevant
information
regarding
the
normal
value
were
mentioned in recital 94 of the definitive Regulation. It is
also specified that only domestic sales to unrelated
companies were used.
(55) Regarding point (a) above, as mentioned in the
information note provided on 30 May 2012, the
strength class of the fasteners sold by the Indian
(61) These
two
exporting
producers
later
argued
that
they
had
cooperating producer was the indicator of strength
serious doubts about whether the profitability and the
contained in the PCN used in the questionnaire sent to
representativity tests were carried out in a correct way.
all parties. The strength class was identified by using the
More specifically with regard to the representativity test,
same relevant element of the PCN by the Indian producer
these exporting producers doubted that the quantities of
on the sales listings verified during the on-spot verifi
the domestic sales of the Indian producer were above
cation visit.
5 % of their export sales per the revised product
groups. In regard to the representativity test it was
found that in cases where the 5 % test was not met for
(56) The
distinction
between
special
and
standard
fasteners
a particular product type, domestic sales were
was explained in recital 54 of the definitive Regulation.
nonetheless found to be of sufficient magnitude to
‘Special’ fasteners are those manufactured to a customer
provide for a proper comparison. With regard to the
drawing. ‘Standard’ fasteners are those manufactured for
profitability test, it is confirmed that this was carried
stock and not to the specifications of a particular
out on a product type basis.
customer. The need to differentiate between standard
and special fasteners produced by the Indian cooperating
producer had been fully recognised and as mentioned in
(62) With
regard
to
the
issues
raised
under
point
(c)
above,
i.e.
recitals 51 and 54 of the definitive Regulation, the
why the full PCN was not used to compare normal value
comparison between the export price and the normal
to export price, it became clear during the investigation
value for the sampled Chinese exporting producers was
that the full PCN would not be a reliable indicator.
made between fasteners of the ‘standard’ type.
Firstly, because neither the Chinese nor the Indian auth
orities distinguish between the 10 CN codes used to
define the product concerned as do the EU authorities.
(57) With regard to issues raised under point (b), for
Secondly, as explained in recital 48 of the definitive
confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to disclose the
Regulation, a number of parties claimed that fasteners
exact types of model of screws and bolts sold by the
produced by the Chinese exporting producers were
Indian producer. However, as indicated above, the
standard products (mainly ranging between 4.8 and 8.8
comparison was made on a weight basis within the
class of resistance), which had no special characteristics
same category standard or special and within the same
regarding raw material, resistance, coating, or certifi
strength class set out in the PCN.
cation/safety related aspects; which were destined for
lower-end applications (non-professional use and
general distribution) as opposed to high-end applications;
and did not meet strict requirements of specific end-users
(58) Again
in
regard
to
issues
raised
under
point
(b),
several
such as the automotive, chemical or aerospace industry.
interested parties requested more information on coating.
The original investigation data was further analysed and
this showed that the product sold as ‘standard’ on the
(63) With
regard
to
the
issues
raised
under
point
(d)
above,
Indian domestic market had a basic coating, i.e. electro
elements of ‘traceability’, ISO standard 9000, unit of
plating. This information was provided in hearings
defective rate and other criteria such as ‘hardness,
requested by interested parties and was redisclosed to
bending, strength, impact toughness, friction coefficient’
the interested parties that had requested this information
which were raised by two other exporting producers
and was also placed in the file for inspection by
could not be accepted, as the companies concerned
interested parties.
have not shown how these elements affect the price
comparability between the normal value and export
price.
(59) Two sampled exporting producers requested more
information regarding adjustments for the use of
chrome in coating. The sales data provided by the
(64) In
the
absence
of
any
specific
information
with
regard
to
Indian cooperating producer were further analysed
the lack of comparability as claimed in addition to the
which led to an adjustment in the normal value for
recommendations which had been made by the
difference in chrome as explained in recital 81 below.
interested parties in the original investigation, and given
The same two exporting producers requested more clari
the limited amount of further information available
fication as to how the profitability was determined for
regarding other technical characteristics such as coating,
the domestic sales of the Indian cooperating producer;
it was concluded in the original investigation that the
whether the production costs had been reported on a
main factors and differences highlighted by the interested

---

L 275/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
10.10.2012
parties themselves, in particular standard vs special and
(71) In the absence of the PCN, the description text string of
strength class constituted a sufficient basis on which to
each transaction (after grouping together transactions
base the comparison between the normal value and
with the same description text) was analysed to extract
export prices.
the diameter and length of the fastener sold. Taking the
example above, M8 = diameter, and 16 = length. In this
case therefore, this describes a screw with a diameter of
2.6. Further disclosure of information concerning the normal
8 mm and a length of 16 mm. The 1,25 refers to the
value on 11 July 2012
thread pitch, which was not used to classify the

product concerned.
(65) On
11
July
2012
the
Commission
further
disclosed
the
reclassification of the normal value as described above
and its proposed recalculation of the dumping margins
on the basis explained above and requested comments.
(72) The PCN used by the Chinese exporting
producers
reports this data slightly differently. The screw above
would have reported ‘080016’ for diameter and length.
(66) As
mentioned
in
recital
32
above,
the
Indian
producer
provided in its original submission a domestic sales
listing (‘DMSAL’), without PCNs. The only identifier of
each sale was an Item Code, which was an internal
(73) To
ensure
matching
between
the
normal
value
and
the
export price, the Commission ranged the diameter and
code for each product, and a product description text
length into three equal bands, as set out in the second
string, for example:
disclosure letter of 5 July 2012:
M8X1,25X16 FLANGE SCREW
Indicator Diameter Length
(67) As explained in recitals 48 to 57 of the definitive Regu
Small M4
to
M10 0
to
100
mm
lation, the Indian company provided a split of its
domestic sales between standard and special fasteners
Medium M12
to
M20 100
to
200
mm
using the distinction mentioned in recital 77. As a
result the DMSAL was submitted as two files, ‘Standard
Large M22
to
M30 200
to
300
mm
DMSAL’ and ‘Special DMSAL’. Those sales that could not
be identified as either Standard or Special were excluded
from further calculation of the normal value.
(74) A small number of sales of the Indian producer fell
outside these ranges and were not used to calculate the
normal value. The screw described above would therefore
(68) During
the
investigation
it
also
became
clear
that
the
be reported with the revised PCN ‘GSS’ = strength class
strength class of the fastener would be needed to
8.8; small diameter; small length.
establish the normal value. The Indian company
identified the strength class per line of the ‘Standard
DMSAL’ and ‘Special DMSAL’ files and these were
submitted with a column labelled ‘Grade’ with the
(75) It was clear from the example above that the product
strength class indicated, for example:
description text string does not include any information
on the coating used by the Indian domestic producer.
The investigation file was therefore checked for any
evidence of the type of coating, if any, used by the
Description Grade
Indian producer for their sales of standard fasteners on
M8X1,25X16 FLANGE SCREW 8.8
their domestic market. Confidential evidence in the file,
verified at the premises of the Indian producer, showed
the use of electroplating (PCN type A) on standard
fasteners on the domestic market and this was
(69) The
original
normal
value
was
calculated
on
this
basis,
disclosed to all parties on 5 July 2012.
using the split into standard/special and the strength
class, as set out in the first disclosure of the implemen
tation review on 30 May 2012.
2.7. Comments to the information disclosure note of 11 July
2012
(70) As
mentioned
in
recital
54,
some
exporting
producers
(76) Several
exporting producers responded to the above
requested further clarifications making reference to the
disclosure. As requested by those exporting producers,
lack of comparison on the basis of coating, diameter
a hearing, chaired by the Hearing Officer for Trade DG,
and length of the fastener and argued that this might
was held to continue the dialogue with the Commission
have an effect on the level of the normal value originally
and discuss the points raised by them. In particular the
calculated.
exporting producers raised the following issues:

---

EN
10.10.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
275/11
(a) the methodology by which the Indian producer had
price from China. Chinese sampled companies during the
split its domestic sales into standard and special;
original investigation purchased wire rod manufactured
in China.
(b) in the event that some fasteners sold to the auto
motive industry were considered as standard
(80) The
raw
material
imported
by
the
Indian
producer
was
fasteners, an ‘important adjustment’ would be
subject to the basic customs duty (5 % of assessable
warranted;
value) and the Customs Education Cess (3 % of the
basic customs duty value plus the CVD amount).
However, according to Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regu
(c) adjustments to the normal value under
lation, such an adjustment for indirect taxes is claimable
Article 2(10)(b) for the indirect taxes incurred on
if the import charges borne by the like product and by
the import of wire rod into India;
material physically incorporated therein, when intended
for consumption on the domestic market would not be
collected or would be refunded when the like product is
(d) the presence of Chrome VI in the coating of the
exported to the European Union. In the absence of a
standard fasteners;
claim and evidence that exports from the abovemen
tioned exporting producers to the EU would benefit
from a non-collection or refund of import charges on
imports of raw materials (wire rod), the claim must be
(e) the methodology followed by the Commission where
rejected. Furthermore, such an adjustment is not
there was no matching domestic sale for a particular
normally available when the exporting producer
export transaction; and
concerned, as is the case in this review, sources all its
raw materials from domestic suppliers incurring therefore
no import charge.
(f) disclosure of the product codes of the Indian
producer’s domestic sales.
(81) In
regard
to
point
(d)
above,
evidence
on
the
original
investigation file showed that the standard coating on
(77) In
regard
to
point
(a)
above,
the
Indian
producer
split
its
the standard fasteners sold on the Indian domestic
domestic sales into standard and special by considering
market contained Chrome Cr3, and therefore this
that fasteners manufactured to a customer drawing were
matched to the PCN definition of no Chrome VI added
special fasteners, whilst other sales are standard fasteners,
to the coating. Dumping margins were therefore recal
i.e. not made to any specific or customer drawing.
culated taking the most expensive chrome coating type
on the export side, without an export price adjustment.
Two exporting producers argued that the information on
(78) In
regard
to
point
(b)
above
and
as
mentioned
in
a
note
coating concerned the present situation rather than the
for the file dated 13 July 2012 sent to the said interested
situation in the IP. This is incorrect. Verified evidence was
parties following the hearing held on 11 July 2012, the
obtained during the verification in the course of the
Commission confirmed that in the absence of the
original investigation showing that all standard fasteners
customer names as mentioned above, the Commission
sold domestically in India were electroplated during the
refers to recital 47 above. In addition, the Commission
original IP.
notes that, according to the European association of
fastener producers, ‘in Europe, when a Customer —
particularly in the Automotive Sector — does order a
fastener product manufactured in accordance with a
(82) In regard to point (e) above, it is confirmed that dumping
drawing, but which is as well fully in accordance with
margins were calculated on the basis that where there
international standards (ISO, EN, DIN, AFNOR, UNI), this
was no matching domestic sale, the export transaction
product is in any case considered by the Fasteners
would be excluded from the dumping calculation. Some
Producer as “special” product and consequently identified
parties argued that there was no basis to exclude certain
— within the internal classification of the Company —
export transactions in calculating the dumping margin.
as “special” ... this is the “modus operandi” of all of
However, for all the sampled Chinese exporting producer
Fasteners Producers worldwide and also in India’. The
significant matching between the domestic sales and
Commission is thus confident that standard fasteners
exports sales was found so as to arrive at a fair repre
destined to the automotive industry were not included
sentation of the sales made by the different parties.
in the list of standard fasteners provided during the
original investigation findings. Therefore, this claim was
rejected.
(83) In
regard
to
point
(f)
above,
the
Chinese
Chamber
of
Commerce and a Chinese exporter claimed that the
Indian producer did not give good cause for not
(79) In
regard
to
point
(c)
above,
in
a
hearing,
exporting
allowing the Commission to disclose specific information
producers raised the issue of an adjustment under
regarding the product codes of its domestic sales. The
Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation, to take account
Commission provided as much information as possible,
of the duties on importation of wire rod into India which
while respecting the confidentiality rules, through a
are included in the normal value, but not on the export
number of notes for the file, information note made

---

L 275/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
10.10.2012
available to all interested parties and hearings granted to
(87) All of the standard fasteners sold were found to be elec
the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and to all Chinese
troplated and so the normal value was calculated on a
exporters who requested them. In regard to the request
coating basis corresponding to the PCN code ‘A’. Where
for disclosure of the Indian producer’s product codes, the
a sampled Chinese exporting producer did not export
disclosure of this information will allow the other parties
fasteners with coating type A, the nearest coating type
to calculate with a reasonable accuracy the domestic
was used without any export price adjustment.
prices of the Indian producer, which should be avoided
on the ground of protection of business confidential
information. Failure to protect confidential information
could leave the Commission to possible claims for
damages and discourage companies in analogue
countries whose cooperation is voluntary from
(88) The
strength
class
data,
and
the
split
between
standard
cooperating in investigations. This request was therefore
and special, remained unchanged.
rejected.
2.8. Adjustments made to the methodology used in the
(89) Two
exporting
producers
requested
the
intervention
of
definitive Regulation in the calculation of normal value
the Hearing Officer for Trade DG to examine the
confidential data of the Indian analogue producer and
(84) In
view
of
the
representations
made
by
Chinese
exporting
provide assurances regarding the confidential nature of
producers in this review as to the definition of product
its domestic sales, as well as on the question of coating
types in the calculation of the normal value from India
of standard fasteners, the presence of chrome on coating
arguing that in addition to the distinction between
and on the extraction of information regarding length
standard vs special and strength class, the elements of
and diameter for standard fasteners. The Hearing
diameter, length and the coating were important and the
Officer, after examining the confidential data of the
hearings and dialogue which ensued in the presence of
Indian analogue producer clarified the questions posed
the Hearing Officer, the data of the Indian producer was
by the two exporting producers. The report of the
re-examined.
Hearing Officer was placed in the file for inspection by
interested parties.
(85) Following
this
re-examination,
the
Commission
was
able
to identify the diameter and the length of the fasteners
sold on the Indian domestic market. To allow a fair
(90) Despite the abovementioned additional information,
comparison between these fasteners and those exported
clarifications, hearings and dialogue held, some parties
from the PRC, both the diameter and length were ranged
continued to claim that they lacked information to
and a normal value calculated for each range. This was
allow them to make requests for adjustments to ensure
explained in detail in two information notes dated 5 and
a fair comparison. The Commission provided extensive
11 July 2012 which were made available to all interested
information to the parties on the product groups used in
parties. By summarising into ranges to distinguish
establishing normal value, as required by the Appellate
between the main product dimensions sold by the
Body ( 1 ). In addition, over an extended period of time
Indian producer, this methodology allowed for a fair
running from 30 May until 19 July 2012, the
comparison with the exports of the Chinese companies
Commission provided information and replied to all
as requested by interested parties. Subsequently, two
questions raised by all parties. Furthermore, an additional
exporting producers argued that they did not have
period of 20 days was granted to all parties to comment
complete information, claiming that the classification
on the final disclosure.
was obscure and inappropriate and, therefore, did not
have sufficient information to claim an adjustment for
physical differences. However, beyond these general
statements these two exporting producers did not
provide any valid alternative suggestion nor substantive
evidence. The claim was therefore dismissed.
(91) The
same
parties
argued
that,
contrary
to
the
Appellate
Body Report, the Commission refused to disclose
information on the specific products of the Indian
producer that were used in establishing the normal
value without showing good cause. Article 6.5 of the
(86) EFDA
claimed
that
using
diameter
and
length
did
not
ADA stipulates that information which is confidential
reflect reality and suggested an alternative which related
or is provided on a confidential basis shall be treated
the two criteria in order in their view to avoid leaving
as such by the investigating authorities. In this case,
out some products, without however substantiating this
the Indian producer provided information on product
alternative approach. The classification proposed by the
types sold on the domestic market on a confidential
Commission did not exclude any product types (all
diameter and length possible combinations were
( 1 ) Appellate Body Report: paragraph 512 which states that ‘Article 2(4)
covered) and thus this claim could not be further
obliges investigation authorities … at a minimum to inform parties
examined.
of the product groups used for purposes of the price comparison’.

---

EN
10.10.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
275/13
basis and the company has renewed its request for
priate, given that the company did not provide precise
confidential treatment addressed to the Commission,
product type information according to CN code, as
stating that it continues to consider that information as
explained in recital 34, as had originally been requested.
strictly confidential as referred to in recital 82. These
As an alternative, an examination was made of the
parties also claimed that the Commission failed to
differences in prices of the Union industry on the
provide a meaningful non-confidential summary of the
Union market to determine whether price differences
information provided by the Indian producer as required
existed between the different types of fasteners. The
by the Reports. However, in the continuing dialogue
information provided by the Union industry had been
process and as mentioned in the recitals above, the
provided in full by PCN as originally requested. This
Commission disclosed all relevant information within
examination confirmed that prices on the EU market
the limits of confidentiality to the interested parties
varied depending on the type of fastener. On this basis,
relating to the Indian producer so that they could
it was considered appropriate to adjust the normal values
defend their interest.
to reflect these differences. As a basis for adjustment, the
average price of sales by the Union industry on the
Union market was valued as ‘1’ with all individual
types being given their own individual value depending
2.9. Determination of normal value for the exporting
on their price relationship to the average price. These
producers in the PRC, Normal value, Export prices,
values were then applied to the normal value used in
comparison
the comparison with each type exported by the

exporting producer.
(92) Normal
value
was
calculated
and
compared
to
the
export
price as set out above. Adjustments to the export price
were made to remove the price difference where Chrome
VI was added to the coating on the fasteners concerned.
A comparison between the two was made on an ex-
(96) As these adjustments were made on the basis of the
works basis, as in the original investigation.
market value of the differences in physical characteristics
on the EU market, it was considered appropriate to make
similar adjustments in the calculation of the dumping
margins of all exporting producers.
2.10. Claims for adjustments based on the product character
istics
(93) One
exporting
producer
claimed
an
adjustment
under
Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation for physical
(97) Following the publication of the General Disclosure
differences in the various types (hexagon screws, wood
document the CCME and a Chinese exporter argued
screws, bolts, etc.) of the product concerned. Since the
that the Commission was still violating of Articles 2.4,
exporting producer concerned does not, for reasons of
6.2 and 6.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by
confidentiality, have access to the full normal value data,
not providing timely information on the basis of which
the company relied on its own export prices to demon
the export price and normal value was compared and
strate the extent to which prices vary for each type of
invited the Commission to disclose comprehensive
fastener.
information on the normal value product types used in
order to meet its obligation to provide the opportunities
to the Chinese exporting producers to ensure the defence
of their interest, present their case on a fully informed
basis and ensure a fair comparison between export prices
(94) In the original investigation the comparison between
and the normal value. The said parties therefore
normal value and export price was made by distin
requested the Commission to re-examine the following:
guishing between standard and special types of fasteners,
as stated in recital 102 of the definitive Regulation, and
also by identifying strength class. The full product
control numbers (PCNs) were not used in this case
given that the producer in the analogue country did
(a) full disclosure of the normal value product types;
not provide information categorised on the basis of the
PCNs as requested. One of the elements of the original
PCN aimed at identifying the different types of fastener
according to which CN code they fell under. Given that
this information was not provided by the Indian
(b) ensure that standard fasteners produced by the
producer, this element could not be used in making
Chinese exporting producers are not compared to
the comparison in the original investigation.
fasteners manufactured by the analogue producer
for use in high-end applications;
(95) The
information
provided
by
the
exporting
producer
indicated that there may be grounds to adjust for
differences in the various types of fasteners. However,
(c) provide evidence on how to substantiate requests for
the methodology suggested was not considered appro
adjustments;

---

L 275/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
10.10.2012
(d) provide information on how certain adjustments
distorted prices cannot be used as a basis for adjustment
were made; and
as requested by the said parties. In these circumstances,
the Commission fails to see which additional
information, in the view of the Chinese Chamber of
Commerce and the exporting producer, could be
(e) the obligation of the EU not to disregard any export
provided to further substantiate these two requests for
transactions.
adjustments.
(98) With
regard
to
point
(a),
in
the
light
of
the
information
(101) With regard to point (d) it is recalled that information
made available through the information notes dated
regarding the ‘normal value types of the EU producers
30 May, 11 July and 13 July 2012, the General
and their price levels, as well as the impact of the
Disclosure document sent on 31 July 2012 and in
resulting adjustments on the normal value types of the
particular recitals 77 to 96, and the hearings held in
analogue producer’ are confidential and cannot be
the course of the consultation process, it is considered
disclosed. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and one
that all information which could be disclosed within the
Chinese exporting producer requested further clarifi
limits of the requirements regarding confidentiality has
cations on how the adjustments for the price difference
been provided to interested parties.
of coating has been done. However, as indicated in recital
92 above, it should be noted that in the specific
disclosure document, the Commission indicated which
exported product types have been adjusted, thus
allowing the parties concerned to understand how the
(99) With regard to point (b) regarding the need to ensure
that standard fasteners produced by the Chinese
adjustment was made.
exporting producers are not compared to fasteners
manufactured by the analogue producer for use in
high-end applications, this aspect has been addressed in
(102) With regard to point (e) and the alleged need to take into
recital 78 above. In the absence of any new evidence, and
account all comparable export transactions in the
faced with mere allegations by the said parties about the
dumping calculation in order to ensure a fair price
possible presence of fasteners destined to high-end appli
comparison pursuant to Article 2.4.2 of the WTO
cations other than the automotive industry, the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Commission notes that
Commission considers that the information available in
it is precisely following the request and suggestions
the file is sufficiently reliable to ensure that only standard
made by the said parties, that the normal value used
fasteners were used for the determination of the normal
for the determination of dumping margins was
value used for the comparison with the export prices of
adjusted. The methodology used was explained in
the said Chinese exporter.
recitals 93 to 96 above and the reasons for expressing
the amount of dumping found as a percentage of those
export transactions used in calculating the amount of
dumping outlined in recitals 107 and 108 below are in
(100) With regard to point (c) and the allegations according to
full compliance with Article 2.4.2 of the WTO Anti-
which the Commission failed to provide information on
Dumping Agreement, which refers to comparable
how Chinese exporting producers could substantiate
export transactions. In this case, all comparable trans
requests for adjustments regarding elements of ‘tracea
actions (by product types) have been used for the
bility’, ISO standard 9000, unit of defective rate and
comparison. Therefore, it was reasonable to express the
other criteria such as ‘hardness, bending, strength,
amount of dumping found as a percentage of those
impact toughness, friction coefficient’ (see recital 63
export transactions used in calculating the amount of
above) and duties on the importation costs (see recitals
dumping.
79 and 80 above), the Commission notes the following.
Firstly, it is recalled that these elements have been raised
by the parties without providing any further details.
During a hearing held by the Hearing Officer on
(103) Following the general disclosure, two Chinese exporting
11 July 2012, the Commission invited the parties to
producers reiterated that adjustments should be made for
provide additional information regarding the abovemen
alleged differences in efficiency of consumption of the
tioned issues, but no additional information was
raw material and easier access to raw material, more
provided. With regard to the request for adjustments
efficient electricity consumption and lower productivity
on export prices to take into account the duties on the
per employee. It is recalled that none of the Chinese
importation of wire rod into India and, in general,
exporting producers received MET in the original inves
cheaper access to raw materials for Chinese exporting
tigation and their cost structure cannot be considered as
producers, the Commission explained in detail in recital
reflecting market values that can be used as a basis for
80 the reason why this adjustment could not be
adjustments in particular with regard to access to raw
accepted. Moreover, as set out in recital 63 of the
materials. In addition, it should be noted that the
original Regulation, the cost of the major raw material
production processes existing in the PRC were found to
— steel wire rod — did not substantially reflect market
be comparable to the Indian producer’s and the alleged
values. It was found that the prices of the steel wire rods
differences were found to be very minor. In this case, the
charged on the domestic market were significantly lower
Indian producer was found to be competing with many
than those charged on other markets. Therefore, these
other producers on the Indian domestic market, it is

---

EN
10.10.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
275/15
considered that its prices were fully reflecting the
diameter would have a small impact in terms of unit
situation in the domestic market. As mentioned in
consumption of raw material. Therefore, this claim was
recital 41 above, a surrogate of the costs and prices of
rejected.
producers in functioning market economies had to be
used for the purpose of establishing the normal value.
2.11. Dumping margins
(105) The dumping margins were established on the basis of a
(104) The same two Chinese exporting producers argued that
comparison of a weighted average normal value with a
in summarising the data on diameter and length into
weighted average export price.
ranges, the Commission should not refer to ranges but
use the actual figures for length and diameter to carry
out the comparison. Firstly, as mentioned in recital 70
(106) The definitive dumping margin, expressed as a percentage
above, the Commission agreed following a hearing held
of the CIF import price at the Union border, duty unpaid,
on 26 June 2012 with the same parties to range the
for the exporting producer subject to this review is the
diameter and length in order to take into account the
following:
impact of the physical characteristics on prices. The said
parties themselves indicated some possible ranges, the
Commission however, indicated during the hearing that
Bulten Fasteners (China) Co., Ltd 0,0
%
these proposed ranges should be revised in order to
ensure the matching of all exported types to closely
resembling types of the Indian producer. Secondly, the
(107) The revised definitive dumping margins, expressed as a
said parties stated in a presentation made during a
percentage of the CIF import price at the Union border,
hearing held on 3 July 2012 as an example, that the
duty unpaid, are as follows:
Exporting producer in the PRC Existing
dumping
margin
(%) Revised dumping margin (%)
Biao Wu Tensile Fasteners Co., Ltd 69,9
% 43,4
%
Kunshan Chenghe Standard Components Co., Ltd 93,2
% 63,7
%
Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co., Ltd 74,5
% 64,3
%
Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd 105,3
% 69,7
%
Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Changshu
63,1 % 38,3
%
British Shanghai International Fastener Co., Ltd
CELO Suzhou Precision Fasteners Co., Ltd 0
% 0
%
Golden Horse (Dong Guan) Metal Manufactory Co., Ltd 26,5
% 22,9
%
Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd 0
% 0
%
Cooperating exporting producers not selected to form
78,1 % 54,1
%
part of the sample
All other companies 115,4
% 74,1
%
(108) One exporting producer argued that in calculating its dumping margin, the total amount of dumping
found should be expressed as a percentage of the total CIF value of all export transactions and not as
a percentage of those export transactions used in calculating the amount of dumping. To do
otherwise would, in this company’s opinion, amount to a presumption of dumping for those
export transactions not used in the dumping determination.
(109) A comparison between export price and normal value was made on a weighted average basis only for
those types exported by the Chinese exporting producer for which a matching type was produced
and sold by the Indian producer. This was considered to be the most reliable basis for establishing
the level of dumping, if any, of this exporting producer; to attempt to match all other exported types
to closely resembling types of the Indian producer would have resulted in inaccurate findings. On this
basis, it is correct to express the amount of dumping found as a percentage of those export trans
actions used in calculating the amount of dumping — this finding is considered to be representative
for all types exported. The same approach was used in calculating the dumping margins of the other
exporting producers.

---

L 275/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
10.10.2012
3. Definition of the Union industry
(114) As mentioned in recital 112 of the definitive Regulation,
the investigation established that the like product is
(110) As indicated in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission
manufactured by a high number of producers in the
reassessed the definition of the Union industry, in order
Union, estimated at over 300 mostly small and
to take into account the recommendations of the DSB
medium-sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) but including a few
Reports, suggesting that the EU had acted inconsistently
larger companies or groups of companies. At the time
with Article 4.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement
of initiation of the original investigation, the Commission
by excluding from the Union industry definition those
contacted each of these known producers and asked
producers unwilling to be included in the sample and by
them to participate in the investigation and provide
considering that the threshold of 25 % enshrined in
certain information on their operations. Neither the
Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation automatically repre
Notice of Initiation published upon initiation of the
sented a ‘major proportion’ of the total Union
original investigation nor the cover letter sent on the
production of the product concerned. In paragraph 430
day of initiation to all known EU producers, made
of the report of the Appellate Body issued on 15 July
reference to the fact that the information submitted by
2011, it is acknowledged that the ‘fragmented nature of
EU producers who did not wish to cooperate would be
the fasteners industry, however, might have permitted
disregarded.
such a low proportion due to the impracticability of
obtaining more information, provided that the process
with which the Commission defined the industry did
not give rise to a material risk of distortion. […] by
limiting the domestic industry definition to those
producers willing to be part of the sample, the
Commission excluded producers that provided
(115) As mentioned, most of the EU fasteners producers are
relevant information.’ (emphasis added). It is these
small, if not, micro enterprises (family businesses) that
latter producers which are now being included into the
typically have limited resources including financial and
definition of Union industry.
personnel resources, are not members of national or
EU associations which could represent them during the
investigation and, as is often the case for SMEs, have no
resources to engage specialised trade lawyers and accoun
tants. Small companies also have strong concerns with
regard to the protection of their confidential data in the
(111) In the original investigation it was found that the
course of such investigations, which they consider as
production of the Union producers that agreed to be
vital. Nevertheless, a good number of producers came
included in the sample and fully cooperated in the
forward (63 EU producers in total) and provided the
original investigation represented 27,0 % of the total
required information. It should be noted that these
production of the product concerned in the Union. It
producers consisted of both SMEs and larger companies
was therefore considered that these companies
which were spread throughout the EU. In light of the
constituted the Union industry within the meaning of
foregoing, in view of the specific circumstance of this
Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.
case, these producers, which represented 36,3 % of the
total production of the product concerned in the EU, can
be considered to constitute a major proportion of the
total Union industry and consequently within the
meaning of Article 4.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping
(112) Following the conclusions of the DSB Reports and based
Agreement. Furthermore, as mentioned, since all the
on all valid submissions received from all EU producers
largest known producers in the EU came forward upon
who had come forward within the deadline laid down in
initiation, within the deadline laid down in the original
paragraph 6(b)(i) of the Notice of Initiation of an anti-
Notice of Initiation, the selected sample in the original
dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain iron
investigation can be considered as representative, even
or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of
after the inclusion of a further 18 EU producers in the
China ( 1 ), and regardless of whether they indicated that
definition of the Union industry.
they were prepared to be part of the sample, the
Commission recalculated that the Union industry
actually represented 36,3 % of the total production of
the product concerned in the Union in 2006.
(116) The Chinese Chamber of Commerce argued that the
Commission could not limit itself to use the data
received from the EU producers that came forward
(113) Having reviewed the definition of the Union industry, the
within the deadline mentioned in recital 112 above as
Commission ascertained whether the percentage of
certain EU producers may have chosen not to manifest
production of fasteners of that industry out of the total
themselves since they were not willing to form part of
estimated production represented a major proportion in
the sample and therefore knew that their response would
the sense of Article 4.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping
be disregarded. The association of Chinese exporters
Agreement.
requested the Commission ‘to start the whole selection
process anew and contact all EU producers without
( 1 ) OJ C 267, 9.11.2007, p. 31.
referring to the fact that the producers must be willing

---

EN
10.10.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
275/17
to form part of the sample’ ( 1 ). However, in the light of
4. Situation of the Union industry
the above, it was considered that there was no need to
reopen the process of selecting a final sample, as the
(117) Following the Reports, the injury findings established in
largest known EU producers came forward at initiation
the original investigation were re-examined at the level of
stage. Following the disclosure, the Chinese Chamber of
the Union industry as defined according to recital 114
Commerce reiterated that it could not be excluded that a
above, for trends concerning production, production
large number of producers simply did not respond to the
capacity, capacity utilisation, sales, unit prices, market
sampling questionnaire ‘precisely because they know that
share, employment and productivity, i.e. from the
their unwillingness to form part of the sample would
information collected with regard to the 6 sampled
automatically result in their exclusion from the
producers and the further 57 producers now forming
domestic industry’. It should be noted that the same
part of the Union industry. With respect to other
arguments has been put forward by Chinese exporting
injury factors found for the sampled EU industry, since
producers and European importers during the original
information regarding stocks, profitability, cash flow,
investigation who were arguing against the existence of
investments, return on investments, ability to raise
standing. As explained in recital 26 of the definitive
capital and wages were obtained from the verified ques
Regulation, the Commission contacted a significant
tionnaire responses of the 6 sampled producers, the
number of Union producers after the initiation of the
findings are therefore confirmed in the review.
proceeding and only a few of them replied. It should
be noted that no reference was made to their possible
inclusion or not in the final sampling. In fact, the
possible selection of Union producers in the final
sample was irrelevant in their decision to come
4.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation
forward during the proceeding, as their decision was
motivated by other factors, as those highlighted in
(118) The evolution of production, production capacity and
recital 115 above. Therefore, the request addressed to
capacity utilisation for the Union industry based on the
the Commission that the Commission should conduct
whole information available (see recital 112) was the
the injury assessment anew was rejected.
following:
Total Union Industry 2003 2004 2005 2006 IP
Production in volume (MT) 489
993 524
571 493
924 519
880 537
877
Index 100 107 100 106 110
Production Capacity (MT) 859
766 881
454 902
741 919
485 944
817
Index 100 102 105 107 110
Capacity utilisation (%) 57
% 60
% 55
% 57
% 57
%
(119) Despite the significant increase in demand of 29 % between 2004 and the IP, the Union industry’s
production volume fluctuated throughout the period considered and was 9 % higher in the IP
compared to 2003 to be compared with 6 % in the original investigation, i.e. still significantly
lower than the increase in demand of 29 %.
(120) With regard to production capacity and capacity utilisation, the conclusions reached in the original
investigation, albeit on a different set of data, were confirmed (see recitals 130 to 133 of the
definitive Regulation).
4.2. Sales, market share, growth and average unit prices in the Union
(121) The figures below represent the Union industry’s sales to independent customers in the Union based
(in volume and value) on the whole information available:
( 1 ) ‘Review of the Anti-Dumping Measures in Force on Imports of Fasteners Originating in the PRC Hearing’, Hearing
organised by the Hearing Officer with the Chinese Fasteners Industry Association (CCME), 11 July 2012.

---

L 275/18
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
10.10.2012
Total Union industry 2003 2004 2005 2006 IP
Sales of the Union industry in
990 540 1
050
039 1
102
684 1
198
794 1
289
940
the Union (thousand EUR)
Index 100 106 111 121 130
Sales of the Union industry in
445 769 494
307 468
892 506
752 507
750
the Union (MT)
Index 100 111 105 114 114
Unit selling price of the Union
2 222 2
124 2
351 2
365 2
540
industry in the Union (EUR/MT)
Index 100 96 106 106 114
Market share of Union Industry
N/A 28
% 27
% 24
% 22
%
(%)
Index N/A 100 96 86 80
(122) The revised data reported in the above table confirms the findings outlined in recitals 137 to 140 of
the definitive Regulation in so far as all the injury trends are confirmed. Union industry’s sales
volumes increased by 14 % during the period considered, instead of 12 % found in the original
investigation and by 30 % in value, instead of 21 %. Trends are in fact found to be very similar as in
the original investigation. The same drop in sales volumes between 2004 and 2005 confirms the
conclusion mentioned in recital 139 of the definitive Regulation that the Union industry was unable
to take advantage of the increase in Union consumption and thus the market share of the Union
producers declined by 20 % in less than three years.
4.3. Employment and productivity
(123) The evolution of employment and productivity in the Union industry was as follows:
Total Union industry 2003 2004 2005 2006 IP
Number of employees 7
530 8
340 8
559 8
549 8
581
Index 100 111 114 114 114
Productivity (MT/employee) 65 63 58 61 63
Index 100 97 89 93 96
4.4. Conclusion on injury
(124) In the light of the above, the conclusions mentioned in recitals 153 to 161 of the definitive
Regulation were confirmed.
5. Volume of dumped imports
(125) As indicated in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission took into account the conclusions of the
DSB Reports suggesting that the EU acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the WTO Anti-
Dumping Agreement with respect to the consideration of the volume of dumped imports in the
fasteners original investigation.

---

EN
10.10.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
275/19
(126) Consequently, the Commission re-examined its injury assessment in light of the fact that some
exporting producers were found not to be dumping in the IP. It is recalled that in the original
investigation, two Chinese exporting producers were not dumping. As mentioned in recital 105
above, one further exporting producer was found not to be dumping in this review. The total
import volume from these three exporting producers accounted for only between 0,01 % and
0,40 % of total imports of the product concerned from the PRC in the IP. The injury analysis
regarding the evolution of imports from the PRC which has been carried out on the basis of the
volume of dumped imports excluding the non-dumped imports shows insignificant changes in the
trends described in recital 121 of the definitive Regulation.
2003 2004 2005 2006 IP
Import volumes from PRC (MT) 216
085 295
227 387
783 485
435 577
811
Index 100 137 179 225 267
Market share PRC N/A 17
% 22
% 23
% 25
%
Source: Eurostat.
6. Causation — export performance of the Union industry
(127) As indicated in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission reassessed its causation analysis in order to
take into account the conclusions of the Reports suggesting that the EU acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by taking into account the overall export
statistical data reported by Eurostat instead of the EU industry’s specific export performance.
(128) The export performance of the Union industry was analysed in recital 175 of the definitive Regu
lation. It was found that exports to third countries represented only 11 % of the total Union
industry’s production of the like product in 2006. However, as pointed out in the DSB Reports,
the data used related to exports of all producers in the Union and was based on Eurostat data and
not to exports of the Union industry. Following the DSB Reports, the Commission reassessed its
causation analysis by examining whether the export performance of the newly defined Union
industry could have been a factor of the injury suffered. It was found that exports to third
countries represented only 3,7 % of the newly defined Union industry’s production of the like
product in the IP, rather than 11 % as mentioned in recital 175 of the definitive Regulation.
These exports increased by about 4 % between 2003 and the IP. Furthermore, these exports were
consistently made at prices significantly above sales prices on the Union market.
Total Union industry 2003 2004 2005 2006 IP
Union Exports to the Rest of the
19 599 23
613 21
098 20
967 20
400
World for the PC (MT)
Index 100 120 108 107 104
Union Exports to the Rest of the
47 261 55
657 52
958 58
831 55
477
World for the PC (thousand EUR)
Index 100 118 112 124 117
Unit Price: (EUR/MT): 2
411 2
357 2
510 2
806 2
719
(129) It can thus be concluded that the export performance to third countries of the Union industry was
not a source of material injury. Furthermore, the final conclusion as stated in recital 184 of the
definitive Regulation that the dumped imports originating in the PRC have caused material injury to
the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation is confirmed.

---

L 275/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
10.10.2012
7. Treatment of confidential information
However, the Commission made once again the injury
assessment including data for the six sampled EU
(130) As indicated in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission
producers and concluded that material injury was
undertook to reassess the conclusions based on the
suffered as confirmed in recital 124 above. The claim
rulings of the Reports suggesting that the EU acted
is therefore unfounded.
inconsistently with Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the WTO
Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the treatment
of confidential information.
(134) Finally, as mentioned in point 6 of the Notice of Initi
ation, following the finding regarding Articles 6.5 and
6.5.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with
respect to the treatment of confidential information, on
(131) Following the Reports, the Commission invited the two
30 May 2012, the Commission disclosed the Eurostat
relevant Union producers to provide appropriate
data on total EU production of fasteners as originally
statements of the reasons why confidential information
presented.
was not susceptible of non-confidential summary. The
two producers provided additional information in a
non-confidential manner or, if certain information was
not susceptible of summary, they stated why that was the
case. The information so provided by these producers
8. Other recommendations and rulings
was sent to all interested parties. One association repre
senting European Union importers argued that the
(135) As mentioned in the Notice, the Commission undertook
information provided by the two Union producers was
to consider comments by parties in the fasteners inves
incomprehensible and would not allow cross-checking
tigation who claim to have been adversely affected by the
with data publicly available on Eurostat. In regard to
disclosure of findings with regard to market economy
this argument, it is noted that given that the information
treatment or with respect to any other DSB recommen
provided by these two producers is company-specific
dations or rulings. The Commission granted IT to one
information, it is unlikely that any public sources exist
company in accordance with the recommendations
which would allow for cross-checking.
concerning Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation in the
DSB reports.
(132) The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and EFDA argued
F. DISCLOSURE
that the additional information provided was incomplete
in so far as some elements in Tables 22, 23 and 32 to
(136) All parties were informed of the abovementioned
findings. They were also granted a period to submit
34 were still missing and therefore not in accordance
comments and claims subsequent to disclosure. Several
with the way the DSB findings should have been
comments were received following disclosure.
applied. No other comments were received following

the disclosure of this additional non-confidential
information. Since Tables 32 to 34 contain details of
the sales and the costs incurred by the company
concerned, this information which is by nature
(137) It follows from the above that the anti-dumping
confidential was summarised as to provide some
measures applicable to imports of certain iron or steel
information regarding its content, without disclosing
fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China
confidential information. The other information
imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 should be
mentioned as missing in Table 22 (types of raw
maintained and that imports from Bulten Fasteners
materials supplied and volumes of raw material
China should be made subject to a duty of 0 %.
purchased) and Table 23 (only indexed figures of pre-
tax profit margin are provided and no separate figures for
sales inside the EU and outside), was resubmitted by the
Union company concerned in order to allow a good
understanding of the information and the response was
G. CONCLUSION
added to the file for inspection by interested parties. In
conclusion, it is considered that the recommendations of
(138) On the basis of the above reassessment, it is concluded
the Reports on this matter were fully complied with.
that the injurious dumping determined in the original
investigation is confirmed. However, one exporting
producer was granted IT in accordance with the recom
mendations concerning Article 9(5) of the basic Regu
lation in the DSB reports. Therefore, Article 1(2) of the
definitive Regulation should be amended accordingly.
(133) In addition, EFDA claimed that Table 24 provided by the
The same article should also be amended to take
Union producer did not allow the conclusion that this
account of the revised anti-dumping duties calculated
company had suffered significant injury as it showed
for some of the companies listed in the table in
steady increases in profit, utilisation and output.
Article 1(2) of the definitive Regulation as below:

---

EN
10.10.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
275/21
Exporting producer in the PRC Dumping
margin Injury
margin Definitive
measures
Biao Wu Tensile Fasteners Co., Ltd 43,4
% 99,9
% 43,4
%
Kunshan Chenghe Standard Components Co., Ltd 63,7
% 79,5
% 63,7
%
Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co., Ltd 64,3
% 64,4
% 64,3
%
Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd 69,7
% 78,3
% 69,7
%
Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Changshu
38,3 % 65,3
% 38,3
%
British Shanghai International Fastener Co., Ltd
CELO Suzhou Precision Fasteners Co., Ltd 0,0
% 0,3
% 0,0
%
Golden Horse (Dong Guan) Metal Manufactory Co.,
22,9 % 133,2
% 22,9
%
Ltd
Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd 0,0
% 0,0
% 0,0
%
Cooperating exporting producers not selected to form
54,1 % 77,5
% 54,1
%
part of the sample
All other companies 74,1
% 85,0
% 74,1
%
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The table indicating the rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier
price, before duty, of the products manufactured by the companies listed in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 91/2009 is replaced by the following table:
‘Company Duty
(%) TARIC
additional
code
Biao Wu Tensile Fasteners Co., Ltd, Shanghai 43,4
% A924
CELO Suzhou Precision Fasteners Co., Ltd, Suzhou 0,0
% A918
Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Changshu British Shanghai
38,3 % A919
International Fastener Co., Ltd, Changshu
Golden Horse (Dong Guan) Metal Manufactory Co., Ltd, Dongguan
22,9 % A920
City
Kunshan Chenghe Standard Components Co., Ltd, Kunshan 63,7
% A921
Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co., Ltd, Ningbo City 64,3
% A922
Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd, Jiangshan Town 69,7
% A923
Yantai Agrati Fasteners Co., Ltd, Yantai 0,0
% A925
Bulten Fasteners (China) Co., Ltd, Beijing 0,0
% A997
Companies listed in Annex I 54,1
% A928
All other companies 74,1
% A999’
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Union.

---

L 275/22
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
10.10.2012
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 4 October 2012.
For the Council
The President
S. CHARALAMBOUS

---

Document Outline

• �

---